Do Multiculturalism Policies Erode the Welfare State (Working Paper 33)

The past 30 years have witnessed a dramatic change in the way Western democracies deal with ethnic minorities. In the past, ethnic diversity was often seen as a threat to political stability, and minorities were subject to a range of policies intended to assimilate or marginalize them. Today, many Western democracies have adopted a more accommodating approach. This is reflected in the widespread adoption of multiculturalism policies for immigrant groups, the acceptance of territorial autonomy and language rights for national minorities, and the recognition of land claims and selfgovernment rights for indigenous peoples. We refer to these policies as “multiculturalism policies” or MCPs. The adoption of MCPs has been controversial, for two reasons. The first is a philosophical critique, which argues that MCPs are inherently inconsistent with basic liberal-democratic principles. Since the mid-1990s, however, this philosophical debate has been supplemented by a second argument: namely, that MCPs make it more difficult to sustain a robust Welfare State (hereafter WS). Critics worry that such policies erode the interpersonal trust, social solidarity and political coalitions that sustain a strongly redistributive WS. This paper reviews the reasons why critics believe that MCPs weaken political support for redistribution, and then examines empirically whether the adoption of MCPs has, in fact, been associated with erosion of the WS. This examination involves two steps: we develop a taxonomy of MCPs and classify Western democracies as “strong”, “modest” or “weak” in their level of MCPs. We then examine whether the strength of MCPs is associated with the erosion of the WS during the 1980s and 1990s. The evolution of the WS is measured through change in four indicators: social spending as a percentage of GDP; the redistributive impact of taxes and transfers; levels of child poverty; and the level of income inequality. We find no evidence of a consistent relationship between the adoption of MCPs and the erosion of the WS. Our analysis has limits, and we hope it stimulates further research. Nevertheless, the preliminary evidence presented here is clear: the case advanced by critics of MCPs is not supported. The growing ethnic diversity of Western societies has generated pressures for the construction of new and more inclusive forms of citizenship and national identity. The evidence in this paper suggests that debates over the appropriateness of multiculturalism policies as one response to this diversity should not be pre-empted by unsupported fears about their impact on the WS.

Multiculturalism and Policymaking : A comparative study of Danish and Swedish cultural policies since 1969

This master’s thesis deals with the cultural diversity policies of Denmark and Sweden within the cultural sector. It attempts at explaining why these two “most-similar” scandinavian countries having in common the same cultural model, “the architect model”, opted for different policies when it came to cultural diversity: Assimilationism for Denmark and multiculturalism for Sweden. I show that though institutional and power-interest factors had an impact, ideas as “programmatic beliefs” (Sheri E. Berman 2001) or “frames” (Erik Bleich 2003) played the ultimate role. I evaluate their relative importance by analyzing the anthropological dimension of the countries cultural policies since 1969. The study confirms that at least in the cultural sector, Danish policies have been assimilationist and Swedish ones multiculturalist and proposes a new classification of terms.By investigating immigrants cultures, it fills a gap left by previous researchers working on a common Nordic cultural model.

State Policies, Territories and Rights of Indigenous Peoples in Ecuador (1983-2012)

This work seeks to reconstruct the dynamics of the agreements and disagreements between the State and the indigenous peoples in Ecuador, emphasising particularly on two key elements: first, the indigenous peoples participation and exercise of their political rights, in particular the right to self-government and autonomy within their jurisdictions; and secondly, indigenous peoples’ degree of direct influence on public policies’ formulation and implementation, specially those directly affecting their territories, including the exploitation of natural resources. In Ecuador, during this historical period, the state has gone through three major moments in its relationship with indigenous peoples: neo - indigenism associated to developmentalism (1980-1984); multiculturalism associated to neoliberalism (1984- 2006) as one of the dominant trends over the period; and the crisis of neoliberalism and the search for national diversity and interculturalism associated to post- neoliberalism (2007-2013). Each has had a particular connotation, as to the scope and methods to respond to indigenous demands. In this context, this research aims to answer the central question: how has the Ecuadorian State met the demands of the indigenous movement in the last three decades, and how has it ensured the validity of their gradually recognized rights? And how and to what extent by doing so, it contradicts and alters the existing economic model based on the extraction of primary resources?

European Immigrant Integration after Multiculturalism

This paper takes the recent abdication of multiculturalism by the leaders of Europe’s most powerful nations (Germany, France, and Britain) as hub for a reflection on common themes in Europe’s crisis of multiculturalism. The most obvious common theme in this crisis is Islam and problems of Muslim integration. Accordingly, this paper addresses the role of religion and Islam in Europe’s multiculturalism crisis, and elaborates on the “muscular liberalism” or “civic integration” policies that have appeared in lieu of a discarded multiculturalism. In a final step, I tackle, in a forward-looking mode, some “critical issues” that will shape European immigrant integration after multiculturalism: the need to fight discrimination despite multiculturalism’s ebb, a greater concern for majority culture, the importance of robust debate and democracy as medium of integration, the often-neglected factor of immigrant selection, and a recognition that institutions matter more than policy in the process of integration.