Content uploaded by Tommaso Vitale
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Tommaso Vitale on Nov 17, 2024
Content may be subject to copyright.
1
The Policy of Refugee Reception and the Policing of Public Space in Paris
Marco Cremaschi & Tommaso Vitale (Sciences Po, CEE & Urban School).
Forthcoming, please quote it as: Cremaschi, Marco, & Vitale, Tommaso (2025). The Policy
of Refugee Reception and the Policing of Public Space in Paris. In Marie Gibert-Flutre, K.C.
Ho, Jeremie Molho, Camille Schmoll, Hélène Thiollet (eds). City Makers and the Politics of
Urban Diversity Governance. New York: Springer. IMISCOE Springer Nature Book Series.
Since 2015, there has been a significant increase in the number of asylum seekers arriving in
Europe, sparking a renewed discussion about the integration of refugees. The reception of
refugees in the urban region of Paris is the outcome of a long process of structuring different
policy streams. This marks a "local turning point" in the governance of migrations, with cities
becoming the central level for the development of new local migration policies (Zapata-
Barrero, et al., 2017).
Various local arrangements adapt public services and facilities to accommodate the
increasingly heterogeneous local population (Raco, Tasan Kok, 2019). Such a process mainly
occurs along the lines of multilevel governance and civil society involvement already
developed to deal with migrants.
This chapter analyses local refugee reception initiatives against the backdrop of public policies
for the reception of migrants in general (OECD, 2018). The reason is the overlapping of some
actor networks, institutional resources, and territorialization logic. However, the state and
government are the predominant actors in the reception and integration of foreigners in
France, leaving slight room for maneuver to local authorities.
The arrival process in the Paris case does not correspond to an ordinary pattern of establishing
an ethnic neighborhood, as an optimistic account of the refugees’ arrival suggests deploying
the analogy of the 19th-century migrants' neighborhood (Saunders, 2010). The actual process
of settlement is nothing like smooth and eventless and does not coalesce in spontaneous order,
if it ever had; social interactions and the 'institutional memory' of places (Cremaschi, et al.
2020) play a crucial role in shaping informal practices related to migration, practices that do
not occur naturally. Cities concerned by the necessity of intervention should focus on how to
intervene.
Several reasons lend support to this perspective:
2
- the legal and conceptual distinctions between migrant (or foreign-born)
1
, and asylum
seeker
2
(possibly refugee) have been clarified several times; however, the empirical
difference is often uncertain. Migrants entitled to reception repeatedly slip into illegality
and are sometimes abruptly rejected or, on the contrary, 'authorized'. Some accept legal
undefinition as the lesser evil, waiting for the opportunity to continue their migratory
journey to their country of choice. Most suffer from it as one of the many
manifestations of institutional irrationality.
- the policies for refugees lack a clear framework (Lelévrier, et al., 2017); they draw on
an inadequate institutional context but face (and impact on) a strongly characterized
social urban and metropolitan geography (Préteceille, 2007), that is also influenced by
mainstream social policies and local urban policies (Fioretti, 2021) that foster migrants’
integration through traditional measures (language class, vocational training);
- Policy narratives highlight the 2015 emergency crisis as a distinctive turning point for
a new moment in Paris reception policy (Bonn, 2022), whereas policy analysis
underscores persistency and institutional isomorphism. From this perspective, diverse
policy streams may converge, outdoing intentions, spatial proximity, and contextual
factors, fostering their interaction.
While we are interested in examining urban space and the spatial dimension of integration
processes within cities, relying solely on a spatial perspective can lead to confusion and hinder
our ability to observe the interaction of structuring phenomena (Cremaschi, Le Galès, 2018).
These phenomena occur across multiple levels of governance and various dimensions of
economic structuring. In certain cases, there is a legitimate risk of confusion, such as when
considering the feasibility of developing a social geography related to legal foreign presence,
often referred to as second-generation immigrants. Conversely, attempting to construct a
geography focused on asylum seekers or broadly encompassing 'refugees' may lack both robust
data as well as any political coherence. Nevertheless, the alignment of reception centers with
migration areas is not arbitrary; it results from the territorial concentration of adversity factors
and the convergence of actor networks. Of particular significance is the intricate layering of
policies associated with the reception issue and the way it attracts resources and attention,
even if not formulated with precision.
Given these premises, the observation of what occurs in public space remains crucial. It serves
as a strength, both methodologically and substantively, for understanding the quality of life in
1
The statistical definition of a migrant or foreign-born resident is an individual who has resided for more than
one year outside the territory of the state of which they are nationals or citizens.
2
Asylum seekers are forcibly displaced people asking for the legal status of refugees according to the Geneva
Declaration or to other national procedures… Undocumented migrants or refugees are either former asylum
seekers or migrants who lost their legal status somehow (Cremaschi, 2020).
3
cities. Additionally, from a purely political standpoint, it sheds light on dimensions of
legitimacy and political intervention—both infrastructural and symbolic—by local
governments. This is particularly relevant in large capital cities with progressive local
administrations (Therborn, 2017). An examination of public space provides insights into the
disconnection between regulation and reception within the Parisian context. The visibility of
refugees in public spheres has been instrumental in heightening civic consciousness in Paris.
Simultaneously, it serves as a subject of political apprehension and an opportunity for the
display of state-inflicted violence by humanitarian NGOs, too. The governance of public open
spaces extends beyond traditional command and control approaches, emphasizing delegation,
integration of new knowledge and technologies, negotiation, and self-regulation. The central
concern involves an evolving, albeit ambiguous and partially contradictory, process of
outsourcing certain aspects of reception policies without a well-experienced governance mode
(Artioli, Le Galès, 2023).
The next section describes the relevant social geography of Paris. Social transformations due
to deindustrialization have left a lasting impact, concentrating immigrant populations in areas
marked by blue-collar workers and social housing estates. While Paris actively engages in social
and redistributive policies, achieving a balanced geographical distribution for diverse social
groups remains a challenge.
The ensuing section delineates the social policy responsibilities of both central and local
institutions, against the backdrop of which the handling of refugees has transformed into a
separate specific policy domain. Despite ongoing collaboration in Paris, challenges endure due
to the stance of the French government and the inadequate coordination within the EU.
The following three sections analyse the role of space in framing the reception policies of
Paris, paying reference to different ways of framing the space:
- The so-called ‘Project Territories’ of the EU Structural Funds exhibit a progressive
drift where coalitions of territorial actors reinterpret national rules following their
competencies (and expertise).
- Locally managed reception comes to a standstill in the face of state normative
injunctions.
- Government authorities and local actors consciously use space for repressive purposes,
even to manage conflicts between potentially incompatible uses.
The conclusions deal with the evolving landscape of local reception policies driven by state
and non-state actors. Despite innovative efforts, there is a lack of coherence, and central
dispersion policies (Dollet, 2023) contradict local commitments, raising questions about the
4
role of local governance. However, the cyclical coming and going between the dismantling of
refugee camps and sheltering asylum seekers question the notion and scope of integration,
highlighting the porous boundary between formal and informal regulations. Besides, the
design of policies cannot underestimate the role of space in shaping welcoming practices.
A Growing Capital
In France, the migrant population, which includes foreign-born citizens, made up 10.2% of
the total population in 2020, according to INSEE 2021 data. Among these migrants, 4.4
million were foreign-born residents, with an additional 2.4 million having acquired French
citizenship, bringing the total to 6.8 million. Furthermore, there were approximately 0.8 million
foreigners born in France, making the total number of foreigners in the country around 5.1
million.
France has a rich immigration history, with migrants comprising 4% of the population as far
back as 1920 (INSEE, 2012). What is interesting is that France has a higher proportion of
former immigrants and children of immigrants who have been naturalised and are now citizens
compared to other major countries, with estimates ranging from 21% (based on the High
Council for Integration criteria) to 27% (according to INSEE, 2012). Ethnic and cultural
diversity may significantly impact how the public perceives migration, often more so than the
actual numbers (Giorgi, Vitale, 2017).
Only half of the migrants who arrive each year fit the typical image of migrants from the
Global South. For instance, in 2018, one-third of the 265,000 residence permits issued in
France were for student immigration. Due to the EU freedom of movement treaty, France
hosted 30,000 minors and 76,000 new European immigrants that same year. Additionally, in
2012, 90% of immigrants resided in large urban areas, a trend that has continued in the past
twelve years, in coherence with the general trends of the country.
France's migration patterns are influenced by its colonial past, with approximately half of the
migrants coming from Africa, 27% from Europe, and 18% from Asia. Notably, the number
of migrants from Europe has decreased since 1982, while the share of migrants from the
Maghreb has remained stable, and migrants from Asia and sub-Saharan Africa have more than
doubled. The composition of migration varies at different geographic scales, from regions to
metropolitan areas and cities.
Several definitions exist for the Paris metropolitan area, considering its economic functions
and influence, which extends well beyond the immediate region. While the INSEE statistical
5
metropolitan area is expansive and covers a wide geographical area (fig 1a), its area of influence
encompasses almost the entire north of France, and its attractivity involves most of the region
(fig 1b). In the 2017 Census, the Urban Area of Paris had a population of 10,785,092, with
growth outpacing the national average
3
(INSEE, 2020).
In 2016, a new institution, the Métropole du Grand Paris (Greater Paris Metropolitan Authority;
henceforth: MGP), emerged as an adding political layer for the metropolitan area (fig 2),
competing with the Ile de France Region, the Departments, and the city of Paris (Le Galès,
Mouchard, 2023). MGP covers a smaller area than the INSEE statistical area, encompassing
four departments, including the city of Paris and its surrounding areas. While Paris has
experienced stagnant population growth since the 1960s, the metropolitan area has expanded
significantly. The MGP is divided in 12 second tiers institutions (Établissements publics territoriaux:
EPTs) that regroup 131 municipalities. The MGP handles financial redistribution (Allé, 2023)
and EPTs the social urban policy; they share responsibilities on major development projects,
improving and rehabilitating housing.
The Paris metropolitan region is home to 2.2 million immigrants, a share that continues to
grow since the beginning of the new millennium. Foreign-born residents are not evenly
distributed within the Greater Paris area (fig. 3). Deprived neighbourhoods host around 30%,
10% higher than the city's average, according to INSEE 2015 data (Tab. 1). Migrants, foreign-
born residents and, of late, asylum seekers or informal refugees tend to concentrate in specific
geographical areas along the north-eastern arc and the southern longitudinal spine of the MGP
(Boussad, et al., 2017). These areas have a higher percentage of foreign-born residents than
the regional average, with Plaine Commune having the highest concentration at 37.5% (Tab.
2). Specific municipalities, like La Courneuve, Aubervilliers, and Saint-Denis, have foreign-
born residents making up around 40% of their populations. These municipalities are
characterised by high shares of young people, large families, unemployment, social assistance
recipients, lower education, and social housing, and high odds of social and economic
exclusion. 46% to 65% of the workforce comprises blue-collar workers, while the number of
highly skilled workers is limited and much lower than in all other parts of the metropolitan
area.
Paris also attracts young adults due to the availability of university and training courses and
entry-level job opportunities. Much of the policies implemented in the Paris metropolitan area
3
Over the last three decades, France's population has increased by 9.4 million people, with half of this growth
occurring in major cities, including 20% in Paris and the 13 largest urban areas. In most of these urban areas,
the city centres have seen a decline in population as residents move to nearby municipalities.
6
can be attributed to its economic significance, social and geographic inequalities, and efforts
to balance internal redistribution (Le Galès, 2020; see also Diemer, et al., 2022).
Yet, the geographic distribution of migrants is closely tied to factors like unemployment.
Despite having a relatively young population, the overlap of unemployment, social housing,
and low education levels raises questions about segregation within the Paris metropolitan
region (Boussad, et al., 2017). Scholars consider multiple dimensions of segregation,
including residential distribution, ethnic isolation, and concentration (Oberti, Préteceille,
2016). It is worth noting that there is little evidence of ethnic minorities being concentrated
in 'ghettos' as seen in the United States; instead, mixed neighbourhoods are prevalent (APUR,
2023)
4
.
The shrinking working class has left the place for an increasing share of the middle class in
several parts of the city, a significant aspect widely discussed in the scholarly literature on the
metropolitan process of change of the major cities in Europe and France
5
. In the late 2000s,
the increase of middle-class residents affected the entire capital. At the same time, the
concentrations of social housing and old, run-down housing units contributed to preserving
working-class neighbourhoods in the northeast sector of Paris and the peripheral belt. This
transformation is part of the social reshaping of the urban region's social structure, restricting
working-class residential options to inner suburbs or suburban communes far from the
metropolitan center (Préteceille, 2007; Baqué et al., 2011).
As a result, the Greater Paris area exhibits higher income inequality compared to other urban
areas in France, with more significant social inequality in Paris itself. The southern eastern
EPTs are more affluent, as mirrored by the lower share of migrants in tab 2. On the other
side, the Northeast neighbourhoods experience high unemployment rates and have a high
proportion of social housing. At the same time, central and western districts and most
southern districts are more affluent (APUR, 2019).
The social transformations of Paris have been substantial further to the process of
deindustrialization. Like all major European economic capitals, the spread of the middle class,
the self-segregation of an even wealthier upper-classes and social inequality have grown
4
Following APUR (2023) in the Greater Paris Metropolis, 37% of the population will live in one of the most
mixed neighborhoods in 2019, and 21% in one of the most segregated neighborhoods (where households have
high- or low-income levels very close to each other). Finally, 42% of the population lives in a neighborhood
that falls into an intermediate situation, being neither one of the most segregated nor one of the most mixed
(see also Oberti, 2020).
5
On the nature and extent of gentrification in Paris an important debate highlighted the risk of over
generalisation. Critical scholars tend to adopt gentrification as the central lens (Clerval 2016, 2020), risking
however some theoretical and methodological inconsistencies (Hamnet 2021). Accurate empirical readings tend
to put at the center stage the process of social transformation of the urban region (Préteceille, 2007).
7
together (Cousin, 2017). The spatial structure of the Paris metropolitan area remains deeply
marked by these long-term trends, with the northeast fringe characterized by the presence of
blue-collars and social housing estates (APUR, 2023). Consequently, the immigrant population
concentrate in the same areas, as well as other less-affluent groups (APUR, 2017). However,
the city of Paris, as well as suburban municipalities, especially in the northern fringe, are
actively involved in social and redistributive policies. Notably, the city of Paris has nearly
doubled the share of social housing in the last 8 years, which has now reached almost 25% of
the housing units. It is an almost unique achievement in OECD countries (Le Galès, Pierson,
2017), although it has been less successful in rebalancing the uneven geographical distribution
of social groups (Lefevre, et al., 2013; Ramond, Oberti, 2022).
Policies for Social Integration
To understand integration patterns, it is useful to consider three discursive threads: migrants,
suburbs, and refugees. The reception, specifically directed toward the world of refugees, would
be less comprehensible without the backdrop of social policies for the resident population in
the suburbs, which is weighty in France. This population largely coincides with residents born
abroad:
- The integration of migrants is inspired by the French republican model, which upholds
universal rights and equal treatment for all individuals, regardless of their origins. The
constitution guarantees these rights, and the state promotes national 'republican' values.
Unlike the 'multicultural' model, this approach forbids - in principle - categorising
individuals based on criteria such as ethnicity and treating them as separate communities.
The national immigration policy fosters social inclusion and the social mix. In the last
three decades, French policymakers have transitioned from an 'assimilationist' policy
implementation to a more 'integrationist' approach to immigration matters (Favell, 2022).
- During the 1990s, the clustering of immigrants in some peripheral large housing estates
came to be seen as a challenge to the country cohesion. The Politique de la Ville (PV) in
France targets socially deprived urban areas to combat social exclusion. This place-based
approach focuses on disadvantaged urban areas and combines local resources with
external support like networking and financial assistance. The implementation of PV is
delegated to the local level, introducing some variability, and it involves local stakeholders
and the public (Epstein, 2021). Over the subsequent decade, the EU anti-discrimination
directive prompted a paradigm shift from integration to anti-discrimination policies,
particularly concerning employment (Bereni, et al., 2021). French urban policy pursues the
normative ideal of social mix, that was enforce by law as a national obligation for all
8
municipalities: aiming to combat social and ethnic segregation, all municipalities must
provide a share of social housing estates while engaging in replacing old large estates with
more commercial middle-class units, while controlling social displacements and
guaranteeing proximity relocation. France stands out in Europe through its unique
approach to social housing.
6
- The institutionalization of asylum seeker reception in France occurred relatively late
(Aulanier, Bartel, 2022), with the establishment of the National Reception Scheme (DNA)
now managed by the French Office of Immigration and Integration (OFII). This scheme
emerged through a collaborative effort between the government and NGOs mobilized in
the mid-1970s for the reception of Chilean and Southeast Asian refugees. Initially
conceived as an exceptional measure, temporary accommodation centers provided
accommodation for asylum seekers and refugees indiscriminately. So, there is no
permanent provision of public accommodation for asylum seekers; various
programs have different durations and temporalities, which are very short for those more
in need (Dollet, 2024).
7
- A crucial change occurred in 2006 when the government introduced immigration quotas
and increased efforts to combat illegal migration. Since the election of Nicolas Sarkozy as
President in 2007, intense debates brought to a toughening of national policies regarding
border control and immigrant’ integration. Obtaining residency in France has become
more challenging, with applicants now having to provide additional guarantees. A turn in
central policies enhanced a geographical concern with figting inequality.
- This trend was further reinforced by the creation of the General Commission for
Territorial Equality (CGET) in 2014. A 'republican contract' was introduced for integrating
foreign residents based on an individualised five-year path. Almost 40% of applications
(70,052) for refugees were granted refugee status and subsidiary protection, with
applicants hailing from countries like Sudan, Syria, Afghanistan, Kosovo, Haiti, and
Bangladesh.
6
The Urban Solidarity and Renewal law of 2000 mandates municipalities with over 3,500 inhabitants (or 1,500
in the Île-de-France region) to achieve a 20% quota of social housing by 2020. In 2013, this requirement was
amended to 25% by 2025 for inter-municipal districts with more than 50,000. To foster social diversity,
municipalities may also designate development zones to rental housing categories. The ‘Programme national pour
la rénovation urbaine’ (2003-2021) has had a significant causal impact on both the supply of housing and the
population of the targeted neighbourhoods. However, this impact can be seen mainly in the neighbourhoods
where the demolition operations have been the most intense, neighbourhoods that are on average much less
densely populated than the other targeted neighbourhoods (Cusset, et al., 2024).
7
CADAs (temporary accommodation centers for asylum seekers), where recipients are entitled to stay for up to
three months (renewable once); nine months in CPHs (temporary accommodation centers for “vulnerable”
refugees); for those relocated by the state in remote or rural places (Flamant, et al., 2020; Dollet, 2023), it is one
year.
9
- Since 2014, 1514 ‘priority’ neighbourhoods have been identified to promote urban
renewal, social inclusion, and new economic opportunities. Local governments and
councils oversee services to refugees. In contrast, provincial governments (Départements)
have general responsibilities for health and social assistance, accommodation in
reception centres, and managing the active solidarity income (RSA).
- In coordination with PV, European Union (EU) structural funds for sustainable urban
development are used in France. A contractual partnership exists between the
government and local authorities, public bodies, and social housing
associations/providers.
-
Scholars agree that “governing urban diversity in France is therefore complex” (Lelévrier, et
al., 2017). While the national government oversees migration policy, local governments and
councils oversee refugee services. The French case reveals that a better alignment between EU
and national policies is beneficial but needs to be integrated more efficiently into the system.
France's multilevel governance system has developed over time, with central and local
institutions sharing significant responsibilities for social policies. However, France has a robust
national framework for the migrants’ integration, focusing on disadvantaged neighbourhoods
and inspired by the republican model. While uncertainties surround the definitions of migrants
and integration, local integrated strategies are becoming increasingly relevant within the
decentralised French system. These strategies are integral to addressing the challenges of
including migrants in the current evolving context.
The Progressive Drift of Local Socio-Spatial Strategies
From a policy analysis perspective, power is always territorialized, especially in the history of
the nation-state (King, et al., 2017). Beyond general references, a more intriguing form of
spatial control is through the policy territorialization institutions (and their instruments). Area-
based development policies are defined in a specific territory, namely within the perimeter of
a local society. These territories are shaped by social organization, constellations of actors, and
their institutional memory. Beyond local communities, this memory is also carried by policy
communities; in this case, the social development strategies are examined within the
framework of European regional policies, revealing an interesting spillover effect of social
policies towards migrants and, indirectly, refugees.
In the midst of persistent inequalities, France presents a dual narrative of successes and
challenges. Emerging crises, including the impact of COVID-19, economic instability, the
10
volatility of income from low-skilled jobs, and climate change, are affecting the framework
and impact of integration policies. The parameters of integration have historically shifted, with
ongoing challenges related to access to the labor market, particularly during periods of
economic downturn. At the same time, discussions on cultural integration are pervasive, often
generating divergent viewpoints and criticisms. Additionally, national social policies related to
housing, urban renewal, and education have undergone frequent revisions and grapple with
persistent resource shortages.
Integration policies for immigrant and minority communities are intended to complement this
framework, yet they face their own set of challenges in the midst of evolving societal dynamics.
Even in the most promising cases, these policies must contend with troubling trends. In this
evolving landscape, the endorsement of localized integrated strategies is in line with the
broader trend of decentralization within the French system and addresses the imperative of
inclusiveness for migrants.
The French experience underlines the potential benefits of better alignment between EU and
national policies, emphasizing the need for more expeditious implementation. One of the
priorities of the EU Structural Funds and regional programmes is to promote the inclusion of
marginalized groups, including migrants, by supporting integration measures, combating
discrimination and promoting gender equality.
While various approaches address the inclusion of migrants, with a particular emphasis on
Romanian Roma migrants (Cousin, et al., 2021), the overarching theme is to improve access
to social rights, employment, and housing stability with a mix of ordinary and targeted policy
measures (Vitale, 2021).
Since 2016, the eleven Etablissements publics territoriaux (EPTs) manage with their Territorial
Plans the urban policy, construction and development, sanitation, waste management, as well
economic development, inclusion, training, and energy transition (Cremaschi 2021b). In
addition, the Île-de-France region used Integrated Territorial Investments (ITIs) to address
sub-regional disparities and territorial inequalities through a Sustainable Urban Development
(SUD) approach. ITIs support local partnerships, project engineering, and the initiatives
selection.
8
8
Marco Cremaschi et al. (2021a) analyzed strategies in the Greater Paris metropolitan area between 2014 and
2020, targeting areas where migrants are concentrated. They have Evaluate regional and local ITI program
documents and conduct interviews with local management teams for each ITI in April and May 2020.
11
1. In the northeast of Paris, inside and outside the city limits, policies invest in a densely
populated and culturally diverse area, facing significant social inequalities and many urban,
economic, and environmental challenges. The primary goal of this initiative is to support
career development and prevent setbacks, with a particular emphasis on combating
discrimination and promoting gender equality. The ITI complements other programs that
focus on training, employment, and community development, such as the so-called
“Politique de la Ville”. While the strategy does not explicitly mention migrants, the
program is expected to reach this demographic due to the presence of Priority
Neighborhoods (QPV). However, administrative rules and certification can sometimes
exclude migrants. Other projects focus on language training and support for those in
precarious situations.
2. Plaine Commune has historically played an important role in the reception and integration
of migrants, with a diverse population of 134 nationalities and 130,000 immigrants. It is
known for its high number of women and children among migrants, which poses
challenges for employment due to childcare needs and language barriers, and an
unemployment rate of 18%, making it one of the most economically challenged areas in
the country. While migrants are not explicitly mentioned in the strategic guidelines, there
are projects specifically designed for them, including socio-linguistic workshops, support
for social benefits and civil rights, and a women's center in Saint-Denis. In addition,
economic development initiatives indirectly address the socio-professional integration of
migrants.
In the Paris metropolitan area, which has a particularly large immigrant population, local
authorities have promoted employment, apprenticeships and vocational training for people
with lower skills. This category includes many residents of foreign origin. Municipalities are
also responsible for social housing, schooling, childcare, nursery and primary schools, catering
and extracurricular activities. The city of Paris alone spends more than 38 million euros on the
reception of foreigners, although these costs are normally the responsibility of the state. In
addition, the SAMU Social de Paris, an NGO that provides emergency aid to the homeless,
contributes to the housing of asylum-seeking families. There are few territorial conflicts over
reception policies, but there is no solidarity between the wealthy west side and the vulnerable
northeastern municipalities.
Reception Centres between Care and Control
Since 2015, the French government has struggled to respond to the arrival of refugees,
oscillating between dismantling the informal settlements (as repeatedly in Calais, known as the
12
'jungle') and relocating the population to distant areas (Aguilera, Vitale, 2018). This is
increasingly the case in Western countries (Agier, Lacadet, 2014) and has led to increased
demands on the resources, skills, and expertise from the associations and local authorities
responsible for refugee reception, even though their involvement was voluntary.
Although the refugee resettlement program is a national policy in France, the City of Paris has
established temporary reception centers that work with NGOs and local organizations to
provide individualized support to resettled refugees. In addition, the city claims a strong
commitment to human rights that goes beyond institutional obligations and national
directives. The city of Paris wanted to explicitly challenge the central government, and position
itself in the network of sanctuary cities, making a political commitment to do more than the
national guidelines, justifying its action both on the basis of humanitarian reasons and on the
basis of an investment policy for the purpose of reducing crime risks and insecurity for
citizens.
In 2016, Paris set up a refugee reception center, inspired by the small town of Grande-Synthes
in northern France. The humanitarian reception center was located at the Porte de La Chapelle
(CPA: Centre de premier Accueil, also known as the "Bulle" (the Bubble) for its distinctive
yellow and white bubble design) and provided temporary reception for refugees living in
camps. It closed in 2018. The mayor emphasized the need for a quick but careful response
that "embodies aesthetic sensibility" and "conveys a sense of humanity."
The Bubble was made in the greatest urgency,with the goal of making rapidie give immediate
help and welcome. Urgency corresponds precisely to the rapid mobilization of resources to
meet immediate and temporary needs. Observation of the organization and internal social
relations confronted us with a paradox. While the relationships observed were peaceful and
rather welcoming for asylum seekers, the mechanisms of selection at entry, collection of
fingerprints at the prefecture, and geographical distribution of people were soundely contested
by associations.
9
The entrance to the site featured a unique inflatable structure that encompassed designated
waiting areas. The Bubble was notable for its tall and wide structure adorned with intersecting
yellow and gray stripes; the structure aimed to be a guidepost for refugees and migrants,
directing them to the designated location. The yellow bubble was intended to give residents a
9
Critics denounced police violence in its vicinity against migrant⋅e⋅s, queuing problems, expulsions following
fingerprinting, and unguaranteed asylum rights (France24, January 13, 2017 ; La Cimade, March 9, 2017).
13
glimpse of a less bleak landscape and convey a positive message, contributing to a sense of
development and improvement in the neighborhood (Scott-Smith, 2020).
In addition, two floors of repurposed shipping containers served as multi-functional spaces,
housing both offices and reception areas. The health center, strategically located in 14
containers, includes a waiting area accessible to guests of the central facility. The restored
industrial hall housed facilities exclusively for male guests, with expected stays ranging from
five to ten days. This space was equipped with eight sections of chipboard cabins, each with
its own common areas, shower facilities, dining area, and recreation zone. Women and
children were redirected to alternative reception centers to meet their specific needs. Critics
have arguably seen the architectural implications of these buildings as "a recent move towards
larger, aesthetically influential and highly emblematic interventions" (Scott-Smith, 2020).
The centre was established in response to the increasing number of resettled refugees arriving
in Paris. Over the following year and half, the centre continued to support to resettled refugees,
by providing services such as language training, legal assistance, and health care.
Strategically located on the northern outskirts of La Chapelle, the center provided access to
essential services and transportation, but it was far from the center of Paris, and for asylum
seekers, distance hinders connections with groups and associations. It was equipped with
dormitory-style living quarters, sanitary facilities and common areas for social activities. With
an initial capacity of 400 places, to be increased to 600, it was expected that 50 to 80 migrants
would stay for 5 to 10 days before being transferred to other places, depending on their
situation.
The shelter was established in collaboration with non-governmental organisations (NGOs) to
provide individualised assistance to resettled refugees. A diverse team of professionals and
volunteers, including social workers, translators, and health care providers, ensured that
refugees received comprehensive care. The CPA was reserved for men only, was run by
Emmaus Solidarité association. However, the bubble was more of a spectacle than a practical
solution, leading shelter managers to express concerns about issues such as heat, noise, and
smell (Scott-Smith 2020).
The original concept aimed to provide an "unconditional welcome" in Paris. However, the
city had to reconcile with the Ministry of the Interior, which did not endorse the notion of an
unconditional welcome. As a result, the bubble was transformed into a space where residents
entered into a contractual agreement, exchanging their shelter for obligations such as police
visits, information registration, and integration into the formal asylum system. According to
critics, this led to denying the promised hospitality (Macé, 2017); one of the NGOs challenged
the management and subsequently withdrew from the shelter.
14
One of the difficulties was that the number of arrivals was much higher than expected.
However, only asylum seekers were admitted, and many of them could remain in an illegal
situation for several months. There is a gap between these measures and the reality on the
ground, which combines a weak and sporadic political will on the part of the public authorities
with a rather fragmented network of associations and support organisations.
Due to its limited capacity, the Chapelle Center quickly reached its saturation point, and the
ad hoc camps, which were promptly reestablished, were repeatedly evacuated - often by force
- only to be immediately reestablished. Moreover, both scholars and activists criticized the
operational modalities of the shelter, which were modeled on state practices of sorting and
controlling displaced populations (Gardesse, et al., 2022).
This conclusion may seem uncharitable, given Paris efforts, however inadequate: the city
offered shelter to 47,000 people, with 21,400 spaces available year-round for homeless
individuals between 2015 and 2020. In addition, 4,000 beds have been set aside for migrants
and refugees, more than 1,600 of which have been made possible by the budget of the City of
Paris. This is a recurring conclusion for local governments, whose actions must adhere to the
framework of national policy, even though they may pursue different goals. The argument
could be reformulated to indicate which specific mechanisms, cognitive resources, coalitions
of actors, and policy instruments produce a particular outcome at a particular time.
The Repressive Policing of Space
The policing of public space is an important and often contentious aspect of urban
governance. The policing of public space in urban environments is a multifaceted and complex
issue with significant implications for responsible reception policies, public perception, and
indivudual rights.
In accordance with government directives, local prefects often ordered the use of police forces
to dismantle squatting camps and unauthorized settlements. In one specific case, the prefect
of Paris also ordered the erection of physical barriers between two neighborhoods in the city.
These camps were repeatedly subjected to repressive measures.
Paris has seen the rise of several informal settlements, known as 'camps', mainly in the
northern districts of the neighbourhoods north of the capital. These settlements bring together
thousands of people from Afghanistan, Sudan, Ethiopia, and Eritrea. The health conditions
led to an increase in scabies epidemics, and the physical impact on the urban landscape of
Paris motivated the decision to systematically demolish the shantytowns.
15
Here is how independent media
10
described one of these makeshift camps:
"Between 300 and 400 migrants, mostly Afghans, are living in a camp under an overhead
metro …Waiting to lodge their asylum applications, they have no choice but to sleep there,
in temperatures that are sometimes below freezing. They brave the cold around campfires
made from objects found in the street" (Oberti 2022).
Policing is often brutal, and the increase in the use of the police forces deployment sometimes
surprises the responsible reception policies. The demolition of squatter camps, often made up
of temporary tents, is a regular feature of Paris Region policy. As recently as October 2023,
the Paris prefecture announced the evacuation of a large migrant camp in the north of the
capital that housed 400 people, mostly single men from Afghanistan, Eritrea and Sudan; some
had travelled via the Italian island of Lampedusa. Once identified, three-quarters were sent to
temporary reception facilities in the Paris region and one-quarter outside. A few days later, 200
unaccompanied minors were taken to an abandoned school but continued to spend the night
in the open air in the north of Paris (Dumont 2023).
In France, the police operate under the command of prefects, who are responsible for
maintaining public order and security. The relationship between the government and law
enforcement agencies is crucial in shaping the nature of policing in public spaces. Prefects play
a central role in determining police strategies and tactics, which vary widely from region to
region and situation to situation.
These operations are planned directly by the prefects in contact with the Ministry of the
Interior but they also result in the daily patrolling of police officers, who can stop for checks
or urge the occupants of public spaces to move (Aguilera, et al., 2018). The incremental nature
of these policies became evident through a few events that marked the political debate. One
noteworthy event was the occupation of riverbanks by the 'Les Enfants de Don Quichotte
association and homeless individuals following the enactment of the DALO law in 2007,
which mandated prefects to provide housing or shelter to those without it (Aguilera, 2020).
Quietly, activists and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) have been organising local
protests and demonstrations for Eastern European migrants and homeless families and against
shantytowns for about two decades (Vacca, et al., 2022).
10
InfoMigrants is a collaborative project involving three major European media organizations: France Médias
Monde, Deutsche Welle, and ANSA. The project operates across various platforms and is co-financed by the
European Union.
16
Exclusionary Urban Design
Space is also controlled by temporary urban design, the arrangement of objects and physical
barriers. Space also affects regulation: a spatial disposition has a regulative effect on people's
behavior and positive responses. How public space is managed and controlled can have a
significant impact on the quality of life of residents and the rights of individuals, especially
those who are marginalized or vulnerable.
The management of space can be emancipatory or violent. The city often selects repressive
models of urban furniture or spatial arrangements, such as benches designed to prevent people
experiencing homelessness from lying down. All in all, this may seem like a negligible example.
It is all the more significant when one considers the importance given to the furnishing of
public spaces in the city and the experimentation supported by the city. For example, in the
same period, large wooden benches suitable for relaxing and lying down were placed in the
central square of the Pantheon, as part of a project on gender equality. According to the city,
the cozy benches make women more comfortable in public spaces.
The furnishing of metro stations or public spaces has highlighted countless examples of
"defensible space," the analytical approach that underlines the normative aspect of physical
design and its potential to regulate social behaviour (Newman 1972). A blatant case are the
seats and benches designed by the city's metro company to prevent anyone from lying down
and sleeping.
Indirect effects are not unintentional (Vitale, 2015). The control of public space takes place
through active interventions, above all through the direct control and patrolling of the police.
In France, the police depend on the government through the prefects who command and
regulate public order. Recently, the police built a wall between two neighborhoods in order to
drive out drug traffickers: the prefect of Paris ordered the construction of a wall to close an
underpass between Paris and the neighboring town of Pantin to prevent the transit of drug
users and traffickers.
Local governments implemented a range of spatial interventions to protect open spaces from
occupation by migrants using makeshift tents. As highlighted by Poll (2017), the municipality
undertook the installation of approximately 4 km of fencing and boulder fields during the
construction of the shelter. Despite the shortcomings of the shelter, these measures were
stigmatized in the public debate as inhospitable (Couvelaire, 2016).
The episode examined is a stark reminder of the often-brutal methods used in policing public
spaces and the need for a more balanced and humane approach to urban management. It also
highlights the importance of local government institutions, multilevel governance contention,
17
and the regulating role of governance modes in the use of force and maintaining public order.
Further research and policy development is needed to strike a more equitable balance between
public safety and individual rights within public spaces.
The Governance of Local Reception Policies
The governance of local reception policies is increasingly ensured by enabling processes that
take place in 'the shadow of the state' but with consistent input from non-state actors. We
suggest that a process of regulation-in-progress is occurring, in which rule-making and
decision-making are slowly allocating resources and adopting operating criteria thanks mainly
to the activity of the government Délégation interministérielle à l’hébergement et à l’accès au logement
(DIHAL).
11
However, like many other areas of public policy, refugee reception is a sector
under strain and evolution, especially due to austerity policies and the state's recurrent
repressive inclinations. At the same time, it serves as a field of experimentation, where agenda-
setting and implementation are ongoing processes.
These processes are open to non-governmental and grassroots associative actors, who are
sometimes capable to anticipate, correct, and influence public policy. In the best cases, some
local and national agencies have taken up and expanded these experiments. In other cases, a
framework of compliance and, often, repression has prevailed. This chiaroscuro clearly allows
for different conclusions but should not hinder an empirical analysis of the common
formulation of solutions.
A first minimal conclusion is that reception policy in the Paris region lacks a coherent
framework (Cremaschi, 2021b; see also Artioli, Le Galès, 2023). Both the more established
integration policy and the relatively recent reception of refugees are resonating and producing
adaptations and innovations, but without achieving satisfactory results. The overall picture is
rather contradictory, though not surprising given that it is the result of the crises of the last
two decades and depends on actors with different legitimacies, purposes and functions. Critical
assessments of the actions of the City of Paris overlook the fact that the 2015 shelter
responded in part to political rhetoric and in part to innovative spontaneity without aspiring
to change national rules and power dynamics. Advocating for a more systematic approach and
a solid rationale in these cases is neither original nor sufficient. In addition, they face the typical
11
Created in 2010, it is responsible for implementing public policy on accommodation, access to housing and
the maintenance of housing for people who are homeless or poorly housed, inspired by the principle of
“housing first” with the aim of significantly reducing the number of homeless people.
18
challenges of newly established policy areas and difficulties in implementing policies at
different scales.
A second conclusion concerns the possibility of a local response that contradicts national
policies. The dispersal policy contradicts the commitments of the city of Paris, which has
claimed the sanctuary since October 2015. The challenging question of the freedom of a local
administration to act differently from the national government deserves an answer. Much
academic research concludes with the scandalous statement that the results of local action are
inadequate. While this is undoubtedly a politically and morally relevant response, the question
itself may be misguided. The limitations of local action, and by extension of public policy in
general, should not be ignored, but acknowledged considering its structural limitations. It may
not be necessary to reaffirm them; instead, it is more useful to ask what mechanisms and tools
can make public action more useful what mechanisms and tools can make public action more
effective and sustainable.
Third, the cyclical dismantling of refugee camps after 2015, justified by national and local
authorities as exceptional measures, deliberately confuses the "crisis" of migration with the
crisis of the reception system. Scholars argue that this crisis has become a routinized argument,
with dispersal becoming the main instrument for the "governance of exiled populations",
undermining the claimed innovative character of the city's welcoming policies (Gardesse, et
al., 2022: 22). The concept of integration is under review, in the light of current crises,
including the COVID-19 pandemic, economic challenges, and climate change. Access to the
labor market remains a significant problem (limited opportunities for migrants and restrictions
for refugees), and cultural integration is a subject of ongoing debate. National social policies
on housing, urban renewal and education have been repeatedly revised and need to be
improved with limited resources. In this evolving context, local integrated strategies respond
to the trend towards decentralization in the French system and the need to address the
integration of migrants.
In the intricate tapestry of metropolitan life in Paris, the nexus of diversity, integration, and
security emerges as the master weaver, as local governance is almost about making
compromises and mediating conflicts between political parties, associations, NGOs, interest
groups, utilities, functional agencies, regional and national governments, and regulations.
Urban governance transcends mere administrative machinery; it embodies a capacity to
mediate among competing forces between local, national, and regional levels of government -
a tapestry woven with threads of power, resources, and jurisdiction. Welcoming refugees,
asylum seekers, and marginalized communities is not just about allocating resources to
invisible infrastructure; it is made visible through the urban landscape: it extends beyond the
halls of officialdom. It permeates the streets, squares, and parks - the very canvas on which
19
urban life unfolds. It is about the management and regulation of public space. Competence
lies not only in decision-making and rule-making, but also in the ability to act quickly, wisely,
and contextually. In this chapter, we show that the governance of local reception policies is
more than the allocation of resources and the coordination of actors. The case of Paris shows
a certain lack of stability and consistency but also some steps to maintain focus, resources, and
coordination to move away from episodic, fragmented, and aleatory responses. The national,
regional and local levels of regulation - they are blurred and intertwined, requiring additional
efforts of continuity. The governance of local reception policies in Paris meanders through
these porous lines. For public space, design rules collide with emergent needs, and hard
conflicts in managing public spaces renew compromises between competing actors, some
whispering welcome, others shouting rejection.
References
Agier, M., & Lacadet, C., (eds). (2014). Un monde de camps. La Découverte.
Aguilera, T. (2020), À l’ombre du Grand Paris. L’impossible gouvernance métropolitaine des
bidonvilles franciliens, in P. Le Galès (dir.) Gouverner la métropole parisienne, Paris, Presses de
Sciences Po, 249-278.
Aguilera T., Bouillon F., Lamotte M. (2018), Politiques de l’expulsion : acteurs, enjeux,
effets, L’Année sociologique, vol. 68, n° 1, p. 11-38.
Aguilera, T., & Vitale, T. (2015). Bidonvilles en Europe, la politique de l’absurde. Projets, n. 348, 68-
75.
Allé, C. (2023). Chapitre 6. La métropolisation financière ajournée. In La métropole parisienne, une
anarchie organisée (pp. 167-188). Presses de Sciences Po.
APUR (2017). “La géographie des sans abri à Paris”. Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme. Note n°115.
APUR (2019). Data Portraits Paris/Grand Paris – arrondissements, communes, territoires, Paris.
https://www.apur.org/dataviz/portraits-metropole-grand-paris-donnees/
APUR (2023). Mixité sociale et ségrégation dans la métropole du grand paris : état des lieux et
tendances sur 15 ans. Atelier Parisien d’Urbanisme. Note n° 224.
Artioli, F., & Le Galès, P. (2023). Introduction. L’anarchie organisée: le mode de gouvernance de la
métropole parisienne. In La métropole parisienne, une anarchie organisée (pp. 7-49). Presses de
Sciences Po.
Aulanier, A., Bartel, A. (2022). Les demandeurs d’asile et les réfugiés en France et en Allemagne
depuis 2015. Migrations Société, 188, 19-35
Bacqué, M.-H., Fijalkow, Y., Launay, L., & Vermeersch, S. (2011). Social Mix Policies in Paris:
Discourses, Policies, and Social Effects. International Journal of Urban and Regional Research,
35(2), 256-273.
Bereni, L., Epstein, R., & Torres, M. (2021). Colour-blind diversity: how the|“Diversity Label”
reshaped anti-discrimination policies in three French local governments. In Diversity in Local
Political Practice (pp. 14-32). Routledge.
Bhagat, A. (2021). Displacement in “actually existing” racial neoliberalism: Refugee governance in
Paris. Urban Geograph, (5), pp. 634–653.
Bonn, L. (2022). Capitales solidaires ? Gouvernance de l’accueil des demandeurs d’asile et des
réfugiés à Berlin et à Paris. Migrations Société, 188, 87-100
20
Boussad N., Couleaud N., Sagot M. (2017) Une population immigrée aujourd’hui plus répartie sur le
territoire régional, Insee Île-de-France, 70.
Clanché, F. (2014) Trente ans de démographie des territoires, INSEE première, 1483.
Clerval, A. (2016) Paris sans le peuple. La gentrification de la capitale. Paris : La Découverte.
Clerval, A. (2020). Gentrification and social classes in Paris, 1982-2008. Urban Geography, 43(1), 34-
58.
Cousin, B. (2017). Refounded neighbourhoods and spatial justice: The inhabitants’ attitudes towards
urban segregation. Identity, justice and resistance in the neoliberal city, 63-83.
Cousin, G., Bianchi, F., & Vitale, T. (2021). From Roma autochthonous homophily to socialisation
and community building in the Parisian metropolitan region shantytowns. Journal of Ethnic and
Migration Studies, 47(13), 2938-2960.
Couvelaire, L. (2016). Measures in Île-de-France to prevent migrants from settling. Published in Le
Monde on December 23. Available at:
http://www.lemonde.fr/societe/article/2016/12/23/en-ile-de-france-des-grillespour-
empecher-les-migrants-de-sinstaller_5053191_3224.html (accessed February 15, 2024).
Cremaschi M. (2020). Migration and asylum seekers, ESPON Evidence, TOPIC PAPER 1 Aug.
Cremaschi, M. (2021b). "Migrants and the metropolis: the case of Paris", in Fioretti, C., Proietti, P.,
Tintori, eds., A place-based approach to migrant integration, Luxembourg.
Cremaschi, M., Albanese F., and Artero M. (2020), "Migrants and Refugees: Bottom-Up and DIY
Spaces in Italy." Urban Planning 5.3 189-199.
Cremaschi M., Bonalda F., Covic E., Jacquin A., Varvoux A. (2021a), Politiques publiques pour les
migrants en Région parisienne : le cas des ITIs, SciencesPo, Working Paper, Paris (fév.- mai).
Cremaschi, M., & Le Galès, P. (2018). Tra tipi e forme. Perché la sociologia urbana deve lavorare
sulle dinamiche. Rassegna italiana di sociologia, 59(4), 761-788.
Cusset, P. Y., Dherbécourt, C., & Guyon, N. (2024). Quinze ans de PNRU: quels effets sur l’habitat
et le peuplement?. La note d’analyse, (3), 1-16.
Diemer, A., Iammarino, S., Rodríguez-Pose, A., & Storper, M. (2022). The regional development
trap in Europe. Economic Geography, 98(5), 487-509.
Epstein, R. (2020). Fragmentation socio-spatiale et fragmentation communale : la politique de la ville
dans la métropole parisienne. Gouverner la métropole parisienne. Etat, institutions, réseaux, 231-247.
Presses de Sciences Po.
Favell, A. (2022). The integration nation: Immigration and colonial power in liberal democracies. John Wiley &
Sons.
Fioretti, C. (2021). “Urban policy in France”, in M. Cremaschi, C. Fioretti, T. Mannarini, S.
Salvatore, Culture and policy- making. Pluralism, Performativity, and Semiotic Capital, Cham:
Springer.
Flamant, A., Fourot, A. C., & Healy, A. (2020). Out of the big cities! The reception of exiles in small
immigration localities. Revue europeenne des migrations internationales, 36(2 et 3).
France Stratégie (2019). L’impact de l’immigration sur le marché du travail, les finances publiques et la croissance.
Rapport pour l’Assemblée nationale : Paris.
Gardesse, C., Le Courant, S., & Masson-Diez, E. (2022). L'Exil à Paris, 2015-2020. Expérience
migratoire, action publique et engagement citoyen. Paris: L’œil d’or.
Giorgi, A., & Vitale, T. (2017). Migrants in the public discourse: Between media, policy and public
opinion. In Trade unions and migrant workers (pp. 66-89). Edward Elgar Publishing.Cremaschi,
M., & Le Galès, P. (2018). Tra tipi e forme. Perché la sociologia urbana deve lavorare sulle
dinamiche. Rassegna italiana di sociologia, 59(4), 761-788.
Hamnett Ch. (2021) Veni, vidi, gentri? Social class change in London and Paris: gentrification cause
or consequence?, Urban Geography, 42:8, 1045-1053.
21
Hombert, L. (2022). Des «villes-refuge»? Émergence et institutionnalisation de politiques municipales de réception
des exilé
⋅
es: Les cas de Paris et Barcelone (Doctoral dissertation, Université Paris sciences et
lettres).
Insee (2012), Immigrés et descendants d’immigrés en France, Insee Références, p. 19.
Insee (2020). Population en historique depuis 1968 - Unité urbaine de Paris (00851), Paris, 9 décembre.
Katz, I. (2022). Camps by design: Architectural spectacles of migrant hospitality. Incarceration, 3(1),
26326663221084586.
King, D., Le Galès, P., & Vitale, T. (2017). Assimilation, security, and borders in the member
States. Reconfiguring European States in Crisis, 428-450.
Le Galès, P. (2020). Introduction: Le gouvernement de la métropole parisienne. Problème d'État et
opposition Paris/banlieue. Gouverner la métropole parisienne. Etat, institutions, réseaux, 7-39.
Presses de Sciences Po.
Le Galès, P., & Mouchard, D. (2023). Changer la Ville. Autonomisation et logique de projet dans le
gouvernement de Paris. In La métropole parisienne, une anarchie organisée (pp. 273-294). Presses
de Sciences Po.
Le Galès, P., & Pierson, P. (2019). “Superstar Cities” & the generation of durable inequality.
Daedalus, 148(3), 46-72.
Lelévrier, C., Rivière, C., Escafre-Dublet A. & Shokry, G. (2017). Divercities: Dealing with Urban
Diversity – The case of Paris. Paris: University of Paris-Est-Créteil.
Libération (2019). Tribune : Campements de migrants: treize maires de France demandent à l'Etat
d'agir urgemment, Libération, 7 octobre.
Macé, M. (2017). À Paris, contrôle et expulsion en guise d’accueil. Plein droit, (4), 28-31.
Newman, O. (1972). Defensible spaces. Crime prevention through urban design. Macmillan.
Oberti, Ch. (2022, December 14). Le camp de La Chapelle, lieu sordide et étape obligée pour les
primo-arrivants à Paris. Infomigrant.
Oberti, M. (2020). Urban and school segregation in the larger Paris metropolitan area: A complex
interweaving with a strong qualitative impact on social cohesion. In Handbook of Urban
Segregation (pp. 134-150). Edward Elgar Publishing.
Oberti, M., & Préteceille, E. (2016). La ségrégation urbaine. La Découverte.
Préteceille, E. (2007). Is gentrification a useful paradigm to analyse social changes in the Paris
metropolis? Environment and Planning A, 39(1), 10–31.
Queirolo Palmas, L., & Rahola, F. (2022). Stalingrad/Porte de la Chapelle, Paris: November 2016–
May 2017. In Underground Europe: Along Migrant Routes (pp. 119-141). Cham: Springer
International Publishing.
Raco, M., Tasan Kok, T. 2019. Governing urban diversity: Multi-scalar representations, local
contexts, dissonant narratives. European Urban and Regional Studies, 26 (3), 230-238.
Ramond, Q., & Oberti, M. (2022). Housing tenure and educational opportunity in the Paris
metropolitan area. Housing Studies, 37(7), 1079-1099.
Région Île-de-France (2020). Rapport d'évaluation des stratégies des investissements territoriaux
intégrés et des démarches territoriales.
Saunders, D. (2010). Arrival City: How the largest migration in history is reshaping our world. Random
House.
Scott-Smith, T. (2020). Building a bed for the night: The Parisian ‘Yellow Bubble’ and the politics of
humanitarian architecture. Humanity: An International Journal of Human Rights, Humanitarianism,
and Development, 11(3), 317–331.
Syrett, S., & Sepulveda, L. (2011). Realising the diversity dividend: population diversity and urban
economic development. Environment and Planning A, 43(2), 487-504.
22
Therborn, G. (2017). Cities of power: The urban, the national, the popular, the global. Verso Books.
Vacca, R., Cañarte, D., & Vitale, T. (2022). Beyond ethnic solidarity: The diversity and specialisation
of social ties in a stigmatised migrant minority. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 48(13),
3113-3141.
Van Puymbroeck, C., & Reynard, R. (2010). Les grandes villes concentrent les fonctions
intellectuelles, de gestion et de décision. Insee Première, Paris.
Vitale, T. (2015). Territorial conflicts and new forms of left-wing political organization: From
political opportunity structure to structural contexts of opportunities. Sociologica, 9(3), 1-13.
Vitale, T. (2021). Trapped in a hovel? Roma Housing Discrimination and Deprivation in European
Cities. Working paper, Sciences Po, CEE. R-Home series. Open access.
Zapata-Barrero, R., Caponio, T., & Scholten, P. (2017). Theorizing the ‘local turn in a multi-level
governance framework of analysis: A case study in immigrant policies. International Review of
administrative sciences, 83(2), 241-246.
Marco Cremaschi, PhD Urban Planning, an expert in Urban Policies, is a professor at the Urban School,
Sciences Po, Paris, and a fellow of the Institut Convergence Migration, Paris. His research insists on a
comparative approach to large urban projects in cities and the reception of refugees. He has been working on
the relocation of refugees and migrants in small Italian municipalities (2016-17 Lampedusa and Thessaloniki;
2013-16, Italian Ministry of Research) and the interaction of the informal housing sector and the arrival of
migrants and refugees (Rome, Buenos Aires, and Calcutta, but also Amman and Khartoum). Other research
interests include the financialisation of housing (ANR-ORA, 2019-22 Co-Investigator); the implication of the
representation of the crisis for policies, in particular, immigration and local development (RECRIRE, 2015-18
Horizon 2020); the competition between regions and metropolitan bodies in Italy and France (Ecole Française
de Rome). His recent publications include Regulation and Planning: Practices, institutions, agency, London: Routledge
(2021, Yvonne Rydin, Robert Beauregard, Marco Cremaschi, Laura Lieto eds.); Culture and policy-making.
Pluralism, Performativity, and Semiotic Capital, Cham: Springer (2021, M. Cremaschi, C. Fioretti, T. Mannarini, S.
Salvatore); Réparer la ville: les workshops du Cycle pour un urbanisme des transitions: Lampedusa, Salonique, Buenos Aires et
Berlin, Planum. The Journal of Urbanism, suppl. n. 40, I Sem. (2020 dir., M. Cremaschi, Baratier, J.). E
| marco.cremaschi@sciencespo.fr
Tommaso Vitale, Sociologist and Dean of the Sciences Po Urban School, teaches Urban Sociology and Urban
Policy Analysis. He got a MA in Political Science (1999 - University of Milan), a Ph.D. in Sociology (2003 -
University of Milan), a Certificate of Advanced Study in Comparative Institutional Analysis and Design (2004
- Indiana University, Bloomington), and an HDR in Sociology (2023, Sciences Po). He is a Researcher at Centre
d'études européennes et de politique comparée, where he co-coordinates with V. Guiraudon the research program Cities,
Borders and (Im)Mobility. He also coordinates the research seminar Cities Are Back in Town. He is a member
of the Editorial Boards of PArtecipazione e COnflitto – The Open Journal of Sociopolitical Studies and of
Sociologica – International Journal for Sociological Debate. His empirical research has been organised around
a primary theoretical framework: neo-structural sociology, not deterministic but attentive to structural contexts
of opportunities at different scales, to explore the relationship between social and spatial factors influencing
forms of “community action”. Having been trained within a Weberian theoretical framework that gives the city
a generative role in structuring social, political, and economic interactions, his research looks at community
action not as a form of solidarity but as a form of collective action that does not require a common identity.
This framework irrigates his three research programs:) Roma agency, integration, and upward social mobility;
2) the political sociology of associations and NGOs in urban societies; 3) the impact of urban social and spatial
structure on electoral behaviour. He has published articles in the Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies,
Journal of Public Policy, Journal of European Public Policy, Journal of Urban Affairs, Social Science
Information, Scientometrics, Sociologie, and others. E | tommaso.vitale@sciencespo.fr
23
Figure 1. The metropolitan area (1a) and travel-to-work areas (1b) in Île-de-France
Source: Insee, 2020
Figure 2. The MGP (metropolitan body) and the EPTs (second tiers institutions)
The MGP is divided into EPTs:
T1 – Ville de Paris
T2 – Vallée Sud Grand Paris (VSGP)
T3 – Grand Paris Seine Ouest (GPSO)
T4 – Paris Ouest La Défense (POLD)
T5 – Boucle Nord de Seine (BNS)
T6 – Plaine Commune (PC)
T7 – Paris Terres d'Envol (PTE)
T8 – Est Ensemble (EE)
T9 – Grand Paris - Grand Est (GPGE)
T10 – Paris-Est-Marne et Bois (PEMB)
T11 – Grand Paris Sud Est Avenir (GPSEA)
T12 – Grand-Orly Seine Bièvre (GOSB)
Source: MGP and Region, 202
24
Table 1. Migrants in the region by geographical scale
Total
Population
2018
Annual
growth rate
2013-18
Migrants
% migrants
Paris
2 175 601
0.5
440 464
20.2
MGP
7 075 028
0.4
*1 551 420
*22.1
Statistical
Metropolitan
Area (Aire
Urbaine : FUA)
10 816 803
0.4
2 200 000
20.3
Region Ile de
France (IdF)
12 213 447
0.4
2 378 567
19.5
Source : INSEE, RP2018 exploitation principale
+ INSEE 2012. * INSEE 2015
Figure 3. Foreign-born population per municipalities and case study areas in the
MGP
Source: INSEE, 2020
Table 2. Non-national residents per country of birth in the four departments corresponding
to the MGP
Country
25
Dep
t.
Foreigne
rs
% of the
tot
populatio
n
UE
Algeri
a
Moroc
co
Tunis
ia
Turk
ey
Total
of the
four
countri
es
75
Paris
310 145
14.3
27.9
8.9
6.1
4.6
0.9
20.5
92
Hauts-
de-
Seine
204 659
12.6
25.4
13.0
13.2
5.5
0.8
32.5
93
Seine-
Saint-
Denis
400 051
24.5
17.9
15.4
8.4
5.0
3.9
32.7
94
Val-de-
Marne
221 051
15.8
27.0
14.0
5.9
5.9
2.1
27.9
Source: Insee, Census 2018
Table 3. Migrants in the metropolitan region of Paris per EPT
Paris and EPTs
Total
Population
Migrant
population
%
Foreign
nationals %
T1 – Ville de Paris
2 206 488
20.4
14.6
Paris Arrondissements 18, 19, 20
574 778
22.7
NA
T2 – Vallée Sud GrandParis
(VSGP)
395 761
16.1
10.2
T3 – Grand Paris Seine Ouest
(GPSO)
316 653
15.1
10.1
T4 – Paris Ouest La Défense
(POLD)
559 982
17.1
11.7
T5 – Boucle Nord de Seine (BNS)
439 561
24.8
18.1
T6 – Plaine Commune (PC)
429 266
37.5
30.8
T7 – Paris Terres d'Envol (PTE)
357 568
29.9
22.6
T8 – Est Ensemble (EE)
412 972
28.7
22.2
T9 – Grand Paris - Grand Est
(GPGE)
392 857
22.0
16.6
T10 – Paris-Est-Marne et Bois
(PEMB)
506 882
16.2
11.3
26
T11 – Grand Paris Sud Est Avenir
(GPSEA)
310 159
20.2
13.5
T12 – Grand-Orly Seine Bièvre
(GOSB)
692 061
23.9
17.8
Total MGP
7 020 210
22. 1
16.1
Source: APUR 2019 on INSEE 2015 data
