Do Different Models of Integration Affect Actual Integration? The Cases of France and Great Britain Revisited

Britain and France adapted two different integration models, namely assimilationist and multiculturalism to integrate their immigrants. These two big models of integration have distinctive characteristics to integrate immigrants. There is a general claim that multiculturalism model is the best for integrating immigrants in terms of actual integration, however, some argue the opposite, that French assimilationist model is ‘better off.’ This study examines these controversial claims by looking at the level to which immigrants are integrated in economic, social, political, cultural dimensions of integration and attitudes towards immigrants in Britain and France. Within a given theoretical framework, this study compares the overall competency level of immigrants’ integration in terms of actual integration between British multiculturalism model and French assimilationist model and validate that both these two big models of integration have reached a comparable level of integration and they do not have any decisive impact on actual integration.

Methodological issues in applying Location Models to Rural areas

Location Models are usedfor planning the location of multiple service centers in order to serve a geographicallydistributed population. A cornerstone of such models is the measure of distancebetween the service center and a set of demand points, viz, the location of thepopulation (customers, pupils, patients and so on). Theoretical as well asempirical evidence support the current practice of using the Euclidian distancein metropolitan areas. In this paper, we argue and provide empirical evidencethat such a measure is misleading once the Location Models are applied to ruralareas with heterogeneous transport networks. This paper stems from the problemof finding an optimal allocation of a pre-specified number of hospitals in alarge Swedish region with a low population density. We conclude that the Euclidianand the network distances based on a homogenous network (equal travel costs inthe whole network) give approximately the same optimums. However networkdistances calculated from a heterogeneous network (different travel costs indifferent parts of the network) give widely different optimums when the numberof hospitals increases.  In terms ofaccessibility we find that the recent closure of hospitals and the in-optimallocation of the remaining ones has increased the average travel distance by 75%for the population. Finally, aggregation the population misplaces the hospitalsby on average 10 km.