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

托马斯·雅诺斯基肯塔基大学的归化比率因国家而异，美国和澳大利亚的归化比率很高，英国和法国居中，日本和德国的归化比率很低。入籍比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群体融入其领域的程度。因此，入籍规则和比率将对以下方面产生重大影响：移民及其子女的生活质量、族裔冲突和社会团结、社会控制的尝试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)。鉴于这些问题的重要性，为什么一些国家愿意融入，而另一些国家则阻止陌生人转变为正式公民？这项提案使用政治经济学和制度框架来解释20个国家的归化率，并收集了关于归化率和创新解释变量的新数据。归化率用三种方法解释--法律和机构的比较/历史分析；四个案例研究；以及综合时间序列分析。首先，从法律和制度的比较历史分析来看，假设殖民和定居经历会导致很高的归化率，而非殖民者没有特别的理由让陌生人融入他们的国家。主要的解释因素是：1855年至1955年的殖民，1800年至1920年土著人口的下降，作为衡量定居者国家劳动力供应的指标，以及根据国家法律构建的入籍障碍指数。跨国回归程序将被用来解释1970-95年归化率差异的主要部分。控制用于经济、人口、文化和其他变量，并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，考察了两个文化相似的国家对，以确定影响多元文化归化方法的制度机制。在对法国和英国主要殖民者的比较中，考察了殖民方法和精英决定为一个更大的帝国寻求公民身份的影响。一部关于德国和奥地利的纪录片和时间序列分析显示，德国作为非殖民者发展成为一个敌视入籍的单一文化帝国，奥地利作为欧洲殖民者转变为一个更有利于入籍的多元文化帝国。对文化相似国家的另一项文献分析表明，荷兰作为一个早期和广泛的殖民者，比比利时拥有更自由的入籍制度，比利时是一个晚来的不情愿的殖民者。最后的比较案例研究是关于三个盎格鲁-撒克逊定居者国家，在这些国家，土著人民的差别待遇对入籍的影响将被审查。在整个案例研究中，重点是展示精英如何就入籍做出公开或限制性的决定。第三，在综合时间序列和横断面分析中，分析单位是“年份国家”(即1970-95年的20个国家，约500个病例)。这使得对政党权力、失业、人口变化和其他据称影响入籍的因素进行了年复一年的分析。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。它将文化机构嵌入到殖民的更大政治经济框架中，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.