There are of course different sides, and in
particular chains of events, to everything. When those who speak for us in the
public sphere are mostly dramatic and alarmist politicians and journalists, it
becomes even more important to differentiate between and find the true causes
things.
That there are many migrants or people
with "foreign heritage" living in the Million Programme[1] areas has now
been a part of the Swedish discourse for nearly half a century. And that this is
something negative has almost become an axiom. But why? And is it so? And if
so, why? This is just a brief input made to lift a broader conversation on this
topic.
Concentrations of populace are in
themselves by definition not a problem. The problem is that certain "concentrations"
are not reached by the same information as other concentrations, such as information
about available jobs. Information about which schools are good, how to quickly
receive care and other things that are essential in our lives, is also missing
or scarce.
With this information deficit, many in the
concentrations of immigrant and million programme populace (migrants +
traditional working class) end up in unfavorable situations. The reason then for
these unfavorable situations is not the concentration itself but primarily that
our public sector has failed and is failing to provide information to all
citizens equally well. The objective to get information out to
"everyone" is often formulated in government agency directives, and
it is also a prerequisite in order for the "market" that the public
sector provides (the school market for instance) to work. It is a pillar of
market economy that everyone know the supply available so that they can demand
it.
The prime example of this failure can be
found in jobs and public sector recruitment: today the majority of workers in
the private sector are recruited through informal recruitment, and a very large
part similarly in the public sector (according to the Swedish Agency for
Government Employers (SAGE) around half of the people employed by government
authorities, for example). Only a few years ago virtually no jobs offered
through informal recruiting went to immigrants,
presumably because these jobs never become visible to the target group
and so cannot be applied for – those who can demand the supply do not see it.
Another drawback with the concentrations as
they operate without proper information is that research on empathy, for
example that of Ervin Staub, provides much evidence suggesting that we care
less about people we do not deal with. On this topic there is a good short Ted talk
which shows how voters in the U.S. reason. This makes it a problem having
concentrations who live separate lives and who also, because of information
deficits, do not meet on the platforms (jobs, events, associations) which are available
outside of work for people to meet. However, all of that is mostly due to
external factors and not due to the concentration in itself being bad. In
theory, we would not live apart if information availability was the same for
everyone and we met on other platforms. How often is it that one’s neighbors or
those who live in one’s area are the ones one has the most exchanges, meetings,
and relations with?
If you were employed, knew the same schools
as the majority, and so on, and so on, your contact with mainstream society
would happen that way, just like for most people. Compare – just to illustrate
the point – how many people that ever date a neighbor to how many people ever
date a colleague. What you have right in your neighborhood becomes a safety
factor, but not what gives you an "in" into society or social situations,
which of course is also the prerequisite for new opportunities to open up in
our lives.
