http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4866-5226
![Sample our Social Sciences journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/110822/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Social-Sciences.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
This paper presents the consolidated findings of a four-year research project that evaluated policy inclusion between the New Zealand government and communities of difference – specifically, ethnic/migrant/refugee groups, women/gender and Māori. Policy inclusion builds on foundational principles of deliberative democracy that dialogue and relationship not only improve policy but also foster democratic transitions towards pluralism and diversity. Although associated with the social democratic agenda of the Fifth Labour government, collaborative policymaking with marginalised groups continued in the subsequent National government. Drawing on interviews with policy communities, this paper analyses (a) the processes of inclusionary policymaking, (b) policy impacts and (c) implications for politics of difference. The findings suggest that, overall, the greatest efforts in inclusive policy have been at the level of design, primarily by maximising the presence of members and promoting visibility for communities of difference. These processes have had less impact on sustained, deep political transformations or opportunities for advancing diversity. The findings suggest that inclusionary policymaking had benefits for recognition politics, but against the backdrop of recent neo-conservatism, the prospects for pluralistic politics have been compromised, paving instead a politics of regulation.
Acknowledgements
I am thankful to Rebecca Fraser and Amanda Lowry for their excellent contributions to this project. I would like to acknowledge the two anonymous reviewers whose feedback on this paper has been invaluable in revising the original submission.
Disclosure statement
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author.
ORCID
Rachel Simon-Kumar http://orcid.org/0000-0002-4866-5226
Notes
1 In the context of this paper, the term ‘ethnic’ is a socio-political signifier discursively constructed in New Zealand in the twenty-first century to refer to select ethnic minority groups. This definition draws on the official terminology of the Office of Ethnic Communities/Affairs (see oec.govt.nz) which refers to non-Pākeha, non-Māori and non-Pacific communities, i.e. ‘ethnic’ peoples are from Asia (North, South, South-East, West and East), East Europe, the Middle East, Africa and Latin America who are recent migrants, citizens, permanent residents, of refugee background, second generation, and who identify with multiple ethnicities. As of 2013, this group comprised approximately 13.4% of the total population, or 595,000 people. Note that all ‘ethnic’ people are not recent migrants or vice versa. This usage does not disregard the use of ethnicity as a demographic-statistical category for classifying populations in which majority ethnicities are also one among several ethnicities.
2 Gender community here refers to organisations working in women-specific issues (e.g. abortion), gender issues (e.g. violence or sex work that impacts mostly but not solely women), and also distinguishes between women's (e.g. Business women's associations) and feminist organisations (e.g. National Council of Women), both inclusive.
3 See the Statement of Government Intentions for an Improved Community-Government Relationship at http://ocvs.govt.nz.customer.modicagroup.com/about-us/statement-of-govt-intentions/index.html, accessed 2014 Feb 18.