Introduction
Over the last decades, Ireland has transitioned from a nation of emigration to a diverse society marked by substantial immigration. As the capital and largest urban centre, Dublin stands at the forefront of this transformation. Despite its demographic diversity, Dublin’s capacity to govern migrant inclusion remains constrained by Ireland’s highly centralised governance structure. Local authorities, including Dublin City Council (DCC), lack the decision-making power and fiscal autonomy necessary to implement robust integration policies.
Drawing from qualitative fieldwork with municipal actors, NGOs, and migrant communities, this policy brief analyses Dublin’s approach to migrant inclusion and provides actionable recommendations to strengthen local governance and promote inclusive migrant policies. Dublin’s model of migrant inclusion is primarily assimilation-focused, expecting newcomers to adapt to pre-existing structures with minimal adaptation of services to meet their specific needs. This approach relies on short-term, project-based initiatives that lack strategic continuity, alongside outsourced service provision to civil society organisations-often excluded from decision-making processes.
As migration continues to reshape both communities and broader societal structures, local governments are key actors in addressing migrant needs and fostering social cohesion. Dublin’s experience serves as a valuable case study, highlighting both the challenges and potential of local governance within rigid national frameworks, where symbolic inclusion often replaces substantive engagement, and short-term projectisation undermines long-term planning.
Context
Dublin has evolved into a city marked by significant migration, with non-Irish nationals constituting nearly 17% of its population (CSO, 2016). This demographic shift, however, has not been matched by local governance adaptation. DCC operates within one of the most centralised governance structures in the OECD (UCLG and OECD, 2016), with immigration policy remaining largely a national competence
Governance Constraints
The centralisation of power in Ireland reaches an extreme where the influence of local authorities is nearly negligible. This is because decision-making is centralised at the national level, and service provision is predominantly outsourced to NGOs and private entities—a process initiated and controlled from above, effectively bypassing local authorities altogether.
“The National Government is the boss, and depending [on] if you have a good boss that listens or…a boss that doesn’t then, you can influence [decisions]”—City Councillor, 2023, interview, 1 October
Internally, Dublin City Council (DCC) operates within a governance structure that includes an elected City Council, an appointed mayor who changes annually, non-elected staff, and a Chief Executive Officer (CEO) with significant executive powers. This power imbalance constrains DCC’s ability to govern effectively and represent local interests. Some interviewees argued that non-elected staff, as government employees, are reluctant to challenge the status quo or advocate for greater local autonomy, as this would mean “advocating against your boss” (City Councillor, 2023, interview, 1 October).
“You have a lot of unelected officials running the city like completely unaccountable jobs for life, you know, and they direct things and our county councillors who are elected have very little power really” —NGO CEO, 2023, interview, 25 July
Decision-making within DCC is further complicated by the fragmentation into five administrative areas, each independently managing community-specific concerns. This internal division leads to inconsistent service provision, bureaucratic delays, and challenges in maintaining policy continuity, as priorities often differ across areas.
“It’s already complicated that we have the national structure and then within our structure, we have a parallel structure that really isn’t always, you know, sinking well. Sometimes it works well, but there are definitely huge disadvantages and huge gaps because of that” —DCC employee, 2023, interview, 16 March
Pragmatic Assimilationist Governance
Dublin’s approach to migrant inclusion is best characterised as a pragmatic assimilationist model (Alexander, 2007; Schiller, 2015), reflecting a governance strategy where migrant integration is not prioritised. Despite DCC espousing pluralist values in its official strategies, practical implementation remains largely symbolic and ‘reactive’ (van Breugel, 2020). Under this model, the city expects immigrants to adapt to pre-existing frameworks without significant accommodation for their unique cultural or social needs (assimilationism), while also engaging in situation-specific responses when pressures arise (pragmatism).
This approach is visible in the mainstreaming of services, which assumes that equal access translates to equal opportunity, ignoring cultural, socio-economic, and legal barriers that uniquely affect migrant communities. This one–size-fits-all approach limits effective integration and exacerbates inequalities.
“I think the [integration strategy] documents are all very well written. But I don’t think they reflect…what really happens on the ground” —Manager, St. Andrews Resource Centre, 2022, interview, 29 November
“The [integration strategy] document was [just] a document on a shelf; there were no specific actions; [no] targets were met, for example, the [target of having] 1% staff [from] minority ethnic [backgrounds in the municipality]” —DCC employee, 2023, interview, 16 March
“[Mainstreaming places the] onus on the individual department to kind of really want to do that work within themselves, you know, and gives them a get out of jail card if they don’t want to. Because they can just say, well, we treat everybody the same” —DCC Employee, 2023, interview, 15 March
Fragmented and Project-based service delivery
Dublin’s model of migrant inclusion is characterised by projectisation–a reliance on short-term, project-based responses rather than long-term cohesive strategies. This approach leads to fragmented service delivery and inconsistency in implementation. Projectisation may stem from Dublin’s limited local autonomy and unstable funding mechanisms, as well as the city’s heavy reliance on NGOs and private entities as the primary mode of service delivery. While this model offers some flexibility, it also introduces fragmentation and reduces local government accountability. Key initiatives often operate in isolation, resulting in duplicated efforts and gaps in service provision. Interviewees further highlighted the highly relational nature of Dublin’s governance, where personal connections often determine outcomes. This exacerbates projectisation, as frequent staff turnovers disrupt continuity, leaving initiatives disconnected and short-lived.
Marginalised Civic Engagement
The outsourcing of public services to private entities follows a multi-actor ‘government’ model (Schiller, 2018), which positions civil society as service providers but not decision-makers. Despite providing essential services, NGOs are often excluded from policy formation processes and constrained by dependency on government funding. This dependency limits their advocacy freedom and capacity for systemic change, as critical positions may risk funding cuts.
“I started [in date] with this job [and] I was very open and [enthusiastic]…[until] I got called in, and I was almost reminded, ‘know who you work for’” —NGO Employee, 2023, interview, 8 February
“We were critical of a statutory body, and that person, in the course…basically asked us to withdraw it, and we didn’t…[Then, they] reminded us that they fund several organisations…I was very annoyed [and] attacked it straight on and said, ‘Is that a threat?…I hope you’re not implying that our funding would be in any way jeopardised because of an advocacy position we took’. And they were ‘Oh, no, no, no…’, you know” —NGO CEO, interview, 25 July
“They listen to the problems… You go and do a presentation in a group…[but] then what happens?’” —MASI, 2023, interview, 20 April
Consultative platforms like the Public Participation Networks (PPN) exist but are often perceived as symbolic, serving more to showcase inclusivity rather than to foster genuine decision-making. Interviewees highlighted that consultations rarely translate into actionable policies.
This dynamic not only constrains NGO advocacy but also marginalises migrant communities’ representation within DCC. Migrant voices are often mediated through NGOs rather than direct civic engagement. Despite the right to vote in local elections—an inclusive right that is unique in Ireland compared to many EU countries—migrant political participation remains notably low. This underrepresentation limits their influence over local decision-making, reinforcing a governance model where migrants’ needs are largely addressed through intermediaries rather than direct political agency.
“It’s always non migrants that are rolling things out. So, it’s always from the perspective of the worker, and the worker most often is Irish, middle class, settled people” —NGO Employee, 2023, interview, 8 February
Policy Recommendations
Strengthen Local Governance Capacity
- Advocate for greater municipal autonomy in migration policy, particularly in housing, social services, and community support.
- Leverage EU-funded programs aimed at local integration to enhance Dublin’s capacity for inclusive governance.
Institutionalise Inclusion Mechanisms
- Allocate dedicated municipal funding for migrant services through sustainable budget lines.
- Create permanent staff positions, such as the Inclusion Officer or Intercultural Development Coordinator, to ensure policy consistency, effective implementation, coordination across actors, and constant engagement with migrant communities.
- Implement intercultural training for city staff to improve understanding of migrants’ needs and enhance the inclusivity of service delivery.
- Recruit individuals with migrant backgrounds into local governance and service delivery roles to reflect community diversity and foster trust.
- Build a ‘one-stop-shop’ for migrants to streamline access to services and reduce bureaucratic barriers.
- Create a Migrant Advisory Council to contribute directly to policy-making. Alternatively, expand the role of PPN to include genuine decision-making power, not just consultative input.
Promote Long-Term Strategic Planning
- Transition from short-term projects to multi-annual strategic plans for sustainable migrant inclusion
- Develop a city-wide framework with measurable goals, binding commitments, and a transparent mechanism for evaluation (ensure it includes undocumented and underdocumented migrants who currently fall outside existing service structures).
Foster Civil Society Collaboration
- Enforce protections to safeguard NGO advocacy without political or financial retaliation.
- Formalise partnerships with NGOs and community groups through long-term agreements, reducing reliance on short-term project grants and enhancing sustainability.
- Facilitate community-driven projects by allocating municipal spaces for migrant-driven initiatives, such as language courses, legal advice clinics, and cultural activities.
- Foster participation by engaging civil society actors in co-designing the city-wide integration strategy and local initiatives.
Data-Driven Policy Making
- Regularly collect and analyse data on migrant needs and service access to inform evidence-based policies.
- Introduce a Local Migration Observatory to systematically track inclusion outcomes and service gaps.
Conclusions
Dublin’s experience exemplifies the limitations of highly centralised governance and decentralised, outsourced service provision in effectively managing migrant inclusion at the local level. Despite its demographic diversity, Dublin City Council (DCC) remains constrained by rigid national policies that limit its decision-making capacity and fiscal autonomy. Governed under a pragmatic assimilationist model, the city’s approach expects migrants to adapt to pre-existing frameworks without significant accommodations for their unique cultural or social needs.
Service provision relies on projectisation and heavily outsourced to NGOs and private entities, while offering short-term flexibility, restricts long-term strategic planning, contributing to fragmented and inconsistent service delivery, and reduces accountability. Civil society actors, although instrumental in delivering services, are constrained in their advocacy roles and excluded from decision-making processes—a multi-actor ‘government’ approach.
To foster genuine inclusion, three key shifts are necessary:
- Enhanced Local Autonomy: Local authorities must be empowered with greater decision-making power.
- Strategic, Long-term Planning: Fragmented projectisation must be replaced with sustainable institutions, multi-annual strategic plans, and long-term partnerships with civil society.
- Meaningful Civic Engagement: Civil society engagement must extend beyond tokenistic gestures, enabling migrant voices to participate directly in policy-making processes.
Addressing these structural gaps can pave the way for a model of local governance that genuinely reflects Dublin’s diverse communities, moving beyond symbolic inclusion towards sustainable, community-driven, and rights-based governance.
Bibliography
CSO (2016) Census 2016. Available at: https://www.cso.ie/en/census/ (Accessed: 20 November 2023).
Alexander, M. (2007) Cities and labour immigration : comparing policy responses in Amsterdam, Paris, Rome and Tel Aviv, Research in migration and ethnic relations series. Available at: http://www.loc.gov/catdir/toc/ecip069/2006007243.html.
van Breugel, I. (2020) ‘Towards a typology of local migration diversity policies’, Comparative Migration Studies, 8(1). doi: 10.1186/s40878-020-00179-0.
Schiller, M. (2015) ‘Paradigmatic pragmatism and the politics of diversity’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 38(7), pp. 1120–1136. doi: 10.1080/01419870.2014.992925.
Schiller, M. (2018) ‘Conceiving governance: a state of the art and analytical model for research on immigrant integration’.
UCLG and OECD (2016) Country Report: Ireland Unitary Country. Available at: http://www.uclg-localfinance.org/sites/default/files/IRELAND-EUROPE-V3.pdf (Accessed: 23 February 2021).