Integracija na lokalnoj razini: iskustva »starih« i »novih« izbjeglica u Gradu Zagrebu
Authors:   Institut za istraživanje migracija, Zagreb, Gregurović Margareta , Kuti Simona ,   Institut za istraživanje migracija, Zagreb, Gregurović Snježana ,   Institut za istraživanje migracija, Zagreb
Published: February 2025

The City of Zagreb, as a local self-government unit and a community with the most experience in integrating various categories of migrants, is a relevant example of migration management since migration and integration strategies have not been implemented at the national level. Starting from Penninx’s non-normative definition of integration as a process of becoming an accepted part of society, which implies interaction between immigrants and the “society of immigration,” the aim of the paper is to analyse the experiences of integration of two groups of forced migrants in Zagreb: persons granted international protection – refugees from Asian and African countries – and persons granted temporary protection – refugees from Ukraine. The two groups differ in terms of regulation of their legal status and the period of their arrival in Croatia.
The sociological approach to migrant integration in Europe, especially from a local perspective, emphasises the importance of understanding the dynamics of integration within certain communities and the role of local institutions and actors (Zapata- Barrero, Caponio and Scholten, 2017). Penninx and Garcés-Mascareñas (2016, 2024) define three fundamental dimensions of integration: legal-political, socio-economic, and cultural-religious. The legal-political dimension refers to residence and political rights (civic and political participation) and the legal status of immigrants. The socioeconomic dimension refers to access to institutional facilities for finding work, housing, education, and healthcare, regardless of citizenship. The cultural-religious dimension refers to the domain of perceptions and dominant practices of immigrants and members of the majority group, as well as mutual reactions to differences. This model also indicates the importance of recognising that integration and interaction processes in one dimension can influence those in another dimension; that these processes do not necessarily take place simultaneously; and that they can be reversed (Spencer, 2022). At the same time, the actors in the integration processes are fundamentally unequal in terms of power and resources. The institutional structure of the immigration society and the reaction of the local population to newcomers determine the outcome of integration processes to a greater extent than the efforts or activities of the migrants themselves.
The paper uses data collected in 2024 through qualitative, participatory research within the project “Evaluation of Integration Measures of the City of Zagreb” (two focus groups and 12 semi-structured interviews with beneficiaries of international and temporary protection, and representatives of civil society organisations (CSOs)). The collected data (transcripts) were analysed using an analytical coding scheme that combines a deductive (fundamental dimensions of integration according to Penninx and Garcés-Mascareñas, 2016; Penninx, 2007) and an inductive approach (different areas of social life in which integration processes take place on an individual, group, and institutional level).
The presentation of the research results is roughly divided into three basic (analytical) dimensions of migrant integration, although they are often intertwined, so individual integration experiences and processes may be presented across several dimensions. The results for the two groups of refugees are analysed and presented in parallel.
The results indicate certain similarities in the integration experiences of the two groups, most prominently within the socio-economic dimension of integration, specifically concerning the experiences of inclusion in the education system and access to healthcare. Research participants from both groups describe primary school inclusion of children as the most effective. Challenges with secondary school inclusion of children and young people are somewhat more pronounced, primarily due to differences in secondary school programmes and their suitability in the case of lower Croatian language proficiency. Access to healthcare is assessed equally negatively in both groups of participants. This is primarily due to the lack of information among stakeholders in the health system about refugees’ healthcare rights and the mechanisms for their realisation. Participants in both groups also describe similar experiences related to inclusion in the labour market, specifically experiences of disqualification and complicated nostrification of higher education diplomas.
Inclusion in the labour market, but also in other social spheres such as education, healthcare, housing, etc., is largely determined by language proficiency. Although it is considered the most important step in successful integration, mastering the Croatian language also represents one of the biggest obstacles for our interlocutors because there were no legally guaranteed language courses available. This is also a major finding in previous qualitative research.
The results of this research also point to significant differences in the experiences of the two groups of refugees. Securing status within the legal-political dimension of integration varies for both groups due to the differing application processing procedures in the case of individually treated international protection seekers and the mass arrival of displaced persons from Ukraine. Relevant comparisons are related to informing refugees about their rights. Unlike persons who, as asylum seekers, had very limited and disorganised access to information and largely depended on the engagement of CSOs, interlocutors from Ukraine report receiving adequate information already upon entering the country, and systematic access to information in reception centres for displaced persons from Ukraine. Information was also available through various means of communication, from the websites of the Ministry of the Interior, various public media, CSOs, social networks, etc. At the same time, CSO representatives criticise the state for taking a different approach in the case of the Ukrainian refugee crisis, for which a significant organisational and financial infrastructure was mobilised, sometimes even to the disadvantage of integration measures for asylum seekers and persons granted international protection. Finally, the described experiences of discrimination indicate a significantly less favourable position of persons granted international protection due to distinct cultural and religious characteristics.
The presented research is the first to include two categories of forced migrants in Croatia – “old” and “new” refugees, i.e., persons granted international protection and persons granted temporary protection. Despite the limitations arising from qualitative participatory research, the results confirm underlying patterns in the challenges of inclusion, especially in the context of early integration of different groups of forced migrants in Zagreb. This process still has shortcomings that need to be adequately addressed, whereby it is important to recognise the impacts that processes in one integration dimension can have on those in other dimensions, define a multi-level management approach to procedures, raise awareness of the nonsimultaneity and nonlinearity of various integration processes, and prevent negative feedback effects of unsuccessful activities.