In order to define variances on municipal attitudes host-stranger framework and intergroup

threat theory will be used. First is refer to theoretical framework of policy making process on
the immigration at the local level, from Alexander (2003) called host-stranger relations. The
host-stranger typogy is used to operationalize observing the relations between local
authorities’ attitude and potential policies regarding refugees, based on the host-stranger
theory. According to the framework of Alexander (2003) Host-stranger approach, stranger
represents the newcomers whose roots were “elsewhere”, which our case is Syrian refugees.
From the perspective of “host” realizing that “stranger” can be permanent, can lead to various
actions.

Local governments can perceive newcomers as threat, positive potential or “temporary” and
ignore. Since the refugee situation in Turkey no longer in the “temporary” understanding,
based on this theory I hypothesized the relationships as

H1  Local governments that has a threat perception towards refugees avoid responsibility
(rely on NGOs), and local policies will be “non-policy” (exclusion)

H2 Local governments that have moderate threat perception will follow “guest” attitude,
divide responsibilities between state and NGOs, and local policies will aim to “meet basic
needs” (exclusion)

H3  Local governments that have “positive potential” perception towards refugees’ either
follow an “assimilationist” attitude based their actions on equal opportunity mechanism and
produce long-term assimilationist integration policies (inclusion) or “pluralist” attitude-based
their actions on pro-active mechanism and produce integration policies while supporting
diversity (inclusion)

In the “guest” perspective, presence of refugees is accepted and the expected duration is a
limited period of time. Accordingly, theory suggests that local municipality’s attitude can be
categorized in the context of “tolerance”, and integration policies are not prioritized.

Assimilationist attitude reflects to the situation where the local government accepts the
permanence of the refugee and their “otherness” will be disappeared within time. Local
policies are facilitated to integrate refugee into dominant culture, and the otherness of the
refugee is ignored, however, inclusive integration policies provided.
Similar to the assimilationist attitude, pluralist attitude also include acceptance on the
permanence of the refugee, but also accept that the “otherness” of the refugee also remains.
The policies will consider integration as a two-way process and apply a community-based
approach.

As the alternative explanation, intergroup threat theory will be used. “Intergroup

threat” describes the expectation of harmful act from intergroup relations for the ingroup.
Original theory that first proposed by Stephan & Stephan (2000), consist of four types of
threats; realistic threats, symbolic threats, intergroup anxiety and negative stereotypes.
However, these four components reduced into basic distinction among realistic and symbolic
threats. While negative stereotypes first pointed out as a type of threat, further research
showed that it is a determinant of realistic and symbolic threats (Stephan, et al., 2002, p.
1244). Intergroup anxiety considered as a subtype-threat related to concerns about interacting
with outgroup (Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison, Intergroup Threat Theory, 2009).

Realistic threats include the conditions that can be harmful for the power that ingroup
possess in terms of political and economic power, or it simply concerns the ingroup’s general
well-being. Symbolic threats are concerned with the ingroup’s values, belief systems or
worldview in general. Antecedents or the factors that influence the threat perception of the
ingroup include relations between groups, strength of ingroup identity, cultural dimensions
and situational factors in the revised theory (Stephan, Renfro, & Davis, 2008, pp. 58-63).

Figure 2: Revised model of the integrated threat theory

(Source: Stephan, Renfro &Davis 2008, p.60)

According to theory, low power groups predicted to have higher chance of experience threat,
but they are expected to reach weaker compared to high power groups. On the other hand,
high power groups are less likely to experience threat but they expected to reach more
strongly to perceived threat. Group size and history of a group conflict are the other
components influence perception of intergroup threats. (Stephan, Ybarra, & Morrison,
Intergroup Threat Theory, 2009)

In the field of immigration studies, empirical Works that imply of the intergroup theory
shows that the perceived realistic and symbolic threats to ingroup increase the negative
attitude towards immigrant groups (Stephan, Lausanne Renfro, Victoria M Esses , Stephan, &
Martin, 2005).

H1 Local governments that perceive higher realistic and symbolic threats results in
negative attitude towards refugees and resistance for living in the same environment, thus,
local policies will be non-policy (exclusion)

H2  Local governments that perceive low level of realistic and symbolic threats results in
sympathetic attitude towards refugees and welcoming approach, thus, they produce
integration policies.

In terms of analytical aspects, the research will follow deductive logic and a qualitative
approach by theory testing and in dept case analysis.