Search Results

Attempts to give an overview of the range of cases where minority rights and multiculturalism interact with citizenship, and of the potential tensions between them. The current debates on minority rights and citizenship are outlined, and the need for an integrated theory of diverse citizenship, including the wider context of ethnic conflict management, is discussed. Notes are given on the different kinds of minority groups (national, immigrant, religious, and sui generis—African Americans, Roma (gypsies) and Russians in former Soviet states, etc.). The ways that groups within liberal democracies seek respect for their cultural/religious distinctiveness are classified. Lastly, the main fears about citizenship in the face of minority rights are outlined.

This paper presents some criticisms against Kymlicka’s ideas on ‘ethnocultural justice’. It argues that many of Kymlicka’s suggestions do not apply to the realities of the former Soviet Union, particularly Russia. It identifies fundamental problems to Kymlicka’s approach: that his basic assumptions are arbitrary and disputable, the internal logic seems contradictory, potential gains are overestimated, and some potentially undesirable effects are not considered.

France is unusual among Western European countries in having experienced net immigration for much of the twentieth century. Migrants have come from three main sources: firstly, from other European countries (especially Portugal); secondly, from former French territories and colonies in Maghreb, Sub-Saharan Africa, and South East Asia; and thirdly, from some less-developed non-European countries in the Near East. It is also important to distinguish repatriates (of European origin) from other migrants from the Maghreb. France's ‘Republican Model’ of assimilation runs counter to the active recognition of distinct ethnic groups, but a number of datasets make it possible to identify with reasonable accuracy the major second-generation groups. While the second generation have made considerable absolute gains in terms of education and occupation, in relative terms the second-generation Maghrebins remain just as disadvantaged as their parents. In contrast, groups of European ancestry experience much-reduced ethnic penalties, and in several cases no penalty at all.

There is no ‘host’ group in Israel; all but a small fraction of the population are either immigrants, children of immigrants, or members of an excluded indigenous minority. In addition, Israel is stratified not only along ethno-national lines, dividing Jews from the indigenous Palestinian population, but also between Ashkenazi (predominantly originating from Europe) and Sephardim (predominantly from North Africa and the Middle East). Regarding unemployment, all male immigrant groups, as well as Palestinians, have higher probabilities than third-generation Jews of being unemployed. This chapter examines the extent of convergence among ethnic groups in Israel as exemplified by differences in labour-market participation and occupational attainment between first and second generations of immigrants. Even after controlling for education and demographic attributes, Jews of Middle Eastern and North African origins had lower odds of attaining higher class positions than second-generation Israelis and Jewish immigrants of European descent.

The chapter is divided into three main parts. The first explores the federal process in Russia. The second examines the attempts, especially since the ending of the Chechen crisis, to develop a more coherent federal nationalities’ policy. The third, which focuses on the ethnorepublics, argues that a democratized federation offers the most effective antidote to both minority and majority primordialist nationalisms. The chapter concludes by briefly exploring the implications of Russia's particular experiment for our understanding of multicultural federalism more generally.

This paper comments on the proposals put forth by Kymlicka’s paper. It shows that a desired reconstruction of liberalism cannot be completed unless liberal nationalism is assessed alongside the liberal neutralism criticised by Kymlicka. It defends the distinction between immigrant and European countries as empirically important. It then applies Kymlicka’s approach of ethnocultural diversity to Czech Roma to show that these concepts and their practical implications are helpful, even for the descriptive and normative assessment of groups that do not fit neatly into either of the two basic categories he proposes.

This chapter reflects in a speculative manner about the ways in which the process of globalization might affect the extent of discrimination against people on account of their (broadly defined) ethnic group identity, as well as the extent of efforts to combat such discrimination via affirmative action. It begins by offering definitions of the key terms contained in the title of the chapter. Section 2 addresses the question: how does globalization influence the propensity for ethnicity-based discrimination? Section 3 considers how globalization might impinge on the propensity to counter such discrimination with policies of affirmative action. Finally, Section 4 offers a brief conclusion.

This chapter summarizes the health needs assessment process, based on both quantitative information (such as the epidemiology of diseases) and qualitative information obtained from interviews and focus groups. Topics covered include challenges of understanding health needs assessments in minority ethnic groups; exemplars of health needs assessments in minority ethnic groups; and utilizing quantitative and qualitative data, and both relative and absolute risk approaches.

Issues of social group autarky are addressed, with particular reference to their economic costs. The different sections of the chapter address the social interests of such groups, give some American examples (the Lubavitch Jewish community of Brooklyn, and American farmers—the need for which has declined as agricultural productivity has risen dramatically), individual versus group economic benefits, special status for social groups, conflict between special‐status social groups (exemplified by professional, religious, status, linguistic, and ethnic groups), and conflict within special‐status groups.

This chapter argues that the challenge of ethnicity and health research includes demonstrating tangible health benefits in addition to satisfying curiosity. The full range of public health science research methods — qualitative, case-histories, case series, analysis of routine statistics, case control studies, cohort studies, trials — and medical sciences, are potentially applicable to ethnicity and health. Topics discussed include a brief history of health research on ethnicity and race with a racist intent or outcome; lessons from racist research; the potential scientific benefits of studying ethnic variations in health and disease; and the strengths and weaknesses of the range of methods available for the study of ethnic variations in health and disease.

This chapter argues that health services internationally have struggled with the challenge of equitable health care in multi-ethnic societies despite the many policies, strategies, and action projects in existence. Topics discussed include exemplars of strategic documents on ethnic health in England, Scotland, and the USA; approaches, principles, and effectiveness of the exemplar strategies; and practical limitations to ideal strategy, and the imperative to action.

This chapter presents the case study of Spain (1976–present). Spain is widely respected as a successful case of decentralization, which has not only avoided conflict among the country's major ethnic groups, but has also held secessionism at bay since Spain's transition to democracy in the late 1970s. This chapter attributes Spain's success to the relatively small presence of regional parties in the country, which have advocated legislation harmful to other regions in India and have supported violent separatist organizations in the country. This chapter attributes the party system to the structure of decentralization in Spain (i.e. the proportion of national legislative seats regions hold individually, the direct election of most of the country's upper house, and the appointment of Spain's first regional legislatures based on national level representation). This structure has reduced the incentive for politicians to form regional parties and prevented them from blocking the adoption of a new political system during the transition era as in Czechoslovakia. In teasing out the relationship between decentralization and regional parties, the chapter points out that statewide parties decentralized Spain in the transition period, and that regions with the strongest regional parties in Spain are not necessarily those that are economically or ethnolinguistically distinct, and that the distinct regions are not necessarily those with strong regional identities.

This chapter outlines the relationship between race, ethnicity, and substantive representation via an in-depth discussion of how racial and ethnic group consciousness operates among black and Latino representatives in Congress. While all members of Congress face the pressure of making the right decisions to increase their chances at reelection, black and Latino legislators, unlike most white legislators, face an additional pressure: they are motivated by a group norm that requires them to engage in collective group action on issues of concern to other blacks and Latinos. White legislators are mainly responsible for being responsive to the constituents in their districts, whereas black and Latino legislators are also expected to represent the interests of all blacks and Latinos nationally. The strategy they pursue of “strategic group uplift” falls at the intersection of their electoral goals and their commitment to advance group interests.

A broad interpretative approach to nationalism is outlined and defended as ‘the ideological process by which nations are constructed’. From this perspective, it is argued that, contrary to much opinion, Ulster unionism represents a form of nationalism and thus Irish nationalism and Ulster unionism are two antithetical faces of nationalism at work. Analysis of the ideological content (expressed in its national identity) of a nationalist movement will reveal the character of the nationalism in question.

This chapter begins with a discussion of the four routes leading national and ethnic groups to violence either against their state or against ethnic/national others: irredentism, secession, sons-of-the-soil, and communalism. Conventional wisdom states that nationalism is dangerous. Indeed, the historical and contemporary evidence showing links between nationalism and violence is impressive. However, quantitative data undermine confidence in theories purporting to show that national aspirations, differences, or demographies are systematically associated with communal violence or civil war. This disconnect is attributed factors such as selection bias and listening too earnestly to the accounts of combatants.

This chapter argues that efforts to create racial and ethnic classifications have led to numerous insights, particularly that the process is arbitrary, subjective, context-specific, purpose-driven, and imprecise. The process is atheoretical in that there is no coherent theoretical factor that underpins classifications. Topics discussed include the challenges of studying racial and ethnic differences without creating stigma or inequity; devising population groups using the concepts of race and ethnicity — historical and contemporary examples; analysing the facets of race and ethnicity that population groupings are based on; and the development of population groupings into comprehensive classifications of race and ethnicity, past and present.

This chapter argues that collecting data by race or ethnicity is difficult, and requires both excellent information systems and excellent communications and understanding between data providers and data holders. The choice of classification should be driven by the purposes to which the data are to be put, though pragmatism will be essential. Topics discussed include why collecting ethnicity or race within health data systems and health research is justifiable; relationships between concepts, classifications, and methods of data collection on ethnicity and race; strengths and weakness of alternatives methods for collection of ethnic code data; and explanations for similarities and differences in health states by ethnic or racial group.