Search Results

This chapter examines the link between MCPs and the welfare state at the state level in the United States. The first section reviews existing data on the impact of race on the welfare state; the second section identifies a range of MCPs that have been adopted at the state level in the USA, as well as what is called ‘anti-MCPs’ designed to overturn or pre-empt the possible adoption of MCPs. The empirical relationship between MCPs and the welfare state is then examined to determine whether MCPs impact the welfare state independent of other factors, as critics contend. It is shown that while the impact of MCPs on the welfare state varies from one MCP to another, there is no general tendency for states with stronger MCPs to weaken their welfare policies compared to states with weaker MCPs (or anti-MCP states).

This introductory chapter provides an overview of two recent debates on the relationship between ethnic diversity, multiculturalism, and the welfare state. Some commentators argue that increasing levels of ethnic and racial heterogeneity make it difficult to sustain a welfare state (the ‘heterogeneity/redistribution trade-off’). This chapter reviews the evidence that has been emerged in previous research for both claims, which is shown to be inconclusive. There are many unanswered questions about the conditions under which the heterogeneity/redistribution and recognition/redistribution trade-offs may exist, about the causal mechanisms that underpin them, and about the possible strategies for reducing them. The subsequent chapters in this volume fill in some of these important gaps in our knowledge, drawing on cross-national statistical analyses, case studies, and theoretical reflections.

This chapter considers whether the accommodation of national minorities through the according of self-government at the regional level undermines the welfare state. Most Western states with sizeable national minorities have accommodated minority nationalist aspirations through some form of federal or quasi-federal territorial autonomy. This chapter examines the impact of this sort of devolution or regionalization on the welfare state in the UK, Belgium, and Canada. The chapter concludes that such institutional reforms have had complex effects on social policy, both at the central level and in the self-governing regions. It has set in play political dynamics that sometimes work to strengthen social policy as a tool of nation-building, and sometimes serve to inhibit new redistributive policies. As a result, no simple general patterns leap out, challenging assertions that accommodating substate nationalism inevitably weakens the welfare state.

This chapter introduces a new framework for testing the recognition/redistribution hypothesis. It develops an index of twenty-three different types of MCPs that have been adopted for three different types of minority groups (immigrants, national minorities, and indigenous peoples). Western countries are then categorized in terms of their level of MCPs. Whether countries with higher levels of MCPs have faced an erosion of the welfare state as compared to countries with lower levels of MCPs is tested. It is shown that there is no negative correlation between the strength of a country's commitment to MCPs and its ability to sustain welfare spending or economic redistribution. The chapter also examines the heterogeneity/redistribution hypothesis, and shows that this too is overstated. In general, the size of immigrant groups, national minorities, and indigenous peoples in Western countries does not affect a country's ability to sustain its welfare commitments, although a rapid change in the size of immigrant groups does seem to have an effect. Yet even here, the authors of this chapter argue, there are hints that adopting MCPs can help to mitigate whatever negative effect a rapidly increasing immigrant population may have.

This chapter argues that ethnic diversity has been largely absent in conventional welfare state theories, and that the evidence in this volume confirms that ethno-racial heterogeneity and MCPs have not played a significant role in the development of contemporary welfare states, outside the well-documented US case. However, evidence from the past, even the recent past, does not settle the issue for the future. There is still a danger, especially in Europe, that rising ethno-racial diversity due to immigration might be transformed into ethno-racial political cleavages, which can be manipulated by right-wing populist political parties, which could have corrosive effects for the welfare state. Forestalling this danger requires the successful economic and political integration of immigrants, which in turn depends on a complex range of factors, including the immigrant selection process, labour market institutions and policies, and the electoral strength of minority groups themselves.

The ‘Swedish Model’ has been taken to represent the quintessential social democratic welfare regime. Sweden enjoys a reputation for having one of the world’s most far-sighted immigration policies and is still referred to as an international model with respect to its policies for the incorporation of immigrants and new ethnic minorities. However, these policies experienced deep-seated changes and serious setbacks from the 1990s. This chapter focuses on a truly puzzling disjuncture between a strong commitment to sustainable welfare and diversity on the one hand, and deepening structurally and institutionally grounded ethnic-class divisions on the other. General trends in migration are described, and the historical specifics of the so-called ‘Swedish model’ and its subsequent transformation are presented. This is the basis for an analysis of the changing forms of racialized marginality. The chapter concludes by setting out Swedish policies on migration and incorporation, and discusses migrants’ ambivalent position in a changing social democratic welfare state.

This chapter examines two central questions: how widespread is public support for multiculturalism policies? and what is the impact of the adoption of MCPs on public support for the welfare state? In so doing, it seeks to ask whether countries with stronger MCPs have seen an erosion in public support for redistribution, in comparison with countries with low levels of MCPs. These issues are examined by analysing responses to opinion surveys which attitudes about multiculturalism, interpersonal trust, and support for the welfare state among the publics of Western democracies. The analysis finds no evidence for the view that adopting MCPs erodes trust, solidarity or public support for the welfare state.

This chapter examines whether there is a causal relationship between the recent changes in Dutch multiculturalist policies and the decline of the Dutch welfare state. During the post-war years, the Dutch built one of the most generous welfare states in Europe and adopted a strongly multiculturalist Minorities Policy, which reflected an extension of their approach to historic diversities, known as pillarization. During the 1990s, however, the Netherlands reduced the scope of its welfare state and shifted away from multiculturalism. It is argued here that the corrosive effects of MCPs did not contribute to the decline of the Dutch welfare state. On one side, restructuring the welfare state reflected economic and ideological trends common to Western democracies, and there is little evidence that issues of immigration or multiculturalism played a role in the political shift. On the other side, the shift away from the traditional approach to multiculturalism was driven by concern that the approach was contributing to the exclusion of minorities from the economic and social mainstream of Dutch society, and not by concerns about the impact of multiculturalism on the welfare state.

This chapter argues that the adoption of MCPs, taken by itself, cannot be held responsible for the weakening of the redistributive impact of the welfare state in Western democracies. There are dangers, however, particularly in the case of immigration. This chapter distinguishes between multiculturalism as policy and multiculturalism as ideology, arguing that problems can emerge if the ‘discourse’ or ‘ideology’ of multiculturalism implies that immigrants can claim rights to an accommodation of their difference without accepting any corresponding civic responsibilities to adapt and integrate themselves. Such a view is deeply unpopular among Western electorates. It is therefore critical to pay careful attention to whether MCPs conform or not to citizens' everyday sense of fairness.

The ‘Thatcher revolution’ and its continuation by New Labour make Britain a kind of master model for the neo-liberalization or Americanization of European welfare states. This chapter examines Britain’s new political economy and its links with immigration and ethnic diversity. The development of the specific model of state managed race relations and multiculturalism went parallel to the growth of inequality and the restructuring of the labour force according to the criteria of race, gender, human capital, and legal status. Current debates on the alleged threat from disaffected Muslim youth and the need for social cohesion arise from this failure of British multiculturalism to overcome barriers of race and class, and indicate a search for new forms of social control: less state in economic and social issues is matched by a stronger state in matters of identity and order.

Germany has had the largest immigration of any European country: a mixture of ‘return’ of ethnic Germans and systematic recruitment of ‘temporary guestworkers’. The migrants stayed on and formed new ethnic minorities after recruitment was stopped in 1973. Yet the official line until the 1990s was that Germany was ‘not a country of immigration’. The resulting processes of ethnic segmentation and social exclusion coincided with a crisis of Germany’s strong ‘social state’, based on a regulated labour market, comprehensive social insurance, collective wage bargaining, and full employment. Exposure to global competition caused chronic unemployment, undermining the financial basis for the welfare state. The result has been a simultaneous crisis of national identity and the welfare state, with the pluralistic federal system apparently incapable of making the reforms needed to restart the economy and prevent the growth of inequality.

This chapter examines the argument that there exists a ‘trade-off between the extension of multiculturalist policies and public commitment to a universalistic welfare state’. It considers the case of Britain, focusing on the nature of public attitudes towards ethnic diversity, MCPs and the welfare state in that country, and their implications for party politics. It is shown that there has been no backlash against ethnic diversity and MCPs in Britain. Public attitudes towards minorities have become more tolerant over time, and public opposition to MCPs has softened. Although there has been some weakening in public support for redistribution, this trend has much more to do with changing economic conditions than with immigration or MCPs. Finally, although there is some evidence that immigration may sometimes crowd out redistributive concerns in determining people's voting behaviour, there is no evidence that MCPs for already settled minorities have had this effect.

To grasp Italy’s experience of migration, welfare, and citizenship, it is necessary to first understand the convoluted relationship between formal legislation and central directives on the one hand, and their interpretation and implementation in a decentralized and clientilistic political-administrative setting on the other. Added to this is the complexity of Italy’s division into major regions that are still very different in terms of economy, political culture, and social structure and, consequently, in terms of the modes in which immigrants become incorporated into economy and society. This refers in particular to the traditional north-south divide, which has not vanished during the last three decades of economic restructuring and political change, but has taken on partially new forms. The chapter presents data on the growth of immigration in Italy. It draws a cursory sketch of the specific character of the Italian conservative-corporatist welfare state and the discontents produced by its merger with Italy’s post-Fordist political economy and labour market. It describes the growing structural dependency of the Italian economy on migrant labour and discusses the segmentation of the labour market in relation to the major regional divisions. The chapter closes with a discussion of vagaries of policy formation and the current political struggles in Italy over immigration.

In the first part of the chapter, views are discussed on the changing arrangements for social protection that have occurred in the last decade of the twentieth century in many, if not all, of the industrialized nations. Some see these changes as a marginal adjustment in the borders of the welfare state, while others perceive the changing landscape of industrialized welfare states as the embodiment of major revisions in the principles and philosophy of social protection. Most welfare state analysts acknowledge that the reforms are spurred by the need for greater labour force adaptability and productivity in a global economy, by concerns on the erosion of individual responsibility, and by new institutional arrangements for social protection involving market competition. The last part of the chapter addresses the two main theories on how welfare states evolve – convergence under the pressures of broad impersonal structural forces, or divergence into distinct regimes responding to human interventions shaped by socio‐political factors.