In the everyday politics of small rural municipalities, the topics of immigration and asylum are treated superficially. In general, migration to rural areas is low compared to cities, and rurality is often imagined as a homogeneous and quiet cultural space.

In our research, we interviewed mayors in Austria, France, Germany, and Italy. All selected municipalities have less than five thousand inhabitants, a population density below 300 inhabitants/km² and usually no prior experience with asylum and immigration policies. The opening of an accommodation centre is subject to superordinated political levels, such as regional and national governments, who establish direct contracts with service providers.

Local inhabitants often react with reservation and anxiety to this involuntary process, as people fear that this will impact the life in the municipality. In fact, in many European countries’ mayors have little to no say regarding the decision on the opening of an accommodation centre. We were thus interested in the role of the mayor in this process and the vertical and horizontal negotiation that come along with it. In our research, we wanted to find out whether mechanisms were alike regardless of the national context.

Rural mayors and the lack of decision-making powers

Considering the uneven decision-making powers rural mayors face, they must make an effort to accommodate the interests of the local citizens and manage the requirements of the subordinate political level. While some mayors were informed before-hand or even anticipated the opening of an accommodation centre that belongs to the community, others were taken by surprise and could only react by attenuating the situation.

Although it is hardly possible to reverse to overall decision of the opening an accommodation centre, mayors were quite successful in altering the terms and circumstances of its implementation. Contrary to its city counterparts, mayors in small-scale municipalities are directly affected by changes in the community not only as politicians and representatives of the municipality but also as inhabitants and citizens. As such, mayors usually are the first contact person and are held responsible for events that are happening in the municipality regardless of their factual decision-making powers.

How do rural mayors handle vertical and horizontal conflicts?

The figure below illustrates how rural mayors have developed five strategies to diffuse conflict and increase acceptance. Two of them are directed toward the vertical level, e.g., the regional, the state and/or the national level, and three are directed towards the horizontal level, which are inhabitants of the municipality.

Politics of Adjustment

To comprehend these findings we have conceptualized the term Politics of Adjustment as a way of accommodating change that comprises two aspects: it is the process of people adapting to a new situation as well as the alteration of implementation practice by local actors. Why is that so? First, all strategies described above aim at establishing a local consensus to settle and resolve the situation as well as to (re)consolidate the power of the mayor. In view of the deprivation of decision-making authority regarding the overall decision to open an accommodation centre, rural mayors make use of legislative gaps and their administrative powers to adjust the framework conditions according to local preferences. The development of a local consensus is based on the alteration of reception conditions and the careful definition of local boundaries. Mayors thus successfully channel the hate and defuse resistances, but they also steer the socio-political process of demarcation and othering. This brings us to the second point: politics of adjustment target first and foremost the citizens of the municipality since mayors (re)act based on the preferences of their electorate and their personal beliefs. The implication of this, is that the voices and interests of refugees remain marginalized.