CONSTRUCTING DUTCH IMMIGRANT POLICY
Research-policy relations and immigrant integration policy-making
in the Netherlands
Peter Scholten
Assistant Professor Sociology of Governance
University of Twente
PO Box 217, 7500 AE, Enschede, The Netherlands
p.w.a.scholten@utwente.nl
Working Paper
Please do not distribute
Introduction
In spite of decades of research and policy-making, immigrant integration in
the Netherlands has remained an issue that defies clear definition. Among
researchers as well as policy-makers, there is persistent disagreement about
what immigrant integration actually means. Does integration mean socialcultural emancipation, social-economic participation, social-cultural
adaptation or good citizenship. Does it involve minorities, ‘allochthonous’, or
foreigners? Does it refer to social-economic factors or social-cultural factors
and what would be relation between these factors? Does it mean that the
Netherlands has become a multicultural society, or does it rather mean that
such a prospect of multiculturalism has to be averted?
The development of Dutch immigrant integration policy is marked by
discontinuity (Entzinger 2006). About once in every decade or so, a new
‘policy frame’ emerged, involving a different way of defining and
conceptualizing integration, categorizing the involved groups, different
causal stories about how to resolve this issue and different normative
perspectives on diversity in Dutch society. The Minorities Policy in the 1980s
had distinct multiculturalist traits, the Integration Policy in the 1990s had
more universalist traits and finally the so-called Integration Policy New Style
from after the turn of the Millennia had distinct assimilationist traits.
Furthermore, the Dutch case seems to be characterized by growing
controversy on the process of policy-making as well. In particular the
involvement of research in policy-making has become fiercely contested.
Various events, such as the establishment of a parliamentary investigative
committee and the publication of several controversial reports by the
Scientific Council for Government Policy (1989; 2001; 2007), have given cause
to public and political debate about research-policy relations in this domain.
-1-
Politicians were accused of delegating policy-making to scientific policy
advisors in an effort to depoliticize this sensitive topic, and researchers were
accused of being too much policy-oriented and being biased towards a
multiculturalist model. The credibility of scientific research was put on the
line, and immigrant integration policy-making became more and more
politicized. This contrasts sharply with the more technocratic and
depoliticized mode of policy-making that seems to have characterized this
domain until well in the 1980s, with a strongly institutionalized researchpolicy nexus on which institutes as the Scientific Council for Government
Policy and the Advisory Committee on Minorities Research played a central
role (Rath 1991).
This paper focuses on the relation between the ‘structure’ of policymaking and the ‘culture’ of problem framing in Dutch immigrant integration
policies over the past three to four decades. It follows up on Gusfield’s
(Gusfield 1981) premise that in order to understand the culture of public
problems (how public problems are socially defined), we must also
understand the structure of relations between actors involved in this public
problem. This has been further developed by Baumgartner and Jones (1993;
2006), who argue that policy-development over long periods is characterized
by relatively stable periods with mutually reinforcing policy frames and
policy structures, punctuated by moments of radical policy change where
both frames and structures are redefined. In particular, I will zoom in on the
role of research in these policy structures and distinguish between various
models of research-policy relations (technocracy, bureaucracy, engineering
and enlightenment). The central question can be formulated as: what has been
the relation between various structures of research-policy relations and the
framing of immigrant integration policy in the Netherlands over the past
three to four decades, and how can this relation be explained?
Firstly, I will identify the periods in which changes occurred in the
policy ‘framing’ of integration. This involves those periods in which the
deeper understanding of immigrant integration changed, as indicated by
changes in how this social problem was conceptualized, how involved groups
were categorized, what causal theories were developed and what normative
perspective was employed. Subsequently, I will analyze how the social
process that led to these frame-shifts was structured. In particular, I will zoom
in on how the relation between research and policy-making was structured.
The literature about immigrant integration in the Netherlands suggests that
research-policy relations have been an important nexus for policydevelopment in this domain (Rath 2001; Penninx 2005), but thus far little
research has been done to how this research-policy nexus has developed over
the past decades and how and why it did affect policy-making. Finally, I will
generate several theses about how the structure of policy-making was related
-2-
to the culture of problem framing in immigrant integration in The
Netherlands.
Science-policy boundaries and policy framing
Research on immigrant integration in the Netherlands has been mostly
involved with developing specific frames of immigrant integration. Over the
past years, this policy advocacy role of scientific experts seems to have
contributed to a growing political cynicism toward scientific policy advice.
The credibility of scientists was put on the line as scientists would conduct
‘politics with other means’. The analysis in this paper will refrain from
framing immigrant integration itself, but will rather reconstruct how and why
actors involved in this domain, both researchers and policy-makers, adopted
specific frames. It is an analysis of problem framing rather essay on problem
framing.
An intractable policy controversy
In international and national literature, various explanations have been
developed for the Dutch policy approach to immigrant integration. One of
these explanations stresses the importance of institutionalized national
models of immigrant integration. This type of explanation can be found in
national literature (Koopmans 2003), but is also often used in international
literature about the Dutch case (Soysal 1994). The Dutch national model of
immigrant integration would be based on its national history of pillarisation
that created institutional structures of accommodating cultural and religious
pluralism (Lijphart 1968). Although evidence of such path-dependency can be
found in specific areas, such the freedom of religious education, on the level
of problem framing this explanation must be falsified. Both policy and
research in the Netherlands have, over the past three to four decades, been
characterized by discontinuity and by at least several ‘integration models’.
About once in every decade or so, a new policy model was adopted and new
knowledge claims emerged in research. So, there is no such thing as one
dominant national model of immigrant integration in the Netherlands.
Other explanations focus on developments in key problem attributes,
arguing for instance that weak social-economic participation in the 1980s was
the main trigger for the Integration Policy in the 1990s (Scientific Council for
Government Policy 1989). Similarly, persisting cultural differences are
referred to as the trigger for more assimilationist policies since 2003 (Social
and Cultural Planning Office 2003). However, determining what these
problem attributes are and how problem developments are to be evaluated,
has been object of intense controversy. This became manifest only recently
when a parliamentary investigative committee pointed at evidence of
improving social-economic participation of migrants as indication of policy
success, whereas this conclusion was widely discarded by other actors who
-3-
rather pointed at evidence of persisting cultural distance between groups as
evidence of policy failure.
Also, explanations focusing on the political process seem to miss
sufficient explanatory power. These explanations stress political changes as
causes of policy change: for instance, as long as the Christen Democrat party
was in power until the end of the 1980s, it could support a multiculturalist
approach, but when it was forced out of power during the early 1990s the
path was cleared for a more social-economic approach (Fermin 1997;
Pellikaan and Trappenburg 2003). However, much of the policy framing
seems to have taken place outside of the political domain, such as on the
research-policy nexus, in public debate or in corporatist structures with
migrant organizations. Even less have migrant groups themselves been a
political force of any relevance. In fact, immigrant integration policy-making
seems to have been systematically depoliticized until well in the 1980s. Only
recently has the political arena become the main arena for policy-making.
So, most of these explanations are inadequate for accounting for the
intractable nature of this particular social problem. They are unable to account
for the discontinuity in immigrant integration policies over the past decades
and the resilient controversy on the fundamental level of how to ‘frame’
immigrant integration. There is a need for a conceptual framework that
allows us to take a step back from these ongoing controversies, and analyse
precisely these controversies on the level of problem framing.
Punctuated Equilibrium in policy-making
In policy theory there have been efforts to combine social-constructionist
perspectives on problem definition with institutionalist and structuralist
perspectives on policy-making (Baumgartner and Jones 1993; Rochefort and
Cobb 1994). Baumgartner and Jones have been the most explicit in
conceptualizing the interaction between culture and structure in policy
evolution over fairly long time periods. From constructionist theory, they
borrowed the insight that policies are built on specific problem constructs that
are always inherently selective and normative. Whereas Baumgartner and
Jones speak of policy images, this part of their framework has been further
elaborated by other researchers in terms of problem framing (Bleich 2003).
Frames are ‘underlying structures of belief, perception and appreciation’ that
provide ways of ‘selecting, organizing, interpreting and making sense of a
complex reality to provide guideposts for knowing, analyzing, persuading
and acting’ (Rein and Schön 1994: 32).
Intractable social problems are characterized by a multiplicity of
problem frames. This means that there are multiple competing ‘realities’ in a
specific domain. The interaction between actors with different frames is,
consequently, hindered by differences in terms of concepts, social categories,
causal stories and normative perspectives. This means that this interaction
-4-
will often decay into dialogues of the deaf, as actors are unable to understand
each other and will disagree fundamentally about what constitute ‘facts’
about a problem situation, and how these facts are to be interpreted.
Baumgartner and Jones have argued that policy images or ‘frames’ tend
to be stabilized by specific institutional structures that support a given frame.
This involves a ‘selective mobilization of bias’ (Schattschneider 1960) by
actors that share a given frame and are able to monopolize the policy-making
structure for a given period. Usually, these actors will resort to specific
‘institutional venues’ for proclaiming their frame: specific institutions tend to
be more susceptible to specific frames than others. For instance, Guiraudon
(1997) has shown in her international comparative research of immigrant
right extensions, that depoliticized policy structures that tend to constrain the
scale of debate, facilitate the extension of migrant rights. As such, policy
structures tend to create policy monopolies that are sustained by a mutually
reinforcing logic between a given frame and specific policy actors.
However, the stability granted by such policy monopolies can be at best
partial, as it also involves a mobilization of bias that leaves other frames and
actors out. The stability granted by such monopolies can be punctuated when
either the underlying policy structure or the policy frame is effectively
contested. This can occur when new ‘venues’ claim authority over a given
field, or when actors manage to get a rival problem frame on the agenda. For
instance, actors can shop for alternative ‘venues’ that may be more susceptible
to their frames, such as migrant organizations that shopped for legal venues
to get rights against discrimination accepted. Also, actors can occasionally
manage to get new frames on the agenda. For instance, focus events can
trigger attention to problem facets that had been left out, thereby opening a
window of opportunity for policy actors with rival problem frames.
Thus, policy evolution over long periods will involve periods of relative
stability, when there is a structure-induced equilibrium around a specific
frames, interrupted by occasional moments of dramatic change when both
policy frames and policy structures change. Especially intractable social
problems as immigrant integration, characterized by a multiplicity of frames,
will be characterized by such patterns of ‘punctuated equilibrium’. There will
be periods in which one group of actors manages to build a structural
monopoly around one frame, whereas the constant rivalry with alternative
frames involves a constant risk of policy punctuations.
Boundary configurations on the research-policy nexus
Theories of the policy process often leave out science as one of the institutions
that can affect how policy problems are framed. Often, the role of scientific
institutes is defined as an exogenous factor. This has been described by
Schneider and Ingram (1997) as ‘scientific exceptionalism’, or the belief that
‘science is exceptional (..) because it is involved in the search for truth [and
-5-
because] scientists are accepted as arbiters of facts on the basis of their
professionalism, autonomy and superior intellect.’ Especially the standard
view of the policy role of science as ‘speaking truth to power’ (Wildavsky
1979) seems to be characterized by such scientific exceptionalism. This
ignores, however, the variable role that scientists and scientific institutes can
play in policy processes.
Within the policy sciences and science studies, there is a growing body
of literature that treats the configuration of science-policy relations rather as
an endogenous variable in the empirical study of policy developments. This
has drawn attention to strongly contingent and both value- and interestdriven ‘boundary work’ practices of research and policy actors. Boundary
work has been defined as social practices in which actors demarcate the roles
of science and politics, or ‘attribute selected characteristics to the institution of
science for purposes of constructing a social boundary’ (Gieryn 1983), and
coordinate relations between science and politics by defining proper ways of
interaction (Shapin 1992).
Boundary work can produce various configurations of science-policy
relations, or ‘boundary configurations’. For the empirical study of these
configurations, various theoretical models can be distinguished based on two
axes. First, the extent to which the roles of science and politics are demarcated
or differentiated can differ. For instance, Weber proposes a sharp demarcation
between both institutions based on the fact-value dichotomy: politics should
decide on normative facets of policy-making and science should only provide
the facts for political decision-making. Second, mutual relations between
science and politics can be coordinated in a way that established either a
scientific or political primacy (Wittrock 1991). For instance, the standard
model of ‘science speaking truth to power’ clearly attributes primacy to the
scientific sphere. Combining these two axes leads to a four-type model of
boundary configurations:
Theoretical models of science-politics relations, adapted from (Hoppe 2005)
Coordination or relations
Demarcation
of roles
Scientific Primacy
Political Primacy
Sharp
Enlightenment Model
Bureaucratic Model
Diffuse
Technocratic Model
Engineering Model
-6-
First, the enlightenment model sticks closest to the standard model of
scientific institutions as part of an autonomous sphere involved only in the
search for the truth. Science is considered to be ‘exceptional’ and clearly
demarcated from the sphere of politics but has influence on politics field by a
process of enlightenment, often trough an indirect and gradual ‘knowledge
creep’ (Weiss 1977). In the technocratic model, science also enjoys primacy but
is much more directly involved in policy developments, descending from its
ivory tower position more typical of the previous model. In this model,
science not only speaks truth per se, but also ‘speaks truth to power’
(Wildavsky 1979). In contrast, in the bureaucratic model, political primacy
renders scientific institutions in a position of knowledge delivery on demand.
Science thus has a much more instrumental role clearly demarcated from the
sphere of politics. Science provides ‘the facts’, politics the values. This model
is thus based on Weberian fact-value dichotomy between administration and
politics. Finally, in the engineering model, politics is on ‘top’ and science on
‘tap’, but the division of labor does not involve a distinction between roles
and principles as sharp as in the previous model. Scientists and experts are
not just fact machines but are also drawn into research loaded with political,
social and ethical values. This model is closest to the idea of ‘mandated
science’ (Salter and Levy 1988).
The central issue in this paper is the relation between how researchpolicy relations were configured and how immigrant integration was framed
as a policy problem in the Netherlands. How did the structure of researchpolicy relations interact with the culture of problem framing in this domain?
And how (and to what extent) does this interaction provide an explanation
for the evolution of immigrant policies in the Netherlands, with episodes of
relative stability as well as moments of dramatic policy change?
Boundary configurations and immigrant integration policy in the
Netherlands
The punctuated equilibria of Dutch immigrant integration policy
The intractability of immigrant integration as a policy issue in the Netherland
is illustrated by the rise and fall of various policy paradigms over the past
decades. From the perspective of problem framing, it is evident that
immigrant integration has been framed very differently in specific periods.
This means that not only the policy approach was different, but also the way
the policy problem was conceptualized, how migrants were categorized, how
integration was causally theorized and what normative perspective was
employed. Once in every decade or so, a ‘frame-shift’ occurred followed by a
new frame that would lead to policy equilibrium for only a limited period.
-7-
Until well into the 1970s, a differentialist framing of immigrant integration
prevented the development of a policy of immigrant integration. The
presence of migrants (both labour and colonial migrants) was considered
temporary. This was also manifest in the categorization of migrants as ‘guestlabourers’ or ‘international commuters’. Policies toward these temporary
groups were mainly ad-hoc, aimed at participation in the economic sphere
and retention of identity in the social-cultural sphere. This phase of denial
was based on a normative belief that the Netherlands was not and should not
be a country of immigration.
A first frame-shift took place in the end of the 1970s and early 1980s. In
this period, a Minorities Policy was developed, based on a rather
multiculturalist problem frame. The policy problem was reconceptualised in
terms of participation but also social-cultural emancipation of ethnic or
cultural minorities. The causal story behind the Minorities Policy expressed
the idea that an amelioration of the social-cultural position of migrants would
also improve their social-economic position. Moreover, although the
Netherlands still not considered itself an immigration country, it did redefine
the imagined national community in terms of being a multicultural society.
Another policy frame-shift took place in the early 1990s, when the
Minorities Policy was reframed into an Integration Policy that stressed socialeconomic participation of immigrants as citizens or ‘allochthonous’ rather
than emancipation of minorities. Rather than categorizing migrants on a
group level based on ethno-cultural traits, migrants were categorized on an
individual basis based on foreign descent. The causal story about the relation
between social-economic participation and social-cultural emancipation was
now reversed, with social-economic improvement now being considered a
condition for a better position in the social-cultural sphere as well. The
normative perspective of being a multicultural society shifted to the
background in this period, with much more stress being put on the relation
between immigrant integration and maintaining a viable welfare state.
Finally, a third frame-shift took place after the turn of the Millennia.
Immigrant integration was reframed as a problem of social-economic
participation to a problem of social-cultural adaptation. Whereas the
Integration Policy had stressed ‘active citizenship’, the Integration Policy
‘New Style’, as it was labelled, stressed rather the ‘common citizenship’ of
migrants, which meant that ‘the unity of society must be found in what
members have in common (..) that is that people speak Dutch, and that one
abides to basic Dutch norms’ (TK 2003-2004, 29203, nr. 1: 8.). Persisting socialcultural differences were now considered a hindrance to immigrant
integration. Moreover, the integration policy was more and more linked to a
broader public and political concern about the preservation of national
identity and social cohesion in Dutch society: it was just as much about the
-8-
integration of the Dutch society as such as about the integration of migrants in
this society.
Policy frames in Dutch immigrant integration policy since the 1970s
No integration
Minorities
Integration
policy
Policy
Policy
< 1978
1978-1994
1994-2003
- Integration
- Mutual
- Integration,
with retention
adaptation
Active
Terminology of identity
in a
citizenship
multicultur
al society
- Immigrant
- Ethnic or
- ‘Citizens’ or
groups defined
cultural
‘Allochthonous’,
by national
minorities
individual
origin and
characterise members of
Social
framed as
d by socialspecific
Classification
temporary
economic
minority groups
guests
and socialcultural
problems
- Social-economic - Social- Social-economic
participation
cultural
participation as
and retention of emancipatio a condition for
social-cultural
n as a
social-cultural
Causal
identity
condition
emancipation
Stories
for socialeconomic
participatio
n
- The
- The
- Civic
Netherlands
Netherlands participation in
Normative
should not be a
as an open,
a de-facto
perspective
country of
multimulticultural
immigration
cultural
society
society
Integration
Policy New Style
>2003
- Adaptation,
‘Common
citizenship’
- Immigrants
defined as policy
targets because
of social-cultural
differences
- Social-cultural
differences as
obstacle to
integration
- Preservation of
national identity
and social
cohesion
This frame-analysis clearly indicates that there was no one Dutch model of
immigrant integration. It reveals a pattern of punctuated equilibrium, with
periods of relative stability when policy was based on one distinct problem
frame, interrupted by frame-shifts that led to very different ways of
understanding immigrant integration. Moreover, policies in various periods
-9-
even seem to have contradicted each other. For instance, the differentialist
and multiculturalist approaches of the 1970s and 1980s contrasts sharply with
the more assimilationist approach from after the turn of the Millennia, as also
phrased in a recent policy memorandum: ‘one disregards that not everything
that is different is also valuable (..), with the cultivation of cultural identities is
impossible to bridge differences’ (TK 2003-2004, 29203, nr. 1: 8).
The next step is to explain these shifts in the framing or ‘culture’ of
immigrant integration policies in the Netherlands. From the perspective used
in this paper, such an explanation involves studying the structure of policymaking, and in particular the structure of research-policy relations, in the
periods that the frame-shifts took place. How did developments in culture
and structure interact in these turning-points in immigrant integration policy
in the Netherlands?
The technocracy of the Minorities Policy
The differentialist approach that prevented the development of an immigrant
integration policy until the 1970s, was sustained by powerful institutional
interests. Specific government departments, political actors and welfare
organizations formed ‘iron triangles’ around the differentialist policy frame in
this period. The Department of Social Affairs, which was responsible for the
large category of foreign laborers, sustained the idea of temporary migration
because of social and economic reasons: the function of these migrants as a
temporary reservoir of labor had to maintained. Political actors tried to
prevent partisan conflict about this sensitive topic, because they feared that
politicization would benefit anti-immigrant parties. Furthermore, a structure
of welfare organizations had evolved around the ad-hoc, group-oriented
policies, that also resisted the development of a general immigrant integration
policy for all migrant groups.
This structural policy equilibrium was put under growing pressure in
the late 1970s. A series of ‘focus-events’, including racial tensions in several
Dutch cities (Rotterdam and Schiedam) and a series of terrorist acts
committed by members of one specific migrant group (the Moluccans), put
immigrant integration on the agenda. A tension between the norm of not
being a country of immigration and the fact of migrant settlement was
becoming increasingly manifest (Entzinger 1975). In 1978, government
adopted a parliamentary motion that called for the development of a general
‘Minorities Policy’. In the period between 1978 and 1983, the department of
Home Affairs coordinated the development of this Minorities Policy that
would provide the basis for policy during the 1980s.
Research played a central role in this policy punctuation. On the
initiative of the Department of Culture (responsible for amongst others the
Moluccan migrants) and a group of researchers, an Advisory Committee on
Minorities Research (ACOM) was established that stimulated research to the
- 10 -
social position of minorities (Entzinger 1981). On the one hand, the
establishment of the ACOM was a product of coordinated efforts of
researchers to get closer involved in policy development in this domain.
Especially anthropologists and sociologists had drawn attention to the
position of migrants as minorities rather than as temporary guests. Moreover,
there was a strong sense of social engagement amongst these researchers: they
wanted their research to have societal function as well (Penninx 2005). On the
other hand, the department of Culture was one of the few departments whose
position shifted toward a more multiculturalist view in the late 1970s, without
this relatively weak department having any means to enforce policy change.
Establishing the ACOM was therefore also an instance of ‘missionary
boundary work’ on the part of this department: it promoted research to
minorities in an effort to convince the other departments and other policy
actors of the need for a different policy approach.
Amongst politicians and policy-makers there was a strong belief in this
period that the social problem of immigrant integration could be effectively
resolved provided that a rational policy approach was developments. This
reflected a more general belief in this period in societal steering in the
possibility of rationally resolving social problems with the aid of the social
sciences. Also, political parties tried to avoid partisan conflict about this
policy topic, afraid to raise the social tensions around this topic. The
coordinator of policy development from the Home Affairs Department clearly
wanted to keep this issue a non-partisan issue, and preferred to ground policy
in scientific research rather than on political claims-making (Scholten 2007).
In this context, especially a report from the Scientific Council for
Government Policy (WRR) would have a very direct influence on the
Minorities Policy. The WRR, an independent advisory body that provides
advice to government on various long-term policy topics, was then still a
young organization (formally established only in 1972) that was eager to
prove that it could matter to policy development also in these complex policy
domains. In close coordination with the ACOM, the WRR issued a ‘report to
the government’ about ‘Ethnic Minorities’ that contained a concrete design for
a Minorities Policy (WRR, 1979). This report was taken as a direct starting
point for the development of a Draft Minorities Memorandum by an
interdepartmental coordination committee for a Minorities Policy. Very
silently and directly, most of the conclusions of the WRR were taken over in
the Minorities Memorandum.
The organization of research-policy relations in this period reveals many
traits of the technocratic model. First of all, the boundaries between research
and policy seem to have been very diffuse: researchers had a strong sense of
social and policy engagement, and policy-makers had a strong belief that
scientific research was crucial for rational problem resolution. Furthermore,
there was a scientific primacy that was clearly manifest in the direct way in
- 11 -
which the research of the ACOM and the WRR provided the basis for the
Minorities Policy, although this scientific primacy was to some extent
dependent on a policy of politicization. As such, this configuration of
research-policy relations has been described as a ‘technocratic symbiosis’ (Van
Amersfoort 1984; Scholten 2007).
This symbiosis played a central role in punctuating the structural
equilibrium of differentialism in the 1970s, and developing a multiculturalist
approach. It was a successful strategy for breaking that had prevented policydevelopment thus far with the aid of scientific research. Furthermore, it
created a new structural equilibrium that brought together actors who shared
a specific interest in the position of minorities. Both minorities researchers as
policy-makers focused on what was specific to the position of minorities as an
argument for a specific Minorities policy. Hence, it induced a so-called ‘logic
of minorities’ in problem framing, stressing the specificities of minorities as in
a multiculturalist approach. As such, the creation of a technocratic symbiosis
in terms of structure clearly interacted with the rise of multiculturalism in
terms of framing.
Enlightenment and the Integration Policy
The Minorities Policy remained in relative equilibrium during most of the
1980s, supported by the policy structure that had been developed in the early
1980s. Research would continue to play an important role in maintaining this
policy equilibrium, with a strongly institutionalized research-policy nexus on
which the ACOM maintained a central position. This shielded the Minorities
Policy off from specific macro-political and macro-economic developments
that were affecting many other social policy domains during the 1980s. Faced
with economic recession and growing unemployment, in society at large but
also amongst minorities in particular, a politics of welfare state retrenchment
was implemented during the 1980s (Andeweg and Irwin 2005). However, the
Minorities Policy that employed special means for the specific category of
minorities, remained unaffected, also because it was believed that especially
in periods of economic downturn the efforts to improve the position of
minorities should not be decreased.
In the late 1980s, political pressure started to build for change in the
domain of immigrant integration as well. However, the powerful norm of
depoliticization prevented that a stricter social-economic approach to
integration emerged on the agenda. In 1987, the Minister of Home Affairs,
also responsible for the Minorities Policy requested a second advice from the
WRR. It was the WRR that, with the report ‘Immigrant Policy’ (1989),
managed to trigger a broad public debate about a policy approach that
stresses the civic rights as well as obligations of migrants for their
participation. In its report, the WRR deliberately dissociated itself from the
prevailing policy discourse to make clear that it called for fundamental policy
- 12 -
change, for instance by referring to integration rather than emancipation and
‘allochthonous’ rather than minorities.
The perspective of ‘activating welfare state reform’ that was developed
in this report, also fits within a broader ‘agenda’ of the WRR in this period
that can also be found in various other reports about social policies, and that
also matched with the politics of welfare state retrenchment in this period.
With this report about immigrant integration, the WRR clearly attempted to
bring this welfare state perspective into the debate on immigrant integration,
where the institutional friction from the established policy equilibrium had
thus far prevented frame change.
In the established scientific community, this report led to a fierce
‘boundary struggle’, with many established experts and also the ACOM itself
denouncing the report as ‘a report inspired by science rather than a scientific
report’ (Advies Commissie Onderzoek Minderheden 1989). By putting the
participation of minorities in the broader perspective of welfare state change,
the WRR had punctuated the technocratic symbiosis between researchers and
policy-makers that tried to defend the established policy equilibrium by
drawing attention to what was specific to minorities rather than what they
had in common with other ‘citizens.’
Whereas this WRR report did trigger a broad public debate, it did not
immediately lead to policy change. However, the 1989 WRR report was
revived several years later, when a broad national minorities debate that for
the first time also involved politicization. In this debate, it became manifest
that the stricter, social-economic approach that had been raised by the WRR,
had become quite broadly accepted in politics. Also, the WRR report was very
frequently referred to in political claims making, also because of the scientific
authority it attributed to the political statements that were still often
considered controversial. In this rather indirect way, many ideas from the
1989 WRR report did eventually affect the Integration Policy that was
elaborated in a contours memorandum shortly after the National Minorities
Debate.
This episode clearly illustrates the role of ‘science venues’ as the
Scientific Council for Government Policy in putting new policy frames on the
agenda. Precisely because of its scientific authority, the WRR could put a
stricter social-economic approach to integration on the agenda, in a way that
was blocked by depoliticization and sensitivities in the political arena. As
such, the configuration of research-policy relations in this episode can be best
described according to the enlightenment model. First of all, the WRR could
dissociate itself from the dominant problem framing in policy and research
because of its scientific authority: Secondly, this authority allowed it to
develop an alternative frame that, although it did not have the direct policy
influence as its first report, did have a strong effect on public discourse.
Important is however, that especially the demarcation of the scientific role of
- 13 -
the WRR from dominant policy discourse was part of a broader political
strategy of both the WRR and the Minister of Home Affairs that formally
requested this WRR report were part. So, the enlightenment configuration of
research-policy relations in this period was not so much an expression of
belief in the role of science in societal steering, as in the 1980s, but rather a
product of boundary work practices of specific actors that wanted to use the
scientific authority of the WRR to attribute legitimacy to an alternative policy
frame.
Whereas in the early 1980s research had played a central role in creating
a technocratic symbiosis that sustained the Minorities Policy, in the late 1980s
the WRR as scientific venue would again play a central role in punctuating
this policy equilibrium. Thereby it also punctuated the dominant logic of
minorities in policy framing: it linked the issue of immigrant integration to
broader concerns about the welfare state, thereby stressing what migrants had
in common with other migrants as ‘citizens’ rather than what made them
specific.
Engineering and the Integration Policy ‘New Style’
The structural equilibrium of the Integration Policy would not survive for
more than a decade either. Immigrant integration would return on the agenda
due to a series of developments in the political environment. In 2000, a second
national minorities debate took place in response to an essay of the ‘public
intellectual’ Paul Scheffer about ‘the multicultural tragedy’ (Scheffer 2000).
Furthermore, immigrant integration was the central political issue in ‘the long
year of 2002’ that shocked Dutch politics (Andeweg and Irwin 2005). Led by
Pim Fortuyn, a broad populist movement emerged that expressed a loss of
confidence in the Dutch political establishment and its alleged ignorance
towards the voice from the street. For Pim Fortuyn, immigrant integration
was the topic that illustrated the lack of democratic responsiveness of Dutch
politicians to popular concerns about cultural tensions in society. Political
concerns about immigrant integration grew further due to a series of national
and international events (11th September Attacks in the US, the terrorist killing
of a renowned Dutch film-maker and criticaster of Islam). Also, several public
intellectuals (Hirsi Ali, Cliteur, Ellian, Scheffer) continued to play a central
role in feeding public debate on immigrant integration, stressing in particular
the limits of multiculturalism and the need to preserve Dutch identity and
culture. Clearly, after the turn of the Millennia, immigrant integration had
evolved into one of the central social and political questions of the era.
The centre-right governments that were installed after 2002, including
the Liberals, the Christen Democrats and initially also the Pim Fortuyn Party,
took the political lead in formulating an ‘Integration Policy New Style’. At the
same time, parliament also wanted to provide a new élan to the integration
policy. It established a temporary parliamentary investigative committee for
- 14 -
the integration policy, to which it has the constitutional right in the context of
its control function towards government. Parliament wanted to investigate
why policy had been so unsuccessful thus far (TK 2002-2003, 28600, nr. 24).
The committee commissioned an extensive study of scientific sources, from a
private research institute (Verwey-Jonker Institute 2004). Based (amongst
others) on this study, the committee concluded eventually that the integration
process was ‘a total or at least partial success’ (TK 2003-2004, 29203: 105).
Especially the evidence of progress in ‘key-domains’ as education and labor
would legitimize this conclusion.
This conclusion, and especially the report of the Verwey-Jonker Institute
on which it was partly based, triggered a broad public debate about the
credibility of scientific research in this domain. The committee was criticized
for its decision to commission a study of scientific sources. Several politicians,
and a member that had quit the committee half way its proceedings, argued
that the researchers in this domain had been too much involved in policymaking themselves to be able to evaluate policy independently. Researchers
would also have had a systematic bias toward multiculturalism. Furthermore,
politicians would have too much delegated policy formulation to researchers,
because of specific sensitivities and depoliticization. This would have led the
committee to ignore those problem facets that were now central to public and
political debate, such as religion, criminality, norms and values. The
conclusion that the integration was relatively successful, based on educational
and labor achievements, was broadly renounced as naïve. This reveals a
frame-conflict between actors with very different frames and different criteria
for evaluating policy success and failure, which the investigative committee
was clearly unable to resolve.
Already before this investigative committee, there were indications of a
growing gap between policy and research. When the WRR issued a third
report about immigrant integration, ‘The Netherlands as Immigration Society’
(2001), this time its report remained largely ignored. The transnationalist
perspective of the WRR, claiming that diversity had become a permanent
facet of Dutch society and that migrants would develop hybrid identities,
conflicted with the reviving national focus in policy discourse. Similarly, a
more recent report about patterns of identification with Dutch society,
received fierce criticism in public and political debate ('Identification with the
Netherlands', 2007WRR, 2007). Its argumentation that identification with
Dutch society could be best enhanced in functional domains as education and
labor, rather than more normative and emotional ways of identification.
Again, this contrasted sharply with the dominant public and political
discourse that stressed the need for more normative and emotional
identification with Dutch society in order to preserve national identity and
social cohesion.
- 15 -
More instrumental knowledge and expertise that could be used for
legitimizing the new Integration Policy New Style acquired a more prominent
role in this period. In particular the Minorities Reports from the Social and
Cultural Planning Office were much used by policy-makers for introducing a
greater focus on ‘social-cultural integration’ (Social and Cultural Planning
Office 2002). The SCP had been issuing Minorities Reports already since the
early 1990s, especially containing data about social-economic participation,
but had also introduced more data about social-cultural integration since 2001
(in response to the growing attention to social-cultural matters in that period).
Moreover, the director of the SCP had explicitly taken position in favor of a
more assimilationist policy approach (Schnabel 2000). The research provided
by the SCP fitted much better in the reviving national focus in public and
political discourse.
Research-policy relations in this period were characterized by, first, a
strong political primacy following the long year of 2002 in Dutch politics, and
second, selective pick-and-choose strategies towards those strands of
(instrumental) research that could legitimize the new assimilationist policy
discourse. Hence, this combination of political primacy and selective
convergence of the role of research and policy (in legitimizing the new policy
approach) can best be described in terms of the engineering model of
research-policy relations. The new assimilationist Integration Policy New
Style was ‘engineered’ by political actors with the selective use of scientific
expertise (Scholten 2007).
This political engineering allowed for a redesign of the immigrant
integration policy in accordance with the political concerns of the centre-right
governments that would be in power from 2002 to 2007. In response to the
Fortuyn revolt, this government tried to restore public confidence in Dutch
politics. It developed, what has been described as, an ‘articulation function’
(Verwey-Jonker Institute, 2004: 201), which means that it actively tried to
articulate popular ideas and concerns to avoid being blamed for ignoring the
voice from the street. Others have described this as ‘hyperrealism’, ‘in which
the courage of speaking freely about specific problems and solutions has
become simply the courage to speak freely itself’ (Prins 2002). As such,
problem framing was geared not by a logic of minorities (as in the 1980s) or a
logic of equity (as in the 1990s), but rather by majority’s logic (Vasta 2007). It
would be fair to say that the ongoing integration debate in the Netherlands is
not so much about the integration of migrants, but more about re-imagining
the Dutch community.
Resolving the intractable controversies over immigrant integration?
The Dutch case of research-policy relations and integration policy-making
reveals a trend away from a technocratic way of configuring research-policy
relations towards models towards models with a more distinct political
- 16 -
primacy. The technocratic symbiosis between research and policy in the 1980s
had been characterized by a positivist belief in societal steering with the aid of
science, and a belief amongst scientists that they could and should contribute
actively to social transformations in society. However, already in the early
1990s this belief in ‘science speaking truth to power’ was replaced by a more
strategical way of using science venues as the WRR for attributing authority
and legitimacy to an alternative policy frame. After the turn of the Millennia,
political primacy even seems to have contributed to a growing policy
cynicism toward scientific knowledge and expertise, putting the credibility of
scientists more and more on the line. Primarily research that provides facts for
instrumental use of policy legitimization was used in this period. This
indicates not only a trend toward political primacy, but also a trend toward
demarcating the roles of research and policy more sharply to avoid politicians
from being accused of delegating normative policy choices to researchers.
This trend from technocracy toward political cynicism was fed by
specific developments in the policy environment as well as in the field of
scientific research itself. As both the culture and structure of integration
policy-making became more contested, the role of scientists in policy framing
declined. In the 1980s, there was a clear and stable policy structure, that
attributed an important role to research (for instance WRR, ACOM). Since the
frame-shift in the early 1990s, no such strongly institutionalized policy
subsystem seems to have been restored, leading to constant struggles between
policy actors about authority in this policy domain. This prevented the reestablishment of an institutionalized research-policy nexus as in the 1980s.
Instead, the use of scientific expertise for policy purposes became more
selective.
The growing fragmentation in the scientific field and also the
manifestation of frame-conflicts in the scientific field itself, seem to have
contributed to this declining policy role of research. Whereas in the 1970s and
1980s there was one dominant research paradigm (the Minorities Paradigm,
Rath, 1991) that framed immigrants as ethnic minorities, various rival
paradigms have evolved since the early 1990s. For instance, paradigms
emerged that focused rather on social-economic participation (Integration
Paradigm), that stressed the development of transnational citizenship
(transnationalism) or that rather stressed the revaluation of national
citizenship (assimilationism). These paradigms were often also associated
with specific experts, institutes and universities in the Netherlands. This
contributed to political cynicism about conflicting knowledge claims (and
normative choices) by scientists: scientists were not speaking one truth, so
belief that they were speaking any truth at all waned as well.
What is clear from this Dutch case is that research-policy relations seem
to have been unable to resolve the intractable controversies on immigrant
integration. Rather, the role of science itself has become part of the ongoing
- 17 -
intractable controversies itself. The structure of research-policy relations
mostly was a product of boundary work practices of policy-makers as well as
researchers who advocated a specific policy frame. Rarely were researchpolicy relations configured to promote critical reflection about alternative
policy frames. Instead, researchers were mostly committed to develop a
specific frame, and therefore only one inherently selective and normative
perception of the truth. At the same time, policy-makers became increasingly
reluctant to take account of the existence of at least several of these selective
and normative policy frames.
Dutch exceptionalism?
Does the Dutch case reveal any generalizable patterns of interaction between
structure and culture in immigrant integration policy-making? In what way
have different configurations of research-policy relations influenced the
framing of immigrant integration in several other countries? Has, for instance,
technocracy also led to multiculturalist policy frames in other countries, or
enlightenment to universalist policy frames, or engineering to
assimilationism? Exploring some of the literature on immigrant integration
policy-making in France and the Great-Britain may help to develop
hypotheses of the relation between structure and culture in immigrant
integration policy-making that can be further refined and tested in
international comparative research.
Great-Britain also developed a multiculturalist approach to immigrant
integration, even much earlier than in the Netherlands. A difference lies in the
British focus on color and race (racial minorities), whereas in the Netherlands
the focus was on ethnicity and culture (ethnic minorities), but an important
similarity consists in their focus on the specific background of migrants. The
role that the ‘race relations industry’ has played in the constitution of British
multiculturalism (Small and Solomos 2006) carries great resemblance to the
Dutch ‘minorities research industry’. Both involved a strong policyinvolvement of anthropologists and sociologists (sociology of race). Also,
politicians and policy-makers in both countries have been eager to
depoliticize immigrant integration policy-making. In both countries, this
technocratic policy structure seems to have facilitated the development of
special policies for specific minorities, within a sensitive political
environment. As such, in both countries, technocracy and depoliticization
facilitated a logic of minorities in policy framing. An important difference
remains however in the pragmatic, or according to Favell (1998: 98)
‘calculated, piecemeal, evolutionary, anti-philosophical pragmatism’ of the
British case, that contrasts with the much stronger normative commitment to
multiculturalism that could be found in the Netherlands in the 1980s.
France seems to have been a very different case than Great-Britain, as
argued throughout international migration literature (Favell 1998; Feldblum
- 18 -
1999; Bleich 2003). However, its ‘republicanist’ approach to immigrant
integration does carry strong resemblance with the assimilationist frame that
emerged in the Netherlands in the last decade. The rise of assimilationism in
both countries was accompanied by a sharp politicization of the debate on
immigrant integration. This took place in the France (the 1980s) much earlier
than in the Netherlands (after the turn of the Millennia). However,
politicization led to a similar issue linkage of immigrant integration to
broader symbolic topics in national politics in both countries. In both
countries, the integration debate expanded to exclude much more than just
the integration of migrants, but also the integration of society at large
according to specific national norms and values (such as laïcité, secularism).
The revival of the Republicanist model of assimilation in France was geared
by political developments such as the rise of the anti-immigrant movement of
Le Pen. Also, public intellectuals, especially with a philosophical background,
had a prominent role in constituting the French republicanist model, for
instance in the strongly mediatized and politicized debate around the foulard
affairs. At the same time, the involvement of the social sciences in policymaking was much weaker in France than in the UK and in the Netherlands: in
fact, there seems to have been a taboo on researching the specific position of
minorities as this conflicted with the color-blind Republican model (Amiraux
and Simon 2006). Whereas there is a close resemblance with the political
incentives and the role of public intellectuals in the rise of assimilation in the
Netherlands, a difference remained in the much more institutionalized system
of migration and minorities research in the Netherlands than in France.
So there seem to be at least some comparable patterns in the structure of
policy-making in these countries and their effect on the framing of immigrant
integration policies. Thus, there is evidence against a ‘Dutch exceptionalism’
to the findings from the Dutch case study. It seems that technocracy, with its
constraining effect on the scale of political debate and its primary role for
social scientists in societal steering, seems to contribute to multiculturalism by
limiting the integration debate to only those actors with a specific focus on
minorities. In contrast, politicization with only very selective use of scientific
expertise for legitimizing policy discourse, seems to facilitate issue linkage
with broader national concerns thereby creating a structural basis for
assimilationism by connecting immigrant integration to broader concerns
about the national imagined community. These theses can provide a startingpoint for more international comparative research to immigrant integration
policy-making. This may reveal more general patterns of policy-making in
Europe, that have been invisible to the research based on alleged ‘national
models’ of immigrant integration.
Conclusions
- 19 -
The analysis of this paper shows that there is a clear relationship between, on
the one hand, how the policy-making process was structured and what role
research had within this structure, and on the other hand, how immigrant
integration was ‘framed’ as a policy problem. It argues that there have been
strongly different policy frames over the past three to four decades, and that
the rise and fall of these frames should be explained by changes in the
structure of the policy-making process. A trend was discerned from a
technocratic policy structure in which the circle of policy actors was kept
limited and researchers obtained a primary role in policy development, to a
more engineering-like policy structures with a strong political primacy and a
more selective approach to using scientific expertise for legitimating policy
discourse.
As such, this paper takes odds with traditional explanations for the
development of Dutch immigrant integration policy. It denounces the idea
that there is such a thing as a Dutch policy model, presenting clear evidence
of changes in the culture as well as the structure of policy-making.
Furthermore, it denounces the view that problem developments or political
developments provide full explanations for policy development in this
domain, showing that the framing of the problem itself was constantly at
stake and that much of the policy-making over the past decades took place
outside the policy arena. Rather, it shows that specific actors from the policy
field and the research initially managed to constrain policy-making to a
technocratic circle of actors, out of a shared belief that a rational and sciencebased policy approach could lead to effective societal steering. Later, this
technocratic belief gave way to political cynicism toward scientific expertise,
partly due to the growing manifestation of scientific disagreements. From a
strongly institutionalized policy subsystem, immigrant integration became
more and more connected to broader societal concerns and to symbolic
politics at large. Due to these structural developments, contemporary Dutch
integration policy is no longer merely about immigrant integration as such,
but also about re-imaging the Dutch national community more in general.
Furthermore, the different configurations of research-policy relations
that were found in this paper do not seem to have contributed to the
resolution of the intractable policy controversies over immigrant integration.
Instead of promoting critical reflection on the level of problem framing, these
boundary configurations were often the product of interest-driven and
context-dependent boundary work practices of policy-makers and
researchers. Policy-makers often associated themselves mainly with
researchers that share the same policy framing: research from contested
policy frames was often ignored or their scientific credibility was even put on
the line. Researchers in the Netherlands also tend to be strongly attuned to
their political environment and to advocate specific problem frames. Much
less did a structure of research-policy relations evolve in the Netherlands that
- 20 -
promotes critical reflection about various alternative frames. Such a ‘framecritical policy analysis’ could however offer an opportunity for avoiding the
criticism of both scientific exceptionalism and positivism.
Literature
Advies Commissie Onderzoek Minderheden (1989). Een beter beleid? The
Hague.
Amiraux, V. and P. Simon (2006). "There are no Minorities Here: Cultures of
Scholarship and Public Debate on Immigrants and Integration in France."
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 47(3-4): 191-215.
Andeweg, R. B. and G. A. Irwin (2005). Governance and politics of the
Netherlands, Palgrave macmillan.
Baumgartner, F. R., C. Green-Pedersen, et al. (2006). "Comparative studies of
policy agendas." Journal of European Public Policy 13(7).
Baumgartner, F. R. and B. D. Jones (1993). Agendas and Instability in
American Politics. London, University of Chicago Press.
Bleich, E. (2003). Race politics in Britain and France : ideas and policymaking
since the 1960s. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Entzinger, H. (1975). "Nederland immigratieland? Enkele overwegingen bij
het overheidsbeleid inzake allochtone minderheden." Beleid & Maatschappij
2(12): 326-336.
Entzinger,
H.
(1981).
De
ACOM
als
voorbeeld
van
onderzoeksprogrammering; maar wat levert het nu op aan
kwaliteitsverhoging? Sociaal beleidsonderzoek; luxe of noodzaak? B. W.
Frijling and C. Rottländer-Meyer. Zoetermeer, Actaboek.
Entzinger, H. (2006). Changing the rules while the game is on; From
multiculturalism to assimilation in the Netherlands. Migration, Citizenship,
Ethnos: Incorporation regimes in Germany, Western Europe and North
America. M. Bodemann and G. Yurkadul. New York, Palgrave MacMillan.
Favell, A. (1998). Philosophies of Integration. Immigration and the Idea of
Citizenship in France and Britain. Houndmills, Palgrave.
- 21 -
Feldblum, M. (1999). Reconstructing citizenship. The politics of nationality
reform and immigration in contemporary France. New York, State University
of New York Press.
Fermin, A. (1997). Nederlandse politieke partijen over minderhedenbeleid
1977-1995. Amsterdam, Thesis Publishers.
Gieryn, T. F. (1983). "Boundary-Work and the Demarcation of Science from
Non-Science: Strains and Interests in Professional Ideologies of Scientists."
American Sociological Review 4: 781-795.
Guiraudon, V. (1997). Policy Change Behind Gilded Doors: Explaining the
Evolution of Aliens’ Rights in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 1974-94,
Harvard University. PhD thesis.
Gusfield, J. (1981). The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the
Symbolic Order. Chicago, Chicago University Press.
Hoppe, R. (2005). "Rethinking the science-policy nexus: from knowledge
utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary
arrangements." Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology
Assessment and Ethics of Science 3(3): 199-215.
Koopmans, R. (2003). Het Nederlandse integratiebeleid in internationaal
vergelijkend perspectief: Etnische segregatie onder de multiculturele
oppervlakte. Politiek in de Multiculturele Samenleving. Pellikaan and
Trappenburg. Amsterdam, Boom.
Lijphart, A. (1968). The politics of accommodation : pluralism and democracy
in the Netherlands. Berkeley, University of California Press
Pellikaan and Trappenburg, Eds. (2003). Politiek in de Multiculturele
Samenleving. Amsterdam, Boom.
Penninx, R. (2005). "Bridges between research and policy? The case of postwar immigration and integration policies in the Netherlands." International
Journal on Multicultural Studies 7(1): 33-48.
Prins, B. (2002). "Het lef om taboes te doorbreken. Nieuw realisme in het
Nederlandse discours over multiculturalisme." Migrantenstudies 2002(4): 241254.
- 22 -
Rath, J. (1991). Minorisering:
minderheden’. Amsterdam, SUA.
de
sociale
constructie
van
‘etnische
Rath, J. (2001). Research on Immigrant Ethnic Minorities in the Netherlands.
The politics of social science research. Race, ethnicity and social change.
Ratcliffe. New York, Palgrave.
Rein, M. and D. Schön (1994). Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of
Intractable Policy Controversies. New York, Basic Books.
Rochefort, D. and R. Cobb (1994). The Politics of Problem Definition.
Lawrence, University Press of Kansas.
Salter, L. and E. Levy (1988). Mandated Science; science and scientists in the
making of standards. Dordrecht, Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Schattschneider, E. E. (1960). The Semisovereign people. New York, Holt,
Rinehart & Winston.
Scheffer, P. (2000). Het Multiculturele Drama. NRC Handelsblad.
Schnabel, P. (2000). De multiculturele illusie: een pleidooi voor aanpassing en
assimilatie. Utrecht, FORUM.
Schneider, A. L. and H. Ingram (1997). Policy Design for Democracy. Kansas,
University of Kansas Press.
Scholten, P. (2007). Constructing Immigrant Policies. Research-policy relations
and immigrant integration in the Netherlands (1970-2004). University of
Twente, PhD Dissertation.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (1989). Immigrant Policy. The
Hague, SDU.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (2001). The Netherlands as an
Immigration Society. The Hague, SDU.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (2007). Identification with the
Netherlands, Amsterdam University Press.
Shapin, S. (1992). "Discipline and Bounding: The History and Sociology of
Science as Seen through the Externalism-Internalism Debate." History of
Science 30(90): 333-369.
- 23 -
Small, S. and J. Solomos (2006). "Race, Immigration and Politics in Britain:
Changing Policy Agendas and Conceptual Paradigms 1940s-2000s "
International Journal of Comparative Sociology 8(47): 235-257.
Social and Cultural Planning Office (2002). Werkprogramma 2002-2003. The
Hague, SCP.
Social and Cultural Planning Office (2003). Rapportage Minderheden. The
Hague, SCP.
Soysal, Y. N. (1994). Limits of Citizenship. Migrants and Postnational
Membership in Europe. Chicago, Chicago University press.
Van Amersfoort, J. M. M. (1984). "Migratie-onderzoek, overheidsfinanciering
en beleid: aantekeningen van een participant." Grafiet 1983(4).
Vasta, E. (2007). "From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy :
Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands " Ethnic
and racial studies 30(5): 713-740.
Verwey-Jonker Institute (2004). Bronnenonderzoek. Tijdelijke Commissie
Onderzoek Integratiebeleid. . The Hague, SDU.
Weiss, C. H. (1977). "Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of
social science research." Policy Analysis 3(4): 531.
Wildavsky, A. (1979). The art and craft of policy analysis: Speaking truth to
power. London, Macmillian.
Wittrock, B. (1991). Social knowledge and public policy: eight models of
interaction. Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and
Theoretical Crossroads. Wagner. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press: 2885.
- 24 -