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
Figure 1: Conceptual model of study
multiculturalism
fail?
Antidiscrimination
Labour market
participation
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
NL
1958
1962
1965
Ra
ce
on
m
Co
m
in
w
Im
m
gh
am
ea
lth
No
tti
n
an
d
No
t
1968
1971
1976
1977
Hostage
s taken
by
Maluku
activists
1979
Scientifi
c
Council
for
Govern
ment
Policy
Report:
Ethnic
minoriti
es
1983 1984
Introdu
ction of
a
prohibi
tion of
discrim
ination
in the
constit
ution
1985 1986
Creatio
n of
the
Nation
al
bureau
against
discrim
ination
(LBR)
1987 1988
Public
financin
g of
Muslim
and
Hindu
schools
1989
New
WRR
report
"minorit
y
policies"
1994
Fair
Employ
ment of
Ethnic
Minoriti
es Act:
registrat
ion of
minoriti
es in
their
workfor
ce
rd
,
da
rd
s
an
st
La Sca
w rm
re
a
Ra nce n Re
ce In po
q
eq Rel uir rt:
ua ati y Th
e
o
li
St
RR ty s ns (
ep
ch Am
A
he
e
n
ac Reg me end
co ul
s
m
un ati
en
t o
3
t)
or abi ns
Ac
ga lit : p
t:
y
fo ni
o
Ra
,
s
r E sa eq it
ce
qu tio uit ive
n
y
al
du
s
p
ity m
t
l
an erg an y,
d e
Hu in
m to
an Co
R i mm
gh
ts issi
: C on
RE
Lo
e,
de
gu s of
id p
el ra
in ct
es ic
Co
Se
tin
g
Re
i
l
gr
at
co
at
io
nd
ns
io
n
Ra
Ac
Ac
c
t
e
Co
t
R
m
e
la
tio
Re mon
ns
st w
r
e
Ac
En ictiv alth
t
ac e
I
m
i
of tme mm mi
re nt igr gra
fe o
a
t
Cr ren f th tion ion
ea
ce e R p A c
t
ac olic t :
Eq ion
eR y
u a of
ela
lit th
y
e
tio
(C Co
ns
RE m
Ac
)
m
t
iss
io
n
fo
rR
ac
ia
l
Th
e
M
la an
w
on dla
re vs D
lig o
io w
us el
di l Le
Co
sc e
nc
rim ca
ep
in se:
to
at
f
io cas
s
Eq
n
e
ys
ua
te
m
lo
i
cd
pp
or
isc
tu
rim
ni
tie
in
at
sp
io
ol
n
icy
st
st
Fir
Fir
cia
Hi l rio
ll
ts
Ra
UK
Q1: Why did these countries adopt
multiculturalism?
1999
2000
1998
New
3
Ministry national
for
organisa
Metrop tions
olitan merge
Affairs into LBR
and
Integrat
ion,
SAMEN
Act
2003
Abolitio
n of the
SAMEN
Act,
Integrat
ion
Policy
New
Style
2006
2007
LBR,
local
and
regiona
l antidiscrim
ination
agenci
es
becom
e 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
Q2: Based on which aims and objectives did
the NL adopt multiculturalism?
• 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
Q3: Based on these aims and objectives
did multiculturalism fail?
UK
NL
Would you describe yourself as … ? (%)
1985
1989
1991
1992
1993
2
1980
39**
2008
2005*
1983
Very racially prejudiced
against people from
other races
Tendency to discriminate against minorities (%)
30
31
35
41
41
3
Tendency
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).
49
Scheepers & Coenders (1996).
Q3: Based on these aims and objectives
did multiculturalism fail?
UK
NL
Prejudice in the British society (2007)
Ethnic prejudice in 3 situations (1979 -2002)
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
Never feel any prejudice
60
60
50
Sometimes feel prejudiced
but try not to let it show
50
40
Don’t mind if I come across
as prejudiced
40
30
Dismiss/ fire individual from minority
Available house to Dutch family
30
20
20
10
10
0
Promote native Dutch
0
Disabled
people
Black
people
Muslim People
Gay/
people aged 70+ lesbians
Source: Equalities Review (2007). pp. 92
Women
1978- 1981- 1985- 1988- 1991- 1994- 1997- 2002- 2004- 200879
82
86
89
92
95
98
03
05
09
Source: SCP in Coenders, Lubbers & Scheepers (2006)
Q3
UK
NL
Compliance with diversity regulations 1998-2004
Diversity policies and their results in 2003
%
%
100
100
90
90
80
80
70
70
60
60
50
40
50
30
40
20
30
10
20
0
private
public
private
Presence of equal opportunities policy*
Keeping employee records w ith ethnic origin
identified*
1998
Source:
UK: Kersley et al (2006)
NL: De Vries et al (2005).
public
10
0
2004
Private sector
Recruit minorities
Public Sector
Promote minorities
Compliance with the SAMEN Act (%)
Compliance
Source: Houtzager & Rodrigues (2002)
1998
2001
49
72
Minorities in organisation
Q3
UK
Difference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in the UK*
UK
Natives
mean
Immigrants
mean
Difference
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.
NL
Difference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in NL*
Netherlands
Natives
mean
Immigrants
mean
Difference
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.
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