Governing diversity: Dutch political parties' preferences on the role of the state in civic integration policies

Abstract

This article analyses political debates about civic integration policies in the Netherlands, so as to identify different conceptions of the role of the state in ensuring social cohesion by governing diversity. Drawing on the literature on party systems, it presents an analysis of political party positions on the role of the state in civic integration along two dimensions: economic distribution on the one hand, and sociocultural governance on the other hand. I find that while the large majority of Dutch political parties adopt authoritarian positions on the sociocultural axis in favour of state intervention to protect Dutch culture and identity, their positions diverge significantly on the classic economic Left–Right dimension. The most contentious issue in Dutch civic integration politics is whether the state, the market or individual migrants should be responsible for financing and organising courses. Thus, this article proposes an innovative model for analysing the politics of citizenship, which enables us to comprehend how citizenship policies are shaped not only by views on how identity and culture relate to social cohesion, but also by diverging perspectives on socio-economic justice.

Keywords::

• civic integration
• party politics
• state
• the Netherlands

Acknowledgements

This article is based on a research project funded by the Fonds de la recherche scientifique – FNRS and implemented at the Université Libre de Bruxelles (GERME). I am indebted to Ines Michalowski, Jan-Willem Duyvendak and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments on earlier versions of this article.

Notes

^1. Research Project on Promoting Sustainable Policies for Integration (PROSINT): http://www.research.icmpd.org/1428.html. Research programme on Integration and Naturalisation Tests (INTEC): http://www.ru.nl/law/cmr/projects/overview/intec/.

^2. Tweede Kamer (henceforth TK) 29543 (2), 23 April 2004.

^3. The official definition of this category was persons ‘not entitled to unemployed benefits and without paid labour’, i.e. according to the government ‘mostly women in a disadvantaged position’. TK 29543 (4): 11, 7 December 2004.

^4. TK 30308 plenary: 6084, 7 July 2006.

^5. The cabinet Balkenende III was a transition cabinet, in office from June 2006 until February 2007.

^6. TK 31143 (1) appendix: 15–16, 7 September 2007, VROM ‘Nieuwsbrief Deltaplan Inburgering, nr.17, december 2009’, available from: http://www.vrom.nl/pagina.html?id = 4590, consulted on 1 June 2010.

^7. TK 31143 (84) appendix: 24, 12 August 2010.

^8. TK 33086 (3), 14 November 2011.

^9. Eight scores were possible on each dimension (–2, − 1.5, − 1, − 0.5, 0.5, 1, 1.5 and 2). The number of statements scored and the standard deviation on the economic distribution axis were: PvdA 84/0.75; GroenLinks 64/0.63; SP 49/0.3; D66 39/0.30; CDA 69/1.1; VVD 45/0.64; ChristenUnie 15/0.39; PVV 14/0.24. On the sociocultural governance axis, the number of statements scored and standard deviations were PvdA 18/1.01; GroenLinks 10/0.84; SP 8/0.41; D66 16/1.16; CDA 18/0.97; VVD 24/0.68; ChristenUnie 13/0.81; PVV 7/0.23. Four other parties were represented in the Dutch Lower House between 2002 and 2011 (LPF, Leefbaar Nederland, Partij voor de Dieren and SGP), but their limited number of statements about the role of the state in civic integration policy did not allow for positioning them on this diagram.

^10. TK 30308 (6): 5, 29 November 2005

^11. TK 27083 (44): 22, 21 June 2004.

^12. TK 27083 (63): 4, 30 June 2004.

^13. TK 27083 (44): 24, 21 June 2004.

^14. EK 30308 plenary: 353, 21 November 2006.

^15. TK 27083 (44): 20, 21 June 2004.

^16. TK 32824 (1): 19, 16 June 2011.

^17. TK 30308 (63): 9, 21 June 2006.

^18. TK 31268 (52): 40, 29 June 2011.

^19. TK 30308 (12): 11, 27 February 2006

^20. TK 27083 (44): 6, 21 June 2004.

^21. EK 303087 plenary: 349, 20 November 2006.

^22. TK 30308 (63): 44, 12 June 2006.

^23. TK 31318 plenary: 6098, 21 mei 2008.

^24. EK 30307 plenary: 359, 21 November 2006, TK 31143 (25): 3, 3 October 2008.

^25. TK 31143 (9): 6, 18 October 2007.

^26. TK 31143 (84) appendix: 24, 12 August 2010.

^27. TK 31268 (2): 20–21, 13 November 2007.

^28. TK 29200 VI (95): 4, 3 November 2003; TK 30308 plenary: 5862, 27 June 2006.

^29. TK 30308 (6): 23–24, 29 November 2005.

^30. TK 30308 (6): 3, 29 November 2005.

^31. TK 32123 XVIII plenary: 2565, 24 November 2009.

^32. TK 30308 (6): 5, 29 November 2005, TK 31268 (52): 17, 29 June 2011.

^33. TK 27803 plenary: 4711, 18 April 2000.

^34. TK 31268 (14): 42, 17 December 2008.

^35. EK 30308 plenary: 341, 20 November 2006.

^36. TK 30308 (3): 11, 21 September 2005.

^37. TK 30308 (25) appendix, 2 June 2006.

^38. TK 32824 (1), 16 June 2011.

^39. TK 30308 (6): 3, 29 November 2005, TK 27083 (44): 9, 21 June 2004.

^40. TK 28600 VI plenary: 956, 6 November 2002.

^41. TK 29200 VI (94): 48, 3 October 2003.

^42. TK 29700 plenary: 3721, 7 February 2008.

^43. TK 31268 (52): 7, 29 June 2011.

^44. TK 31268 (25): 9, 17 November 2009.

^45. TK 31268 (8) appendix: 5, 1 July 2008

^46. TK 32175 (1): 4–5, 2 October 2009.

^47. TK 29200 VI (94): 13, 3 October 2003, TK 31143 (41): 14, 19 March 2009.

^48. TK 31268 (14): 11, 17 December 2008.

^49. TK 31268 (52): 9, 29 June 2011.