Abstract
Amsterdam and Los Angeles show divergent trends in minority politics. In Los Angeles, minority organisations that were divided along ethnic lines in the 1960s and 1970s joined together in a broad alliance for social justice in the 1980s and 1990s. In Amsterdam, by contrast, minority organisations became increasingly divided. Whereas, in the 1970s and 1980s, minority organisations were central actors in a broad alliance for social justice, they were marginalised in the 1990s. Contemporary leaders of minority background in Amsterdam do not call for social justice but, instead, in complete contrast to their counterparts in Los Angeles, allocate responsibility for minorities' marginalisation first and foremost to individual migrants and their culture. This paper develops a specific variant of field analysis to chart and explain these divergent developments in minority politics in both cities. It argues that the progressive alliance of Los Angeles could flourish because the local state did not have the capacity to selectively co-opt migrant organisations. The Amsterdam government, by contrast, saw an increase in its power to selectively co-opt them.
Notes
[1] Governments in the Netherlands are typically coalitions, both at the municipal and the national level. The Labour Party has been dominant within Amsterdam's coalitions. In the Netherlands, mayors are appointed through an intricate consultative procedure which does not formally take into account the party affiliation of candidates; however, Amsterdam has always had a mayor from the Labour Party.
[2] This regime was not fully consolidated. It was precarious because some of its key proponents left Amsterdam and because it drew a lot of criticism for its tendency to breach the division between church and state. Amsterdam's current mayor, Eberhard van der Laan, does not thematise Islam and integration as much as his predecessor.