Onward (Im)Mobilities and Integration Processes of Refugee Newcomers in Rural Bavaria, Germany

Chosen by some and an ‘accidental’ host country for others as they have got stuck on their way to other places, in the last decade Germany has become the European country hosting the greatest number of forced migrants in absolute numbers. Having arrived by means of illegal entry, resettlement schemes, relocation within the EU or in the course of family reunion, freedom of movement and onward mobility is limited for asylum seekers as well as recognized and resettled refugees, by a dispersal policy and a residence rule, which has led to a situation in which forced migrants are not only situated in urban areas, but must also increasingly be considered a rural phenomenon. While population development in rural areas has been framed by the attributes ‘ageing’ and ‘decreasing’ for many years, going hand in hand with the necessity of safeguarding and adapting the provision of infrastructures and services, the (re)settlement of forced migrants in these regions has been seen as a possibility by many actors in the last couple of years. However, due to migrants’ expectations of onward mobilities towards cities, it remained unclear, whether forced migrants can sustainably reverse population decline, and counteract labor and skill shortages and the decline of infrastructures and services.

Against this backdrop, the goal of the thesis was to better understand the onward (im)mobilities and integration processes of these ‘refugee newcomers’ (i.e. asylum seekers and recognized and resettled refugees) in rural areas in Germany, focusing on rural specificities in terms of settlement and integration. The theoretical-conceptual aim, accordingly, was to contribute to the field of migration and human (im)mobility research. Empirically, the thesis aimed, firstly, to analyze the discursive framing of refugee settlement processes in rural areas; secondly, to analyze the residential and everyday (im)mobilities of refugee newcomers in rural areas, drawing on the new mobilities paradigm, and, thirdly, to identify the characteristics of mechanisms of socio-spatial exclusion and inclusion of forced migrants in rural areas in terms of everyday mobility and access to housing. Methodologically and ethically, the project sought to develop and enhance sound research tools that are able to give voice to refugee newcomers, and better able to integrate them in re- search processes, leading to an enhanced understanding of their life-worlds in general and of their experience of socio-spatial exclusion and inclusion specifically. To achieve these goals, the dissertation is based on an interdisciplinary multi-method approach. Empirical research was conducted in rural Bavaria, Germany, and the results are presented in a series of five articles. Each article addresses particular aspects of onward (im)mobilities and integration processes as well as methodological issues.

Because refugees had already been subject to dispersal policies and residence rules, and in acknowledgement of the call for a historic turn in social sciences in general (McDonald 1996) and migration studies specifically (Bade 1987; Martiniello 2013), the first paper (#1 NRG) aims to add a historical perspective to the debate. By means of comparing policy narratives in favor of the spatial distribution of forced migrants towards rural areas in Germany during the most important periods and among the most prominent groups of refugee newcomers, i.e. refugees and expellees after World War II and asylum seekers and recognized refugees in the 2010s, the article shows that – even in changing economic and social contexts – three policy narratives on the distribution of forced migrants to rural areas continued to per- sist over time. Consequently, political actors intertwine aspects of burden sharing with issues of regional development of rural areas; i.e. they see refugee newcomers as a source of potential for development in the realms of housing and the labor market as well as for the provision of infrastructure, revealing the expectation of a migration-development-nexus, which was previously largely discussed in relation to the sending countries.

The second (#2 EUR) and third (#3 ERD) papers then discuss the onward (im)mobilities of forced migrants - especially with regard to the question of whether they move on to cities, as – along with immigration – this could hamper the governance of spatial development. Results from a quantitative survey and qualitative interviews with refugee newcomers and local actors revealed the complex (im)mobility trajectories of forced migrants. While forced onward mobility occurs during the asylum procedure due to the profitability of providers’ of accommoda- tion, and as a result of disciplinary measures and safety issues, after recognition other patterns of onward mobilities, including moving back and forth, i.e. rural-urban-migration, re-migration to rural areas and rural in-migration, and staying put (especially in rural small towns) can be identified. However, everyday mobility processes of varying duration result in periods during which forced migrants are absent as well as periods during which they are present. These processes indicate interdepend- ency between residential and everyday mobilities and reveal the refugee newcomers’ reaction against the sedentarist logic of the state.

The fourth (#4 JRS) and fifth (#5 IMI) papers attempt to contrast the political actors’ lines of arguments with the everyday experiences of forced migrants. The everyday mobility of the population and refugee newcomers is a core issue in rural areas and was thus added to the integration model of Ager and Strang (2008) as an additional facilitating key component of integration. However, the newcomers’ socio-spatial exclusion and inclusion in terms of everyday mobility is dynamic over time and depends on a number of things, including the availability of transport opportunities to places, the safety and security of the route, and the measures provided by local actors and refugee communities as well as their own mobility aspirations, family situations, and their agency and resources. Empirical data confirm that access to housing, seen as easily available in rural areas from a political actor’s perspective, is another important means and marker of integration. As with everyday mobility, forced migrants’ socio-spatial exclusion and inclusion in terms of access to housing is dynamic over time and depends on a variety of interwoven factors: the number of houses available in the local housing market, the size, condition and location of available rental apartments, the previous experience of landlords and real estate agents, and measures provided by local actors and refugee communities as well as newcomers’ own residential preferences, family situation, their agency and resources.

To analyze the spatial and temporal dimension of forced migrants’ life-worlds, i.e. their everyday mobilities and the meanings they attach to places (#4 JRS) as well as their residential preferences and actions over time (#5 IMI), the thesis drew on both biographical-narrative and participatory and visual approaches, and integrated the timeline tool and mobility mapping into biographical-narrative interviews. Due to their mostly visual character, the interviews were more independent of participants’ reading and writing abilities and thus able to better integrate refugee newcomers into the research process. The graphic visualization supported forced migrants’ ability to remember and chronologically structure residential locations and life events and strengthened their ability to express themselves. In this way, interaction and discussion was stimulated, allowing for a collaborative analysis even at the interview stage, reducing asymmetries of power and raising self-awareness among participants.

Based on its findings, the thesis recommends that future research should more systematically focus on how receiving societies influence the integration of forced migrants, i.e. ‘refugee-integration-opportunity structures’ (Phillimore 2020), bearing in mind the important role that place and locality have on integration. Secondly, it should seek to compare both refugee newcomers’ decision-making processes about moving on or staying put and their experiences of mechanisms of socio-spatial exclusion and inclusion with those of other groups residing in rural areas, e.g. children, teenagers, seniors, illiterates, individuals with limited financial resources, and people of color or other migrants (‘de-migranticization’, Dahinden 2016). Finally, the thesis suggests a need for longitudinal studies on the life-worlds of refugee newcomers.