Paradoxes of Social Capital myriam cherti A Multi-Generational Study of Moroccans in London A m s t e r d a m U n i v e r s i t y P r e s s diSSertationS imiscoe Paradoxes of Social Capital IMISCOE (International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion) IMISCOE is a Network of Excellence uniting over 500 researchers from various institutes that specialise in migration studies across Europe. Networks of Excel- lence are cooperative research ventures that were created by the European Commission to help overcome the fragmentation of international studies. They amass a crucial source of knowledge and expertise to help inform European leadership today. Since its foundation in 2004, IMISCOE has advanced an integrated, multi- disciplinary and globally comparative research programme to address the themes specified in its name, short for: International Migration, Integration and Social Cohesion in Europe. IMISCOE members come from all branches of the economic and social sciences, the humanities and law. The Network draws from existing studies and advances innovative lines of inquiry key to European policymaking and governance. Priority is placed on developing a theoretical de- sign to promote new research and offer practical alternatives for sound policy. The IMISCOE-Amsterdam University Press Series was created to make the Network’s findings and results available to researchers, policymakers, the media and the public at large. High-quality manuscripts authored by IMISCOE members and cooperating partners are published in one of four distinct series. Research Reports Dissertations Textbooks The RESEARCH series presents empirical and theoretical scholarship addres- sing issues of international migration, integration and social cohesion in Eur- ope. Authored by experts in the field, the works provide a rich reference source for researchers and other concerned parties. The REPORTS series responds to needs for knowledge within IMISCOE’s mandated fields of migration research. Compiled by leading specialists, the works disseminate succinct and timely information for European policymakers, practitioners and other stakeholders. The DISSERTATIONS series showcases select PhD monographs written by IMISCOE doctoral candidates. The works span an array of fields within studies of international migration, integration and social cohesion in Europe. The TEXTBOOKS series produces manuals, handbooks and other didactic tools developed by specialists in migration studies. The works are used within the IMISCOE training programme and for educational purposes by academic insti- tutes worldwide. IMISCOE Policy Briefs and more information on the Network can be found at www.imiscoe.org. Paradoxes of Social Capital A Multi-Generational Study of Moroccans in London Myriam Cherti IMISCOE Dissertations Cover design: Studio Jan de Boer BNO , Amsterdam Layout: The DocWorkers, Almere ISBN 978 90 5356 032 7 NUR 741 / 763 © IMISCOE / Amsterdam University Press, 2008 All rights reserved. Without limiting the rights under copyright re- served above, no part of this book may be reproduced, stored in or in- troduced into a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without the written permission of both the copyright owner and the author of the book. Dedicated to my parents, Latifa and Mohammed Table of contents Acknowledgements 13 1 Introduction 15 1.1 Purpose of the study 16 1.2 Justification for the study 18 1.3 Book structure 21 2 Theoretical overview 23 2.1 Introduction 23 2.2 Classical and ‘contemporary’ migration paradigms 23 2.3 A social capital approach 32 2.4 Ethnicity, social capital and social exclusion: conceptual links 45 2.5 Summing up 54 3 Methodology 57 3.1 Introduction 57 3.2 The research methods chosen 57 3.3 Sampling 62 3.4 Analysis 65 3.5 Research challenges 67 3.6 Summing up 71 4 Moroccan migration to Britain/London: a historical overview 73 4.1 Introduction 73 4.2 Early historical perspective 74 4.3 A recent history of Moroccan migration to Britain/London 77 4.4 The main phase of Moroccan migration to Britain 78 4.5 Making a new life in Britain 88 4.6 Transnational lives and local identities 95 4.7 Strengths and weaknesses of the Moroccan community living in London 98 4.8 Summing up 107 5 Social capital across two generations 109 5.1 Introduction 109 5.2 Networks 110 5.3 Reciprocity 129 5.4 Trust 133 5.5 Civic engagement 138 5.6 Summing up 146 6 A meso-level analysis of social capital: Moroccan organisations in action 149 6.1 Introduction 149 6.2 The meso level of social capital 150 6.3 Contextual framework: central and local government policies 152 6.4 An overview of the selected organisations 156 6.5 Assessing social capital within Moroccan organisations 169 6.6 Ongoing challenges faced by Moroccan organisations 180 6.7 Summing up 185 7 Education, social capital and ‘integration’ 187 7.1 Introduction 187 7.2 Education and social capital: the links 187 7.3 Educational channels 190 7.4 An overview of the second generation’s educational attainment 202 7.5 Factors influencing the educational attainment of Moroccan children 207 7.6 Education, social exclusion and social capital 219 7.7 Summing up 228 8 ‘Integration’: Which identities? Whose social norms? 231 8.1 Introduction 231 8.2 Social identities, ethnic identities and social capital: the links 231 8.3 Elements of ‘identity’ 235 8.4 ‘Integrating’ according to whose norms? 255 8.5 ‘Segmented assimilation’ or ‘transversal adaptation’? 271 8.6 Summing up 284 9 Conclusions 285 9.1 How useful is social capital as an analytical framework? 289 9.2 Some policy implications 292 9.3 Areas for future research 295 8 PARADOXES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL Notes 297 Appendices 301 Bibliography 321 TABLE OF CONTENTS 9 List of tables and figures Tables 2.1 Human capital compared to social capital 4.1 Employment of Moroccans in London by industry sector 5.1 Levels of trust in Moroccans in London 5.2 Levels of trust in Moroccans living in Morocco 5.3 Levels of trust in ‘non-Moroccans’ in London 5.4 Levels of community involvement amongst Moroccans in London 5.5 Type of membership in organisations amongst Moroccans in London 5.6 Voting patterns amongst Moroccans in London 5.7 Newspaper readership amongst Moroccans in London 6.1 Background and type of organisations 6.2 Organisational capacity 6.3 Matrix of social capital components 6.4 Networks and partnerships 6.5 Bonding, bridging and linking social capital amongst the five types of Moroccan organisation 7.1 Perspectives on educational achievement in the second generation 7.2 Educational standards at Holland Park School 7.3 Educational standards at North Westminster Community 7.4 Educational standards at St Mary Catholic Primary School 7.5 A profile of the educational level and career choices of second- generation Moroccans in London 7.6 Percentages of exclusion amongst Moroccan and Arab students 7.7 School distribution in seven London boroughs in 2003/2004 7.8 A comparative table of the professional background of parents and the educational level and career choices of the children 8.1 Self-identity, sense of belonging and choice of spouse of the younger-generation Moroccans 8.2 Self-identity, sense of belonging and choice of spouse according to twelve ‘independent’ third-generation Moroccans Figures 2.1 Main components in social capital 5.1 The uses of TV across the first and second generations of Moroccans 6.1 Controlled, influenced and appreciated environments of NGOs 6.2 A tentative mapping out of the different positionings and networks of Moroccan organisations 6.3 Organisation life cycle 7.1 Internal and external factors affecting school achievement 8.1 Transversal adaptation processes 8.2 Transversal adaptation processes of internal and external (re)positioning 12 PARADOXES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL Acknowledgements This research has had a long gestation period and I have accumulated debts to many people en route . The study was initially meant to be a comparative research on second-generation Moroccans in Paris and Amsterdam. Destiny took its toll, and I ended up working for a Moroc- can association at the heart of ‘little Morocco’ in London. It was the long conversations that I had with my former work colleagues and cli- ents at Al-Hasaniya, to whom I am extremely grateful, that inspired me to change direction somewhat and pursue this project. This re- search also depended on the help and goodwill of a great many indivi- duals. I would like to thank all my interviewees who appear on these pages, who brought this research to life and who spent time and effort on my behalf. I am most grateful to Ali Lazizi for his initial help in es- tablishing contact with Moroccans in London and for all his words of wisdom and comfort throughout. I am also grateful to Abdulmajid Semlalli and Rabah Kaddouri for providing me with some unique his- torical resources. My deepest appreciation also goes to Anass Khales and Abdelaziz Bouyerman for their invaluable support when I was con- ducting part of my fieldwork. I am greatly indebted to a remarkable man, Professor Russell King, my DPhil supervisor at Sussex, for his patience, guidance and support in the preparation of this book and for his great generosity of spirit over the course of its development. Words of gratitude are also due to Professors Jan Rath and Alistair Thomson, my DPhil examiners, for their critical observations and for the pleasure of a lively scholarly dis- cussion. My sincere thanks also go to Professor Peter Townsend, my former tutor at the London School of Economics (LSE), for being my initial source of inspiration for conducting this research. Our long discus- sions and his continuous uplifting comments convinced me to perse- vere with my research ambitions. I am also truly thankful to Dr. Mi- chael Willis for his sustained encouragement and for providing me his invaluable support whenever needed. I am also grateful to the University of Sussex for granting me a two- year Graduate Teaching Assistantship. Apart from giving me the oppor- tunity to pursue this project, I also had the privilege of teaching an in- credible group of young people to whom I owe words of gratitude. You certainly made my stay at the university worthwhile! My thanks are due also to my friends and former colleagues at Sussex University – Gail Hopkins and Nayla Moukarbel – for their invaluable help, advice and wonderful friendship. To Jenny Money, I owe infinite gratitude for generously offering her support from the first day we met back in 2000. Thank you for standing by me at all times! From the IMISCOE Network Office, I am extremely thankful to Karina Hof for her patience and remarkable assistance in the preparation of this book. I am very grateful as well to the three anonymous referees whose feedback and suggestions were crucial during revisions of the manuscript. I am also truly grateful to all my colleagues at the Migrant and Refu- gee Communities Forum: Zrinka Bralo, David Palmer, Sandra Coker, Natasha David, Sofia Aman, Senait Ross, Oleg Pasichnyi, Razmi Far- ook, Fidaa Mahmoud and Sonia Zivak. Without their genuine kind- heartedness, patience and ongoing encouragement, it would have been very difficult to complete this research. My deepest appreciation goes to Driss S. for bringing a beam of hope towards the completion of my research at a time when all doors seemed to have closed. I am also most grateful to Bridget Davies for her gentle motivation and encouraging feedback on my writing. I am extremely fortunate to have the most kind-hearted and indul- gent friends, especially those with whom I have lost touch in the course of writing this research! My thanks go to Laila Ibnlfassi, Nabila Cherkaoui, Latifa Debbarh, Salima Khaloufi, Karim Harzallah, Assmae Hmimed, Aisling Byrne, Amjad and Maysoun Taha, Khaled Hroub, Kholoud Amr, Hind Taleb, Tarik Sabry, Ihab Saloul, Mohammed Bou- doudou, Natalia Ribas, Nicola Mai, Taghrid El Sanhouri, Carol Pascual, Maria Gonzales, Chris Abuk, Nadia Lamrani and Sara Silvestri. My sincere thanks go to Nora Hussein for being my continuous sounding board over the entire process of writing and editing this re- search. Thank you for all the enjoyable cups of coffee and the stimulat- ing discussions, but most of all thank you for your precious friendship. Finally, I would like to pay tribute to my beloved family who had faith in me and accompanied me through the ups and down of this journey. I must thank my parents, as well as other family members – Khalid, Hasna, Asmae, Rajae, Linda and little Zhira. 14 PARADOXES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL 1 Introduction Regardless of their particularities, past studies of immigrant offspring have taken for granted their foreseeable total ‘integration’ into the host society. This predicted process, however, is neither as simple nor inevi- table as was originally envisioned. Instead, and as seen in many West European countries, there is a growing phenomenon of fragmented or dual communities, characterised by social exclusion, spatial segregation and, in many cases, mounting urban violence (e.g. the Oldham, Brad- ford and Burnley riots in 2001 and the Paris riots in 2005). These ‘ci- ties-within-cities’ are often sustained by the operation of solidarity and trust , which create valuable support networks and unique economic op- portunities for immigrants, as well as creating ‘guarded’ areas for the second generation. These communities can be perceived to depend on their [ethnic] social capital: a concept associated particularly with Pierre Bourdieu (1986), James Coleman (1988, 1990) and Robert Putnam (1993a, b, 1995, 2000) that broadly refers to social networks, the reci- procities that arise from them and the value of these for the achieve- ment of mutual goals. Paradoxically, however, this same ‘resource’ that seems to be responsible for their segregation, and even exclusion from mainstream society in the first place, is also considered to be their main asset towards achieving ‘integration’. So far, community, civil society and social capital have become the central themes of the community cohesion discourse both nationally and internationally. In the British context, social capital has come to the forefront of the government agenda, and across various depart- ments. Over the past few years this interest has generated a significant amount of cross-departmental research, statistics and policy initiatives. 1 An emphasis on two particular types of social capital – ‘bonding’ or the inward-looking reinforcing of bonds within groups, and ‘bridging’ be- tween different groups/communities (Putnam 2000) – seems to be the desired solution. A number of policy initiatives attest that social capital is in the vanguard of the government agenda with the purpose of en- hancing community cohesion (Jochum, Pratten & Wilding 2005). The emergence of a new policy agenda utilising the concepts of ‘civil renewal’ and ‘social capital’ has included the Cabinet Office’s introduc- tion of discussion papers on the subject of social capital in 2002; the Prime Minister’s Strategy Unit’s report Ethnic Minorities in the Labour Market in March 2003, where social capital was proclaimed as one of the prerequisites for addressing disadvantage in the workplace; and the Home Secretary’s declared intention of making civil renewal ‘the cen- trepiece of the government’s reform agenda’ in June 2003. Some of these initiatives, as Goulbourne and Solomos (2003) sug- gest, can be perceived as part of a natural drive towards equality for all in a multicultural society, active participation within communities and social cohesion as expressed by so many state policy initiatives, particu- larly since the mid-1990s in Britain. Social capital as a conceptual tool to tackle social exclusion and create more social cohesion has been part of a wider government rhetoric (see for example reports on urban dis- turbances in northern England, Home Office 2001a, b). Goulbourne and Solomos (2003) also argue that, whilst the government does not have ‘a social capital strategy’, notions derived from social capital think- ing inform discussions about neighbourhood renewal, family, commu- nity and citizenship, amongst others. These are all conceived in terms of collective social action and it may be argued that, particularly within the context of a multicultural society, the notion of social capital is at- tractive. It is not surprising, therefore, to see that even the Commission for Race Equality (CRE) 2 has also embraced the concept: ‘[the] work has important implications for the CRE’s integration agenda [...] It may be the case that social capital has a role to play in providing a means of measuring integration’ (www.cre.gov.uk/research/itt_socialcapital. html). Yet is social capital really the missing link in achieving community cohesion? At what level can social capital become a causal factor for so- cial cohesion, and at what level does it become an obstacle to integra- tion, leading to ghettoisation and exclusion? Finally, can social cohe- sion be maintained without challenging the ethos of the multicultural- ist discourse? In this introductory chapter I shall, firstly, state the purpose of this research and outline the key research questions posited; secondly, ex- plain the reasoning behind choosing social capital as an analytical fra- mework and Moroccans in London as a case study; and finally, provide an outline of the book structure. 1.1 Purpose of the study The purpose of this study is to examine the robustness of social capital as an analytical tool in explaining the differing patterns of ‘integration’ amongst the Moroccan community in London, including ‘integration’ across generations. This contextual study of social capital considers 16 PARADOXES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL also how structural factors impact on the way in which Moroccans sus- tain and access social capital in diverse ways. The aims of the study are: L to reconstruct some of the key elements of the experience of Moroc- can migration to London; L to explore whether social capital access, distribution and usage differ across generations; L to examine how social capital operates as a resource and/or a liabili- ty at the levels of family, community, migrant associations and schools; L to assess and highlight the possible pitfalls of the emphasis on so- cial capital in the British policy context, with particular focus on mi- grant associations and schools; L to investigate the applicability of American paradigms in the study of second-generation migrants to the British context. The four key research questions formulated around these aims are as follows: 1. Can social capital be of added value in explaining the various ‘inte- gration’ patterns across the Moroccan community in London? L Are there any variations between levels of ‘integration’ in families living in North Kensington, where the majority of Moroccans live, and other London boroughs? L Is the lack of visibility and influence of Moroccan migrant asso- ciations an indicator of low ‘bridging’ social capital? L Can social capital explain low educational achievement amongst second- and third-generation Moroccans? Or can educational achievement be interpreted in terms of a low level of social capi- tal within the families and communities? L How do younger members of the Moroccan community – second and third generation – articulate their sense of identity, and what are the main determinants influencing it? 2. Can the existence of social capital amongst immigrants paradoxi- cally increase social exclusion within the host society? L Is the specific migration experience of Moroccans in London – particularly the first generation – an indicator of a predominant type of social capital (i.e. ‘bonding’) that exists within the com- munity? INTRODUCTION 17 L Is social capital an intrinsically positive ‘asset’ that contributes to social inclusion and ultimately promotes social cohesion? Or do different types of social capital (i.e. bonding and bridging) lead to dissimilar results? L Are Moroccan migrant associations playing an active role in brid- ging, or in widening the gap between migrant communities and the host society? 3. How do policy initiatives, both national and local, influence the role of social capital amongst migrant communities? 4. To what extent is the large body of research on the second genera- tion in America applicable to the British context? L Can concepts such as ‘segmented assimilation’, which foresees the second generation assimilating into three different segments of American society instead of the relatively uniform ‘main- stream’, be applicable to the British context? 1.2 Justification for the study 1.2.1 The choice of social capital as an analytical framework Although there is a fast-growing literature on social capital and its al- leged beneficial effects in various fields, social, economic and political, only a limited amount of this literature explores the relationship be- tween ethnicity and social capital (Goulbourne & Solomos 2003). Most of the empirical research that has incorporated the two concepts (social capital and ethnicity) was conducted in America (Bankston & Zhou 1995; Portes 1987; Portes & Sensenbrenner 1993; Sun 1998; Zhou 1997a; Zhou & Bankston 1998). Interestingly, Tariq Modood (2004) ar- gues that this work resonates with earlier British anthropological ap- proaches which conceptualise ethnicity as a ‘resource’. Using social ca- pital as an analytical tool draws attention away from the classical fac- tors (physical, financial and human capital) affecting the ‘integration’ of immigrants and their families. Unlike ethnicity, the concept of social capital can highlight the internal dynamics as well as relational/exter- nal factors that influence the ‘integration’ process. Social capital as a re- source, according to Portes and Sensenbrenner (1993), is directly pro- portional to the strength of outside discrimination and inversely pro- portional to the available options outside the community. What happens on the outside must be balanced, however, with the resources available in the ethnic community itself. 18 PARADOXES OF SOCIAL CAPITAL The abundance of research in the American context is due to the nature of the American tradition of inquiry into racial and ethnic iden- tity and solidarity as applied to the field of family studies, which sets out questions that may be quantified or measured by widely acceptable empirical norms. Hence, there are questions about a wide range of is- sues to do with ethnicity, family and social capital, such as education, employment and residence (Bianchi & Robinson 1997; Driessen 2001). The same degree of attention has not been evident in Britain; although a few attempts were made primarily in the field of education (see, for example, Lauglo 2000; Modood 2004). On a policy level, however, a similar interest by policymakers in American and British contexts has taken place. Ade Kearns (2003) sug- gests that the critical role attributed to social capital in the regeneration of deprived areas, and the building of community cohesion in British cities fit nicely with New Labour’s so-called ‘Third Way’ politics. This, according to Giddens (2000), is about steering a middle ground be- tween highly statist policies and neo-liberal free-market policies. Third Way politics supports the notion that self-help activities undertaken within existing market and governmental structures are the way for- ward for disadvantaged groups and communities. Kearns (2003) further argues that the government’s role is to remove the barriers to self-help , be they lack of skills or fear of crime. This ap- proach avoids the issues of structural inequalities and redistribution of power and resources, since the ethos is to ‘help others to help them- selves’, to such an extent that almost anyone and everyone can be crea- tive and achieve success, given the opportunity. Those who oppose the authoritarian implications of the communitarian approach to Third Way policies nevertheless offer a creative and optimistic alternative that markets and communities, financial and social capital , ‘should be har- nessed’ to ‘make us better off, put us more in charge of our lives and make us better able to look after ourselves’ (Leadbeater 1999: 16). The government thus should help communities to ‘harness’ social capital resources, but it does not have to (re)distribute resources. Hence, rather than rely upon state intervention, Kearns (2003) further argues that Third Way politics involves greater use of the private, voluntary and community sectors in the delivery of services and the creation of partnerships and networks based on trust between the state, busi- nesses, voluntary and public sectors. With this approach, not only does the role of the state change , but so too does the role of the citizen, with a much stronger emphasis upon the ‘responsible and responsive indi- vidual – the notion of the developmental self, and the idea that through help and education people can improve’ (Richards & Smith 2002: 237). The social capital concept, therefore, is perfectly compatible with New Labour’s Third Way philosophy. In addition, since social capital is INTRODUCTION 19