1. Significant Difference? A comparative analysis of multicultural policies in the United Kingdom and the Netherlands Laura Coello

2. The presentation Introduction: The choice in policies Comparing UK and NL Did multiculturalism fail? –Q1: Why did these countries adopt multiculturalism? –Q2: Based on which aims and objectives did NL and UK adopt multiculturalism? –Q3: Based on these objectives, did multiculturalism fail? Conclusion multiculturalism fail? Anti- discrimination Labour market participation Figure 1: Conceptual model of study

3. Introduction: the choice in policies Context of the study: –Who is part of the nation, who is not? –What to do about those who are not? 3 ideal models to deal with diversity: Allowed to manifest different identities or cultures Private spherePublic sphere AssimilationNO IntegrationYESNO MulticulturalismYES

4. Introduction: the choice in policies Different interpretations of multiculturalism: –Strong: right to choose ‘good life’ and group’s rights –Weak: right to choose ‘good life’ and institutional adaptations to create equal opportunities for all Weak multicultural policies: respect the right of personal identity explicitly recognise this right Allows these identities in both the public and private sphere Do not try to impose a ´common´ identity Provide the same space for alternative identities May require adjustments of institutions, norms and behaviours.

5. Comparing UK and NL In UK and NL –Originally ‘national unions’ –Centralising tendencies: Henry VIII Revolts against Spain –Colonialism –Decolonisation –Even today citizens in, for instance, Bermuda and Aruba

6. Q1: Why did these countries adopt multiculturalism?

7. Q2: Based on which aims and objectives did the UK adopt multiculturalism? –To challenge prejudice, disadvantage enforce equality legislation Elimination of inequalities and discrimination and strengthen good relations between people –Consistency: implemented at an early stage and given continuity to these policies

8. Challenging as the (focus of the) answer shifts WRR advice often accompanied by shifts in –paradigm –solution –departments lack of consistency –Thorough anti-discrimination legislation, –but assimilative form of integration Q2: Based on which aims and objectives did the NL adopt multiculturalism?

9. Q3: Based on these aims and objectives did multiculturalism fail? UKNL Would you describe yourself as … ? (%) 1983 2005* 2008 Very racially prejudiced against people from other races 39**23 A little racially prejudiced against people from other races 2317 Not prejudiced at all7579 Don't know1* *2005 BBC Multiculturalism Survey, conducted by telephone ** Park, Curtice, Thomson, Jarvis, Bromley (2004). Tendency to discriminate against minorities (%) 198019851989199119921993 Tendency4930313541 Scheepers & Coenders (1996).

10. Ethnic prejudice in 3 situations (1979 -2002) Source: SCP in Coenders, Lubbers & Scheepers (2006) Prejudice in the British society (2007) Source: Equalities Review (2007). pp. 92 UK NL Q3: Based on these aims and objectives did multiculturalism fail?

11. Source: UK: Kersley et al (2006) NL: De Vries et al (2005). Compliance with diversity regulations 1998-2004 Diversity policies and their results in 2003 Compliance with the SAMEN Act (%) Source: Houtzager & Rodrigues (2002) UK NL Q3 19982001 Compliance4972

12. UK Difference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in the UK* Natives mean Immigrants mean Difference UK92.0%87.6%4.4% Source: Tubergen, Maas & Flap (2004) pp. 715 *Data show percentages of active male population between the ages of 25-54 years. NL Difference in immigrant and native male employment rates between 1980-2001 in NL* Natives mean Immigrants mean Difference Netherlands96.8%84.0%12.8% Source: Tubergen, Maas & Flap (2004) pp. 715 *Data show percentages of active male population between the ages of 25-54 years. Q3

13. Conclusion 1 United Kingdom: –long-term policies –reduced prejudices against (some) minorities –enabled positive relations between groups –High compliance with equal opportunities policies (voluntary for private sector!) –labour market participation of minorities almost equal as native counterparts The Netherlands: –Decrease of (some) prejudices against minorities –labour market policies short-lived –Low continuation of diversity policies (voluntary) –labour market participation of minorities much lower than native counterparts

14. Conclusion 2 Absence of an underlying commitment to embrace and institutionalise diversity –Integration needs result in assimilation? Difference between (government) rhetoric and actual policies: –Multiculturalism dead, but individual differences still allowed in public sphere –International commitments VS. pursuing assimilative policies –Warning for contradictory policies and discourse