By Ricard Zapata-Barrero, GRITIM, Pompeu Fabra University, Barcelona
A re-examination of the local turn literature (Zapata-Barrero et al., 2017), with a focus on the normative assumptions that has helped to articulate the debates, may necessitate a re-set of the local turn so as to broaden the scope of cities. This would include, but not be limited to, those that are active, though probably less migrant-friendly. The exclusive cities are those that actively construct a policy narrative against migrants and their inclusion.
The local turn in mainstream debates has been presented as an epistemological endeavour to scale migration governance and to rethink the way we problematise migration. This is a claim against the nationalist methodology dominance and state-centrism in migration governance. It is also a way of saying that the local begins to show dynamics that emancipate from the state hierarchy. One such example is that, concomitantly with the state pursuing border control measures, such as the exclusion of migrants, it can also pursue de-bordering processes (e.g., the provision of fundamental rights to undocumented migrants), as has been recently argued (Zapata-Barrero, 2024). Examples of other debates employed in framing debates include welcoming cities, refugee cities, solidarity cities and sanctuary cities. Most of the policy branding has been undertaken under the normative assumption that the local turn is solely concerned with analysing the significant variability of “good cities”.
In the context of this scholarly debate, two hypotheses have been proposed and subsequently accepted. However, the possibility still exists for the incorporation of further hypotheses. Firstly, it is proposed that cities begin to exercise agency because they must address global challenges with local means (Barber, 2014). In the field of migration studies, this frequently gives rise to a second hypothesis that directly addresses the relationship between city-states. The decoupling hypothesis posits that local political dynamics initiate a process of disengagement by establishing their own migration governance agenda (Filomeno, 2017; Lacroix & Desille, 2018; Oomen, 2019; Scholten & Penninx, 2016). This process frequently results in a deconstructive phase, during which cities begin to formulate their own migration agenda, which often creates tension with state narratives and regulations.
The two strands of debate hereby presented invite the reader to rethink the multi-level system of power distribution in a given national context. The local turn debate further assumes the necessity of decentralising both power and decision-making processes, advocating for enhanced autonomy and sovereignty for urban areas. Indeed, this constitutes the crux of the local turn debate, whereby cities begin to make autonomous decisions and claim more space for sovereignty over migration governance. These perspectives have the potential to establish novel narrative frameworks, an autonomous agenda for migration governance, the consolidation of networks with other cities and non-governmental organisations (NGOs) (Caponio, 2021), and even the reorientation of local external relations through the establishment of new partnerships with other cities and the incorporation of migration within local diplomacy (Zapata-Barrero, 2022; Kılınçarslan, 2025). The second hypothesis under discussion here posits the notion that cities are increasingly adopting a claim-making approach to gain recognition as both national and global actors, and even geopolitical entities in their own right. This urban activism, which can be defined as a form of social movement, is characterised by its resistance to state control and the existing global order, as well as its disruption of established hierarchies and power dynamics. In this sense, it can be argued that active cities are becoming the norm for those experiencing high levels of migration, and that this is indicative of a growing rebellious spirit.
It is evident that these debates have been a dominant force in the discourse surrounding the local turn, and their influence persists to this day. These debates operate under the assumption that cities are characterised by inclusivity and proactivity, demonstrating a commitment to human rights and the combatting of discrimination and racism through contentious politics. The following cities are worthy of consideration. The concept of inclusive and urban rights cities is predicated on the premise that certain cities are not only active in terms of their political and social dynamics, but also engage in practices that are exclusionary towards migrants. These cities, that may be referred to as ‘bad cities’, utilise their political and social activism to further the exclusion of migrants and to privilege natives over migrants. This activism can be seen as a contributing factor to the nurturing of racism, xenophobia and even nativist ideology.
Within the mainstream discussion pattern of the ‘local turn’, the debate has fallen within an iron jacket that can be summarised under the supposed binary (also used for analytical purposes — we know how nuanced the reality is) of ‘good cities/bad states’. Migration governance issues are complex and can easily fall into false dichotomies. The fact is that states can be good and cities can be bad, and vice versa. Therefore, many potential scenarios can be analysed to emphasise that the local turn should avoid the binaries of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cities or states in migration governance. In fact, the following normative assumptions need to be discussed: the ‘naturalness’ of the local; the normative drivers of social justice and human rights; and the belief that cities decentralise state power by making more claims. Revitalising the local turn debate means broadening the scope of cities deserving analysis and being open to a plurality of models within the multi-scale framework of research.
It is necessary to challenge this normative assumption when the local turn falls into what is known as the ‘local trap’ in urban studies. This is an unquestioned assumption that the local scale is inherently more democratic than other scales (Purcell, 2006: 1921). Cities are not inherently progressive, and we agree with Russell (2019: 1) who argues that ‘rather than essentialising cities as inherently progressive or democratic, the municipal is instead being framed as a “strategic front” for developing a transformative politics of scale’. The debate on the local trap is closely related to debates on urban justice and the right to the city. It is also a reaction to literature on urban democracy and urban citizenship, which has become widespread due to innovative ideas about making cities transformative. However, it can also be applied to literature on the local turn in migration studies. Unfortunately, the ‘local trap’ is extremely prevalent, particularly within left-wing academia and activist research. We must broaden the scope of city analysis and comparisons to include unfriendly cities within the framework of the local turn debate.
This contends that migration research cannot make any normative prejudgement about scales. Scales are not independent entities with pre-given characteristics. Instead, they are socially constructed strategies designed to achieve particular outcomes. Therefore, any governance scale or scalar strategy can result in any outcome; the local turn can lead to more proactive policies or less transformative, more reactive and conservative ones. Revisiting the local turn can therefore revitalise the debate and free it from the constraints of normative assumptions. We are familiar with the way in which right-wing, nationalistic and nativist ideologies penetrate the local scale, constructing border cities within the same state or cities that explicitly declare that they do not want to welcome migrants. These cities are active too, using their claimed autonomy to exclude migrants, making their lives even more difficult and inviting them to leave the city.
A deeper analysis of this local trap in the literature on local turns may also include the assumption that devolving authority and decentralising/deconcentrating power will make cities better places to live. However, reality tells us that this is not necessarily true. The idea that decentralisation is necessary for democratisation lies at the heart of the local trap in urban studies. There is no essential link between decentralisation and proactive policies. Once again, revisiting the local turn involves questioning these normative assumptions. This may necessitate redefining the local turn in light of the increasing number of bad and very bad cities that operate in tension with good states. Therefore, states are not necessarily bad, as the mainstream literature on the local turn assumes. We need to reset the local turn debate in migration governance after recognising the local trap in the local turn literature.
References:
Barber, B. (2014). If mayors ruled the world. Dysfunctional nations, rising cities. New Haven: Yale University Press.
Caponio, T. (2021). Making sense of the multilevel governance of migration: City networks facing global mobility challenges. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature.
Filomeno, F. A. (2017). Theories of local immigration policy. Cham, Switzerland: Palgrave Macmillan.
Kılınçarslan, P. (2025). Migration city diplomacy: Practices and perspectives of local actors in Istanbul. MiReKoc BROAD-ER Working Paper Series, Working Paper No. 2025-2. Available at https://mirekoc.ku.edu.tr/publications/reports-and-policy-briefs/
Lacroix, T., & Desille, A. (2018). International Migrations and Local Governance: A Global Perspective. Cham, Switzerland: Springer.
Oomen, B. (2019). Decoupling and teaming up: The rise and proliferation of transnational municipal networks in the field of migration. International Migration Review 54(3): 913-939.
Purcell, M. (2006). Urban democracy and the local trap. Urban Studies 43(11): 1921-1941.
Russell, B. (2019). Beyond the local trap: New municipalism and the rise of the fearless cities. Antipode 51(3): 989-1010.
Scholten, P., & Penninx, R. (2016). The multilevel governance of migration and integration. In B. Garcés-Mascareñas and R. Penninx (Eds.) Integration Processes and Policies in Europe. IMISCOE Research Series. Springer, Cham. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-21674-4_6.
Zapata-Barrero, R. (2022). New scales of migration governance in the Mediterranean: Regional cities in the spotlight. European Urban and Regional Studies, 1-14 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/096977642211253
Zapata-Barrero, R. (2024). De-bordering policies at the city scale: strategies for building resilience in Barcelona’s migration governance. Comparative Migration Studies 12(2), DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s40878-023-00361-0
Zapata-Barrero, R., Caponio, T., & Scholten, P. (2017). Theorizing the ‘local turn’ in a multi-level governance framework of analysis: A case study in immigrant policies. International Review of Administrative Sciences 83(2): 241-246.
* See another contribution in this blog series: Bridging Migration and Urban Studies with Prof. Ricard Zapata-Barrero: An Interview Exploring the Local Turn, Urban Resilience, Regional Cities, and Urban Memories