Post on 01-Jan-2016
Significant Difference?
A comparative analysis of multicultural policies in the United Kingdom
and the Netherlands
Laura Coello
The presentation• Introduction: The choice in policies• Comparing UK and NL
Did multiculturalism fail?– Q1: Why did these countries adopt
multiculturalism?– Q2: Based on which aims and objectives
did NL and UK adopt multiculturalism?– Q3: Based on these objectives, did
multiculturalism fail?
• Conclusion
multiculturalism fail?
Anti-discrimination
Labour market participation
Figure 1: Conceptual model of study
Introduction: the choice in policies
• Context of the study:– Who is part of the nation, who is not?– What to do about those who are not?
• 3 ideal models to deal with diversity:
Allowed to manifest different identities or cultures
Private sphere Public sphere
Assimilation NO NO
Integration YES NO
Multiculturalism YES YES
Introduction: the choice in policies• Different interpretations of multiculturalism:
– Strong: right to choose ‘good life’ and group’s rights– Weak: right to choose ‘good life’ and institutional adaptations
to create equal opportunities for all
• Weak multicultural policies:• respect the right of personal identity• explicitly recognise this right • Allows these identities in both the public and private sphere• Do not try to impose a ´common´ identity• Provide the same space for alternative identities• May require adjustments of institutions, norms and behaviours.
Comparing UK and NL
• In UK and NL– Originally ‘national unions’– Centralising tendencies:
• Henry VIII• Revolts against Spain
– Colonialism– Decolonisation– Even today citizens in, for instance, Bermuda and
Aruba
Q1: Why did these countries adopt multiculturalism?
UK Racial
riots
in Notti
ngham an
d Notti
ng
Hill First
Commonwealth
Immigration Act
First
Race Relations A
ct
Seco
nd Race Rela
tions Act
Commonwealth
Immigration Act
:
Restricti
ve im
migrati
on policy
Enactm
ent of th
e Race Relations A
ct
of reference
Creation of th
e Commission fo
r Racia
l
Equality (C
RE)
The Mandla vs
Dowell Lee
case
: cas
e
law on relig
ious disc
riminati
on
Concept o
f syst
emic disc
riminati
on
Equal opportu
nities polic
y
Codes of p
ractice
, stan
dards,
guidelin
es
Lord
Scarm
an Report:
The Step
hen
Lawrence
Inquiry
Race Relations (
Amendment) Act:
Race
equality sc
hemes
RRA Regulations :
positive
duty,
accountabilit
y, equity
plan
3 organisa
tions merge in
to Commission
for Equali
ty and Human Righ
ts: CRE
1958 1962 1965 1968 1971 1976 1977 1979 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1994 1998 1999 2000 2003 2006 2007NL Hostage
s taken by Maluku activists
Scientific Council for Government Policy Report: Ethnic minorities
Introduction of a prohibition of discrimination in the constitution
Creation of the National bureau against discrimination (LBR)
Public financing of Muslim and Hindu schools
New WRR report "minority policies"
Fair Employment of Ethnic Minorities Act: registration of minorities in their workforce
New Ministry for Metropolitan Affairs and Integration, SAMEN Act
3 national organisations merge into LBR
Abolition of the SAMEN Act, Integration Policy New Style
LBR, local and regional anti-discrimination agencies become Art. 1
Q2: Based on which aims and objectives did the UK adopt multiculturalism?
– To challenge • prejudice, disadvantage • enforce equality legislation• Elimination of inequalities and discrimination and
strengthen good relations between people– Consistency:
• implemented at an early stage and given continuity to these policies
• Challenging as the (focus of the) answer shifts
• WRR advice often accompanied by shifts in– paradigm– solution – departments
• lack of consistency– Thorough anti-discrimination legislation, – but assimilative form of integration
Q2: Based on which aims and objectives did the NL adopt multiculturalism?
Q3: Based on these aims and objectives did multiculturalism fail?
UK NLWould you describe yourself as … ? (%)
1983
2005*
2008
Very racially prejudiced against people from other races
39** 2 3
A little racially prejudiced against people from other races
23 17
Not prejudiced at all 75 79
Don't know 1 *
*2005 BBC Multiculturalism Survey, conducted by telephone ** Park, Curtice, Thomson, Jarvis, Bromley (2004).
Tendency to discriminate against minorities (%)
1980
1985
1989
1991
1992
1993
Tendency 49 30 31 35 41 41
Scheepers & Coenders (1996).
Ethnic prejudice in 3 situations (1979 -2002)
Source: SCP in Coenders, Lubbers & Scheepers (2006)
Prejudice in the British society (2007)
Source: Equalities Review (2007). pp. 92
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Disabledpeople
Blackpeople
Muslimpeople
Peopleaged 70+
Gay/lesbians
Women
Never feel any prejudice
Sometimes feel prejudicedbut try not to let it show
Don’t mind if I come acrossas prejudiced
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1978-79
1981-82
1985-86
1988-89
1991-92
1994-95
1997-98
2002-03
2004-05
2008-09
Promote native DutchDismiss/ fire individual from minority
Available house to Dutch family
UK NL
Q3: Based on these aims and objectives did multiculturalism fail?
Source: UK: Kersley et al (2006) NL: De Vries et al (2005).
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
private public private public
Presence of equal opportunities policy* Keeping employee records w ith ethnic originidentif ied*
%
1998 2004
Compliance with diversity regulations 1998-2004 Diversity policies and their results in 2003
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Private sector Public Sector
%
Recruit minorities Promote minorities Minorities in organisation
Compliance with the SAMEN Act (%)
Source: Houtzager & Rodrigues (2002)
UK NL
Q3
1998 2001
Compliance 49 72
UKDifference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in the UK*
Natives mean
Immigrants mean
Difference
UK 92.0% 87.6% 4.4%
Source: Tubergen, Maas & Flap (2004) pp. 715*Data show percentages of active male population between the ages of 25-54 years.
NLDifference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in NL*
Natives mean
Immigrants mean
Difference
Netherlands 96.8% 84.0% 12.8%
Source: Tubergen, Maas & Flap (2004) pp. 715*Data show percentages of active male population between the ages of 25-54 years.
Q3
Conclusion 1
• United Kingdom:– long-term policies – reduced prejudices against (some) minorities– enabled positive relations between groups – High compliance with equal opportunities policies (voluntary for private
sector!)– labour market participation of minorities almost equal as native
counterparts
• The Netherlands:– Decrease of (some) prejudices against minorities– labour market policies short-lived – Low continuation of diversity policies (voluntary)– labour market participation of minorities much lower than native
counterparts
Conclusion 2• Absence of an underlying commitment to embrace
and institutionalise diversity– Integration needs result in assimilation?
• Difference between (government) rhetoric and actual policies: – Multiculturalism dead, but individual differences still
allowed in public sphere – International commitments VS. pursuing assimilative
policies– Warning for contradictory policies and discourse