The Double Irony of Citizenship: A Comparative/Historical Approach to Studying Naturalization in Advanced Industrialized Countries

不同国家的入籍率差别很大，美国和澳大利亚的入籍率高，英国和法国的入籍率中等，而日本和德国的入籍率很低。入籍率不仅衡量一个社会中新公民的数量，还衡量国家和社会正式将少数民族纳入其领域的程度。因此，入籍规则和入籍率将对以下方面产生重大影响：移民及其子女的生活质量，种族冲突和社会团结，社会控制的企图，以及最近跨国统一的努力（例如，欧洲联盟公民身份和北美公民身份的可能性）。考虑到这些问题的重要性，为什么有些国家愿意融入，而另一些国家则阻止陌生人转变为正式的公民？本提案使用政治经济学和制度框架来解释20个国家的入籍率，并收集有关入籍率和创新解释变量的新数据。入籍率是用三种方法来解释的：法律和制度的比较/历史分析；四个案例研究；集合时间序列分析。首先，从法律和制度的比较历史分析来看，假设殖民和定居的经历导致了高归化率，而非殖民者没有特别的理由让陌生人融入他们的国家。主要的解释因素有：1855-1955年的殖民化，1800-1920年作为移民国劳动力供给衡量标准的土著人口下降，以及由国家法律构建的入籍障碍指数。将使用跨国回归程序来解释1970- 1995年归化率差异的主要部分。控制被用于经济，人口，文化和其他变量，并提出反对移民本身的影响作为归化的解释。其次，在使用Millsean方法的四个案例研究中，对文化相似的国家进行了调查，以确定影响多元文化入籍方法的制度机制。在对法国和英国的主要殖民者的比较中，考察了殖民方法和精英决定为更大的帝国追求公民身份的影响。对德国和奥地利的文献和时间序列分析表明，作为非殖民者的德国发展成为一个敌视归化的单一文化帝国，而作为欧洲殖民者的奥地利则转变为一个对归化更为友好的多元文化帝国。另一份对文化相似国家的文献分析表明，荷兰作为一个早期和广泛的殖民者，拥有比比利时更自由的归化制度，比利时是一个晚期和不情愿的殖民者。最后一个比较案例研究是三个盎格鲁-撒克逊移民国家，其中土著人民的差别待遇对归化的影响将被审查。在整个案例研究中，重点是展示精英如何对入籍做出开放或限制的决定。第三，在合并时间序列和横断面分析中，分析单位是“年份国家”（即1970- 1995年期间的20个国家，约500例）。这样就可以对政党权力、失业、人口变化和其他据称影响入籍的因素进行逐年分析。佐尔伯格的移民方法)，并将挑战以前的经济、人口和文化归化理论。它将文化制度嵌入到一个更大的殖民政治经济框架中，并强调归化理论与移民理论明显不同。

SES-0111450Thomas JanoskiUniversity of Kentucky Naturalization rates vary considerably from country to country with rates in the United States and Australia being high, the United Kingdom and France being moderate, and Japan and Germany being very low. Naturalization rates not only measure the number of new citizens in a society, but also measure the extent to which states and societies formally integrate minorities into their realm. As such, naturalization rules and rates will have a large influence on: the quality of life of immigrants and their children, on ethnic conflict and social solidarity, on attempts at social control, and on the recent efforts at transnational unification (e.g., European Union citizenship and the possibility of North American citizenship). Given the importance of these issues, why do some countries willingly integrate and others block the transformation of strangers into full-fledged citizens? This proposal uses a political economy and institutional framework to explain naturalization rates in 20 countries, and collects new data on naturalization rates and innovative explanatory variables. Naturalization rates are explained using three methodological approaches-comparative/historical analysis of law and institutions; four case studies; and pooled time series analysis. First, from a comparative historical analysis of law and institutions, it is hypothesized that experiences with colonization and settlement cause high naturalization rates, while non-colonizers have no particular reason to integrate strangers into their country. The main explanatory factors are: colonization from 1855-1955, indigenous population decline from 1800-1920 as a measure of settler country labor supply, and a barrier index to naturalization constructed from national laws. Cross-national regression procedure will be used to explain a major part of the variance in naturalization rates from 1970-95. Controls are used for economic, demographic, cultural, and other variables, and arguments are made against the impact of immigration itself as an explanation of naturalization. Second, in four case studies using Millsean methods, pairs of culturally similar countries are examined to identify the institutional mechanisms that affected multi-cultural approaches to naturalization. In a comparison of the primary colonizers of France and the UK, the effects of the method of colonization and the elite decisions to pursue citizenship for a larger empire are examined. A documentary and time-series analysis of Germany and Austria show Germany as a non-colonizer developed into a mono-cultural empire hostile to naturalization and Austria as a European colonizer transformed itself into a multi-cultural empire that was more friendly to naturalization. Another documentary analysis of culturally similar countries shows that the Netherlands, as an early and extensive colonizer, has a much more liberal naturalization regime than Belgium, which was a late and reluctant colonizer. And the final comparative case study is of three Anglo-Saxon settler countries where the impact of differential treatment of indigenous peoples on naturalization will be examined. Throughout the case studies, the emphasis is on demonstrating the how elites made open or restrictive decisions about naturalization. Third, in a pooled time-series and cross-sectional analysis, the unit of analysis is the "yearcountry" (i.e., 20 countries from 1970-95 with about 500 cases). This allows a year-to-year analysis of political party power, unemployment, demographic changes, and other factors that are purported to influence naturalization. Zolberg's approaches to immigration) and will challenge previous economic, demographic and cultural theories of naturalization. It embeds cultural institutions within a larger political economy framework of colonization and emphasizes that theories of naturalization are clearly distinct from theories of immigration.