Trade-Offs between Equality and Difference: Immigrant Integration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State in Cross-National Perspective
Trade-Offs between Equality and Difference: Immigrant Integration, Multiculturalism and the Welfare State in Cross-National Perspective
复制标题
DOI：
10.1080/13691830903250881
复制
发表时间：
2010-01-01
影响因子：
3.3
通讯作者：
Koopmans, Ruud
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Koopmans, Ruud
本文研究了融合政策和福利国家制度如何影响移民的社会经济融合，重点关注八个欧洲国家：德国、法国、英国、荷兰、瑞士、瑞典、奥地利和比利时。它提供了关于一体化政策和福利国家制度的比较数据。通过对劳动力市场参与、空间隔离和监禁等方面的融合结果的跨国数据，对从这种比较政策分析中得出的预期进行了检验。研究结果表明，多元文化政策使移民容易获得平等权利，并没有为东道国的语言学习和种族间接触提供强有力的激励，再加上慷慨的福利国家，导致劳动力市场参与度低，种族隔离程度高，移民在被判有犯罪行为的人中比例过高。瑞典、比利时和荷兰将多元文化政策与强大的福利国家相结合，其融合效果相对较差。那些有更多限制或同化主义的融合政策的国家（德国、奥地利、瑞士、法国）或一个相对精简的福利国家（英国）取得了更好的融合结果。除了英国的种族隔离率外，这些差异在我们所研究的三个融合领域中是高度一致的。
This paper investigates how integration policies and welfare-state regimes have affected the socio-economic integration of immigrants, focusing on eight European countries: Germany, France, the United Kingdom, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Sweden, Austria and Belgium. It presents comparative data on integration policies and welfare-state regimes. The expectations derived from this comparative policy analysis are tested with cross-national data on integration outcomes regarding labour market participation, spatial segregation and incarceration. The results suggest that multicultural policieswhich grant immigrants easy access to equal rights and do not provide strong incentives for host-country language acquisition and interethnic contactswhen combined with a generous welfare state, have produced low levels of labour market participation, high levels of segregation and a strong overrepresentation of immigrants among those convicted for criminal behaviour. Sweden, Belgium and the Netherlands, which have combined multicultural policies with a strong welfare state, display relatively poor integration outcomes. Countries that either had more restrictive or assimilationist integration policies (Germany, Austria, Switzerland, France) or a relatively lean welfare state (the United Kingdom) have achieved better integration results. These differences are highly consistent across the three domains of integration that are examined, with the exception of segregation rates in the United Kingdom.