A geo-snippet of Burnt Oak, the London Borough that became Little Romania.
And another geo-snippet of Brent. In April 2001, a mere 277 residents registered as Romanian. By 2017, Brent local authorities recognised Romanian nationals as the largest Eastern European community (even surpassing the Polish).
“I spoke about my experience as a governor at a school where 12.5% of the children speak Romanian (compared with 4.5% Polish), where the Romanian children are very much part of the school community with some sitting on the Pupil School Council and involved in the many extra-curricular activities, including music and choir. They are proud of their country of origin but see themselves as now part of the UK. Many have been at the school for 5 or 6 years although their sense of security was shaken by the EU Referendum result.” - Martin Francis, Chalkhill Primary School [Wembley Matters]
How do Romanians in the UK associate?
Over the years, more established, embedded and mature diaspora associations and NGOs have developed long-standing networks, through sustained cooperation; in turn, this helped cultivate a shared modus operandi and coordination of practices based on mutual trust and reputational costs. As the social network analysis reveals, these entities are clustered around Greater London and exhibit higher participation levels in cultural, professional/business networking, and country-branding activities amongst others, often associated with the Romanian Cultural Institute or institutions of diplomatic missions (such as the Romanian Embassy and Consulate).
More permissive conditions of access to the UK’s labour market after the lifting of transitional controls in 2014 triggered a steady demographic growth and diversification, expanding the geographical outreach of Romanian communities to other UK regions.
These shifts also translated into more localised and community-centred initiatives, primarily focused on cohesion, socialisation and the preservation of cultural belonging - for instance, organising events promoting traditions, and folklore, at local community centres, or the local Romanian Orthodox parish. Furthermore, personalised/individualised interpretations of traditional, as well as religious values somewhat ‘democratised’ the means by which diaspora associations chose to express and promote ethnocultural and religious identities.
Romanian communities in the UK tend to associate both online and offline. Most diaspora entities have an online visibility, through websites and/or social media pages, as well as offline presence (i.e. physical headquarters, traceable activities on the ground). Others, however, operate almost exclusively online (i.e. social media groups, media outlets, diaspora community platforms). These online groups are means for socialisation, promotion, but at times provide a solid basis for mobilisation (for instance, voting or protests).
Do Romanians in the UK cooperate? And with what scope?
We applied queries (filters) to the global network to discern patterns in cooperation, observing for instance, how diaspora associations interact with institutions, whether connections with the public sector in Romania or the UK are more frequent etc. Apart from frequency, the strength of relationships (weight) is also conferred by the scope, location and type of interaction, which can partly indicate the level of coordination between two or more entities.
Online promotion activities (website, social media) carry a lower weight than participating at or organising an event, the latter implying higher degrees of coordination (resources, physical presence). Moreover, factoring in location and scope, the same type of interaction/relationship can take different weight values. For example, associations from different countries organising an event implies cooperation at a transnational level, hence higher impact.
Receiving financial support, grants, sponsorships (in fact, any material contribution) from another entity and engaging in fundraising initiatives (charity) translate into stronger, more pronounced connections (edges), since impact. a certain level of organisation, outreach and higher impact. The same applies to other types of relationships: organising/initiating campaigns, charity / civic spin-off initiatives interactions, subsidiary/branch of the same entity.
What the UK-based diaspora network reveals...
This rendering of the network enables us to visualise, which entities act as bridges (between nodes). Predominantly, these actors broker connections/interactions to otherwise less connected entities. In our case (red nodes), the diplomatic mission, (bilateral) business association, as well as diaspora organisations and groups bridge relationships and generally demonstrate high outreach capacity within the network. The Romanian Embassy largely facilitates connections between diaspora entities (by organising events and pursuing community engagement strategies). Geographically, most are located in the Greater London area. Observing how the network is structured may help increase the scope of cooperation, with more entities assuming a facilitator position, linking different geographies and garnering impactful initiatives (with a long-term outlook, broader partnerships and effective coordination).
This visualisation indicates the degree to which entities (nodes) in a network tend to cluster together (tightly knit groups characterised by a relatively high density of links, showing how well connected is the neighbourhood of a node. In our UK-based Romanian network, blue nodes take a value of 1 (or close to), which means that the neighbourhood is well connected, whereas null or close to 0 ( red ) means there are hardly any connections. This may indicate cooperation based on geographical proximity (same area, city), which facilitates certain types of interaction and coordination. Overall, we notice a high density of links in certain areas, whereas other neighbourhoods are less connected, which in turn may help identify opportunities for cooperation.
This visualisation of the network shows which entities are influential (by colour intensity & size of nodes). It is computed not only by the weight of a node (number of links) but also by the importance/ connectivity of its neighbours.
An example of a community cluster. Based on the type of connected entities, we notice dense interaction across Civil Society and Diaspora categories, with high levels of cooperation between the local/national UK NGOs and diaspora organisations. Sustained cooperation with the UK public sector, local and national institutions, also appears to be significant.
We also analysed different interactions. Below, how diaspora organisations interact with UK-based public administrations (national & local).
Our report, Understanding the Romanian Diaspora in the UK, and the interactive networks create an integrated community profile. In the meantime, food for thought...
Perhaps the most recurring theme when analysing the Romanian diaspora is a persistent lack of trust. Mistrust in institutions and public authorities in either country is equally present in peer-to-peer interactions, or when it comes to (Romanians abroad) joining an association, initiative, campaign or project. Within the larger framework, it has a trickle effect on the way diaspora organisations cooperate, amongst themselves, with institutions or civil society at large.
Although diaspora organisations have significant local outreach and capacity to engage the public sector, there seems to be a limited incentive (still) for more ambitious (i.e. nation-wide, as well as transnational) policy-driven collaborative approaches. Pervasive mistrust and sectarian divides within the community have fostered a competitive environment, rather than long-term oriented cooperation.
This unfortunate trend also stems from a process of intense politicisation of diaspora issues, mainly from the homeland. Political affiliation, bias and opportunism, whether electoral or otherwise, long dictated how funding was to be distributed, what diaspora initiatives took precedence and whom to engage, based on perceived (political) support. The challenge ahead, particularly when it comes to homeland politics and institutions, is shedding these practices altogether, whilst engaging in a trust-building process, commensurate with the task at hand: revitalising diaspora engagement across all of its segments. From elites to vulnerable groups issues, aspirations and grievances all require informed and adaptive policy tools.