Cooperation or Confrontation?

With globalization and increased connectedness, migration has become a political issue. Nevertheless, without citizenship participation in the political system in the host society is limited. Based on a neo-institutionalist approach and referring to political opportunity structure theory, this paper analyzes differences in means of political participation by migrants in two cities, one in the U.S. and one in Germany. Specific focus is put on the welfare state as one factor potentially influencing forms of participation of migrants. From interviews with migrants, local governments, and organizations, this paper establishes that political participation in the German city, Essen, is more institutionalized than in the U.S. city, Newark, NJ, where demonstrations and rallies play a more significant role. Looking at these findings, this paper explains the differences with a variation in the political opportunity structure between the two cities. Whereas in the conservative-corporatist welfare state, ideas of collective bar-gaining and the conferral of social rights to migrants leads to government-created bodies for migrant participation, in the U.S. city, these bodies do not exist and, therefore, migrants use different means of political participation. Through the conferral of social rights on migrants as well, in Germany, the cleavage between migrants and majority society has been pacified. In the U.S. city, where this is not the case, demonstrations and rallies are more common.

Social Inequality and Social Policy outside the OECD

Almost all Latin American countries are still marked by extreme forms of social inequality – and to an extent, this seems to be the case regardless of national differences in the economic development model or the strength of democracy and the welfare state. Recent research highlights the fact that the heterogeneous labour markets in the region are a key source of inequality. At the same time, there is a strengthening of ‘exclusive’ social policy, which is located at the fault lines of the labour market and is constantly (re-)producing market-mediated disparities. In the last three decades, this type of social policy has even enjoyed democratic legitimacy. These dynamics challenge many of the assumptions guiding social policy and democratic theory, which often attempt to account for the specificities of the region by highlighting the purported flaws of certain policies. We suggest taking a different perspective: social policy in Latin American should not be grasped as a deficient or flawed type of social policy, but as a very successful relation of political domination. ‘Relational social analysis’ locates social policy in the ‘tension zone’ constituted by the requirements of economic reproduction, demands for democratic legitimacy and the relative autonomy of the state. From this vantage point, we will make the relation of domination in question accessible for empirical research. It seems particularly useful for this purpose to examine the recent shifts in the Latin American labour markets, which have undergone numerous reforms. We will examine which mechanisms, institutions and constellations of actors block or activate the potentials of redistribution inherent in such processes of political reform. This will enable us to explore the socio-political field of forces that has been perpetuating the social inequalities in Latin America for generations.