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