Suchergebnisse

Intro -- Contents -- List of Illustrations -- Acknowledgments -- Chapter 1. Introduction: Taking Minorities Out of the Footnotes -- Chapter 2. Presence, Polarization, and the Five Channels for Minority Inclusion -- Chapter 3. The Cases of Estonia and Latvia -- Chapter 4. The Parliamentary Channel -- Chapter 5. The International Channel -- Chapter 6. The City Channel -- Chapter 7. The Consultations Channel -- Chapter 8. The Grassroots Channel -- Chapter 9. Conclusion: The Presence-Polarization Dilemma and the Quality of Divided Democracies -- Notes -- Bibliography -- Index.

This article analyses European discourses on 'optimal' urban inclusion policies, as they are embodied in EU-sponsored city networking initiatives. Drawing from the scholarships on multiculturalism and urban austerity, it builds an inclusion agendas matrix that identifies four ideal-typical agendas for ethnic and racial inclusion: multicultural, diversity inclusion, community cohesion and neoliberalised diversity. It identifies a shift from group-based to individual-based concerns (mainstreaming) and from a politicised to a depoliticised approach to inclusion (depoliticising). It argues that (a) this double shift should be understood as the result of the mutually reinforcing pressures of nativism and austerity, and (b) inconsistencies in network discourses and policy advice suggest a pragmatic-adaptive logic that challenges simplistic understandings of cities as either (only) sites of resistance or (only) sites of full-blown accommodation of nativist and austerity imperatives.

Introduction: taking minorities out of the footnotes -- Presence, polarization, and the five channels for minority inclusion -- The cases of Estonia and Latvia -- The parliamentary channel -- The international channel -- The city channel -- The consultations channel -- The grassroots channel -- Conclusion: the presence/polarization dilemma and the quality of divided

AbstractThis article investigates the minority dimension of EU social policy and how the conceptualization of ethnic minorities' socio‐economic inclusion has evolved over time. Three findings are drawn from the close analysis of overlapping EU agendas on social inclusion and minority inclusion. First, although there are no comprehensive data on European minorities' socio‐economic condition, significant evidence has been collected at EU‐level that minorities are consistently at a disadvantage. Second, the growing recognition that minorities suffer disproportionately from socio‐economic exclusion has not been accompanied by an increasing willingness to consider structural policy approaches. Rather, a policy paradigm has emerged that prioritizes job creation, growth and employability as the one‐size‐fits‐all solution to social exclusion. I call this the 'trickle‐down' approach to minority social inclusion. Third, the economic crisis crystallized this mismatch between problem and EU policy approach but did not cause it.

This article explores the relationship between minority city-level and state-level political representations through the analysis of the contested implementation of state education policies in Tallinn and Riga. Referring to the US debate on this issue, the article asks what role minority incorporation into city-level power structures can play for its substantive representation. The comparison between Tallinn and Riga reveals two potential answers to this question. The case of Riga illustrates how city-level representation can be an alternative representativechannelthrough which the minority can put pressure on state government and magnify its political voice within the country's democratic space. On the contrary, the case of Tallinn illustrates how a municipality can be an alternativelocusof representation, which does not guarantee minority empowerment but rather entraps the minority at the local level within the implicit understanding that the minority (or at least the parties that get the minority vote) can "have its share" locally, but it cannot hope to influence state policies. The comparison between the two cases reveals different levels of legitimacy of the minority's voice in the democratic debate of Estonia and Latvia, and shows the risks and opportunities linked to the two models of minority city-level incorporation.