Urban Policy Responses to Foreign In-Migration: The Case of Frankfurt-am-Main

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

This article was downloaded by: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network]On: 22 June 2009Access details: Access Details: [subscription number 782980718]Publisher RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered office: Mortimer House,37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of the American Planning AssociationPublication details, including instructions for authors and subscription information:http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782043358

Urban Policy Responses to Foreign In-Migration: The Case of Frankfurt-am-MainJohn Friedmann; Ute Angelika Lehrer

Online Publication Date: 31 March 1997

To cite this Article Friedmann, John and Lehrer, Ute Angelika(1997)'Urban Policy Responses to Foreign In-Migration: The Case ofFrankfurt-am-Main',Journal of the American Planning Association,63:1,61 — 78

To link to this Article: DOI: 10.1080/01944369708975724

URL: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975724

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

This article may be used for research, teaching and private study purposes. Any substantial orsystematic reproduction, re-distribution, re-selling, loan or sub-licensing, systematic supply ordistribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representation that the contentswill be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of any instructions, formulae and drug dosesshould be independently verified with primary sources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss,actions, claims, proceedings, demand or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directlyor indirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/title~content=t782043358

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01944369708975724

http://www.informaworld.com/terms-and-conditions-of-access.pdf

The impacts o f immigration are primarily local; yet, local policy responses to immigration from abroad are st i l l a rarity in the United States, and for that matter, in other countries. An exception is Frankfurt-on-the-Main, a major European financial center, one-third o f whose population is o f foreign birth. The city's response to the presence o f an immigrant population is recounted, to offer insights for American cities with similar proportions o f immigrants although in a different cultural and legal context. In Frankfurt, the 1989 municipal election victory by a Social Democrat-Green coalition led to the creation o f a Department o f Multicultural Affairs (AMKA). This paper tells the story o f the Department and i ts major achievements through 1993. The concluding analysis exam- ines elements in Frankfurt's experience with immigration policy that may have relevance for American planners.

Friedmann is a professor emeritus in the Department o f Urban Planning at the University o f California, Los Angeles, and an adjunct professor, Royal Melbourne Institute ofTechnol- ogy. His most recent books include Empowerment: The Politics of Alternative Development (Blackwell, 1992) and an edited collection, €mergences: Women's Struggles for Livelihood in Latan America (UCLA Center for Latin American Studies, 1996). Lehrer is a PhD candi- date in the Department o f Urban Plan- ning at UCLA. She is working on economic restructuring and urban form. Her most recent publication is a co-edited book, Capitales Fatales: Ur- banisierung und Politik in den finanzmetro- polen Ziiricb und Frankfirt (Zurich: Rotpunkt-Verlag, 1995).

Journal oftbe American Planning Association, Val. 63, No. I , Winter 1997. OAmerican Planning Association, Chicago, IL.

Urban Policy Responses to fioreign In-Migration The Case of Frankfart-am-Main

I John Friedmann and Ute Angelika Eehrer

I had le f t the cloudy provinces behind, I entered the universal, dazzled and desiring. Czeslaw Milosz

But today, as in the past, the effects o f in-migration policy are fe l t mainly at the local level, a fact that has yet to be fully recognized by Congress, by in-migrant advocacy groups, or even by analysts.

Georges Vernez

his essay began as a Tale of Two Cities-Frankfurt, Germany, and Los Angeles, USA-and how they have responded to large scale im- T migration from abroad. In the end, we concluded that the task we

had set ourselves was too big for a single article, not merely because of the huge amount of empirical material that would have to be dealt with, but, more importantly, because we wanted to address two very different groups of readers: an American audience for the Frankfurt story and a German readership for the Los Angeles story. Stories that make sense in one cultural context need to be interpreted if they are to be understood in another. German language and political culture cannot be merely transliterated into English. They must be trunsposed, so that the story they tell can be seen in a comparative context. The same is, of course, also true in reverse. And so we opted for writing two pieces in two languages.'

Here, we will focus on the work of the Municipal Department of Multicultural Affairs, or AMKA, set up in 1989 at the initiative of the Green party in the Social Democratic/Green coalition government of Frankfurt that had come to power in the municipal elections of March the same year. We will carry the story forward to the beginning of 1993, an arbitrary date that coincides with the publication of AMKA's first comprehensive report, covering the first two-and-a-half years of its existence (Wolf-Almanasreh et al. 1993). AMKAs experience is both unique

APA JOURNAL-WINTER 1997

Downloaded By: [Canadian Research Knowledge Network] At: 11:15 22 June 2009

JOHN FRIEDMANN AND UTE ANGELIKA LEHRER

and of potential interest to audiences beyond the borders of Germany, because the Department’s political position on foreign immigration has been articulated with exceptional clarity and conviction. We shall return to AMKA’s ideology at several points throughout this essay.

The Neglect of Local Immigration Policy

Local urban policy addressing foreign migrants and the public problems they pose has not been much researched either in this country or in Europe. Most policy studies addressing international immigration view their subject matter from national and international angles (Castels and Miller 1993; Martin 1993; Martin and Midgley 1994; Weidenfeld 1994). Yet, as Georges Vernez argues, it is primarily at the local level that the impacts of foreign migration are experienced, forcing local governments and citizens to respond (Vernez 1993). In the United States, the most important source of information for local policy research has been the Immigration Policy Project of the State and Local Coalition on Immigration. (See, for example, Morse 1994.) Urban planners have been re- markably silent on the subject.

Because regulating the flow of immigrants to this country is exclusively a federal responsibility, as is true for Germany as well, debates about national policy have preempted the need for close attention to local policies (and politics) concerning immigrants? Yet it is precisely here-in the battle zones of everyday life-that immigrant issues must be fought out. Two-thirds of the roughly twenty million foreign-born residents in the United States are concentrated in only five states: Cali- fornia, New York, Florida, Illinois, and Texas, where they are further clustered in major metropolitan regions (Vernez 1993). Many immigrants first came as legal residents; others came as refugees and asylum seekers; and perhaps fifteen percent arrived illegally (Martin and Midgely 1994,5). Although local governments have no control over these numbers, they are obligated by law to provide a wide range of services to residents regardless of their immigrant status or nationality. Large-scale migration from abroad also contributes to social tensions that demand attention, such as rapid neighborhood turnover, congested housing, street vending, and inter- ethnic conflict.

The matter of public funding for social services has recently become contested terrain. The Republi- cans’ “Contract with America,” which dominated the legislative agenda of the House in the early months of 1995, would bar most immigrants from accessing a wide range of federal welfare, medical care, and job

training programs (Immigrant Policy News 1995). In Cal- ifornia, Proposition 187, a citizen initiative passed overwhelmingly by voters in 1994, explicitly denies public services to “undocumented (illegal) residents. Although this legislation-by-referendum is now being contested in the courts, it reflects the widespread feel- ing among California voters that the large number of undocumented workers in the state constitutes an un- due burden on taxpayers. Regardless of the final dispo- sition of these legislative initiatives-and they are fiercely contested-the fact is that fiscal constraints on municipal, county, and state budgets, especially in Cal- ifornia, have made it difficult to provide social services as usual. Cutbacks have affected everyone, and undocumented immigrants pose a vulnerable target. It was hoped that the federal government would provide some relief, but noisy attempts to make Washington fork over billions of additional dollars in grants to the affected states have fallen on deaf ears. The matter now wends its way through the courts. Until this most recent political backlash against large-scale, seemingly uncontrolled immigration, incentives were few to col- lect statistics, much less to engage in policy research on the local impacts of immigrants. National policy was always seen to be the determining factor.

In Germany, too, there has been a flurry of activity to place a lid on the number of new arrivals, to mea- sure the costs and benefits of foreign migration, and to cut back on social services to migrants (Martin 1993; Vernez 1994; Steinmann and Ulrich 1994). An urban perspective was regarded as distinctly a second- ary matter, if indeed it was of any interest at all, especially in an era of declining fiscal resources.

A notable exception to this fixation on national policy is found in Frankfurt-am-Main. With a foreign migrant population that is nearing thirty percent, Frankfurt has made a remarkable effort within the last few years to confront the question of how to integrate its polyglot population, representing over 150 countries, into a viable multicultural society. A stream of publications, some of which will be cited later in this essay, have shed much light on the problems and contra- Actions of this effort within the context of existing federal policies on immigration and citizenship and the growing antiforeign sentiment that seems to have in- fected most of the industrialized countries of the world.

It is our intention to discuss a critical period of roughly three years of integration politics in Frank- furt, with special emphasis on the role of the Munici- pal Department of Multicultural Affairs (AMKA), which stands at the center of the debates on how a city can and ought to respond to its newcomers from abroad. What we hope will become apparent from our story is that, from a local perspective, the question of

62 APA JOURNALmWINTER 1997 1


URBAN POLICY RESPONSES TO FOREIGN IN-MIGRATION

sufficient resources is only one, and by no means the most urgent, issue facing local governments. To suc- cessfully integrate the thirty percent of its resident population who are not Germans is a daunting challenge not only to the city’s political leadership but also, and more particularly, to its organized civil society. Acknowledging the scope of this task is one of AMKA’s major achievements.

We begin with a short description of Frankfurt as a new kind of “transnational” city that, precisely because it harbors financial and business institutions that span the globe, attracts large numbers of foreign migrants who work predominantly in the city’s construction, manufacturing, and service industries. A “transnational” city is one that stands on German ground and is, therefore, subject to the laws of the land; at the same time, it is increasingly a city of many cultures, a “cosmopolis,” that is part of a global network of capitalist accumulation. To enable American readers to understand the idiosyncracies of the Ger- man situation, we proceed with a discussion of some dimensions of German political culture. The story of AMKA’s establishment is next, together with an account of its political objectives and methods of opera- tion. This will lead us directly into three case studies of AMKA’s many activities between 1989 and 1992: public hearings, the creation of the Municipal Advi- sory Board for Foreign Residents (KAV), and strengthening civil society. We end with some conclusions drawn from AMKA’s work and its potential relevance for American planners.

A Transnational German City Frankfurt-am-Main is arguably continental Eu-

rope’s preeminent center of high finance (Noller and Ronneberger 1995). It is not a particularly large city. With a 1993 population of 660,000, it resembles San Francisco more than it does Berlin or Tokyo. Like San Francisco, however, the city lies at the heart of a much larger metro-region (1.5 million), and it is also at the heart of the so-called Rhine-Main conurbation with a population of around 3.5 million (map 1).

TABLE 1. Evolution of Frankfurt‘s population, 1970-1 993

MAP 1. Frankfurt’s strategic location in Europe Source: Lang and Wegener 1994.

About 28 percent of its employment is in the rapidly expanding finance, insurance, and producer services sectors (Lang and Wegener 1994, 6). Recently, Frankfurt’s position as a leading financial center was symbolically reinforced when the European Union chose the city as the seat for the future European Cen- tral Bank. Frankfurt’s stock exchange and international fair, and the gigantic Rhine-Main international airport-Europe’s second largest after Heathrow-are further testimonials to its status as a transnational city. Of its 420 banking institutions, two-thirds are foreign-owned, and of Germany’s top 100 corpora- tions-all of them operating transnationally-seventeen have located their headquarters in the region, including ten in the city itself (Ronneberger 1994, 182-3).

In the course of the last decade, Frankfurt’s population has grown, though not spectacularly. Table 1 ac-

1970 1987 1993 Change, 1970-93 Change, 1987-93

Total Population (000) 670 592 660 -10 68 Foreign Population (000) 89 148 190” 101 42 Percent 13.2 25.0 28.8 German Population (000) 58 1 444 470 -111 26 Percent 86.8 75.0 71.2

- -

- -

“This figure does not include an estimated ten thousand illegal residents or about 9,000 Croat and Bosnian refugees who arrived upon the violent breakup o f the Yugoslav Federation. I t also excludes some ten thousand so-called Aussiedler immigrants from Eastern Europe claiming German nationality by blood descent, who are automatically granted German citizenship.

APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997



TABLE 2. Frankfurt’s foreign population by region of origin, 1974 and 1991 (percentages)

1974 1991

Europe 86.4% 75.5% European Union n.d. 25.9 Rest o f Europe n.d. 49.8

Africa 4.5 8.1 Asia 5.3 11.6 North America 2.4 2.6 South America n.d. 1 .o

Source: Schmid 1992, 10.

tually shows a small long-term decline, only now being reversed, largely as a result of dramatic increases in the city’s foreign population, which has risen proportion- ally from 13 percent in 1970 to 28.8 percent in 1993.3 The large absolute decline in Frankfurt’s German population (from 581,000 to 470,000) is chiefly the result of their continuing exodus into outlying, rapidly ur- banizing communities (Bad Homburg, Oberursel, Neu-Isenburg), which now contribute to a daily com- muters’ rush of some 300,000 people, equivalent to half of Frankfurt’s night-time population.

Where does Frankfurt’s foreign population come from, how old are they, and what do they do for a living?

Table 2 shows an 11-point decline from 1974 to 1991 in the proportion of Europeans (inclusive of the large Turkish population), with correspondmg gains in the numbers of Africans, Asians, and South Americans. If we further detail the city’s foreign resident population by country of origin, the following groups stand out (table 3):

TABLE 3. Major national groupings of Frankfurt’s foreign population, 1991

Former Yugoslavia Turks (including Kurds) Italians Greeks Moroccans (mostly Berbers) Poles Spaniards Americans Iranians Total

35,200 33,500 16,800 8,800 8,700 7,400 7,100 4,200” 4,200

125,900 ~

*Among this number are members of the Armed Forces and their dependents who in 1991 were still stationed in Frankfurt, many of whom have since been withdrawn. Source: Schrnid 1992, 13.

(American readers might wish to note that the forego- ing figures for foreign population include 26,000 per-

sons (15 percent) who, though born in Germany and raised in the Federal Republic, remain “without a Ger- man passport” (Schmid 1992, 44). In contrast to the United States, German nationality is determined according to paternal ancestry rather than place of birth.

A brief look at the age distribution is instructive. In this regard, the contrast between German and foreign residents is striking (table 4). Frankfurt’s Ger- mans are an aging population who stand in marked contrast to the much younger foreigners, the bulk of whom are of working age, with nearly one-fifth under the age of fifteen.4 Figures on age groupings are sug- gestive of housing needs, a perennial issue among Frankfurt’s foreign residents, especially in light of soaring land values and rents. Nearly half of all foreign residents live in households with four or more members (compared to not quite one-fifth of the German population who do so). At the other extreme, GO percent of all Germans, many of them pensioners and widows, live either alone or in small two-person households (Schmid 1992,40).

To complete our statistical picture of Frankfurt’s foreign population, what is their contribution to the economy? On the whole, Frankfurt projects an image of a prosperous city. Its gross domestic product per capita (adjusted for purchasing power) stands at 58 percent above the European average (Lang and Weg- ener 1994, table 1). In 1987, foreign workers comprised 22 percent of the city’s work force (and are a consider- ably larger proportion today); they were concentrated principally in five economic sectors: manufacturing, construction, trade, transportation and communication, and services. Together, these sectors accounted for 88 percent of all foreign employment. In construction, foreigners made up 43 percent of the total work force, and in manufacturing 26 percent (Schmid 1992, 57-60). But construction is typically a seasonal activity, and the manufacturing sector in Frankfurt is declining. Unsurprisingly, therefore, foreigners’ de- pendency on social welfare is greater than that of the German population as a whole (1 1.1 percent versus 7.9 percent, in 1990) (Schmidt 1992, 63).

The overall picture that emerges from these raw data is not very different from that for other trans-

TABLE 4. Age distribution of German and foreign population (percentages)

Age Groups < I 5 15 to 64 >65

Germans 9.8 68.8 20.9 Foreign Residents 18.7 78.6 2.8

Source: Schrnid 1992, 21. Data for Germans add to only 95.5

64 APA JOURNAL-WINTER 1997 J



national cities. Frankfurt is a dynamic metropole of global rank, proud of its long historical tradition as a trading city and financial center (Karpf 1993). Today, its economy is firmly anchored in its banking struc- ture, with far-flung connections to other “global cities” (Sassen 1994; Friedmann 1995). For its labor power, Frankfurt has had to draw on a world-wide labor market. In addition, the city has had to absorb large numbers of economic and political refugees and asylum seekers from countries beyond Germany’s borders, most recently from eastern Europe and the Bal- kans. Its cosmopolitan business center is thus surrounded by a large population “without a German passport” who contribute with their work and taxes to the city’s economy. Many appear to have settled in Frankfurt, or at least in Germany, for good. Still, it is an economically vulnerable population, primarily engaged in manual occupations and socially, economically, and politically marginalized.

Some Dimensions of German Political and Civic Culture

Cross-national studies are difficult to convey to an audience unfamiliar with tile traditions, institutions, and circumstances of the country in question. We will try in this section to comment on those aspects of Ger- man political and civic culture that may assist Ameri- can readers in understanding the story of AMKA that follows. Three subjects will hold our attention: the role of the local state, the nature of local politics, and German views of foreign migrants.

The Local State The German local state-the Kommune-comes

out of a long tradition of municipal self-government. Its very name suggests a corporate entity, a “community” acting for itself by virtue of its medieval charter as a “free city.” The Rathaus, or City Hall, is usually an imposing building on the central square, a symbol of the city’s autonomy. City Hall, called Der Romer in Frankfurt, recalling the city’s Roman origins, is the seat of the Magistrat, the city’s government headed by a Lord Mayor (Oberbiirgermeister). Frankfurt’s Ma- gistrat, or City Council, which consisted of about 26 members in the early nineties, is partly elected by the governing coalition of the Municipal Assembly (Stadtv- erordnetenversammlung) and partly appointed, both for a period of six years. The 96 members of the Assembly are elected by popular vote according to party lists, for only a four-year period. To send a representative to the Assembly, a party must obtain a minimum of five percent of the popular vote.

Although the Magistrat‘s authority extends over the whole of the city, Frankfurt is divided into dis-

tricts or boroughs, each with its own Ortsbeirat, an elected local consultative body. These Ortsbeiriite constitute an important and well-used mediating institu- tion between the city government and civil society. They also give to local politics a more intimate touch than is common in many American cities.

Local Politics German politics is a politics of parties rather than

individuals. Whereas politicians in Los Angeles, for example, run for office without party affiliation, Frank- furt’s politicians are elected on a party list. This practice tends to sharpen ideological definitions and debates. It also makes individual politicians less re- sponsive to political pressure. With a combined vote of 50.2 percent, the 1989 municipal elections in Frank- furt brought a Red/Green coalition to power (“red,” in this instance, means Social Democrat), which in turn made possible the creation of AMKA as a program- matic project of the Greens (Keil and Lieser 1992).

In Frankfurt, each administrative department of the municipality is under the political guidance and protection of a City Councilor called Dezernent. There are departments for planning, finance, personnel, women and health, law and economics, culture, public works, the environment, and so forth, each of which is divided into one or more offices (Amter). In AMKA’s case, the responsible Dezernent is Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a member of the Green Party and the most active pro- ponent of the Department and its mission. As an hon- orary member of the Magistrat, Cohn-Bendit was less exposed politically and could act more freely than could the elected members, who are responsible to the Assembly. Multicultural Affairs would be an innovative department, and so Cohn-Bendit was the logical choice to lead it.

Views on Immigration In line with a politics of parties, the rhetoric on

foreign immigration runs the full gamut of the ideological spectrum. On the left, typified by the Greens, are found the advocates of a denationalized cosmopolitanism that revels in cultural diversity. Thus, the pro- vocative title of a book by Daniel Cohn-Bendit and Thomas Schmid on “the venture of a multicultural democracy” is Heimat Babylon (Babylon: My Native Land), with its implicit reference to the first “COS-

mopolis” and the fragmentation of the mythical world-unity into a “babble” of tongues (Cohn-Bendit and Schmid 1992). On the far right, the central message is just the reverse: Auslander Taus! Deutschland nur f ikdie Deutschen! (Foreigners get out! Germany only for Germans!).S Rightist rhetoric expresses the traditional German nativism with its roots in the Nazi ideology of

APA JOURNAL-WlNTER 1997


JOHN FFUEDMANN AND UTE ANGELIKA LEHRER

Blut und Boden (blood and soil) and the myth of racial purity. Between these book-ends are a number of shaded positions that may loosely be called liberal and that stress the necessary assimilation of would-be immigrants to German culture and so-called moderniza- tion processes (e.g., Hoffmann-Axthelm 1993). The official position is that Germany is not a “country of immigration,” and that foreigners are welcome only as “guests,” that is, as (supposedly) temporary residents who will depart when the economy no longer needs them.

The difficulties that moderates in the debates on immigration encounter derive in part from the legal definition of who is German in a country where nationality is defined by blood descent. In this respect, Germany is no different from other countries, such as Japan and Korea, that believe themselves to be racially homogeneous, and whose culture is so closely identi- fied with a specific territory, history, institutional set- ting, and language as to virtually collapse race and ethnicity into a single dimension. Traditional German cultural practices-Deutschtum-are essentially inward- looking, territorial, patriarchal, and profoundly ethnic. It is just this Deutschtum that is being undermined by the transnational cosmopolitanism of metropoles such as Frankfurt, Munich, and Berlin. Anti-foreign sentiment is thus easily aroused.G Important as foreign workers continue to be to Germany’s “growth ma- chine,” many-though by no means all-find themselves severely marginalized. A failure to assimilate to German culture (Deutschtum), and continuing strong ties to their countries/regions of origin, a “crime” of which certain ethnic groups are frequently accused, thus becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy. (For German public opinion on the foreigners in their midst, see Arras and Arras 1991, Heft 3; and Noller and Ronne- berger 1995, section F.)

It is necessary to stress that not all “foreigners” are marginalized to the same degree, or at all. For instance, in Frankfurt in 1991, 26 percent hailed from countries that now comprise the European Union and whose integration is no longer considered to be a major “problem.” Nor are small numbers of well-educated and prosperous residents from North America and Ja- pan so considered. The focus of popular concern (and extremist rage) are ordinary workers and their families from Turkey (for the most part from Anatolia), Mo- rocco, Ethiopia, Somalia, a number of other black Af- rican countries, Iran, and South and Southeast Asia.

What makes it so difficult for nationals from these countries to be accepted and keeps most of them tightly locked into their own community networks? Their marginalization has multiple roots. Being a faithful adherent of Islam is one ground for social “ex-

clusion.” Over seven percent of Frankfurt’s population are Muslims; but Germans, and not only Germans, still think of western Europe as the Abendland (Occi- dent), a tag that recalls the Christian crusades against the Infidel in the Morgenland (Orient) between the 11th and 14th centuries. Such memory currents run deep (if somewhat murkily) in the popular mind and help explain the extraordinary preoccupation, not only in public opinion but also among intellectuals, with so-called Muslim fundamentalism, a little understood phenomenon perceived to be somehow threatening to “Christian civilization.” Because the separation between church and state in Germany is not nearly so clear-cut as it is in the United States, few Germans ob- ject to paying a substantial church tax to the state that is passed on to both Protestant (Lutheran) and Roman Catholic churches, which, in turn, in some circumstances, act as subsidiary agents of the state in matters of social policy (Subszdzaritutsprinzip). Muslim congre- gations, along with those of other nonchristian religions, are left out of this symbiotic relationship. (Nevertheless, they, too, along with grassroots organizations, may receive subsidies for socially relevant projects approved by the state.)

But religion is only one of the barriers to integration. Also relevant are phenotype (physical character- istics) and social class. Phenotypical differences are often used, in Germany and elsewhere, as a basis for discrimination and social exclusion. Add to racism the limited education that consigns many foreigners to low-paying jobs, and the result is that they are rele- gated to membership in a virtual underclass, living on German soil but not of German ancestry or culture. The “spectre that haunts Europe” at the end of the 20th century is that this class of “unassimilab1es”- dark-skinned people, Muslims, the undereducated and unskilled-will continue to grow disproportionately, “overwhelming” Europe’s white and Christian population in the decades ahead.

The creation in Frankfurt of a Department of Multicultural Affairs in 1989 was intended, in part, to remove the underclass stigma from this population and to usher in the brave new world of an open, multicultural society. Now, six years later, it is clear that the task is beset by inordinate difficulties. Prejudice does not yield quickly to reason. Moreover, post-unification Germans are having a hard time imagining themselves, as Cohn-Bendit would have them do, as “Baby- lonians.” The problem of assimilating large numbers of foreign migrants and Aussiedler, especially in times of economic downturn, is a challenging one even in the relatively open immigrant societies of the United States, Canada, and Australia. It is infinitely more so in a Germany that continues to admit legally millions

66 APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997 J



of foreign migrants, yet stubbornly refuses to acknowledge, at least in official discourse, that it, too, has become a “country of immigrant^."^

Only sixty years ago, the Nazi regime began the systematic destruction of millions of Jews and other groups considered subhuman or inferior, in the worst outbreak of violent racism in world-historical memory. Despite the liberal “new look“ of postwar (West) Germany, racism persists in the popular mind, re- maining visible just below the surface veneer of civil- ity. Mass demonstrations against racist violence, following the murders of eight Turks who died in arson attacks in 1991 and seventeen more racially mo- tivated killings in 1992, may be symbolic moral pro- tests; they also reveal the widespread concern among many Germans that even two generations have not been enough to erase the deep-seated sense of racial superiority and xenophobia among many of their fel- low citizens (Baringhorst 1995).

The Establishment of AMKA Following the municipal elections in Land Hessen,

AMKA was officially established in 1989. Throughout Germany, antiforeign sentiment had been growing for some time, and, cashing in on popular fears, the right- wing National Democratic Party had garnered close to seven percent of the popular vote, securing seats on the City Council in the Municipal Assembly.*

For their part, the Greens were already hard at work on their own position paper on a “multicultural society” (Griinen 1990), and electoral victory in Frank- furt presented the party with a heaven-sent opportunity to test their concept of a transformative politics.

Daniel Cohn-Bendit, a Green activist who had gained worldwide name recognition as a leader of the 1968 student revolt in Paris, was appointed to an hon- orary seat on the Council and placed in charge as the political head (Dezernent) of the department. Opera- tions began roughly a year later, with hiring of a staff of fifteen and a budget of DM 1.5 million.’

AMKA’s creation under a premier publicist such as Cohn-Bendit would also serve the Greens as a plat- form, grounded in actual experience, for keeping up the pressure on the federal government in matters of dual citizenship, and anti-discrimination and immigration legislation-terms that, according to Cohn- Bendit, were still alien to Bonn’s political vocabulary (Wolf-Almanasreh et al. 1993, 8). These “forbidden” terms also happened to be the key demands of the Green Party on immigration matters.

AMKA’s primary mission was to move towards the formation of a “multicultural society” at the Kommune-level. But what exactly was intended by this term, which, even in 1989, must have sounded odd to

German ears? In all of Cohn-Bendit’s own and AM- KA’s publications and pronouncements, we come upon a double claim: that a multicultural society is, first of all, an existing reality in Frankfurt, and that it is a transformative ideal. The first claim suggests a pragmatic approach to deal with real social conflicts and tensions. At the same time, the coming “cosmopolis” would have to learn from its own multicultural experience, transforming itself in a gradual process of mutual adaptation.

In her preface to a study of alternative institutional models and public policies in immigrant countries, AMKA’s director, Rosi Wolf-Almanasreh, sets out this dual approach:

Although the concept “multicultural” is not used in an ideological sense, it does point to a number of conditions, such as participation, equal rights, and the acceptance of cultural diversity within a framework of [universal] human rights, that are the first steps towards a reasonable and peaceful living together. To this extent, the concept also reveals certain shortfalls in respect to legal and social preconditions that must be realized in order to help shape and give meaning to our common life in a multicultural urban society. (Castels 1993, 6)

This formulation posed a profound challenge to a Frankfurt that in 1989 had also elected city councilors from the extreme right who were calling for an ethni- cally immaculate Germany. AMKA thus placed itself in the eye of a political storm. In the Federal Republic as a whole, the ruling Christian Democrats opposed the “integration” of foreigners on principle, while So- cial Democrats, beholden to powerful labor unions, showed only lukewarm support for the Greens’ project “Babylon,” which they believed would lead to a flood- ing of local labor markets. On the other hand, the small Free Democratic Party stood close to the Greens on immigration policy. As for the “foreigners” themselves, of whom only 0.3 percent had ever claimed Ger- man citizenship, they showed little inclination to embrace Deutschtum and German citizenship unless they could retain their original citizenship and, perhaps more importantly, unless they felt that their long-term presence in Germany was truly welcome. The furor that greeted AMKA’s activities among certain sectors of Frankfurt’s German population did not go unremarked in the Department’s first comprehensive report:

AMKA is the target of racist, xenophobic, sexist, and neo-Nazi threats. Virtually every day, we receive anonymous letters that attack the City

APA J0URNAL.WINTER 1997


TOHN FFUEDMANN AND UTE ANGELIKA LEHRER

Councillor [Daniel Cohn-Bendit] with dirty, anti- semitic hate slogans; that insult the Department Director and her collaborators; and that threaten all of us with annihilation. . . . the claims that our Department is responsible for the “criminal actions of foreigners,” for the “rise in the flood of refugees,” for the “drug scene which is alone the responsibility of foreigners,” or for the (un- wanted) “marriage of sex-mad German women with foreigners” are taken as the occasion for slander and insult and to threaten us with may- hem and murder. (Wolf-Almanasreh et al. 1993, 25)

In the light of recent events in the United States, such as the bombing of the Federal Building in OMa- homa City and the hate-talk shows on radio, such ig- norant, inflammatory language should cause little surprise among American readers. But it does reflect a worrisome reality that points up the immensity of the task undertaken with considerable courage by Cohn- Bendit and his multinational staff. Although the situation in 1989 had already been on edge, antiforeign hostilities exploded after the re-unification of East with West Germany in 1991 (Baringhorst 1995).

Despite abjuring an “ideological” role, AMKA is deeply committed to a vision that, when expressed in so many words, is likely to cause unease even among liberal Germans. The following quotation, taken from the Department’s 1993 report, is a case in point:

As the world grows together, the diminishing significance of national citizenship and the equal- ization of foreign nationals with one’s own citizens which, despite all opposition, are prog- ressing step by step, are undermining institutions that continue to be oriented to representatives of an authoritarian state, the duty to be loyal, national legislation, and the he- gemony of the nation state which, in practice, means the exclusion of all those who do not belong to the nation. It is therefore precisely the large international local polity which, as the con- crete life space of all who live within its boundaries, is also the place where worldwide changes become visible. A policy of equal treatment forces the reform of institutions for the sake of pre- venting institutional discrimination and marginalization. (Wolf-Almanasreh et al. 1993, 12)

The impressions conveyed by a passage such as this are of life in a world of decentralized transnational cities in open trade relations with each other. It is consistent with an image of a “Europe of regions” that, in the historical imagination of Germany, is

linked to the pre-Bismarckian political fragmentation of German lands. As a vision, it is a curious amalgam of ideologies: on the left, of an endogenous, locally- centered development and, on the right, of a back- ward-looking idealization of folk culture. Whether the nation state will in the end be displaced or, rather, downgraded by an emergent “cosmopolis,” as the cited paragraph suggests, remains to be seen.

AMKA in Practice: Objectives and Methods

AMKA was set up in the Lord Mayor’s Office as a small staff with cross-sectoral, coordinative responsi- bilities (Querschnittsauf9dben). It was to work in close collaboration with all agencies of the local state to promote the “social integration” of Frankfurt’s foreign population. But when it set out to do so, it encoun- tered the energetic opposition of most municipal line departments, none of whom was eager to be “coordi- n a t e d (as they saw it) by this “new kid on the block” (Noormann 1994). AMKA, however, had also a second, more extroverted field of action, which was to work directly in the public sphere. In neither of these two intersecting spheres-bureaucratic or public-was it intended to work as a lobbyist for foreigners. Its aim was rather, and continues to be, to involve itself in a process of Zusammenwachsen (growing together) of all ethnic groups into a peaceful multicultural society respectful of difference (Wolf-Almanasreh e t al. 1993, 17).

In AMKA’s estimation, the successful completion of this process might take as long as two or three generations, and responsibility for it should not be vested in a single agency of the local state. A genuine multicultural society would come about only in conse- quence of a long process of mutual learning, mutual adjustment, and continuing (nonviolent) conflict. How AMKA saw its own role in this process becomes clearer from a listing of its political objectives (Wolf- Almanasreh et al. 1993, 15-16):

reducing the German population’s fear of “the Other” and the number of violent acts against foreigners; researching juvenile violence, particularly on the part of foreign residents, and ways of countering such violence; encouraging the public discussion of migration, the status of refugees, and the limits of social tolerance; engaging questions of educational reforms in the light of the multicultural origins of many students;1° working toward the active participation of newcomers in the public affairs of the city, encouraging the cultural activities of each group of foreign residents,




and ensuring the free, unhindered practices of Mus- lims and other minority religions; helping to form a culture of everyday life (Alltags- kultur) in the context of immigration; providing social and psychological services to migrants and refugees, especially to women, youths, and children; providing information to migrants about German ways of life and immigrants’ rights, as well as obliga- tions, in their new Heimat; offering in-service training for members of the municipal bureaucracy, especially teachers, judges, and police, and especially in intercultural communication; assisting with the development of self-reliant institutions and practices for minority groups, strengthening the autonomy of migrants (vis-a-vis the state), and working toward achieving equal civil status for foreigners as well as underprivileged German groups; improving the participation of foreign immigrants in the political, cultural, and social affairs of the city.

In summary, AMKA regarded itself as a municipal office charged with fighting racism and other forms of discrimination, even as it worked towards the more complete social (if not political and economic) integration of Frankfurt’s foreign population.

To accomplish this mandate for a foreign population of 172,000 (close to 200,000 by the time of this writing, exclusive of Aussiedler), with the very limited resources allocated to support AMKA’s work, seems like an almost overwhelming challenge. Two com- ments are pertinent here. First, because questions of integration cut across all functionally specific sectors of city administration, AMKA would perforce have to work with and through existing line departments. As we have already commented, this has proved to be difficult in practice. Nevertheless, it remains a continuing challenge to AMKA’s ambitions. Second, AMKA understands its role to be primarily educational, oriented to public learning and communication. Although his name is never mentioned explicitly, Jurgen Habermas’ much discussed theory of communicative action, familiar to American planners through the work of John For- ester, appears to underlie AMKA’s daily practice (Ha- bermas 1981; Forester 1989, 1993). Coincidentally, Habermas also happens to be Frankfurt’s most fa- mous living social philosopher. An ardent champion of democratic institutions, he propounds a social vision based on a belief in the healing, transformative powers of open, unhindered communication in the public sphere. Communicative action is a surprisingly simple, yet immensely difficult concept that when car-

ried into practice can assume virtually unlimited forms. In the next section, we will focus on three spheres of AMKA’s communicative and political practice: public hearings, the creation of a Municipal Advi- sory Council of Foreign Residents, and strengthening the many voices of civil society among foreign residents.

AMKA’s Political Practice Public Hearings

In AMKA’s early days, it soon became clear that its work could not be accomplished in an information vacuum. Not only were academic studies on the conditions of life among Frankfurt’s migrants missing, but, more importantly, their voices were not being heard. Who, after all, were these strangers in the city? How did migrants understand and respond to their situation? What problems did they face as children, women, and men coming from very different cultural back- grounds? To answer these and other questions would be difficult enough. But to do so in a context of dis- trust and hostility to foreigners in a period of economic crisis was a daunting challenge.

Soon after the 1989 elections, therefore, the new coalition government decided to invite Frankfurt’s foreign communities to a public hearing (Anhiirung), which, it was hoped, would provide at least a skeletal framework of information as well as creating a propi- tious climate for AMKA’s future work. Subsequently, several other hearings were convened. The following account will provide a brief look at what these hearings revea1ed.l’

A Hearing on the Situation of Foreigners in Frank- furt (AMKA, 1990). This first public hearing, in Octo- ber 1989, was organized, in part, to send a message to Frankfurt’s foreign communities that the new coalition government in City Hall stood on their side in the general climate of hostility, that the government regarded foreigners as an important part of the city and its economy, and that it was prepared to work towards improving their conditions of life within the limits of existing federal and state legislation and resources. The hearing was conducted in the Plenary Hall of the City Council, a choice of location that, it was hoped, would convey a deeply symbolic message. As Cohn-Bendit writes in his preface to the pamphlet reporting on this hearing, “Those who spoke there, spoke not as guests and second-class human beings but as citizens [of Frankfurt]” (AMKA 1990, 1). Some 190 organizations, groups, and individuals were in- vited, and nearly all of them came to hear and to be heard. After a long evening, the session broke up around midnight. In all of their diversity, Frankfurt’s

APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997 169



marginalized foreigners had finally been given a chance to speak out. It was a moving moment in the history of this ancient city.

A Hearing on the Situation of Migrant Women (MIL4 1992). Held in June 1991, this hearing took up the feminist demand that gender be acknowledged as a significant variable in policy formation and, above all, in Integrdtionspolitik. Some 30 organizations partici- pated, among them the Working Group Against Inter- national Sex and Racial Exploitation, Vocational Training for Migrant Women, Caritas’ Psycho-Social Counseling for Arab Women, the German-Iranian Women’s Club, the Lutheran Family Support and Counseling Center, the Ecumenical Asia Group, the Association of Women Married to Foreigners, the Young Women’s Center of Preungesheim, the Associa- tion of Islamic Students, and the Committee for the Defense of Kurdish Refugees. What stands out from this partial listing is the extraordinary diversity of perspectives and interests among so-called migrant women: women in bi-national marriages, Kurdish women (as an ethnic group distinctive from other na- tives of Turkey and Iran), recently arrived migrants barely able to speak German, women organized along religious lines (Islam), single female university students, mothers with large families and small incomes, Southeast Asian women, etc. And yet, what nearly all of them shared was living in the patriarchal family regimes of their respective cultures inside the relatively emancipated West German cultural environment, which, although they were exposed to it daily, they could not fully share. Migrant women saw few possi- bilities for themselves to earn an independent living, even though many of them were working at least part- time, often in opposition to their husbands’ or parents’ wishes. Caught between two cultures, they were educationally, linguistically, and culturally con- strained. But they had come to this public hearing and would speak for themselves in a language that was un- commonly forceful and clear. At issue were their legal status, their participation in labor markets, education for young girls, safe houses for young women wishing to escape parental strictures, private housing problems (overcrowding, high rents), vocational training, sexual exploitation, and many other topics. A group photo shows young women in their late twenties and early thirties. These women spoke for a new generation whose home had become Germany and who were des- perately struggling to resolve the cultural and psychological tensions in their own lives.12

Forum: “Zusammenleben-living together-Birlikte Ysamak.”This third hearing was actually conducted as

a two-day forum in September 1991. Conceived as a major event, it had been long in preparation and was jointly financed by four private housing associations and AMKA. The Lutheran Academy at Arnoldsheim was the organizer, and some 150 participants were in- volved (Arras and Arras 1991, Heft 4).

Preparations included a series of studies that AMKA had subcontracted with SYNTROPIE: A Foun- dation for the Study of the Future, based in Basel, Switzerland. The first (Arras and Arras 1991, Heft 1) constructs two hypothetical scenarios of “living together” (Zusammenleben) in Frankfurt-am-Main. One is a multicultural utopia for the year 2006 (a mere 15 years into the future), the other a dystopia of a violence-obsessed, sharply segregated city strongly reminiscent of Los Angeles in the 1980s. Unreal as they were meant to be, these scenarios had the virtue of dramatizing what was at stake.

The second study (Arras and Arras 1991, Heft 2) is a more academic piece, providing essential back- ground information on Frankfurt’s migrants. It also introduces the reader to a series of basic definitions: of multicultural, integration, segregation, assimilation, ghetto, “colony” (ethnic neighborhood), and other terms deemed essential for a reasoned discussion of immigrant policy.

The third study (Arras and Arras 1991, Heft 3) summarizes the result of nearly fifty “conversations” (open interviews) with Frankfurters from relevant sectors: political parties, housing associations, municipal administrative offices, individual migrants and migrant organizations, individual Germans, and “ex- perts.” The interviews tried to probe people’s experiences, feelings, thoughts, and opinions. This study is one of the best sources of insight into what Frankfurt thought and felt about its foreigners in the early 1990s.

The Forum itself was subtitled, “Suggestions and Demands for an Urban Policy Concerning Frankfurt’s Foreign Population.” In the two days of discussions and debates, the emphasis was on how to promote the socio-political integration of migrants while reducing the increasingly prevalent friction between the Ger- man majority and foreign minorities. Forty-five con- crete policy recommendations were adopted by voice vote.

Complex though it was, the Forum reiterated AM- KA’s commitment to a philosophy of transforma- tional dialogue, which, in conclusion, was summarized in four Zen-like sentences:

Democracy is a learning process. More than factual knowledge is needed. The path we travel is the goal.




The succession of events becomes the process (Arras and Arras 1991, Heft 4, 7).

Municipal Foreign Residents Advisory Board [Kommunale Ausliindervertretg-KAV]

One of the most heated debates in the hearing of October 30, 1989 had been the question of whether foreign migrants should be given the right to vote in local elections or whether, instead, some sort of For- eign Residents Advisory Board should be formed as an adjunct to the City Council. Though garbed in highly rhetorical language, the debate was somewhat academic, since the right to vote was in any case a federal matter, whereas an Advisory Board could be established by the local Council. Still, it was important to know where to begin. In the end, Frankfurt’s Stadtrat approved the idea of a Board, and it fell to AMKA to turn this opportunity into reality. AMKA’s Dezernent Cohn-Bendit saw the Advisory Board as an intermedi- ate step to turning foreign migrants into full-fledged local citizens, and work was begun.

What had to be done was to spread the word so that eligible foreign voters could form themselves into “lists,” i.e., political clubs or quasi-parties; according to German law, candidates have to present themselves not only as individuals but as candidates selected by their respective parties to be voted on as a block. After nearly nine months of intensive work by AMKA, twenty-two lists were registered to elect 51 Board member^.'^ The vote, cast in December 1991, was not large by German standards, though at 20 percent comparable to participation in American local elections. But it did bring an Advisory Board into existence that would seriously begin its work eight months later.14 Following the election, KAV, as it was called, was given a tiny budget of its own and, despite a mutual desire to be perceived as separate entities, assigned office space at AMKA. This relationship at close range would soon lead to friction between them. The Magistrat (municipal administration) was not particularly fond of a corporate entity lobbying on behalf of a broad spectrum of (nonvoting) interests in the city, and the niggardly space assignment had probably been done with malice afore- thought. Nevertheless, once established, KAV had to be listened to respectfully, and each formal communication by KAV deserved at least a written reply.

Again and again in the documentation, foreign migrants refer to themselves as Frankfurters, in a way reminiscent of J. F. Kennedy’s immortal “Ich bin ein Berliner!” Still, to be an Auslunder-a (local) citizen without a German passport-was to be marked by a stigma, and KAV was the lobby of the stigmatized. De- spite their 22 “lists,” and even though each community would rather have been considered as a distinctive

“ethnic” group, American style, KAV had to speak for all foreign residents as a political bloc. Although it did not have the right to vote, KAV was nevertheless au- thorized to participate in the plenary sessions of the Stadtrut, as well as to attend Council Committee meetings and join in the deliberations of the sixteen already existing Neighborhood Advisory Boards. In 1993, for the first time in its short life, KAV was given the opportunity to review and comment upon the municipal budget proposal.

KAV’s actual achievements, at least through 1993, have been more symbolic than real, and one is left with the impression that Germans are not quite ready yet to grant citizen rights to their foreign neighbors. All the same, according to the Maastricht Treaties estab- lishing the European Union (EU), which Germany rat- ified, some foreigners will soon become more equal than others. Once the implementing federal legislation is passed, EU citizens, regardless of their country of residence, will be able to vote in local elections. This will advance local citizenship for Spaniards, Portu- guese, Italians, and Greeks, but not for Turks, Kurds, Iranians, North Africans, Southeast Asians, former Yugoslavians and others, thus creating two classes of Auslander, those with and those without local citizen rights.

In April 1993, elected Foreign Resident Advisory Boards were acknowledged as a permanent part of the municipal code for Land Hessen.lS

Strengthening Civil Society As one of its first projects, AMKA undertook to

prepare a register of all organizations run by migrants or undertaken jointly with interested German nationals. The list is continuously being updated; by the end of 1992, it included more than 210 organizations and groups of a religious, socio-cultural, and political character, equivalent to one organization/group for every 800 foreign residents. As it turned out, this simple roster was much in demand, not only by the organizations/groups themselves but also by journalists, academic researchers, publicists, and the city administration. For AMKA, it was vital information that al- lowed the agency to disseminate information quickly, call on organizations for political support, and carry out its general mandate of mediation. A small example will perhaps help to show how a simple idea such as a roster can help to tie voluntary organizations into an action network. The case in point was a 1991 federal law that gave certain categories of foreign migrants the right to permanent settlement in the Federal Re- public (Ausliindergesetz).

The new law made it easier for EU citizens to obtain permanent residence permits, and it set forth new

APA JOURNAL’WINTER 1997



conditions for residence affecting all foreigners working in Germany. AMKA decided to encourage all foreign residents to apply under the new legislation and did so by drafting an informational pamphlet that set forth the new requirements in simple, non- bureaucratic language. In addition to German, the pamphlet was printed in five languages, including En- glish, Serbo-Croat, Turkish, Arabic, and Berber (for the nearly 9,000 Berber Moroccans living in Frankfurt). AMKA’s network of 200-odd organizations that were in daily contact with Frankfurt’s foreign population was a convenient and rapid way to get information out to those who needed it. It constituted a kind of civil society of foreigners encapsulated within the larger civil society of German Frankfurt. The points of contact between these two civil societies continue to be few, but they do exist in such instances as the German- Iranian Association, the German-Lebanese Cultural Society, the Catholic organization Caritas, and a number of Lutheran church organizations.

For an American observer, it is surprising to dis- cover the extent to which many of these organizations are subsidized by the municipal government through its Departments of, respectively, Social, Cultural, Youth, and Women’s Affairs, as well as Transportation, all of which provide either general support or help with particular events. Especially noteworthy is the subsidy some organizations receive through a nonprofit, publicly chartered agency (Saalbau GMBH) to rent meeting space at below-market rates.lG

AMKA, of course, has its own clientele to look out for and has been able to support a large number of multicultural events on its own. Some of these activities were actually planned and carried out in close ar- ticulation with AMKA, which, in addition to financial support, provided ideological counsel and technical assistance. In the two-year period 1991-1992, AMKA assisted 93 such undertaking^.'^ This by no means ex- hausts AMKA’s close involvement with migrant organizations, however. It assists new organizations with incorporation and acquiring nonprofit status. It has undertaken to help meet the serious deficit of rental spaces for meetings and other organizational purposes. (A 1992 survey revealed a “shortfall” of 3,371m2 relative to claimed needs.) And it has done extensive work with sports clubs and even on allotment gardens for migrants. Finally, AMKA has maintained contact with foreign resident artists, writers, film makers, and musicians and, in the future, intends to work more intensively on the cultural front.

Critiquing AMKA In the context of German politics, an innovative

municipal enterprise such as AMKA is bound to run

into politically-inspired criticism from all along the spectrum. We have already alluded to a radical feminist critique. (See note 12.) A recent unpublished Mas- ter’s thesis (Diplomarbeit) by Lenhart (1992) goes further. Three accusations are made:

AMKA engages in merely “symbolic politics.” This way of describing AMKA’s work is, of course, largely true, given the legislative constraints on national citizenship and the diminutive budgetary allocations. Under these circumstances, it is difficult to see what else AMKA might have done; if anything, it tried to accomplish too much with too little. On the other hand, antiforeign sentiment, which was and still is running high in Germany as well as elsewhere in Eu- rope (and, for that matter, in California), is a mental construct-an ideology-with only tenuous links to reality. A symbolic politics aimed at creating a multicultural city in which people can live peacefully with each other at close range therefore seems an entirely appropriate response. At the same time, it must be admitted that there are social and material problems affecting migrant communities which do not yield to “symbolic” treatment and require a more direct response. AMKA has put primary emphasis on the cultural as opposed to the material conditions of what some would label a permanent foreign underclass. This observation is no doubt true as well, but does not invalidate AMKA’s emphasis; cultural and material conditions are equally important. Multiculturalism is a divisive ideology, using the construct of “ethnicity” to divide the city into mutu- ally antagonistic ghettos. This is a more serious ac- cusation than the preceding one and argues for an agenda of social justice rather than for the celebration of cultural diversity. This argument challenges the current preoccupation, seemingly worldwide and labeled postmodern, with the politics of identity. One may well bemoan this excessive dwelling on cultural identity, but given the enclave situation of foreign migrants in Germany, it’s hard to know what else might be done. To be a foreign migrant in Ger- many today is to belong to a class of people who live at the sufferance of their hosts. Their “foreignness” (i.e. not having German citizenship) actually tends to unite foreigners against their hosts, since all of them suffer more or less the same fate, particularly if they belong to nonEuropean, nonchristian groups. Multicultural politics is meant to remove foreignness as a stigma and to acknowledge the intrinsic value of cultures and ethnicities other than German in a city a third of whose population is foreign. In a world “without boundaries,” a vision of the peaceful

72 APA J0URNAL.WINTER 1997 1



coexistence of peoples, with equal rights for all, is not to be dismissed as “merely” cultural. Rather, it must be lodged at the very core of public policy. It is not clear that making the attainment of German citizenship easier-available “on demand,” as the Greens would have it-would suddenly remove cultural identity as a factor to be reckoned with in local politics, particularly for groups with the stigma of a “race” or religion in a society to which they can never fully belong, for all the official tolerance that may be shown to them. None of this takes away, as we ar- gued above, from the need to simultaneously address material concerns: jobs, housing, education, and all the rest. Cultural difference in the German context cannot be used as an argument for tolerating social and material injustice.

Conclusion We have described only a small portion of AMKA’s

extraordinary range of activities since its founding in 1989. The agency wished to make significant progress towards a more integrated, multicultural society. Given its paltry resources and the constant rise in the number of foreigners living in Frankfurt, and that its life span was limited by the ability of the Red/Green coalition to survive in office, that was a truly challenging assignment. We began this study in the belief that American city planners might have something to learn from Frankfurt’s experiment with integration policy. But the differences in political and civic culture between Germany and the United States are too great to allow for a direct transfer of institutional innovations. Still, there are common problems to be faced in both countries. In the following paragraphs, we have tried to draw a few conclusions from our analysis that may have some relevance for American planners.

1. Whatever its practical implications for access to political rights, the dichotomy Auslander/Inlander (foreigner/native) is no longer very meaningful in the contemporary world. Neither is the descriptive term immigrant. In both Germany and the United States there is a large return migration, and a new category of transnational migrant is coming to be recognized-a possible harbinger of what the future might increasingly hold (Guarnizo, 1994).18 Not everyone who migrates from one country to another comes to stay, and many of those who come, especially when in business or the academy, remain in close and permanent contact with two or more countries. We are living in a world that is in constant flux, and static expressions such as Auslander sound more and more outmoded.

2. Even if all “foreigners” were eventually to become

German citizens-an unlikely event in the near future-“ethnic” differences would remain significant. Phenotypes (e.g., dark complexion) and religious affiliation (e.g., Islam) will undoubtedly continue to be the objects of popular discrimination, just as they are in the United States with its more relaxed naturalization policy.

3. Integration, assimilation, and multicultural society are notoriously contested terms. A migrant can be formally integrated in a host society without becoming culturally assimilated. Or s/he may become assimilated, as were most German Jews in the 19th and early 20th century, without being socially and politically integrated.lg As for a multicultural society, we saw the term used by the Greens both as a descriptive term (a society of many different cultural origins) and as a term signaling the ideal of a universal society with equal rights and social justice. But as soon as discussion shifts from “is” to “ought,” controversy begins. How much difference is acceptable? Are there limits to tolerance? Are all cultures of equal worth? What if the practices of one group are offensive to their neighbors or to proponents of universal human rights? Do already existing populations have prior territorial rights over the claims of newcomers? There are no “yes” or “no” answers to these questions that have left answers in a trail of blood.

4. AMKA’s “multicultural” politics is the politics of only a minority of Germans. Its work is inspired by a vision of cosmopolis that, while emphasizing local citizenship and universal human rights, looks forward to the gradual dissolution of national citizenship and eventually of the nation state. But the Greens, who in a sense invented AMKA and who continue to be its staunchest supporters, have en- joyed only about six percent of the national vote; 94 percent prefer other ideological orientations. By and large, this overwhelming majority has shown little inclination to turn foreigners into Germans, just as the vast majority of foreigners have so far failed to display enthusiasm for becoming German citizens. This may be a generational problem, but it is a political problem as well. In the 1995 local elections, the Red/Green coalition in Frankfurt fell apart, and the current Lord Mayor is a woman from the conservative ranks of the CDU (Christian Dem- ocratic Union).

5. AMKA presents us with a prime example in practice of Jurgen Habermas’ theory of communicative action. The agency understands its role to be one of mediation between Frankfurt’s foreign communities and the city. Through its hearings, it has given foreign voices the necessary dignity to be heard.

APA JOURNAL-WINTER 1997


TOHN FRIEDMANN AND UTE ANGELIKA LEHRER

6.

And through its efforts on behalf of KAV and foreign community organizations (a civil society enclave of “Others” within the matrix of German civil society) it has contributed to strengthening foreigners’ presence in the political community of Frankfurt. AMKA has been less successful, however, in turning public policies around in housing, schools, and the administration of justice.

Given AMKA’s cross-sectoral mission, which has aroused opposition within the municipal bureaucracy, and its nonexistent formal powers, such an outcome was not unexpected.

The question is whether, in principle, AMKA’s communicative practices are sufficient to accomplish its stated purpose, whatever the time frame. Here the answer is probably no. Many Germans still harbor the illusion that the foreigners in their midst will someday go away, leaving Germany again to those of German “blood.” Virtually every study that has been published, however, points to the op- posite conclusion. On the one hand, the German economy will continue to need immigrants from abroad to work as well as to compensate for the economy’s own demographic deficits. On the other hand, Germany’s privileged position among high- income countries and its geographic location in the center of Europe mark it as the obvious destination for many of the worlds less fortunate, eager to respond to the enticements of high capitalism.

Yet if a growing foreign minority is in Germany to stay, then, without major policy changes at the federal and/or European level, many will come to form a permanent underclass with no control over its conditions of life.’O This much was already fore- seen by Cohn-Bendit and the Greens when they set forth a political agenda in the late eighties with ar- guments for a federal immigration law, dual citizenship, and antidiscriminatory legislation. They were pitching their message to German voters. Now, in a European Union of 350 million, Germa- ny’s problems can no longer be separated from the problems of immigrants in other European states. The issue of foreign migrants has become central to European politics (Weidenfeld 1994). With the 1995 election victory of the CDU, AM- KA’s future has become clouded. The city’s enor- mous indebtedness (DM 8 billion) foreshadows cutbacks of low-priority budget items. AMKA may be good value for the money, but as a Green initiative in a conservative city administration, it is clearly vulnerable. Meanwhile, its godfather, Daniel Cohn-Bendit, has departed for the European parlia- ment in Strasbourg, leaving AMKA’s political flank

7.

unprotected. However, the problems of foreign migrants will not go away; if anything, they will inten- sify, as many, particularly among the older generation of Italians, Greeks, Spaniards, “Yugo- slavs,” and Turks, are thrown out of work by continuing declines in manufacturing and the slowdown in construction. It is these same migrants, many of whom have over the years become German in all but name, who feel most marginalized in an era of ebbing.economic growth and swelling antiforeign sentiment. If any indication is given by events in neighboring France, where Le Pen’s right-wing Front National has embarked on a radical campaign to oust foreigners from local communities and to deny them access to public housing and social services, what this group has come to view as its entitlements are clearly threat- ened. Under these conditions, AMKA’s symbolic politics may be welcome as a means to hold down the lid on seething racial, ethnic, and religious conflict in the heart of continental Europe’s premier financial center. If AMKA had done nothing else, it would have made an important contribution by highlighting the special needs of Frankfurt’s migrant population and, by implication, the needs of foreign migrants in other transnational cities. In this essay, we have not attempted to go into the details of, for example, ghetto formation, health services, bilingual and multicultural education, vocational training, youth services, care for the elderly, or housing. But as AMKA’s public hearings and KAV’s annual reports make plain, the needs of migrant populations will have to be addressed with close attention to differences in age, gender, and ethnicity. The matter is urgent. Frankfurt’s foreign population is already approaching thirty percent and shows no prospect of decline.

APPENDIX

The Semantics of Foreign Migration in Germany Auslunder (foreigner): the most frequently used descrip-

tive term, but with undesirable, negative connotation, and rejected by many long-term residents in German cities. The word suggests someone “who is not like us, who doesn’t belong.” The contrasting term is Inlunder (native). Because of its negative aura, the use of Awlunder is frequently reserved for non-Europeans, especially Turks, Moroccans, and others of Islamic faith. A term usually avoided but occasionally used in informal conversation is Frernder. Like its English equivalent, alien, it tends to put the person referred to beyond the pale of ordinary discourse. Aliens are the Other.

MzgruntIn (migrant; the German language distinguishes

74 APA JOURNAL-WINTER 1997 1



gender, as English does not): a generally neutral term, but one which leaves open the question of whether or not the person in the question is a de facto immigrant, or Einwand- erer or Einwunderin. (See also note 2.) Because the acquisition of German citizenship is both difficult and rare for those not in a German line of descent, defdcto immigrants-say, those residing in Germany continuously for x number of years, or children born of foreign parents in Germany and raised there-continue to be regarded as AuslanderInnen and, if convicted of a felony, are subject to deportation.

Biirgerln “ohne deutschen Puss (citizen “without a German passport”): a circumlocution that implicitly argues for the equality of migrants with German citizens in matters of civil rights. Sometimes replaced by Mitbiirgerln (co-citizen) or Studtbiirgerln (citizen of a given city). The latter designation makes sense in Germany with its century-old tradition of communal (local) citizenship. It contrasts with Stuutsbargerln (national citizen of a state which may or may not be Ger- many). The implicit argument here is that one can be a communal citizen, say, of the city of Frankfurt, with potential voting rights in local elections, even though at the national level one is registered as an alien.

Aussiedler refers to immigrants of German ancestry (Deut~chstiimmige or “tribal” Germans) from countries in the former Soviet Union, Romania, and elsewhere. Each year, more than 200,000 of these “tribal” Germans arrive in the country, and are automatically given privileged treatment to assist with their incorporation into German society. Despite their foreign origins, Aussiedler are not called Auslander and are officially welcomed to Germany as Germans; in public opinion, however, the distinction between the two terms is often rather hazy. Both are seen as taking jobs away from “real” Germans.

Nutionale Minderheit (ethnic/national minority): a rarely used term, probably because it intimates that “migrants” are part of a larger whole (the German population) within which they constitute a numerical minority. For a particular group, it implies a degree of collective social integration as a minority, something which many Germans would rather not think about.

Multikulturelle Gesellschuft (multicultural society): the concept can be used in a purely descriptive way, as the presence among the German population of various ethnic groups. The assumption here is that all Germans (i.e., those entitled to German citizenship by virtue of their ancestry via the paternal line) constitute a homogeneous Natimalvolk or national ethnic people. But it can also be used normatively. The Greens, for instance, understand a multicultural society as a society engaged in a process of self-transformation through intensive intercourse, at close range, among different cultural groups. To bring about such a hybrid society, according to the Greens, requires not only equal citizen rights for immigrants, but also a capacity to live with (cultural) dissonance and to tolerate difference within the limits of (universul) human rights. In the Green perspective, all cultural forms should be seen as having equal worth, but conflict among and within groups over customs, usages, values, up- bringing, and religion can be expected to occur. The societal

process of transformation that this view of multiculturalism implies must remain open-ended (Grunen 1990).

AUTHORS’ NOTE

The authors are grateful for the financial support of UCLA’s Academic Senate and the Center for German and European Studies of the University of California at Berkeley during the academic year 1994/95. We would also like to thank Roger Keil, Sigrid Baringhorst, Klaus Kunzmann, and Leonie Sand- ercock for their many observations and suggestions. We have tried to follow their advice whenever possible, but responsibility for the final text remains with us.

1.

2.

3.

4.

5 .

6.

7.

Ute Lehrer and John Friedmann, “Immigrationspolitik und die Rolle von community-based Organisationen in Los Angeles.” Forthcoming in Levzuthan. Who is or is not an immigrant is not always easy to tell. Not everyone who comes to live in the United States intends to remain, and many so-called immigrants leave again after a period of work in this country to return to their communities of origin. They should rather be called sojourners. 0 thers are “transnational” migrants, “at home” in more than one country and often engaged in producing, buying, and selling internationally (Basch et al. 1994). Unofficial recent estimates are even higher. Frankfurt’s population of foreign residents is the highest of any German city and may be compared to Los Angeles County’s 27 percent and the City of Los Angeles’ 38 percent (1990). Education in Germany is compulsory until age eighteen. But many youngsters combine apprenticeship training with regular schooling from 15 years onward and are counted in the labor force. See the appendix for a discussion of the most frequently used terms in the political discourse on foreign migration/immigration. The virulent German anti-Semitism of the 1930s also fed on the supposedly rootless cosmopolitanism of the Jews and the Jewish intelligentsia in particular. Germanfs total population is around 80 million, of whom nearly eight percent are foreign residents. The projected admission of at least 2.5 million foreigners each decade would add about three percent to the starting population. The corresponding figures for the US. are 10 million, for a starting population of around 260 million, roughly a four percent gain. But, as noted in the text, the immigrant population is very unequally distributed within each country. According to Ulrich (1994), the following German cities would, under certain assumptions, have a majority of “foreigners” by the year 2030: Frankfurt, Offenbach, Munich, Stuttgart, Mannheim, Dusseldorf, Cologne, and Duisburg. Ulrich uses these projections to argue for the early naturaliza-

/75 APA JOURNAL-WINTER 1997


JOHN FRIEDMA” AND UTE ANGELIKA LEHRER

tion of foreign residents. As artificial as they are, his projections represent a fascinating Geddnkenexperiment (thought experiment). What is likely to be the future of a Germany with a majority of unassimilated foreign population concentrated in some of its major cities, surrounded by sparkling new “Edge Cities” of predominantly prosperous “white” Germans?

8. Their vote would swell to 13 percent in 1993. 9. Staff size would eventually double, largely as a result of

the practice, common among the left in Europe, of shar- ing jobs.

10. Some statistics: in 1991, half of the 8,038 children at- tending municipal day care centers were of foreign origin; in primary schools, foreigners comprised 36 percent of the student body; in the middle schools, their numbers mounted to 66 percent, in the technical high schools (Realschulen) to 43 percent, and in humanistic high schools (Gymnasien) to 20 percent, for a total foreign student participation of 35 percent (Schmid 1992, 69-75).

11. In addition to these public hearings, AMKA also sponsored a series of policy studies-on Moroccan youth, the aging population in foreign communities, the need for psycho-social services for migrants in transition between two cultures, and a statistical profile of Frank- furt’s foreign population and comparative national integration, among others.

12. A curious observation: a serious critique from the left of AMKA’s work comes from a multicultural group of mostly foreign university students. In a polemical essay, they accused AMKA of playing up to the ethnic nation- alism of mainstream organizations-e.g., Moroccans- and to those who support what they portrayed as its accommodationist, integrationist project. Their de- clared heroes were Gloria Anzaldua, Angela Davis, Cher- rie Moraga, and Gayatri Spivak, all of them American, postmodern feminists whose message is to take up residence in the borderlands of culture and race. (See Sand- ercock, 1995, for a discussion of this theme and its relevance for American planners.) The following sen- tence may help to place these critics in the ideological spectrum, in which AMKA, as an official government agency, stands to the right of their own purist convic- tions: “Our politics is aimed at the disruption of national and volkisch structures through the process of migration which, in the metaphorical sense . . . stands for the dissolution of national state formations” (FeMi- gra 1994, 61).

13. The “lists” were not formed exclusively along national- ethnic lines. In addition to the expected lists for Cro- atians, Kurds, Italians, Serbs, Moroccans, etc., there were also “lists” calling themselves the Federation of Is- lamic Communities, International Social Democrats, Freedom for Democracy and Human Rights, Progres- sive Foreigners, and similar designations.

14. Of the 51 elected members, 20 were ofTurkish nationality and 12 were from former Yugoslavia, with the rest distributed over seven other nationalities. Apparently, Frankfurt was the first city in Germany to elect such a

board. Since then, other cities and Lander have fol- lowed suit.

15. The preceding discussion is based on KAV (1993) and the first two KAV Annual Reports, for 1992 and 1993.

16. Throughout Germany, every legally constituted Verein (association), from chess clubs to soccer leagues, is eligible for a state subsidy.

17. The following sampler of events illustrates the range of AMKA’s multicultural work with migrant and related German organizations: “Kissing God,” an anti-drug play; Project “Allochton,” Foreigners Write Their Own History; Ramadan Festival for students of the Paul Hin- demith School; Frankfurt Congress of Black Women; Benefit for the Flood Victims of Bangladesh; Kurdish Solidarity Event; “Hajabi,” a Kurdish Opera; Street Fes- tival in the Borough of Gutleut; Colonialism in Latin America: A Lecture-Discussion; International New Year’s Celebration (sponsored by the German-Afghan Committee for Reconstruction); Solidarity Concert for Croatian Refugees; Lutheran Academy Arnsheim: Semi- nar on Anti-Discrimination Legislation; International Dance around the Romer Fountain; Turkish Calligra- phy Exhibit. For a complete listing, see Wolf- Almanasreh et al. 1992, Appendix VI.

18. According to Steiner and Vellig (1994, 105), 19 percent of guest workers (in a survey covering the years 1984- 1989) expected to remain in Germany for less than 3 years, with another 20 percent projecting their stay to between 4 and 7 years. Only one-third of those inter- viewed regarded themselves as permanent settlers.

19. Assimilation is, of course, not a one-way street, especially when the number of migrants is large. As the Greens recognize, Germans will be changed by their daily contact with “foreigners” as much, perhaps, as “foreigners” will, in time, become more like Germans. In this process of mutual adaptation to each other, there are both losses and gains. And because the losses are more immediately obvious, they engender a fear of foreigners and of what continuing close contact with these “polluters” of ethnic purity might do to the treasured Deutschtum of Germanic ways.

20. For alternative projections of Germany’s “foreign” population, see Ulrich 1994.

REFERENCES

AMKA (Amt fur Multikulturelle Angelegenheiten). 1990. Zur Lage der Migranten. 1. und 2. Frankfurter Anhorung. Frankfurt am Main: AMKA.

AMKA. 1992. Frankfurter Anhorung ZUY Situation der Migratin- nen. In collaboration with the Dezernat fur Frauen und Gesundheit/Frauenreferat. Frankfurt am Main: AMKA.

Arras, Hartmut E., and Angelika Arras. 1991. Auslanderstadt- teile, Auslanderwohnblocks: Ja oder Nein? Grundlagen fur eine gespyachsorientierte Auseinandersetzung. Heft 1. Gegen den Wind gemeinsam: Multinational oder Multikulturell. Zwei Scenarien zum Auslanderwohnen. Heft 2: Definiti- onen, Informationen und Entwicklungen zum Thema multikulturelle Gesellschaft. Heft 3: Meinungen in

76 APA JOURNALmWINTER 1997 1



Frankfurt. Gesprachsergebnisse zu Einschatzungen, Hof- fnungen, und Befurchtungen uber das Zusammenleben einer multikulturellen Gesellschaft. Heft 4: Ergebnisse aus dem Forum: “Zusammenleben-living together-Bir- likte Ysamak.” Vorschlage unter Forderungen an eine auslanderorientierte Kommunalpolitik der Stadt Frank- furt. Im Auftrage des AMKA, etc. Frankfurt am Main: AMKA.

Baringhorst, Sigrid. 1995. Symbolic Highlights or Political Enlightenment? Strategies for Fighting Racism in Ger- many. In Racism Ethnicity and Politics in Contemporary Eu- rope, edited by Alex G. Hargreaves and Jeremy Leaman. Brookfield, V T Edw. Elgar.

Basch, Linda, et al. 1994. Nations Unbound: Transnational Projects, Postcolonial Predicaments, and Deterritorialized Nation-States. Langhorne: Gorden and Breach.

Castels, Stephen. 1993. Zuwanderung und Integration: Insti- tutionelle Modelle fur eine multikulturelle Politik auf der Ebene von Bund, Landern und Gemeinden. Frankfurt am Main: AMKA.

Castels, Stephen, and Mark J. Miller. 1993. The Age of Migra- tion: International Population Movements in the Modern World. New York: The Guilford Press.

Cohn-Bendit, Daniel, and Thomas Schmid. 1992. Heimat Babylon: Das Wagnis der multikulturellen Demokratie. Ham- burg: Hoffmann und Campe.

FeMigra (Feministische Migrantinnen, Frankfurt). 1994. Wir, die Seiltanzerinnen: Politische Strategien von Mi- grantinnen gegen Ethnisierung and Assimilation. In Gen- der Killer: Texte zu Feminismus und Politik, edited by Cornelia Eichhorn und Sabine Grimm. Berlin, Amsterdam: Edition ID-Archiv.

Forester, John. 1989. Planning in the Face of Power. Berkeley: University of California Press.

Forester, John. 1993. Critical Theory, Public Policy, and Planning Practice: Toward a Critical Pragmatism. Albany: State Univer- sity of New York Press.

Friedmann, John. 1995. Where We Stand: A Decade of World City Research. In World Cities in A World System, edited by Paul Knox and Peter Taylor. New York: Cambridge Uni- versity Press.

Grunen (die). 1990. Die Multikulturelle Gesellschaft: Fiir cine demokratische Umgestaltung in der Bundesrepublik: Positionen und Dokumentationen. Bonn: Die Grunen im Bundestag.

Guarnizo, Luis E. 1994. Los Dominicanyorks: The Making of a Binational Society. Annals, American Academy of Politi- cal and Social Science 533 (May): 70-86.

Habermas, Jurgen. 1981. The Theory of Communicative Action. 2 vols. Translated by Thomas McCarthy. Boston: Beacon Press.

Hoffmann-Axthelm, Dieter. 1993. Stadt und Einwanderung. Bauwelt/Stadtbauwelt 118: 1280.

Immigration Policy News. 1995. Vol. 2, no.2 (February 28). Washington, DC: The State and Local Coalition on Immi- gration.

Karpf, Ernst. 1993. Und mache es denen hiernachst Ankommen- den nicht so schwer: Kleine Geschichte der Zuwanderung nach Frankfurt a m Main. Frankfurt and New York Campus Verlag.

KAV (Kommunale Auslkderinnen und Auslandervertret- ung). 1993. Jahres bericht ’93. Frankfurt: KAV.

Keil, R., and Peter Lieser. 1992. Frankfurt: Global City-Lo- cal Politics. In Comparative Urban and Community Research 4, edited by Michael P. Smith. Brunswick: Transaction Press.

Lang, Markus, and Michael Wegener. 1994. Economic At- tractiveness and Social Exclusion: The Case of Frankfurt am Main. Universitat Dortmund, Institut fur Raum- plaung, Arbeitspapier 124.

Lenhart, Karin. 1992. Diplomarbeit. Freie Universitat Berlin, Fachbereich fur Politische Wissenschaft.

Martin, Philip L. 1993. Germany: Reluctant Land of Immi- gration. Department of Agricultural Economics, Univer- sity of California, Davis. Unpublished paper.

Martin, Philip L., and Elizabeth Midgley. 1994. Immigration to the United States: Journey to an Uncertain Destina- tion. The Population Bulletin 49, 2.

Morse, Ann. ed. 1994. America’s Newcomers: An Immigrant Pol- icy Handbook. Washington, DC: National Conference of State Legislatures, Immigrant Policy Project: State and Local Coalition on Immigration.

Noller, Peter, and Klaus Ronneberger. 1995. Die Neue Diens- tleistungsstadt: Berufimilieus in Frankfurt a m Main. Frankfurt: Campus Verlag.

Noormann, Jorg. 1994. Stadische Minderheitenpolitik in Frankfurt a.M.: Losungsansatz fur institutionell bedingte Kooperations- und Leistungsdefizite. In Politik der Multikultur: Vergleichende Perspektiuen zu Einwanderung und Integration, edited by Mechthild M. Jansen and Sigrid Bar- inghorst. Baden-Baden: Nomos.

Ronneberger, Klaus. 1994. Zitadellenokonomie und soziale Transformation der Stadt. In Stadt-Welt: Uber die Globalisier- ungstidtischer Milieus, edited by Petter Noller et al. Frank- furt and New York: Campus Verlag.

Sandercock, Leonie. 1995. Voices from the Borderlands: A Meditation on a Metaphor. Journal of Planning Education and Research 14, 2(Winter): 77-8.

Sassen, Saskia. 1994. Cities in the World Economy. Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press.

Schildhauer, Johannes. 1988. The Hmsa: History and Culture. Leipzig: Dorset Press.

Schmid, Thomas. 1992. Nicht-Deutsche in einer deutschen GroJ- stadt: Uber die Entwicklung der auslandischen Population in Frankfurt a m Main. Frankfurt: AMKA.

Steiner, Viktor, and Johannes Velling. 1994. Re-migration Behavior and Expected Duration of Stay of Guest Work- ers in Germany. In The Economic Consequences oflmnzigration to Gemany, edited by Gunter Steinmann and Ralf E. U1- rich. Heidelberg: Physika-Verlag, Chap. 6.

Steinmann, Gunter, and Ralf E. Ulrich, eds. 1994. The Eco- nomic Consequences of Immigration to Germany, Heidelberg: Physika-Verlag.

Ulrich, Ralf. 1994. The Future Growth of Foreign Popula- tion in Germany. In The Economic Consequences of Immigra- tion to Germany, edited by Gunter Steinmann and Ralf E. Ulrich. Heidelberg: Physica-Verlag. Chap 2.

Vernez, Georges. 1993. Needed: A Federal Role in Helping Communities Cope with Immigration. Rand/RP- 177. Re-

APA JOURNAL-WINTER 1997 (77



printed from Urban America. Santa Monica: The RAND Weidenfeld, Werner, ed. 1994. Das europaische Einwanderung- Corporation. skonzept: Strategzen und Optionen fur Europa. Giiterloh: Ver-

Vernez, Georges. 1994. Comparison of Immigration dnd Refugee lag Bertelsmann Stiftung. Policy Regimes Among Major Western Nations: A Documented Wolf-Almanasreh, Rosi, und MitarbeiterInnen. 1993. Briefing. DRU-757-FF/CC. Santa Monica, CA: The RAND Zweieinhalb Jahre Amt fur Multikulturelle Angelegenheiten. Corporation. Frankfurt: AMKA.

'Y es and Urban the End of the Century Allen J. Scott & Edward W. Soja, Editors "A fascinating account of an important urban region "-Robert A

Beauregard, New School for Social Research

"The work has significance far beyond the borders of California "

-Richard Walker, U C , Berkeley $40 00 cloth, illustrated

STREETS Critical Perspectives on Public Space Zeynep Celik, Diane Favro, and Richard Ingersoll, Editors Introductory Essay by Spiro Kostof New in paperback-"The volume makes a compelling plea for understanding and preserv- ing urban difference "-Choice $19 95 paper, illustrated

At bookstores or order 1-800-822-6657.



Documents

Urban Policy Responses to Foreign In-Migration: The Case of Frankfurt-am-Main