Citizenship Tests in Five Countries – An Expression of Political Liberalism?
Engaging discussions on civic integration for immigrants, this comparison systematically analysis citizenship tests in the US, Austria, the UK, Germany, and the Netherlands. A central question discussed is whether these tests can be interpreted as assimilation, repressive liberalism or as a neutral instrument that changes its function according to the surrounding citizenship regime as some authors argue. The analysis has the surprising result that none of the hypotheses from the existing literature on civic integration can explain the content of all five citizenship tests. In particular I find that the characteristics of the surrounding citizenship regime are not a good predictor for the content of the respective citizenship tests: countries with rather restrictive citizenship regimes such as Austria or Germany have opted for a citizenship test with a liberal content that is comparable not only to the British but also to the US-American test. On the other hand the content of the Dutch citizenship test does not fully correspond to a Rawlsian definition of political liberalism although the Dutch citizenship regime is relatively open. Therefore I conclude that the formal character of a citizenship regime is only loosely connected with the national definition of citizenship as it is conveyed by the content of citizenship tests. It is not because civic integration requirements are obligatory and restrict the free will of future citizens that citizenship itself is defined in illiberal terms.
The Ethnic Diversity and Collective Action Survey (EDCAS): Technical report
The EDCA-Survey is a large scale CATI telephone survey conducted in three countries: Germany, France and the Netherlands. The survey was designed to test theoretical arguments on the effects of ethnic diversity on social capital and civic engagement. This aim demands for a sophisticated design. The survey is not representative for the entire populations of Germany, France or the Netherlands. Instead, the basic population is the population over the age of 18 in 74 selected regions in Germany, France and the Netherlands that have sufficient language skills to conduct an interview in the language of their country of residence, or in the case of the oversample of people with Turkish migration background to conduct the interview in Turkish. The aim of the survey is to enable the comparison of these 74 regions, which vary on contextual characteristics of interest. In addition, the EDCA-Survey includes one oversample of migrants in general (24%) and an additional second oversample of Turkish migrants in particular (14%). The oversampling is the same within each of the 74 regions, each of which has about 100 observations and seven specially chosen cities even 500. This survey design is an important characteristic of the EDCA-Survey and distinguishes it from other available data. This is important since one aim of the EDCA-Survey is to enable the aggregation of contextual characteristics from the survey itself. Overall, 10.200 completed interviews were conducted - 7500 in Germany, 1400 in France and 1300 in the Netherlands.
History, criminology and the ‘use’ of the past
This article considers why, despite an apparent congruence of subject matter and methodologies, the disciplines of sociological criminology and criminal justice history are not more closely aligned. It contends that intellectual traffic between the two fields is not usually limited by institutional barriers, nor is it a legacy of the disciplinary antipathy which existed between history and sociology in Britain during the mid-twentieth century. Rather, it is due to the different ‘purposes’ with which sociological criminologists and criminal justice historians imbue their work and to the differing disciplinary perceptions of the relationship between the past, present and future which result from this. These different ‘purposes’ are traced via a consideration of the paths of development of the two disciplines from the 1940s. The article concludes by proposing an arena for future collaboration between criminal justice historians and sociological criminologists.