Korea’s multicultural policies have been in place since 2006 following various laws and measures, funding support, and policies set up by the central and local governments, but the overabundance of measures and programs have led many to criticize their inefficiency. With the central government, local municipalities, and relevant organizations competing with one another to pass laws and measures and provide short-term relief only, inefficiency has become a significant problem, with specific examples being a lack of governance between the parties involved, overlapping of tasks and budgets, and a disconnect between foreign residents and the programs drawn up for them.
Multicultural policies must be pursued through a process of governance, within the framework of mutual effort and compromise among the central government and local municipalities, local communities and civic groups, large companies and small-to-medium enterprises, and foreigners. Although multicultural policies must be carried out with a long-term perspective based on convergence between local residents and foreigners, Korea’s multicultural policies and programs merely emphasize assimilation, segregation, and utilization, which leads to various problems.
In establishing a multicultural society, its impacts on Korean society and the local economy must be considered. Rather than relying on red-tape measures and funding, ways to encourage coexistence and reconciliation that can truly resonate with local residents and foreigners must be sought and undertaken carefully and gradually. The basic framework for multicultural policies should be provided by the central government, with local municipalities and civic groups cooperating with local residents to embrace the foreigners living in their towns. Furthermore, multicultural policies must be led more by the public, and it
January 18, 2012 Intercultural city encounters Europe-Asia／多文化共生都市 国際シンポジウム 12 is imperative that governance be established among the central government, local municipalities, civic groups, and local communities.
To establish region-centric governance, comprehensive problems, e.g., the central government’s unilateral dictation of policies, the municipalities’ passive undertaking of their responsibilities, and the civic groups’ lack of a viable network must be overcome. Current multicultural policies must be made more public and responsive, and a new control mechanism must be set up for the new division of roles for the central government, local municipalities, and civic groups in order to establish a more effective and efficient delivery system. And ways to strengthen a consultative body, or a communication body, for the parties involved must be actively reviewed to establish region-centric governance.
Fundamentally, it is important that the parties carrying out multicultural policies share the awareness that multiculturalism is conducive to the development and growth of local communities. The inflow of young men and women who come for cross-border marriages and education opportunities and the subsequent increase in population can revitalize a community. More foreign laborers will contribute to economic vitality. The diversity and innovation in local cultures will fundamentally contribute to local development and the creation of a global city. All related parties must share in this belief. It is a core responsibility of local municipalities and civic groups to raise the awareness of local residents and pursue creative multicultural policies.
In the future, bottom-up multicultural policies led by local municipalities, communities, and civic groups within the framework of local governance should take the place of a top-down approach led by the central government. A multicultural society is fundamentally oriented towards the voluntary acceptance by local residents and coexistence with foreigners. Understanding and harmony between local residents and foreigners are indispensable to multicultural policies. They must be carried out on a long-term basis, based on a governance framework among the central government, local municipalities, civic groups, corporations and related organizations, local residents, and foreigners.
References
Park Se-hoon et al (2010). Reinventing Urban Policy in Response to Ethnic Diversity II. (Korea Research Institute for Human Settlements)
Yang Ki-ho (2003). Ilbon ŭi chibang chŏngbu wa chŏngch’aek kwajŏng. (Seoul National University Press)
Yang Ki-ho (July 2006). “Inward Internationalization for Foreign Residents in Korea.” Journal of Local Government Studies.
Yang Ki-ho (2009). “The Japanese Governance for Multi-Cultural Society and Its Implications for Korea.”
The Journal of Migration and Society.
Yang Ki-ho (2010). Kullobullijŭm kwa chibang chŏngbu. (Nonhyŭng Ch'ulp'ansa).
Choi Byeong-du (2011). Multicultural Coexistence: Japan’s Transition into Multicultural Society and the Role of Local Communities. (Purungil).
Choi Hong (May 2011). “Direction and Challenges of Korea’s Immigration Policy.” Korea’s Immigration Policy. (Ministry of Justice).
Korea Immigration Service Website. http://www.immigration.go.kr.
日本比較政治学会(2009).「国際移動の比較政治学」(ミネルバ書房)
山脇啓造(2007.1), ”地方自治体と多文化共生”｢自治体国際化フォーラム｣
Kymlicka W. & He, B (ed.) (2005). Multiculturalism in Asia (Oxford University Press)
Kymlicka W. & Wayne N. (eds.) (2000). Citizenship in Diverse Societies. (Oxford University Press) Pierre, J. (2000), Debating Governance. (Oxford University Press)
January 18, 2012 Intercultural city encounters Europe-Asia／多文化共生都市 国際シンポジウム 13 Intercultural city encounters Europe-Asia
City Profile：Lisbon （Lisboa）
Population: 545,245 (2011)
Percentage of the foreign Polulation: 8% (44, 784)
Mayor: António Luís dos Santos da Costa (since August 1st 2007) Local government divisions: 53 Civil Parishes (Freguesias)
Principal foreign populations: Cape Verdeans (40,000), Brazilians (24,700), Angolans (24,200) Guineans (15,700) Sao Tomeans (6,900), Ukrainians (6,900), Romanians (6,800) Chinese (4,300)
Principal religious communities: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy, Islam, Hinduism, Judaism.
Portugal was historically a country of emigration; its sailors, traders and missionaries built a global maritime empire, and, after its decline, Portuguese continued to seek new lives abroad. From the mid-nineteenth century until the second half of the twentieth, only Ireland among western European nations saw more of its population migrate.
This long-established pattern began to change substantially in the 1970s, precipitated by a decline in northern European demand for Portuguese labour after the oil shock of 1973, and more significantly by the collapse of the Salazar dictatorship in 1974 and subsequent de-colonisation. Portuguese returnees were joined by citizens of the formerly Portuguese African states, who enjoyed special rights and privileges in Portugal as members of the Lusophone community (PALOP). Portugal’s admission to the European Union encouraged both returnees from northern Europe and continued migration from PALOP countries, but was accompanied by new patterns of settlement. Many thousands of undocumented migrant workers from eastern Europe, seeking to escape economic collapse and social discord at home after the fall of the Soviet Union, arrived to take jobs in Portugal. Migrants came principally from Ukraine, Romania and Russia.
It was as a consequence of this second wave of postwar immigration that Portuguese policy-makers began to develop comprehensive migration policies, and to grant other migrants some of the rights associated with PALOP citizens. Since the 1990s, Portugal has developed a sophisticated set of policy instruments for managing migration and integration. Indeed, a recent report noted that Portugal’s integration policies, overseen by an agency directly responsible to the prime minister, were the second most developed among EU member states. Mayor Costa remains determined to ensure that Lisbon in particular welcomes and supports its migrant citizens in contributing to society, a commitment he has demonstrated by moving his office into the city’s most diverse neighbourhood.
Lisbon has embraced interculturalism as part of a wider commitment to internationalism and peace. The
January 18, 2012 Intercultural city encounters Europe-Asia／多文化共生都市 国際シンポジウム 14 city has twinning agreements with twenty-seven cities in twenty countries, and has established an agency to encourage international openness. The city also supports its universities in their efforts to attract international students, and encourages students to participate in the life of the city upon arrival.
Lisbon’s international orientation is reflected in the provisions it makes for new arrivals. The city makes targeted provisions to welcome students, refugees, reunited members of migrant families, and economic migrants, with assistance being coordinated by a dedicated agency for newcomers. This agency also provides detailed information on public services to all newcomers.
Lisbon also makes noteworthy efforts to promote inter- and intra-community cohesion through its media and information policies. These policies are explicitly intended to promote interculturalism, and include regular press meetings and newspaper columns, and monitoring of the portrayal of ethnic minority communities in the news media by an independent, external organisation.
The efforts of the Lisbon city authorities amply demonstrate how, with concerted effort from political leaders, rapid progress towards interculturalism can be made. Mayor Costa’s public and personal commitment to the ideals of the intercultural city should serve as an inspiration to other civic leaders.
January 18, 2012 Intercultural city encounters Europe-Asia／多文化共生都市 国際シンポジウム 15
技能実習 996人（3.7%）
留学 668人（2.5%）
その他 2,934人
（11.0%）
特別永住者 1,075人（4.0%）
日本人の 配偶者等 2,439人（9.1%）
定住者 5,742人
（21.5%）
永住者 12,814人
（48.1%）
ベトナム 1,048人
（3.9%）
インドネシア 718人（2.7%）
韓国・朝鮮 1,517人
（5.7%）
ペルー 2,132人
（8.0%）
ブラジル 13,447人
（50.4%）
中国 3,188人
（12 0%）
フィリピン 2,968人
（11.1%）
その他 1,650人
（6.2%）
Total 26,688
(3.26% of the population)
Brazilian 13,447 (50.4%)
Chinese 3,188 (12.0%) Filipino
2,968 (11.1%) Peruvian
2,132 (8.0%) North and South Korean 1,517 (5.7%)
Vietnamese 1,048 (3.9%)
Indonesian
718 (2.7%) Others 1,650 (6.2%)
Total 26,688
(As of April 1, 2011)
Permanent resident 12,814 (48.1%)
Long-term resident 5,742 (21.5%) Dependent of Japanese national 2,439 (9.1%) Special Permanent resident 1,075 (4.0%) Trainee 996 (3.7%) Student 668 (2.5%)
Others 2,934 (11.0%)
(As of April 1, 2011)
技能実習 996人（3.7%）
留学 668人（2.5%）
その他 2,934人
（11.0%）
特別永住者 1,075人（4.0%）
日本人の 配偶者等 2,439人（9.1%）
定住者 5,742人
（21.5%）
永住者 12,814人
（48.1%）
ベトナム 1,048人
（3.9%）
インドネシア 718人（2.7%）
韓国・朝鮮 1,517人
（5.7%）
ペルー 2,132人
（8.0%）
ブラジル 13,447人
（50.4%）
中国 3,188人
（12 0%）
フィリピン 2,968人
（11.1%）
その他 1,650人
（6.2%）
Total 26,688
(3.26% of the population)
Brazilian 13,447 (50.4%)
Chinese 3,188 (12.0%) Filipino
2,968 (11.1%) Peruvian
2,132 (8.0%) North and South Korean 1,517 (5.7%)
Vietnamese 1,048 (3.9%)
Indonesian
718 (2.7%) Others 1,650 (6.2%)
Total 26,688
(As of April 1, 2011)
Permanent resident 12,814 (48.1%)
Long-term resident 5,742 (21.5%) Dependent of Japanese national 2,439 (9.1%) Special Permanent resident 1,075 (4.0%) Trainee 996 (3.7%) Student 668 (2.5%)
Others 2,934 (11.0%)
(As of April 1, 2011) Hamamatsu City Initiatives on Interculturalism
Yasutomo Suzuki, Mayor of Hamamatsu City