Policies on intergroup relations in Central and East European cities: a comparative analysis of Budapest, Prague, Wrocław and Tallinn

Open access


This article explores the differences in the understanding of ‘intergroup relations’ and measures underaken in the area of intercultural policies in four Central and East European (CEE) cities: Budapest, Prague, Wrocław and Tallinn. The analysis is based on interviews and field research carried out in 2008 in these cities in cooperation with local scientific experts, representatives of the ethnic communities and officials of the Municipalities as part of the Eurofound research project CLIP1. It explores the national and local political frameworks for intergroup policy and the target groups for such strategies and policies. The main aim of this article is to carry out a comparative analysis of four cities from the CEE countries in order to indicate the similarities and differences in the understanding of intergroup relations. It investigates the type of actors involved in this process and whether their actions are catalysed from the top-down or bottom–up.

Alexander, M 2007, Cities and labour immigration. Comparing policy responses in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv, Ashgate, Aldershot

Brouček, S 2003, Aktuálni problém adaptace vietnamského etnika w ČR, Etnologicy ustav AV ČR, Praha

Caponio, T 2010, ‘Conclusion. Making Sense of Local Migration Policy Arenas’, in Caponio, T, Borkert, M, (eds.), The Local Dimension of Migration Policymaking, IMISCOE Report Series, Amsterdam University Press, Amsterdam

Desponds, A, Lesińska M 2008, ‘Obecność i funkcjonowanie społeczności imigranckich w Polsce. Przypadek Ukraińców i Wietnamczyków we Wrocławiu’, in: Grzymała-Kazłowska, A, Między jednością a wielością. Integracja odmiennych grup i kategorii imigrantów w Polsce, OBM, Warsaw

Drbohlav, D 2009, Czechia as a New Immigration Country? IDEA Working Papers, Prague

Hárs, Á, et al 2009 Immigration countries in Central and Eastern Europe. The Case of Hungary, Idea Working Papers, Budapest

Dutkiewicz, R 2006, The Strategy ”Wroclaw in the Perspective 2020 plus”. Avaliable from . [30 April 2012].

Irimiás, A 2008, ‘A Budapesten élő kínai közösség’ (‘The Chinese community living in Budapest’), Földrajzi Értesítő. LVII, pp. 469-481

Kępińska, E 2007, ‘Recent Trends in International Migration. The 2007 SOPEMI Report for Poland;, CMR Working Papers, No. 29/(87), Warsaw

Matusz Protasiewicz, P 2009a, Intergroup relations and intercultural policies, case of Tallinn (Estonia), Eurofound. Avaliable from . [30 June 2012].

Matusz Protasiewicz, P 2009b, Intergroup relations and intercultural policies, case of Wrocław (Poland), Eurofound. Avaliable from . [30 June 2012].

Nyíri, P 2007, Chinese in Russia and Eastern Europe: A Middleman Minority in a Transnational Era, Routledge, London

Reinvelt, R 2000, Integration, Multinational Estonia and Estonian-Language Press. Soviet – Time Immigrants in Newspapers Edasi/Postimees in 1998-2000, Integration Foundation.

Tesser, M, L 2005, The impact of the post-cold war European Minority Rights regime on inter- ethnic relations in Estonia and Latvia. Avaliable from . [20 April 2010].

Tóth, J 2009, Hungary, in: ‘Annual Overview of International Migration in Central and Eastern Europe – 2009’. Avaliable from http://www.migrationonline. cz/centraleasterneurope/2009/#n3>. [20 June 2010].

Czech Statistical Office 2009, Foreigners in the Czech Republic 2008. Avaliable from . [20 August 2010].

European Union Council Directive 2003/109/EC. Avaliable from . [25 August 2010].

Hálózat 2011. Avaliable from . [10 March 2012].

State Integration Program 2008-2013 Estonia. Avaliable from . [12 June 2010].

Statistical Office of Estonia . [20 August 2012].

Statistical Office of Hungary . [10 September 2010].

Miscellanea Geographica

Regional Studies on Development

Journal Information

CiteScore 2017: 0.73

SCImago Journal Rank (SJR) 2017: 0.404
Source Normalized Impact per Paper (SNIP) 2017: 0.759

Covered by e.g. Web of Science Core Collection by Clarivate Analytics, and SCOPUS by Elsevier
14 points in the Ministerial journal value rating scale


All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 0 0 0
Full Text Views 29 29 7
PDF Downloads 8 8 4