with EURAC Bolzano, Åland Islands Peace Institute
This report reviews and evaluates a selection of the most LG-pertinent indexes on integration currently existing across the OSCE. The findings of this review aim to inform the HCNM in its endeavours to engage participating States in operationalizing the LG in their own policy-making and evaluation. The report does not seek to establish new indicators for the implementation of the LG but rather to highlight strengths and weaknesses of the reviewed indicators for the LG. It does so keep-ing in mind that the work carried out by the HCNM on integration has been part of an overarching strategy for the sustainable prevention of conflicts and the consolidation of diverse societies.
with R.Medda-Windischer (EURAC), Sia Spiliopoulou Åkermark (Åland Islands Peace Institute)
Assessments by politicians, practitioners or academics on the (mal-) functioning of diversity governance are often based on indices that aim to empirically measure the level of minority protection and integration of certain collectives or the level of cohesion of societies as a whole. In the past decades, a growing number of country-specific approaches as well as a smaller number of cross-country data sets on minority protection, diversity governance, integration and social cohesion have been developed. In the article we take the OSCE Ljubljana Guidelines on Integration of Diverse Societies (LG) as a normative-theoretical framework for the integration of societies (OSCE 2012). While we are not interested in empirically measuring the state of social cohesion in a particular case, our aim is to assess to what extent existing approaches cover important issues from the LG as key policy guidelines by an international organization, to identify relevant theoretical and methodological deficits and, finally, to formulate concrete recommendations for future attempts to capture minority protection in diverse societies empirically.
with M. Neureiter (LMU Munich)
Scholars have paid considerable attention to the attitudes of host societies toward immigration. However, relatively little is known about whether minorities themselves support immigration more or less than majority group members do, and what affects such inter-minority attitudes. Drawing on two competing theoretical perspectives, the minority solidarity thesis and intergroup threat theory, we argue that individual-level threats to minority group members’ identity in the form of discrimination experience make them more supportive of immigration, while structural identity threats in the form of assimilation pressure have the opposite effect. Based on evidence from the European Social Survey in 15 West European countries and an original survey experiment conducted in the United Kingdom, we find that overall support for immigration is higher among minorities than it is among majority group members. In accordance with our theoretical expectations, our results further suggest that this positive relationship between minority group membership and immigration attitudes is moderated by identity threats: Minority members who report having experienced discrimination are more supportive of immigration than those who do not, and minority group members in countries with high assimilation pressure are less supportive of immigration than those in countries where such pressure is low.