Political equality is the cornerstone of a democracy. Yet, structural inequalities are omnipresent in democratic institutions and processes. Such inequalities foster the political power of some groups and individuals, while excluding others. How do positions such as gender, social class, race, ethnicity, citizenship and sexuality influence access to political power? How are structural political inequalities addressed by political parties and politicians on the one hand and by extra parliamentary actors on the other? How do inequalities influence political trust and participation? 

The promise of liberal democracy rests on the idea of legitimating power by expressing the will or reflecting the values of citizens in an egalitarian way, while at the same time limiting the power of elected representatives to avoid power abuse. Alternative models of democracy have been proposed. Populism offers a radical alternative to the liberal model of democracy, arguing that it is more responsive to the will of the majority. Deliberative democracy is supposed to increase the legitimacy of and support for policy decisions. We study the normative commitments and institutional designs that supposedly strengthen democratic responsiveness, as well as the empirical consequences of different institutional designs.

Polarization is a pressing problem in modern-day democracies. In recent decades parties with extreme ideologies and rhetoric have scored remarkable electoral victories. Citizens seem to be more divided than before over policy and report deeper resentment against outgroups. Differences between people of different political, social, religious and ethnic backgrounds and even age cohorts have become increasingly politicized. What explains these divisions? And what is the social, cognitive or emotional nature of these divisions? Why are parties with extreme ideologies and rhetoric more successful now than in the past? And does their success influence mainstream parties? In sum, how sustainable is democracy as we know it under the growing pressures of societal polarization?

For more than fifteen years, there has been a lively debate among migration scholars in Europe and North-America about how to explain the paradox that large-scale settlement has taken place in Western States over the last fifty years, even though governments and publics alike considered such immigration unwanted.

This project assesses existent hypotheses, based on a comparative analysis of the making of family migration policies in France, the Federal Republic of Germany, and the Netherlands from the 1950s until the 1980s. In contrast to previous contributions to the ‘control gap’ debate which were mostly based on broad overviews of policy developments, this project consists of a detailed reconstruction of policy making processes both at administrative and political levels, taking into account the internal plurality of states and the different positions adopted by different state actors. It focuses on a specific policy field that is a prototypical example of the paradox of migration in liberal states, but has thus far enjoyed very little scholarly attention, namely family migration.

Hypotheses 

The following three main hypotheses have been distilled from existent research to explain ‘why liberal states accept unwanted migration’. First, national policy makers are said to have lost power over migration policies, either to the courts or to supranational actors, and to have therefore been unable to steer their preferred restrictive policy course. Second, it is argued that concentrated group interests have outweighed the diffuse collective interest in decision-making processes, mostly because small well-organised groups such as employers developed close ties with policy makers and succeeded in shifting policies their way. Finally, policy making in restricted institutional settings outside of public view, such as courts and administrations, is stated to have facilitated the allocation of rights to migrants, thereby weakening the possibility for governments to control their entry and stay.

This project builds on previous work, in which the making of Dutch family migration policies since the 1950s were mapped out. Tracing the history of French and German family migration policy – histories which have not yet been written – allow this research to evaluate whether the conclusions  drawn from the Dutch case apply more broadly. 

Academic relevance

This project will yield new insights into whether or not there are limits to states’ capacities to regulate migration, and if so to which extent and of what nature. Furthermore, it will contribute to our understanding of the dynamics of the making of the policies that have allowed for the large-scale immigration flows in Europe since the 1950s, flows that have fundamentally altered the face of Western-European societies. 

• Funding: NWO Veni 

Ideal democracies should accommodate the citizenry’s full diversity. This especially matters for structurally underrepresented persons, such as ethnic minorities with a migration background. But how do minority politicians and citizens themselves believe personal identities should be represented in politics? Do their expectations and assessments of representation diverge or overlap?

• NWO Vidi

We investigate generational differences in determinants of party choice. We expect that 'new political issues', such as migration and global warming, have the greatest impact on vote choices of young generations. Among other things, this explains why young people are overrepresented among the supporters of Green and Radical right parties.

• NWO Open Competition grant

Society is drowning in financial debts. But it is unclear how to deal with debt morally when it cannot be repaid or causes harmful side effects. This project develops practical, normative guidelines that help policymakers, creditors, and debtors to regulate and manage debt.

• NWO Open Competition Grant

Which families belong in Europe? The right to family migration is highly contested for families which deviate from the norm, such as same-sex or polygamous families. Saskia Bonjour’s project will analyse how migration law and politics deal with different kinds of families asking to be allowed to live together in Europe.  

• NWO Vidi