Suchergebnisse

Building and sustaining solidarity is an enduring challenge in all liberal-democratic societies. Ensuring that individuals are willing to accept these "strains of commitment," to borrow John Rawls' apt phrase, has been a worry even in relatively homogeneous societies, and the challenge seems even greater in ethnically and religiously diverse societies. This paper focuses is on the political sources of solidarity. Much has been written about the economic and social factors that influence the willingness of the public to accept and support immigrants and minorities. But solidarity is also a political phenomenon, which can be built or eroded through politics. In addition, our focus on the political sources of solidarity. Understandably, the existing literature concentrates on the politics of backlash and exclusion. This paper looks at the politics of diversity from the opposite direction, asking what are the potential sources of political support for inclusion, and the conditions under which they are effective. How is solidarity built? How is it sustained? Reframing the analysis in this way does not necessarily produce optimism about the future prospects. But exploring the potential political sources of support leads to broader, multilayered perspective with long time horizons. The paper advances a framework for analysis which incorporates three levels: the sense of political community, the role of political agents, and impact of political institutions and policy regimes. Each of these levels, and the interactions among them, matter.

In much of the western world, and particularly in Europe, there is a widespread perception that multiculturalism has 'failed' and that governments who once embraced a multicultural approach to diversity are turning away, adopting a strong emphasis on civic integration. This reaction, we are told, "reflects a seismic shift not just in the Netherlands, but in other European countries as well" (Joppke 2007). This paper challenges this view. Drawing on an updated version of the Multiculturalism Policy Index introduced earlier (Banting and Kymlicka 2006), the paper presents an index of the strength of multicultural policies for European countries and several traditional countries of immigration at three points in time (1980, 2000 and 2010). The results paint a different picture of contemporary experience in Europe. While a small number of countries, including most notably the Netherlands, have weakened established multicultural policies during the 2000s, such a shift is the exception. Most countries that adopted multicultural approaches in the later part of the twentieth century have maintained their programs in the first decade of the new century; and a significant number of countries have added new ones. In much of Europe, multicultural policies are not in general retreat. As a result, the turn to civic integration is often being layered on top of existing multicultural programs, leading to a blended approach to diversity. The paper reflects on the compatibility of multiculturalism policies and civic integration, arguing that more liberal forms of civic integration can be combined with multiculturalism but that more illiberal or coercive forms are incompatible with a multicultural approach.

Abstract.There is a widespread fear in many western nations that ethnic diversity is eroding support for the welfare state. This article examines such fears in the Canadian context. In-depth analysis of public attitudes finds remarkably little tension between ethnic diversity and public support for social programs in Canada. At first glance, then, the country seems to demonstrate the political viability of a multicultural welfare state. But this pattern reflects distinctive features of the institutional context within which public attitudes evolve. The Canadian policy regime has forestalled tension between diversity and redistribution by diverting adjustment pressures from the welfare state, absorbing some of them in other parts of the policy regime, and nurturing a more inclusive form of identity. These institutional buffers are thinning, however, potentially increasing the danger of greater tension between diversity and redistribution in the years to come.Résumé. On craint généralement dans de nombreux pays occidentaux que l'immigration et la diversité ethnique de plus en plus grande soient en train d'éroder l'appui accordé à l'État-providence. Cet article porte sur de telles inquiétudes au sein du Canada. Une analyse approfondie des attitudes du public dévoile qu'il existe remarquablement peu de tension entre la diversité ethnique et l'appui du public à l'endroit des programmes sociaux du Canada. À première vue, le pays semble donc démontrer la viabilité politique d'un État-providence multiculturel. Mais cette tendance reflète les traits distinctifs du contexte institutionnel au sein duquel évoluent les attitudes du public. Le régime de politiques canadiennes fait échec à la tension entre la diversité et la redistribution en soustrayant de l'État-providence diverses pressions d'ajustement et en favorisant une forme d'identité plus inclusive. Certains de ces mécanismes de tampon institutionnels disparaissent progressivement, ce qui peut accroître le danger d'une tension accrue entre la diversité et la redistribution dans les années à venir.

Popular opposition to immigration is rooted in many factors. In this essay, we focus on one specific issue that has become prominent in recent debates—namely, the fear that the welfare state is being undermined by the impact of increasing ethnic and racial diversity. There are actually two concerns here: first, that ethnic and racial diversity as such makes it more difficult to sustain redistributive social policies because it is difficult to generate feelings of national solidarity and trust across ethnic and racial lines, and second, that the "multiculturalism" policies adopted to recognize or accommodate immigrant groups tend to further undermine national solidarity and trust. If either of these hypotheses were true, the very idea of a "multicultural welfare state," a welfare state that respects and accommodates diversity, would be almost a contradiction in terms. We review the existing evidence and suggest that both hypotheses are overstated. The evidence to date suggests that there is no inherent tendency for either immigrant ethnic diversity or multiculturalism policies to erode the welfare state. We conclude with some speculation about the implications of this evidence for debates about the rights of noncitizens.

Popular opposition to immigration is rooted in many factors. In this essay, we focus on one specific issue that has become prominent in recent debates-namely, the fear that the welfare state is being undermined by the impact of increasing ethnic and racial diversity. There are actually two concerns here: first, that ethnic and racial diversity as such makes it more difficult to sustain redistributive social policies because it is difficult to generate feelings of national solidarity and trust across ethnic and racial lines, and second, that the 'multiculturalism' policies adopted to recognize or accommodate immigrant groups tend to further undermine national solidarity and trust. If either of these hypotheses were true, the very idea of a 'multicultural welfare state,' a welfare state that respects and accommodates diversity, would be almost a contradiction in terms. We review the existing evidence and suggest that both hypotheses are overstated. The evidence to date suggests that there is no inherent tendency for either immigrant ethnic diversity or multiculturalism policies to erode the welfare state. We conclude with some speculation about the implications of this evidence for debates about the rights of noncitizens. Adapted from the source document.

La diversité ethnique est parfois perçue comme un danger pour la stabilité politique. Pourtant, les immigrants, les minorités nationales et les peuples autochtones bénéficient en certains pays d'une attitude d'ouverture qui a mené à l'adoption de politiques de multiculturalisme et à la reconnaissance de certains droits en matière de langue et d'autonomie territoriale et politique. Aux yeux de certains analystes, ces mesures ne peuvent que fragiliser l'État-providence. Ayant procédé à une vérification empirique de cette thèse, les auteurs ne constatent aucune relation systématique entre l'existence de politiques de multiculturalisme dans un pays et l'érosion de son État-providence. Il apparaît plutôt que des affirmations sans autre fondement que la peur ne font pas avancer le débat sur la pertinence des politiques de multiculturalisme.

AbstractContemporary debates are increasingly pessimistic about the impact of ethnic diversity on support for the welfare state. A growing number of analysts argue that greater ethnic diversity in Western democracies is weakening public support for redistribution, and that this underlying tension is exacerbated by the adoption of robust multiculturalism policies. The purpose of this essay is to summarize early findings from several studies that bear on the questions at the heart of such debates. These studies analyse the implications of immigration and multiculturalism policies for the welfare state across OECD countries, and also focus more closely on the experience of two distinctively multicultural countries, the United States and Canada. The evidence points to more complex relationships than often assumed. OECD countries with large foreign‐born populations have not had more difficulty in sustaining their welfare states than other countries. The extent of change does seem to matter, however, as countries in which immigrant communities grew rapidly between 1970 and the late 1990s did experience lower rates of growth in social spending. But despite the warnings of some critics, robust multiculturalism policies do not systematically exacerbate this tension. Moreover, the United States and Canada reflect different patterns. In the US racial diversity does weaken support for redistribution; but Canadian experience suggests that immigration, multiculturalism policies and redistribution can represent a stable political equilibrium. These contrasting narratives from North America stand as a warning against premature conclusions based on the US experience alone. There is no inevitability at work, and policy choices do seem to matter.