Migration and (Human) Security PDF

**Migration and (Human) Security (02.12)** **Reading:** Chapter 12. Migration and Security: Exploding the Myths and Understanding the Realities. Khalid Koser. Khalid Koser's chapter "Migration and Security: Exploding the Myths and Understanding the Realities" in *Demography of Refugee and Forced M...

**Migration and (Human) Security (02.12)** **Reading:** Chapter 12. Migration and Security: Exploding the Myths and Understanding the Realities. Khalid Koser. Khalid Koser's chapter "Migration and Security: Exploding the Myths and Understanding the Realities" in *Demography of Refugee and Forced Migration* provides a nuanced examination of the relationship between migration and security. Below is a summary of the key points and arguments presented in the article: **1. Myths and Misconceptions** - Koser addresses prevalent myths that link migration to security threats, such as the assumption that migrants inherently increase crime or terrorism. - He critiques these assumptions, arguing that such myths are often unsupported by empirical evidence and are fueled by political rhetoric and media narratives. **2. Empirical Realities** - Migration as a security issue is multifaceted. While there are legitimate security concerns, such as border management and human trafficking, these are not synonymous with migration being a direct threat. - Refugees and forced migrants are more often victims of insecurity rather than perpetrators. - Economic migrants contribute positively to host societies, often filling labor shortages and enriching cultural diversity. **3. Terrorism and Migration** - Koser examines the tenuous links between migration and terrorism. While isolated cases exist, broad generalizations are misleading and counterproductive. - He emphasizes that policies targeting migrants as potential terrorists can alienate communities, which paradoxically may increase security risks. **4. Policy Implications** - Governments should adopt evidence-based policies rather than reactionary measures shaped by fear or misinformation. - Integrating migrants into society, ensuring their rights, and fostering social cohesion are more effective in addressing security concerns than exclusionary practices. **5. Broader Context** - The author situates migration within a global context, highlighting the importance of understanding migration as a dynamic and complex phenomenon rather than a one-dimensional problem. - He underscores the need for international cooperation and a balanced approach to managing migration in ways that consider both security and human rights. **Key Takeaways:** - Migration should not be conflated with insecurity; the majority of migrants pose no security threat. - Misconceptions about migration often lead to policies that exacerbate problems rather than solving them. - Evidence-based approaches and international collaboration are crucial for addressing migration and security challenges effectively. Koser's work challenges readers to rethink their assumptions about migration, advocating for informed and balanced responses to the complexities of migration and security. **Lecture 2** **Migration and security issues** **Hard security issues** Threat to the nation-state: Import of ethnic tensions Radicalization Funding of terrorism **Soft security issues** Risk of destabilizing economic prosperity and national welfare: Challenges of social integration Impacts on national identity *Competition in the labor market → housing* *market?* Impacts on social services "But labelling any issue a security risk has **significant implications** in terms of the laws, norms, policies, and procedures that become justified in response." → Need for demographic research **Approaching migration and security** Apply the security label appropriately and guard against generalizations to generate better policy rather than provide fuel for misperceptions and media headlines. - What groups of migrants are of particular concern? - Under what circumstances? - What threat is posed and how can it be counteracted? - At what level? Country of origin, destination? - How is security defined when analyzing its interaction with migrants and migration? **Security approaches to migration** Extensions of the traditional security approach: **Copenhagen school** -- more holistic, linking individual, state and international system. \> wider range of threats, including economic, political, environmental and societal threats. **Human security** -- United Nations Development Programme 1994  Addressing **root causes** of (in)security  **People-centric, preventative**, **comprehensive and context-specific**  **Identifying and reducing threats to human security though** **protection and empowerment** → Freedom from fear, freedom from want, freedom to live in dignity **Human Security Approach** **Types of human insecurities and possible root causes** A close-up of a root cause AI-generated content may be incorrect. **Human Security and Migration** So how does this relate to the issue of migration? United Nations Commission on Human Security (2003): → Protecting people in violent conflict → Supporting security of people on the move → Protecting and empowering people in post-conflict situations What about human security of migrants (and host populations) in the host country? **Human and national security are inextricably linked**: **→ Lack of human security may undermine national security (drive internal conflict)** **→ Lack of national security undermines human security (govt doesn't deliver basic services)** **Human Security and Migration (2)** **Co-dependency human and national security:** → Does human security for migrants help to underpin national security (in affected states)? → Can well-managed migration enhance national security by promoting economic growth, social diversification, and political democracy? **Host country -- migration and security links** Other (more legitimate and easily defensible) links between (irregular) migration and security for host country: 1\. Undermining exercise of state sovereignty (border control) 2\. Human trafficking (organized crime) 3\. Challenges to national resources, identity and models of integration 4\. Competition with local population (jobs, housing, etc.) 5\. Strain on local environment (e.g., IDP camps) 6\. Magnet for population resentment (anti-migrant sentiment) Associated risk: decreased public confidence in the integrity of government policy! Migration can be a threat to national security, under particular circumstances → social demographic research can help form better and more effective national responses. **Origin country -- migration and security links** Mostly positive impacts: economic, social, political change Negative impacts: → Re-emergence of conflict (diaspora funding of conflict or certain policy) → Brain-drain (professional expertise) → Brain-drain (moderators and peace builders) → Re-integration of returning migrants (supporting insurgent groups etc.) **Migrant perspective** Risks to migrants are gendered, aged, and classed (and racialized?) → Feminization of migration (family reunification and feminization of labour) → Irregular migration → Lack of rights and protection \> exploitation in 3D (dirty, dangerous, difficult/demeaning) jobs → First victims of financial and other crises **Conclusions** → Better demographic evidence and research needed to make justifiable claims about migration and security → Why the strong association? → Which groups of migrants? → Under what circumstances? → Human Security allows us to look at migration comprehensively and exposes the links between human security and national security. **Glossary** **Irregular migration** -- undocumented migration, "illegal" migration **Human Security** -- human-centric approach to security conceptualized by the UN \>protection and empowerment \> lack of human security undermines national security \> lack of national security (legitimate and functioning govt) undermines human security **Internally Displaced Person (IDP) --** person fleeing (from conflict, etc.) within borders of one's own country. **Refugee --** person fleeing (from conflict, etc.) beyond the border of one's own country. **Refoulement** -- forced return of refugee or asylum seeker to a place where they are very likely to be persecuted or otherwise be at serious risk of harm. ***[Types of security + root causes -- exam!!!!]*** 3. **Intergroup bias (09.12)** **Reading:** Hewstone M., Rubin M. & Hazel W. (2002). Intergroup Bias. *Annual Review* *of Psychology*, 53, 575-604. Hewstone, Rubin, and Willis's 2002 article "Intergroup Bias" in the *Annual Review of Psychology* provides a comprehensive review of intergroup bias, exploring its psychological underpinnings, manifestations, and consequences. Below are the key points and insights from the article: **1. Definition and Scope of Intergroup Bias** - Intergroup bias refers to the tendency to favor one's own group (ingroup) over others (outgroups). - It manifests in attitudes (prejudice), beliefs (stereotypes), and behaviors (discrimination). - The bias ranges from subtle preferences to overt hostility. **2. Theoretical Frameworks** - **Social Identity Theory (SIT):** Individuals derive part of their self-concept from group memberships. Positive ingroup differentiation boosts self-esteem, driving intergroup bias. - **Realistic Conflict Theory (RCT):** Competition over scarce resources fosters intergroup conflict and bias. - **Cognitive Theories:** Stereotypes and biases stem from cognitive processes such as categorization, which simplifies complex social information but can lead to distortions. **3. Key Factors Influencing Intergroup Bias** - **Group Membership:** Even minimal group distinctions can trigger bias (e.g., Tajfel's minimal group experiments). - **Group Status and Power:** Higher-status groups often justify their dominance, while lower-status groups may show ingroup favoritism as a coping mechanism. - **Perceived Threat:** Real or symbolic threats to the ingroup intensify bias. **4. Manifestations and Consequences** - Bias influences various domains, including workplace interactions, educational settings, and societal structures. - It perpetuates inequality and social division, with negative outcomes for marginalized groups. **5. Reducing Intergroup Bias** - **Contact Hypothesis:** Positive, cooperative intergroup contact under appropriate conditions (e.g., equal status, shared goals) reduces bias. - **Cognitive Interventions:** Increasing awareness of stereotypes and fostering empathy can mitigate bias. - **Common Ingroup Identity Model:** Reframing outgroups and ingroups as part of a larger, shared group decreases biases. **6. Future Directions** - The authors call for interdisciplinary research to better understand the complex interplay of psychological, cultural, and structural factors in intergroup bias. - They emphasize the importance of exploring implicit biases and interventions tailored to diverse contexts. **Key Takeaways:** - Intergroup bias is a pervasive psychological phenomenon with significant social implications. - Theories like SIT and RCT provide foundational insights, but addressing bias requires multidimensional strategies. - Positive intergroup contact and reframing group identities are promising methods for reducing bias. Hewstone, Rubin, and Willis offer a foundational understanding of intergroup bias, emphasizing the need for research-driven approaches to promote inclusivity and reduce social conflict. Lecture 3 **Terms and definitions** **Bias** - Interpretative judgment that is unfair, illegitimate or unjustifiable (in the sense that it goes beyond the objective requirements or evidence of the situation). Bias can encompass attitude (prejudice), cognition (stereotyping) and behavior (discrimination). **Prejudice**: rigid and irrational generalization about an entire category of people. "You cannot rely on her to be on time because she is from Kenari" **Stereotyping**: combined prejudices that form an exaggerated image attributed to all members of that group. "Kenari people are always late" **Discrimination**: differential behavior and treatment of out-groups. "I'm not hiring a Kenari person because they are not able to finalize their tasks" **Intergroup bias** **Intergroup bias**: systematic tendency to evaluate one's own membership group (in-group) or its members more favorably than non-membership group or its members (out-group). Intergroup attitudes can be measured at three levels (Dovidio at al., 1997): - **Public** \> explicit bias (social desirability is salient) - **Personal** \> explicit bias (responses are private but controlled) - **Unconscious** \> Implicit bias (spontaneous) **Explicit bias** -- inconsistent responses: balance between desire to evaluate own group positively and wish to maintain self-image of fair-mindedness. **Implicit bias** -- unintentional bias ('true extent of people's bias given the pressures to conform to socially desirable or politically correct norms') **Intergroup bias** Weak relationship between explicit and implicit measures: \- Tap different constructs and involve different processes \- Normative context **In-group favoritism** Self-categorization as an in-group member: Assimilation of the self to the in-group category prototype. → Enhanced similarity to the other in-group members → Trust, positive regard, cooperation and empathy are extended to fellow in-group (but not out-group) members (fundamental survival strategy) Difference between discrimination and bias that arise out of: \- in-group favoritism and absence of positive sentiments towards out-group (e.g., patriotism). \- out-group derogation and presence of strong, negative attitudes towards out-groups (e.g., nationalism). **Out-group derogation** From in-group favoritism to out-group derogation: from mild to strong emotions. Mild emotions usually lead to avoidance. Stronger emotions may lead to fear (out-group perceived as threat) and hostile actions against the out-group (beyond in-group benefit). Intergroup bias may eventually lead to injustice, perpetuation of inequality and oppression, ethnic cleansing and genocide. **Modern Theories of Intergroup Bias** - **1. Social Identity Theory** (Tajfel & Turner 1979) -- 1\. Categorization (into an in-group) 2\. Identification 3.Comparison "Successful intergroup bias enhances self-esteem." "Threatened self-esteem motivates intergroup bias"? N.B.: social identities are dynamic, multiple, sociological and salient; increasing self-esteem. - **2. Optimal Distinctiveness Theory** (Brewer 1991) -- Compromise between two opposing needs: 1\. Satisfaction with group identification 2\. Need for intergroup differentiation More optimally distinct membership leads to greater satisfaction and higher self-esteem. A group of women in cosplay AI-generated content may be incorrect. - **3. Subjective Uncertainty Reduction Theory** (Hogg & Abrams 1993) -- identification with in-groups with clear normative prescriptions for behavior to help reduce uncertainty. (strong need to be in a group with rules). (similar to the Terror Management Theory) (ex: religious groups, political parties).  - **4. Terror Management Theory** (Solomon et al. 1991) -- group identification based on cultural worldviews helps reduce anxiety caused by awareness of death. A person with her hands up in the air AI-generated content may be incorrect. - **5. Social Dominance Theory** (Sidanius & Pratto 1999) -- Social Dominance Orientation determines preference for intergroup hierarchies and ideologies in society that either promote or attenuate intergroup hierarchies.  **Key moderators of intergroup bias** **Culture** **Education** Intrapersonal manipulations of affect (bad mood/ good mood) Theory-specific moderators: self-esteem, gender, social dominance orientation Strong **identification with in-group** may increase bias towards outgroups **Group size** **Status:** \- Members of high-status groups tend to show more bias when status is at stake. \- More bias when status gap is closing. \- Members of low-status groups show more bias when status differences considered unstable and illegitimate. **Power:** Members of high power and equal power groups show more bias than lower power groups → discrimination by numerical minorities with high power especially strong! Between real groups: high- and equal power groups show more bias than low-power groups. **Threats:** Realistic (scarce resources) and symbolic (traditions) \- of the in-group's social identity, goals and values, position in hierarchy, existence **Personality and individual difference:** Political preferences, strong religious beliefs, value orientations **Reducing bias -- individual processes** **Direct approaches:** Emphasizing more positive ideologies Increasing salience of positive values (e.g. tolerance) Value confrontation Making individuals rationalize their bias **Indirect approaches:** Empathy Learn to classify on multiple dimensions **Reducing bias -- intergroup processes** Reducing the salience of category distinctions \- Decategorization - Interpersonal focus \- Recategorization (subordinate \> superordinate identity): Common In-group Identity (CII) ¬ Both threaten to deprive individuals of social identities in smaller groups ¬ Temporally unstable solutions to problem of intergroup discrimination Maintaining salience of category distinctions (values differences) Limitation: reinforces perceived differences, increasing anxiety and mutual mistrust (\> need for combined interpersonal and intergroup approach) Increasing social categorization complexities: \- Dual identity superordinate group binds, subordinate group distinguishes \- Crossed categorization new and overlapping categories **Reducing bias -- Integration of Approaches** All approaches are complimentary and reciprocal → depending on the conditions Whatever the approach, outcomes should be realistic: increase perceived outgroup variability, out-group knowledge and perspective taking, decrease intergroup anxiety. Effective interventions need to build trust, address collective guilt and build intergroup forgiveness. **Conclusions** Social categorization contributes to most extreme forms of intergroup bias \- delegitimizing victims \- moral exclusion But genocide and other crimes against humanity cannot just be explained by intergroup bias: much more complex and contextual **What national and other policies are most effective in reducing bias and** **out-group derogation?** **Glossary** **Intergroup bias** -- the systematic tendency to evaluate own's own membership group (the in-group) or its members more favorably than a non-membership group (the out- group) or its members. **Implicit bias** -- unintentional bias ('true extent of people's bias given the pressures to conform to socially desirable or politically correct norms') **In-group favoritism** -- favoring one's own group over other groups (out-groups) **Out-group derogation** -- the other group (out-group) is regarded negatively and as potentially threatening to one's own group (in-group). ***[Explicit and implicit!]*** ***[Modern theories 5 of intergroup bias !!! exam]*** 4. **Intergroup Ideologies (living in a multicultural world) (16.12)** **Reading:** Guimond, S., Sablonniere, R., & Nugier, A. (2014). Living in a multicultural world: Intergroup ideologies and the societal context of intergroup relations*. European Review of Social Psychology, 25*(1), 142-188. The article by Guimond, Sablonnière, and Nugier (2014), *\"Living in a Multicultural World: Intergroup Ideologies and the Societal Context of Intergroup Relations,\"* explores how different intergroup ideologies and societal contexts shape intergroup relations in multicultural societies. Below are the key points and insights: **1. Intergroup Ideologies** - **Multiculturalism:** Emphasizes the recognition and celebration of cultural diversity. It acknowledges group differences and promotes their inclusion in the broader society. - **Assimilation:** Advocates for minority groups to adopt the dominant group's culture, downplaying cultural differences in favor of unity. - **Colorblindness:** Suggests ignoring group differences and treating all individuals as equal, focusing on shared human characteristics rather than cultural or ethnic distinctions. **2. The Societal Context** - Societal contexts significantly influence the prevalence and effectiveness of different intergroup ideologies. - Historical, political, and demographic factors shape attitudes toward multiculturalism and diversity management in different countries. - The authors emphasize that no single ideology is universally optimal; the societal context determines which approach works best. **3. Impact of Ideologies on Intergroup Relations** - **Multiculturalism:** - Positively correlates with minority group well-being and identity affirmation. - However, it may inadvertently reinforce stereotypes and highlight differences, leading to intergroup tension if not managed effectively. - **Assimilation:** - Can reduce visible intergroup differences but often undermines minority identities and fosters resistance or alienation among minority groups. - **Colorblindness:** - Promotes equality and reduces overt prejudice but may lead to ignoring systemic inequalities and the unique challenges faced by minority groups. **4. The Role of Power and Status** - Dominant groups often prefer ideologies like assimilation or colorblindness to maintain their status and minimize challenges to their position. - Minority groups tend to favor multiculturalism, as it recognizes their distinct identities and provides opportunities for cultural expression. **5. Research Insights** - Empirical studies demonstrate that multiculturalism fosters better intergroup attitudes, particularly when coupled with policies that address systemic inequalities. - The effectiveness of these ideologies depends on how they are perceived and implemented within a given societal context. **6. Policy Implications** - Policies should be tailored to the specific societal context, balancing the promotion of diversity with fostering social cohesion. - Multicultural policies work best when combined with efforts to address structural inequalities and provide equal opportunities for all groups. **7. Future Directions** - The authors highlight the need for further research on the intersection of individual-level psychology and societal-level factors in shaping intergroup ideologies. - They emphasize the importance of understanding how historical and contextual factors influence attitudes toward diversity and the success of intergroup ideologies. **Key Takeaways:** - Multiculturalism, assimilation, and colorblindness each have strengths and limitations in managing intergroup relations. - The societal context is crucial in determining the effectiveness of intergroup ideologies. - Multiculturalism tends to have the most positive outcomes but requires policies that address systemic inequalities to mitigate potential downsides. This article underscores the complexity of managing intergroup relations in multicultural societies and advocates for context-sensitive approaches to promoting inclusivity and harmony. Lecture 4 **Living in a multicultural world...** Goals of the article: Clarify what we know about the effect of intergroup ideologies on intergroup relations. Review research to explain why intergroup ideologies have a profound influence on intergroup attitudes and behaviors. Understand how the social and political context may have an impact on the relation between intergroup ideologies and intergroup relations. A diagram of a social and political context AI-generated content may be incorrect. **Intergroup Ideologies** Formal and informal rules, policies and traditions to deal with cultural diversity and issues of citizenship Three basic responses (approaches) to diversity: - Assimilation - Colorblindness - Multiculturalism Countries do not adhere to pure form of one or the other Segregationist laws and policies disallowed in most countries **Intergroup Ideologies** 1. **Assimilation** implies unidirectional process pressuring minority groups to recategorize and conform to majority. (hierarchy) 2. **Colorblindness** implies that racial or ethnic membership should not matter, all people are the same. (religion) 3. **Multiculturalism** - "A multicultural approach involves acknowledging group differences, appreciating diversity, and respecting minority group identities" (Verkuyten, 2006). Pluralism Dual-identity model **Citizenship** "A form of membership in a political and geographic community" (Bloemraad et al., 2008). Citizenship entails a set of rights and duties linking citizens to the state. **Measuring support for intergroup ideologies (early findings)** Support for multiculturalism highest among minority group members. Support for multiculturalism correlates negatively with support for assimilation among majority group members. Endorsement of assimilation related to increasing levels of intergroup bias. Colorblindness and multiculturalism both share commitment to equality. Social dominance theory → ideologies as legitimizing myths (Sidanius & Pratto 1999). Legitimizing myth: set of beliefs to provide justification of distribution of social values within the social system. Multiculturalism & colorblindness \> hierarchy attenuating Assimilation \> hierarchy enhancing SDO: powerful predictor of prejudice and outgroup derogation. **Missing Link: cultural norms of integration** Experiments carried out in vacuum, disregarding **social and** **political context** **Social influence**: our own personal ideas, beliefs, attitudes and values are shaped by what others around us believe in or value. **Intersubjective approach:** "rather than acting on their personal beliefs and values, people sometimes act on the beliefs and values they perceive to be widespread in their culture" (Chiu et al., 2010, p.482). Mental → cultural representations when repeatedly communicated and widespread New model takes into account how national policies and ***cultural norms of integration*** affect intergroup ideologies and behaviors. Perceived level of support or **perceived norm** to understand linkages between intergroup ideology -- national policy. Policies in country will generate **cultural norms of** **integration.** Identifying the conditions under which the majority adopts open and accepting attitudes towards minority groups **Conclusions** There are psychological implications of living in a society that supports a given intergroup ideology. Multiculturalism and colorblindness less deleterious for intergroup relations compared to assimilation ideology. Strong diversity policy has positive effect on intergroup attitudes in that it helps create norm that values cultural diversity. If multiculturalism creates problems of intergroup relations, creating norm was not successful. **Glossary** **Intergroup ideology**: the ways of approaching and dealing with intergroup relations in culturally diverse societies. **Assimilation**: recategorization process where diversity is reduced or eliminated by creating a superordinate identity to form a culturally homogeneous society. **Multiculturalism**: approach that acknowledges differences and appreciates diversity. **Colorblindness**: decategorization process where racial or ethnic membership should not matter as all people are the same. **Social Dominance Orientation**: general attitudinal orientation toward intergroup relations, reflecting whether one generally prefers such relations to be equal or hierarchical. **Intersubjective approach**: rather than acting on their personal beliefs and values, people sometimes act on the beliefs and values they perceive to be widespread in their culture (Chui et al., 2010) **Pluralistic Ignorance**: incorrect perception of others' beliefs. **5. Diversity in the Police (06.01)** **Reading:** Nicholson-Crotty, S., Nicholson-Crotty, J., & Fernandez, S. (2017). Will more Black cops matter? Officer race and police-involved homicides of Black citizens. *Public Administration Review*,77(2), 206-216. The article by Nicholson-Crotty, Nicholson-Crotty, and Fernandez (2017), *\"Will More Black Cops Matter? Officer Race and Police-Involved Homicides of Black Citizens,\"* examines whether increasing the number of Black police officers can reduce the number of police-involved homicides of Black citizens. Below are the key points and findings: **1. Research Focus** - The study explores the relationship between officer race and police-involved homicides, particularly among Black citizens. - It evaluates whether increasing the proportion of Black officers in police departments reduces the likelihood of fatal encounters between police and Black civilians. **2. Key Hypotheses** - **Representative Bureaucracy Theory:** Greater racial representation within police forces (i.e., more Black officers) could lead to better outcomes for Black citizens due to shared experiences, cultural understanding, and reduced biases. - **Counterarguments:** Some scholars suggest that systemic factors like organizational culture and policies may limit the influence of individual officers, regardless of race. **3. Methodology** - The authors used a national dataset on police-involved homicides from 2014 to analyze the relationship between the racial composition of police forces and fatal encounters involving Black citizens. - They controlled for factors such as city demographics, crime rates, socioeconomic variables, and the overall size of police departments. **4. Findings** - **Limited Impact of Black Officers:** The study found that increasing the percentage of Black officers in a police department had only a modest effect on reducing police-involved homicides of Black citizens. - **Structural and Organizational Constraints:** The results suggest that systemic factors, such as entrenched police practices and departmental culture, may limit the ability of Black officers to influence outcomes significantly. - **Context Matters:** The racial composition of a community and the overall levels of segregation and inequality also shape the dynamics of police-citizen interactions. **5. Implications** - Simply increasing racial diversity in police forces is not a panacea for addressing police violence against Black citizens. - Broader reforms are needed to address systemic issues, including accountability, training, and policies that govern the use of force. - Representation matters, but its effectiveness is contingent on supportive institutional and societal frameworks. **6. Policy Recommendations** - While increasing diversity should remain a goal, it must be accompanied by systemic reforms to ensure equitable treatment and reduce fatal encounters. - Strategies such as community policing, improved training on bias and de-escalation, and stronger oversight mechanisms are critical. **Key Takeaways:** - Increasing the number of Black officers in police departments has a limited effect on reducing police-involved homicides of Black citizens due to systemic and organizational barriers. - Broader institutional reforms are necessary to address the underlying causes of racial disparities in police use of force. - Representation alone cannot counteract the deeply rooted structural issues within law enforcement agencies and society at large. This study underscores the complexity of addressing racial disparities in policing and highlights the need for comprehensive approaches that go beyond increasing diversity. Lecture 5 **Diversity in institutions -- why should we care?** What does diversity mean? Who are targeted? **Potential benefits:** Improved performance (in some contexts) Redress societal injustice Increased trust in institutions Better representation **Theory of Representative Bureaucracy** Mosher (1968) ***Passive representation*** -- organization employs individuals from societal groups (ethnic, gender, etc.), proportionate to their shared of the population. **3 Preconditions** from passive representation to active representation [(here you make the difference).] 1. Right position 2. Discretion 3. Issue that affects the population. ***Active representation*** -- employees will "press for the interests and desires of those whom he is presumed to represent" (p.11) **Theory of Critical Mass** Studies on representative bureaucracy and policing show very mixed results! **→ active representation and critical mass** Institutions characterized by strong norms and high levels of socialization: passive to active representation needs a ***critical*** ***mass*** **[Critical mass -- bigger percentage of minority police officers. 35%-40% (when it starts to make a difference)]** **Research findings: What's next?** Yet... Results are inconclusive! ***So what does this mean for efforts diversifying police forces? Are those*** ***not worth the effort?*** \- Research from England and Wales sees increased trust (Hong, S., 2017. Does Increasing Ethnic Representativeness Reduce Police Misconduct? Public Administration Review 77(2), 195-205) \- Other, more recent research claim otherwise (Ba et al., 2017. The Role of Officer Race and Gender in Police-Civilian Interactions in Chicago. Science 371, 696-702) \- Other measures may be needed -- increase social work and other social facilities, train police at de-escalation, body-cams, etc. \- Reduce racism and ethnic bias in police departments \- Community policing \- Procedural justice **Procedural Justice** "**Procedural justice** focuses on the way police and other legal authorities interact with the public and how the characteristics of those interactions shape the public's views of the police, their willingness to obey the law, cooperation with the police in fighting crime, and actual crime rates." **Procedural Justice - Four principles** - Voice - Neutrality - Respect - Trustworthy motives **Police and Diversity -- recruitment** In most countries, the police are unsuccessful at achieving representative diversity in their personnel. **Reading:** Amnesty International (2018). Trapped in the matrix: Secrecy, stigma and bias in the Met's Gangs Database. Amnesty International\'s 2018 report, *Trapped in the Matrix: Secrecy, Stigma, and Bias in the Met\'s Gangs Database*, critically examines the Metropolitan Police\'s Gangs Violence Matrix (GVM). Below are the key points and findings from the report: **1. Purpose and Structure of the Gangs Violence Matrix** - The GVM was established in 2012 following the 2011 London riots, aiming to reduce gang-related violence. - It operates as an intelligence tool to identify individuals involved in gang activity, assigning risk scores to individuals based on their perceived involvement. **2. Concerns About Discrimination and Bias** - The report highlights a disproportionate representation of Black individuals on the Matrix, with 78% of those listed being Black despite Black people accounting for only 13% of serious youth violence victims in London. - Amnesty argues this overrepresentation reflects racial profiling and systemic bias within the criminal justice system. **3. Lack of Transparency and Oversight** - Individuals are often unaware they are listed on the Matrix, lacking the ability to challenge their inclusion. - The criteria for being added to or removed from the Matrix are unclear and inconsistent. **4. Stigmatization and Harm** - Being listed on the Matrix can lead to stigmatization, affecting individuals' access to housing, education, and employment opportunities. - Data sharing with other public services raises concerns about breaches of privacy and misuse of information. **5. Questionable Effectiveness** - Amnesty International questions whether the Matrix is achieving its intended goal of reducing gang-related violence. - Critics argue that it conflates individuals who are actively violent with those merely associated with gangs, leading to unnecessary surveillance of innocent individuals. **6. Recommendations** - Amnesty calls for an urgent review of the Gangs Violence Matrix, emphasizing the need for transparency, accountability, and adherence to human rights standards. - They recommend better oversight mechanisms, clearer criteria for inclusion, and measures to address racial bias. **Conclusion** The report emphasizes that the Gangs Violence Matrix perpetuates secrecy, stigma, and systemic discrimination, urging the Metropolitan Police to adopt fairer, more effective approaches to tackling gang violence without infringing on individuals\' rights. Lecture 6 **Met's Gangs Matrix --** Introduction (Chapter 1) 'Gang association' as measure for assessing potential harm to public safety 2011 'London Riots' 2012 Launch of Trident Gang Crime Command: 'more targeted enforcement against gangs' \> Met's Gangs Violence Matrix 'To track and assess the risk of violence posed by London's 'known gang members' To inform police decisions about where the 'stop and search' (intelligence led stop-and-search) Gang nominals assigned a 'risk score' or 'harm score' (red, amber or green) and 'victim score' Used in prosecution of 'gang nominals' and for data-sharing with and across (non-policing) agencies  **Met's Gangs Matrix -- Getting on the matrix** (Chapters 2 &3) 'Risky or at risk?' **Met's Gangs Matrix -- Impact** (Chapter 4) More than just a policing tool  **Met's Gangs Matrix -- Getting off the matrix** (Chapter 5) 'Will they put on my whole family, friends, someone I shook hands with -- until everyone is on the matrix? At what point do they take you off, when you're dead? **Met's Gangs Matrix -- Is the matrix effective in fighting youth violence?** (Chapter 6) 'We struggle with effective policing for lots of reasons. Police have a very difficult job to do in a community they have lost contact with. Community policing is failing in the areas where they need to be strongest.' Martin Griffiths, trauma surgeon at Royal London Hospital '\[the matrix is\] counterproductive now. Without a doubt, from the community perspective... Every example of someone who should not be on the Gang Matrix is not at all helpful. Every incident that happens sets us back. Detective Superintendent Tim Champion: 'Gangs are, for the most part, a complete red herring... fixation with the term is unhelpful at every level. A huge amount of time, effort and energy has been wasted on trying to define what a gang is when it wasn't necessarily relevant to what we're seeing on the streets' **Big Data and Policing** Implications (according to 2019 Report commissioned by UK Government): 1.Allocation of resources. Police forces will need to consider how algorithmic bias may affect their decisions to police certain areas more heavily. 2.Legal claims. Discrimination claims could be brought by individuals scored "negatively" in comparison to others of different ages or genders. 3.Over-reliance on automation. There is a risk that police officers become over-reliant on the use of analytical tools, undermining their discretion and causing them to disregard other relevant factors. Predictive judgments are meaningful when applied to groups of offenders. However, at an individual level, predictions are considered by many to be imprecise'. Put simply, high accuracy rates at the group level can often conceal very low accuracy rates for specific individuals or groups of individuals within that larger group. All individual predictions are associated with a confidence interval (a margin of error), which is often not taken into account when reporting the overall 'predictive accuracy' of the tool." **Use of Big Data in Public Administration - example** Dutch 'toeslagen-affaire' (childcare benefits affair) Dutch court: Syri (Systeem Risico Indicatie) in violation of Article 8 of the EU Convention on HR (right to privacy) In 2020 tax department acknowledges racial/ethnic profiling **Big Data in Policing -- predictive policing** **Predictive policing**: tech-based tool based on large data sets to help predict and prevent potential future crime. Place- based (maps) Person-based **Predictive Policing** drivers: Belief in objectivity of 'machines' Efficient and cost cutting Modernist (tech race) Positivist approach to crime solving **Main problems identified:** **"Blackbox"** problem hampers **transparency** and accountability (nobody knows how the decisions were made; about AI) Predicts policing, not crime Self-reinforcing feedback loop 'Dirty data' (inaccurate and/or biased) Population becomes suspicious for simply being included in the datasets Data used to develop tools outdated and lacking accuracy Others: related to privacy and oversight **Big Data and Policing - example** **Top 400 (extension of Top 600)** Predictive identification 'Care and control' approach 'High potentials' Not yet committed to serious crime Criminalization of 'teenage behaviour' (nuisance) Based on ProKid+ predictive policing tool → Should a new approach be tested on vulnerable minor and young adults? → Does the Top 400 help make the city safer, or does it criminalize nuisance behaviour and draw kids deeper into crime? **Big Data and AI -- Definitions** → **Artificial Intelligence (**or Complex Information Processing) Natural Language Processing Automated Decision System Machine Learning \> Deep Learning → **Uses of AI** Medicine Traffic Policing and Crime Prevention Entertainment Etc. **Big Data and Bias -- Definitions** **Bias as technical term** in statistics: deviance from standard **Bias in sociological terms**: presumptions or attitudes that lead to discrimination and harm (for certain groups or people) **Biased data:** data used in machine learning are themselves biased (prejudice, AI (man jobs, woman jobs). **Bias by omission**: bias due to omission of representative data that systems were trained on (is not representative enough in internet) (too much data; too many white people, no black people). A person in a colorful shirt AI-generated content may be incorrect. **Bias by proxy** (or surrogate objectives): lacking a clear measure, we settle for a surrogate measure (number of clicks) (YouTube, Netflix).  **Blackbox** -- how did it get to that decision? A **black box AI** is an AI system whose internal workings are a mystery to its users. Users can see the system's inputs and outputs, but they can't see what happens within the AI tool to produce those outputs. **Solutions?** Fairness, Legal framework (2023 EU Artificial Intelligence Act), Explainable AI (opposite of Blackbox), Transparency, Open Source. ***[Big data and bias -- definitions -- exam!!! ]*** **7. Intergroup Ideologies and Citizenship in Myanmar (20.01)** **Reading:** Holliday, I. (2014). Addressing Myanmar's Citizenship Crisis. *Journal of Contemporary Asia*, 44(3), 404-421. Ian Holliday's 2014 article, *Addressing Myanmar's Citizenship Crisis*, explores the complex and deeply contentious issue of citizenship in Myanmar, particularly focusing on the plight of the Rohingya people. Below are the key points and arguments from the article: **1. Background on Myanmar's Citizenship Crisis** - The article outlines the historical and legal context of Myanmar's citizenship laws, particularly the 1982 Citizenship Law, which categorizes citizens into three tiers: full citizens, associate citizens, and naturalized citizens. - The law excludes many ethnic minorities, including the Rohingya, who are denied recognition as one of Myanmar's 135 officially recognized ethnic groups. **2. The Plight of the Rohingya** - The Rohingya, a Muslim minority primarily residing in Rakhine State, are effectively stateless due to their exclusion from citizenship. - This statelessness exacerbates their marginalization, leaving them vulnerable to systematic discrimination, violence, and displacement. **3. Government Policies and National Identity** - The article highlights how the Myanmar government has framed national identity around the concept of *taingyintha*(indigenous races), excluding communities like the Rohingya. - Citizenship policies are used as tools to reinforce Buddhist and Bamar-centric nationalism, further alienating minority groups. **4. Human Rights Implications** - The denial of citizenship violates international human rights norms, including the right to nationality and freedom from discrimination. - Statelessness has led to severe restrictions on the Rohingya's freedom of movement, access to education, healthcare, and livelihoods. **5. Regional and Global Implications** - The citizenship crisis has significant implications for regional stability, as it fuels forced migration and contributes to humanitarian crises in neighboring countries like Bangladesh. - International criticism of Myanmar's treatment of the Rohingya has led to strained relations with the global community. **6. Recommendations** - Holliday proposes legal and political reforms to address the citizenship crisis: - Revising the 1982 Citizenship Law to align with international standards, ensuring equal rights for all ethnic groups, including the Rohingya. - Encouraging Myanmar's government to foster a more inclusive national identity that embraces diversity. - Greater involvement of international actors and regional organizations, like ASEAN, to mediate and support conflict resolution. **7. Challenges to Reform** - Deep-seated ethnic and religious tensions, coupled with resistance from Myanmar's political elite and broader society, pose significant obstacles to addressing the crisis. - The article notes the importance of balancing internal political dynamics with external pressure for change. **Conclusion** Holliday argues that resolving Myanmar's citizenship crisis requires systemic legal reforms and a shift in national identity narratives. Without addressing these fundamental issues, the cycle of marginalization, conflict, and displacement will continue, undermining both Myanmar's democratization and regional stability. Lecture 7 **Introduction -- Myanmar history and politics** o Myanmar or Burma? o Home to 135 groups of ethnic minorities, 8 main national races o Burmans (Bamar) make up around 68% of total population of 55 million o Democratic reform 2011- 2021 → Agreement with ASSK → Suspension of construction Myitsone Dam → Political prisoners freed (2012) → Victory by-elections NLD (2012) → General Election 2015 (NLD victory \> Aung San Suu Kyi State Councilor) → Nationwide Ceasefire Agreement (2015) Military coup d\'état 1 February 2021 o Ongoing protest and resistance against military / Thousands of political prisoners / Over 5000 civilians killed, 3.3 million displaced **Myanmar's Citizenship Crisis - concept** o Citizenship crisis threatens to undermine wider reform process. o Citizenship: ***set of rights and duties that collectively generate a civic persona or*** ***identity*** o ***Components of citizenship*** (Marshall, 1950): **→ Civil** -- "the rights necessary for individual freedom" **→ Political** -- "the right to participate in the exercise of political power" **→ Social** -- "the whole range from the right to a modicum of economic welfare to the right to share to the full in the social heritage and to live the life of a civilized being according to the standards prevailing in the society". **→ Cultural component** -- "comprises the right to assert and cultivate one's cultural heritage" (Kymlicka 1995, 2001; Parekh 2006; Modood 2013) Obligation of allegiance to a state (two-way street) **Myanmar's Citizenship Crisis \-- dimensions** Citizenship crisis -- 4 dimensions: **1. Broad curtailment of citizenship (limited rights)** **2. Rohingya Muslims denied citizenship (also affecting other Muslims)** **3. Other ethnic minorities facing restrictions of citizenship** **4. Bamar majority appropriates citizenship** Minority groups: → Perceptions and self-identification \> ascribed and asserted identities → 1824 threshold for claiming indigeneity **Citizenship and Ethnicity -- the case of the Rohingya** o Rohingya denied citizenship in 1982 (Citizenship Act) \> most are stateless o Massive and organized violence against Rohingya in 2012, 2017 and 2018. o Violence in 2017 led UN-backed fact-finding mission to conclude violence constituted genocide o Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide, 1948 → *A mental element*: the \"intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such\"; and → *A physical element:* which includes the following five acts, enumerated exhaustively: Killing members of the group Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group o Ethnic conflict continuous (against Shan, Chin, Kayah/Karen, etc.) but most widespread and systematic against Rohingya o Conflict involved military, local civilians, Buddhist groups (e.g. 969 movement) o Almost one million Rohingya currently live as refugees and Internally Displaced People o 2019 The Gambia sues Myanmar for genocide at the International Court of Justice o 2022 ICJ decides it has jurisdiction to examine Gambia's genocide claims 2022 -- Rohingya refugees sue Facebook (Meta) over alleged role in inciting violence and hate speech in California court. "...accusing it of being \"willing to trade the lives of the Rohingya people for better market penetration in a small country in Southeast Asia." 2023 -- Case is dismissed (statute of limitations) 2024 -- Appeal by plaintiffs **Myanmar's Citizenship Crisis -- additional challenges** o Equal rights for all ethnic minorities recognized by law but not exercised equally o Special position of Bamar majority (Buddhist, Burmese language, automatic allegiance to state) o Bamarness functional equivalent of whiteness in Western societies (US) -- "privileged identity generating normative and institutional benefits for the majority group" (Walton 2013) **Citizenship Crisis Solution: Multiculturalist Policies** **Multiculturalism:** "the legal and political accommodation of ethnic diversity" Kymlicka (2012) o Can multiculturalist policies from Western countries help Myanmar to move from ethnic hierarchy to horizontal form of democratic citizenship? o Obvious differences, but does that matter? This is about policies of.... → Political acknowledgment → Social recognition → Cultural sensitivity o 3 types of minorities: o Immigrant groups (e.g., Turkish German) o Historic national minorities (e.g., the Welsh and Scottish in the UK) o Indigenous peoples (e.g., Inuit in Canada) **Policies enabling civic integration (National Minorities Index):** A white paper with black text AI-generated content may be incorrect. **Policy comparison**  **Citizenship Crisis -- Solutions: Addressing Burman Privilege** Walton 'Wages of "Burman-ness": Ethnicity and Burman Privilege in Contemporary Myanmar' (2012): o Unequal experience of violence of ethnic groups o Focus on historical construction of racial identities and their institutionalization in contemporary power structures o "Burman dominance and privilege can be overcome only through active struggle and repudiation by *Burmans*" **Is the current situation of military repression and nation-wide resistance changing** **majority and minority ethnic group dynamics?** **Conclusions and Ways Forward** o Citizenship crisis: broad curtailment of rights / Rohingya and other ethnic groups denied or restricted citizenship / Bamar majority appropriates citizenship o Can multiculturalist policies (MPI) help Myanmar to move from ethnic hierarchy to horizontal form of democratic citizenship? o Rohingya granted equal rights as immigrant group? o Political participation, including (inclusive and democratic) civil society o Fighting racist views of Rohingya, Muslims and other ethnic groups \> zero tolerance o Rolling back military privilege o Investment in social security **→ Constructive and transformative moves towards** **common civic identity** ***[Components of citizenship! -- exam!]*** ***[Migrant integration (education, health...) -- exam!]***