Selecting the refugee : how the changing discourse on immigrant integration in the Netherlands has influenced refugee resettlement admission policy-making and implementation between 1998-2012

S

ELECTING THE REFUGEE

How the changing discourse on immigrant integration in the Netherlands has

influenced refugee resettlement admission policy-making and implementation

between 1998-2012

Master’s thesis by Carlijn van Lieshout Supervisor: Dr. Jeroen Doomernik Second reader: Dr. David Laws

April 2014

Conflict Resolution and Governance Graduate School of Social Sciences University of Amsterdam

What is natural has to be considered not in beings that are corrupted,

but in those that truly act in accordance with their nature

Aristotle

-A

Without the guidance and support of my supervisor Jeroen Doomernik, you and I would not be looking at this Master’s thesis right now. When I lost overview, he made me find it. Even when I totally lost faith, the open door to his office symbolized the one thing that I needed: confidence.

Another special thank you goes out to my other supervisor at the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, Arjen Verweij, who not only gave me the opportunity to perform this research amid Dutch integration policy specialists and benefit from their knowledge as well as resources, but most of all whose optimism kept on being contagious.

A

A lack of prove on the effectiveness of the integration potential criterion, which is used for the selection of resettled refugees, on their integration in the Netherlands desires for clarification of the political processes behind the use of this tool in the admission policy. At the same time, both policy-making and the public opinion with respect to immigration integration have changed radically in the Netherlands in the past decade. This research aims to look for the connection between this tendency and the use of the integration potential in admission of refugees for resettlement to the Netherlands.

By making a distinction between the developments at the policy-making level and the implementation of the integration potential criterion in practice, political processes can be unwrapped, detecting possible rhetoric and revealing real changes and continuation too. The applicability of the concepts of (im)partiality, path dependency and street-level bureaucracy in this policy domain are being discussed. By means of analyzing election programs, coalition agreements and policy papers related to the Dutch resettlement policy between 1998 and 2012, in combination with experiences of professionals in the field of refugee resettlement, the evolution of the integration potential criterion is being reconstructed.

Even though the integration potential criterion is not a new phenomenon, a shift towards a more assimilationist definition of ‘integration potential’ in the resettlement policy has taken place between 2002 and 2006. This coincides with the change in the dominant political discourse on immigrant integration, which presents cultural adaptation as the new norm. Several focus events and the adoption of the rather populist dominant discourse, in both content and style, by all political parties have enforced politicization of immigrant integration.

A path dependent process can be found both at the policy-making level and at the implementation of the integration potential criterion by civil servants. Discretion is needed and imperative in order to be able to assess a refugee’s potential, in which the civil servant’s personal discourse plays a key role. This discourse is intrinsically related to the normative standard present in Dutch society. The integration potential criterion can furthermore serve as a coping mechanism alleviating civil servants from the inability to give all refugees their best efforts. Established routines follow a self-reinforcing process, encouraging development in the same direction, while expectations arising from reference frameworks of civil servants have a self-fulfilling character.

T

C

pg.

List of abbreviations and acronyms 7

1: Introduction 8

1.1 Literature review 8

1.2 Aim of this research 10

1.3 Structure and main questions 11

2: Conceptual framework 13

2.1 Refugee 13

2.2 Resettlement 14

2.3 Immigration and integration policy 15

3: Methodological framework 18

3.1 Motivation of choices 18

3.2 Operationalization 19

3.3 Limitations 21

4: Theoretical framework 22

4.1 Partiality and impartiality 22

4.2 Path dependency 25

4.3 Street-level bureaucracy 27

4.4 Conclusion 31

5: Political climate on immigrant integration in the Netherlands 32

5.1 The denial phase 32

5.2 Cultural emancipation as the rational response 33

5.3 Socio-economic emphasis 34

5.4 Focusing events and the consequences 36 5.5 Socio-cultural adaptation as the new norm 39

6: Dutch selection policy for resettled refugees and the “integration potential” criterion 45

6.1 Resettlement in the post World War II period 45

6.2 Increasingly humanitarian? 46

6.3 The adjustments made by the Purple coalition 48

6.4 The input of Verdonk 51

6.5 A continuation of the path 54

6.6 Conclusion 57

7: Translation to the policy implementation phase 59

7.1 National actors involved in the current selection procedure 59

7.1.1 IND 59

7.1.2 COA 61

7.1.3 DMB 63

7.2 International actors involved in the selection process 65

7.2.1 UNHCR 65 7.2.2 IOM 68 7.2.3 ICMC 70 7.3 Conclusion 71 8: Conclusion 73 Bibliography 77

L

A

A

CDA Christen Democratisch Appèl

COA Central Body for the reception of Asylum seekers (Centraal Orgaan opvang

Asielzoekers)

COA1 Respondent from COA in the Master’s thesis of R. Sijnja COA2 Respondent from COA in my interviews

COV Foundation for Central Reception of Refugees (Stichting Centrale Opvang Vluchtelingen) Convention Convention relating to the Status of Refugees

CU Christen Unie

D66 Democraten ’66

DMB Direction Migration Policy (Directie Migratiebeleid) DMB1 Respondent from DMB in the Master’s thesis of R. Sijnja DMB2 Respondent from DMB in my interviews

EU European Union

HVZ Resettlement unit of the IND (Hervestigingszaken) ICMC International Catholic Migration Commission ICMC1 First respondent from ICMC in my interviews ICMC2 Second respondent from ICMC in my interviews

ICVZ Interdepartmental Commission on Refugees Affairs (Interdepartementale Commissie

Vluchtelingenzaken)

IGC Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees IND Immigration and Naturalization Service (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst) IND1 First respondent from IND in the Master’s thesis of R. Sijnja

IND2 Second respondent from IND in the Master’s thesis of R. Sijnja IND3 Respondent from IND in my interviews

IOM International Organization for Migration IOM1 Respondent from IOM in my interviews IRO International Refugee Organization LPF Lijst Pim Fortuyn

PvdA Partij van de Arbeid

PVV Partij voor de Vrijheid

SP Socialistische Partij

TK Lower House (Tweede Kamer) UN United Nations

UNGA United Nations General Assembly

UNHCR United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees UNHCR1 First respondent from UNHCR in my interviews UNHCR2 Second respondent from UNHCR in my interviews UNHCR3 Third respondent from UNHCR in my interviews VVD Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie

VWS Ministry of Public Health, Well-being and Sport (Ministerie van Volksgezondheid,

Welzijn en Sport)

WODC Scientific Research and Documentation Centre (Wetenschappelijk Onderzoek- en

Documentatiecentrum)

WRR Scientific Council for Governmental policy (Wetenschappelijke Raad voor het

CHAPTER 1

I

It may be common these days to consider integration to be a politically sensitive topic, but times have changed; the Netherlands used to count as one of the most tolerant multi-cultural societies, where integration of ethnic minorities was not a political issue. Simultaneously, immigration was perceived as exceptional; policy measures to deal with this phenomenon were made on an ad-hoc basis, which is hard to imagine in the year 2014. Nonetheless, conflicts have caused masses of people to flee their homes in search for safety from time immemorial. This provides for thought on the development of refugee policy in the Netherlands, thereby exploring a somewhat unknown yet long-established dossier: the resettlement policy. In this introductory part, I will elaborate on my path towards raising the main question of this research, along which I shall come across the sub questions first, which can be perceived as rather uncommon but it reflects the process.

1.1 Literature review

Much has been written on the role of integration potential in general asylum policies in the Netherlands. Just a few studies refer to resettlement policy, all in a rather descriptive manner (Ten Doesschate, 1993; Berghuis, 1999; Walaardt, 2012). What can be concluded from these studies, is that at least since the post World War II period, the potential to integrate in the Dutch society has played, in varying degrees, a role in the assessment of general asylum applications. Looking back on governmental policy on refugees in the Netherlands, self-interest has had the tendency to rule over compassion (Secker, 2001).

On the other hand, research sheds light on the integration of refugees in the Netherlands by looking at their labor market position (Warmerdam & Van den Tillaart, 2002; Klaver & Odé, 2003) and compares specifically the societal position of resettled refugees with that of other immigrant groups in the Netherlands (Guiaux, Uiters, Wubs & Beenakkers, 2008). Furthermore, Dutch integration policies are tested on their efficiency (Brink, Does, Odé & Tromp, 2002), on the effects of these policies on refugees (Mattheijer, 2000) and on their effectiveness towards immigrants in general (Doomernik, 1998).

On the topic of integration potential in the course of refugee resettlement policy not much research has been done so far. In 2009, a Master’s thesis has been conducted on the integration potential criterion in Dutch selection policy for resettled refugees that elaborates on the moral viewpoints of professionals involved in policy implementation (Sijnja, 2009).

Furthermore, the dissertation of Wortel (1993) on the Dutch resettlement policy between 1945 and 1993 provides for profound knowledge of the decision-making structure, selection criteria and actors involved in a period that will not be studied in my research, but which will allow me to analyze whether policy changes are in fact newly developed or find roots in earlier tradition.

A research that combines the effectiveness of integration potential in refugee resettlement selection policy with the societal position of resettled refugees has been performed by the Canadian Longitudinal Immigrant Database, through an analysis of the economic outcomes of Government Assisted Refugees between 1993 and 2006. No significant changes were found since the implementation of the 2002 Immigration and Refugee Protection Act which had emphasized the need to select refugees on the basis of education, training, skills or other qualifications (Iriyama, 2011). On the basis of this research, the Canadian government decided to let go of the integration potential criterion as a whole in the selection policy for refugee resettlement.

Various studies on the portability of immigrants’ human capital can provide for an explanation for the outcome in Canada. “The national origin of an individual’s human capital is a crucial determinant of its value. Education and labor market experience acquired abroad are significantly less valued than human capital obtained domestically” (Friedberg, 2000, p. 221). Furthermore, a negative relationship has been found between migrant’s loss of human capital and acquired education (Caponi, 2010), while poor job matches are proven progressive with greater pre-immigration labor market experience (Chiswick & Miller, 2007).

Under the assumption that indeed integration potential does not necessarily contribute to the eventual integration of refugees, albeit in the socio-economic interpretation of the concept, decision-making processes behind the usage of the criterion in resettlement admission policy require elucidation. Detecting shifts in the discourse on “integration potential” at the policy-making level could expose diachronic change in social and political reality at the implementation level. In other words, “discourse constitutes social practice and is at the same time constituted by it” (Van Leeuwen & Wodak, 1999, p. 92).

Both policy-making and public opinion regarding immigration and integration have changed radically in the Netherlands in the past decade (Bruquetas-Callejo, Garcés-Mascarenãs, Penninx & Scholten, 2007; Sleegers, 2007); the problem definition regarding integration of immigrants has shifted from a lack of socio-economic participation to a lack of socio-cultural adaptation (Scholten, 2011). Following from the rise of populist right-wing politician Pim Fortuyn in the Dutch political arena, “an unprecedented politicisation took

place (…), which led to the articulation of popular ideas and sentiments concerning immigration and integration” (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007, p. 31). As the political discourse on immigration and integration changed drastically, most political parties were pulled along in this new style (Penninx, 2006); a new consensus against immigration reinforced by stricter integration measures arose (Van Kersbergen & Krouwel, 2003).

In connection to that, due to the entrance of foreigners as a continuous topic for political and public debate, policy initiatives were being suggested that sometimes turned out to be unfeasible for the Immigration and Naturalization Service (Immigratie- en Naturalisatiedienst, hereafter: IND) (Glimmerveen, Meijer & Smid, 2010). According to

Glimmerveen et al., the IND has been facing a lot of critique as a result of enlarged attention in the media and political arena for mistakes and incidents, out of which a reactive and incident-driven character of the service had originated that dominated the organization around the year 2005 (2010). This led, amongst other things, to a plethora of regulations and instructions imposed by the political elite as well as coming from within the organization itself, which did not contribute to the manageability of the service at large (Glimmerveen et al., 2010).

1.2 Aim of the research

In this research I will try to explain the phenomenon of the integration potential criterion in Dutch refugee resettlement selection policy, taking into consideration the national political and societal context. Since technocratic support for the tool seems to be lacking and international research is inclined to question its effectiveness, this provides for reasons to believe that other political mechanisms, certain actors or events have influenced the policy-making process.

The 21st century in the Netherlands can be characterized by the tendency to define immigration and integration as problematic, which has directed policy-making towards eradicating these perceived problems (Swinkels, 2011). This research aims to look for the connection between this tendency and the use of the integration potential in admission of refugees for resettlement in the Netherlands. If a relationship can be found, then it would most likely have a positive character: politicization of the integration issue would intensify the utilization of the integration potential criterion in this specific policy. By making a distinction between the developments at the policy-making level and the implementation of it in practice, political processes can be further unwrapped, detecting possible rhetoric and clarifying real changes and continuation too.

This Dutch case study on the integration potential phenomenon in refugee resettlement selection could pave the way for further academic research on the effects of political and public perceptions on integration in other resettlement countries, which could lead to a comparison of selection methods in relation to these perceptions throughout the Western world. Proven effectiveness of certain approaches might lead to adjustments in this policy domain. It is a relatively unknown field of study, while it has the potential to provide for an example of how and to what extent political interests at the top influence policy as it is being executed by civil servants. Furthermore, this research contributes to societal reflection on the perception of immigrant integration in the Netherlands, as it draws attention to how the public opinion on this matter has shifted and what it means for the way that the refugee resettlement program is being presented by politicians.

1.3 Structure and main questions

First of all, I will elaborate on the conception of integration in the Netherlands, as chapter 5 examines the political and public discourse on immigrant integration since the late 1960s. The focus is on the political climate change at the beginning of the 21st century with respect to the debate on integration of minorities. This section aims to provide an overview of the transformation of the definition given to integration and of the circumstances due to which the integration debate has hardened and become more politicized. It addresses the sub questions:

How did the political perception on immigrant integration change in the Netherlands? What events and circumstances have contributed to the politicization of immigrant integration?

Parallel to that I will analyze the developments in the field of the resettlement policy regarding the method for refugee selection within the same time frame in the Netherlands. Chapter 6 discusses the discourse on “integration potential” as it has been used in various policy papers on refugee resettlement by the Dutch government, from 1998 up to and including 2012. This assessment concentrates on the sub questions: How did the “integration

potential” criterion evolve in policy documents of the Dutch government on the refugee resettlement selection policy, particularly between 1998 and 2012? How does the evolution of the “integration potential” criterion relate to the developments in the national integration debate in the Netherlands?

Furthermore, chapter 7 will present an interpretation of the way integration potential has been operationalized at the policy implementation level. The roles of various organizations that are involved in the selection process are being discussed. An approximation of how civil servants have reacted to the amendments at the policy-making level and to the politicization

of integration is presented by means of analyzing experiences of professionals working in the field of resettling refugees to the Netherlands. This section aims to provide answers to the sub questions: What roles do the key actors play with respect to the implementation of the

selection policy in the field of refugee resettlement? In what way have the developments regarding the integration potential criterion at the policy-making level been translated to the policy implementation level?

Finally, in the concluding remarks, the main research question will be addressed:

How did the domestic political climate change regarding integration in the Netherlands affect the selection policy for resettled refugees between 1998 and 2012? What conditions related to the admission process could explain for a discrepancy between policy-making and policy implementation of the integration potential criterion?

The following three chapters will first present respectively the conceptual, methodological and theoretical framework used in order to approach the research questions.

CHAPTER 2

C

2.1 Refugee

The definition of a refugee has been established in the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees (hereafter: Convention), which was adopted in 1951 and in the mean time ratified by 145 United Nations (hereafter: UN) member states, applying to any person who:

“As a result of events occurring before 1 January 1951 and owing to well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion, is outside the country of his nationality and is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to avail himself of the protection of that country; or who, not having a nationality and being outside the country of his former habitual residence as a result of such events, is unable or, owing to such fear, is unwilling to return to it” (United Nations, 1954, p. 152).

The 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees amended the Convention by removing the dateline of January 1st 1951, which made it also applicable to refugee situations that have occurred after the Convention was adopted.

The distinction between a refugee and an asylum seeker can be made on the basis of its legal status; the latter has not yet been acknowledged or rejected as a refugee, since its claim still needs to be verified. This delineation is derived from the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, proclaimed by the United Nations General Assembly (hereafter: UNGA) on 10 December 1948, stating in Article 14 that “everyone has the right to seek and to enjoy in other countries asylum from prosecution”, except for “prosecutions genuinely arising from non-political crimes or from acts contrary to the purposes and principles of the UN” (United Nations General Assembly, 1948, p. 74). In the case of a resettled refugee, status determination already takes place before the person travels to the receiving country, given that resettlement is only allowed when the refugee status has been granted. A resettled refugee also differs from a spontaneous asylum seeker with respect to the desirability of its arrival in the receiving society (Wortel, 1993). When the claim of facing refoulement in the country of origin has been determined as false or insufficiently proven, the asylum seeker becomes a migrant, either with economic or personal motivations of wanting to reside in the country where it has futilely applied for asylum. Or, according to the UN definition of an international migrant: “an individual who has resided in a foreign country for more than one year

irrespective of the causes, voluntary or involuntary, and the means, regular or irregular, used to migrate” (International Organization for Migration, 2014a).

2.2 Resettlement

As a response to and being one of the few ways that addresses the perpetual refugee issue, a problem the size of approximately 10 million people yearly worldwide in the past decade, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (hereafter: UNHCR) has developed a program that arranges for the transfer of refugees to a third country that has agreed on their entrance and residence in accordance with domestic legislation. These refugees are enabled to leave the country in which they have originally sought protection, but which has failed to meet the means for their local integration. Repatriation to the country of origin in the near future is considered not an option as the risk of persecution for which these refugees have fled in the first place is still present.

Since UNHCR is the only international organization that organizes resettlement of refugees on a regular basis and UN member states have unanimously adopted the resolution that authorized UNHCR to act permanently in accordance with its mandate (UNGA, 2003), I will use its definition of resettlement throughout this research:

“Resettlement involves the selection and transfer of refugees from a state in which they have sought protection to a third state which has agreed to admit them – as refugees – with permanent residence status. The status provided ensures protection against

refoulement and provides a resettled refugee and his/her family or dependants with access

to rights similar to those enjoyed by nationals. Resettlement also carries with it the opportunity to eventually become a naturalized citizen of the resettlement country” (United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, 2011, p. 3).

Only refugees who meet the requirements of the 1951 Convention can be considered for resettlement, since the mandate of UNHCR confines itself to these displaced persons. Exceptions by UNHCR can be made for non-refugee stateless persons and non-refugee dependent family members for whom resettlement is considered to be the most suitable solution (UNHCR, 2011b). Exclusion for resettlement applies to people who live in refugee-like situations, but have been involved in serious crimes as mentioned in Article 1F of the Convention and are therefore banned from the refugee status. UNHCR has adopted an age, gender and diversity sensitive approach in order to avoid as much as possible discriminatory and unequal procedures and practices related to resettlement.

Whereas UNHCR offers a proposed case selection, each resettlement country has the final say on which refugees to accept. While some countries have sub quota incorporated for special categories like women at risk, unaccompanied children, medical cases, family reunification or emergency situations, others use one general quota, which could also be flexibly spread out over a certain amount of years. Selection is conducted via selection missions and/or through dossier submissions. In the first case, a group of civil servants from the refugee receiving country, sometimes accompanied by non-governmental organizations and medical staff, travels to a refugee camp where UNHCR is active in order to interview potential candidates. This method allows for additional information gathering that is deemed necessary to assess each application in light of the domestic immigration policy or in order to carry out preparatory work for the departure and arrival of selected refugees. In the latter scenario, UNHCR sends files of pre-selected refugees to the receiving government, which has the advantage of adjusting the selection process more flexibly in accordance with global needs. Dossiers may not incorporate enough information on the refugee’s narrative to ensure that the refugee status is rightfully granted. Some countries’ domestic legislation contains additional requirements, on top of UNHCR’s rules of procedure, to determine whether the protection need can be legally authorized.

In the case of an exceeding number of refugees in need of resettlement in comparison with the amount of resettlement places available, the refugee receiving countries find themselves in the position to turn down applicants without risking an unaccomplished target. States can be triggered to look further than just the protection claim if only the simple rule of supply and demand would be applied here. Multiple resettlement countries have been exploring the use of ‘integration potential’ as an extra selection criterion, which could be legitimized more easily in resettlement than for regular asylum applications for three reasons: resettlement is found on a voluntary basis, meaning no country has the international obligation to take into consideration asylum applications other than those from refugees showing up at state’s borders, the method of selection provides for the opportunity to incorporate it and the clear restriction of available resources, i.e. the quota, allows for the reasoning that the failure to integrate one refugee is at the expense of those that have not been given the chance.

2.3 Immigration and integration policy

Immigration can be defined as “the action of coming to live permanently in a foreign country” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014a). Immigration policies are measures governments develop to

influence and regulate immigration flows (Swinkels, 2011); ‘policy’ meaning a set of interrelated decisions taken by a political actor or group of actors (Howlett, Ramesh & Perl, 2009) aimed at addressing a certain policy problem. While policy-making takes place in the political arena, policy implementation happens at the specific scene where execution of the policy is both possible and designed for. When certain policy problems become “top political priorities and the subject of intense political debate, often framed in rather rhetorical and symbolic terms” (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007, p. 25), one can speak of politicization. Finally, the definition of integration at the core of this research is “the intermixing of people who were previously segregated” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014b). In chapter 5 it will be argued though that the goals set by a government determine how integration is perceived in the formulation of policy, which for the Dutch case varies between cultural emancipation, socio-economic participation, cultural adaptation and assimilation (Scholten, 2011).

The legal framework for immigration policy in the Netherlands is based on the Aliens Act, which came into effect in 1967 and established the judicial distinction between alien and refugee (Wortel, 1993). In 1994, the Aliens Act was amended to reduce processing times by setting up special centers for registration (Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees, 2012), as a response to the towering amount of spontaneous asylum applications, aimed at making a distinction within 24 hours between people who had a fair chance of receiving a residence permit and those who did not (Ghorashi, 2005). In 2001, the new Aliens Act 2000 was put in force, of which Article 29 (1) determined those who could be found eligible for an asylum residence permit for a fixed term:

a. A refugee according to the Convention;

b. A person who provides plausible evidence for having valid reasons to assume that he will be facing a real risk of submission to torture, inhumane or humiliating treatment or punishment when expelled;

c. A person from who, in the judgment of Our Minister on the basis of stringent reasons of humanitarian nature that are related to the reasons of leaving the country of origin, in reasonableness cannot be desired that he will return to the country of origin; d. A person for whom return to the country of origin in the judgment of Our Minister

would be of particular hardness in connection with the overall situation there;

e. A person who as a partner or under aged child factually belongs to the family of the alien, intended by clause a to d, who has the same nationality as that alien and who entered the Netherlands at the same time as that alien or who arrived within three months after the alien, who is determined by clause a to d, has been granted the asylum residence permit for a fixed term;

f. A person who as a partner or child of age would be dependent on the alien, intended by clause a to d, in such a way that he for that reason belongs to the family of that alien, who has the same nationality as that alien and entered the Netherlands at the

same time as that alien or arrive within three months after the alien, who is determined by clause a to d, has been granted the asylum residence permit for a fixed term (Aliens Act 2000, article 29-1).

Until recently, the protection criterion for resettled refugees took into consideration the applicability of clauses a to c, but the amendments of 25 November 2013 removed clauses c to f from Article 29. I have incorporated the previous version of Article 29 since this was in force during a large part of the time frame that I focus on in the following chapters; at least it was still in force at the last day of the first Rutte cabinet, which is the last coalition that I have included in my analysis.

The Aliens Act 2000 does not refer to resettlement specifically, but a specification of the resettlement policy has been included in the Aliens circular 2000. The following text was again valid on the final day of the first Rutte cabinet, 22 April 2012:

The Netherlands admits, by means of supporting the policy of UNHCR, yearly an amount of refugees for resettlement in the Netherlands. The Netherlands has determined a quota of five hundred refugees per year for this purpose. Selection takes place via propositions by UNHCR. In case of a proposal of an alien with the refugee status by UNHCR for resettlement in the Netherlands, the Minister judges, after being advised by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, on the basis of the dossier and considering the current asylum policy, whether the alien is found suitable for residing in the Netherlands. If that is the case, the alien will be invited to come to the Netherlands. With support of IOM, the alien will be given a plane ticket on the expense of the Dutch state. After arrival in the Netherlands, the alien will have the chance to apply for asylum. Afterwards, the alien will receive as soon as possible a residence permit asylum for a specified period, by virtue of article 29, first part, under a, Aliens Act (Aliens circular 2000, C 9.2.1.4)

CHAPTER 3

M

3.1 Motivation of choices

For the understanding of a specific development or process, qualitative inquiry is found highly appropriate, because “depicting process requires detailed description; the experience of process typically varies for different people; process is fluid and dynamic; and participants’ perceptions are a key process consideration” (Patton, 1990, p. 95). As such, a case study is found to be most suitable as a research design when “(…) a ‘how’ or ‘why’ question is being asked about a contemporary set of events over which the investigator has little or no control” (Yin, 2009, p. 13). Furthermore, a single-country study is able to provide for in-depth knowledge and understanding of particular contexts (Landman, 2008). In case of aiming to examine the evolution of the integration potential criterion in admission of resettled refugees, bearing in mind the national political context and the interrelated public opinion, the choice for a single country case study while opting for qualitative methods can be justified.

I have selected the Netherlands, because the shift to anti-immigrant sentiments has arguably nowhere been as dramatic as here (Entzinger, 2006), which could have implications for the issue of interest in this study in case of a positive relationship between the national political context and the admission policy for resettled refugees. Under the assumption that policy making takes place in the political arena, a connection between the political context and policy formulation is to be expected. In view of that, since both policy-making and the public opinion on integration as well as immigration have experienced radical changes roughly since the year 2000 in the Netherlands (Bruquetas-Callejo et al., 2007; Sleegers, 2007), an indication that if a shift in the field of admission of refugees for resettlement would take place, this would most likely happen around the same time is provided for, which justifies for a focus on the time frame 1998-2012.

After exploring quantitative methods to analyze the integration potential criterion in terms of an evaluation of the effectiveness of this selection tool with respect to the actual integration of resettled refugees in a society like the Dutch one, this turned out to be an unfeasible option. The required data for a statistical analysis was both existent at the Central Bureau for Statistics and in principle available to the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment1, but additional permission from IND was required, which had kept the data

1 _{The Integration and Society department of the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment offered me an} internship position in order to conduct this research.

unavailable to me for an extensive period of time. Unfortunately, this made it impossible to perform the quantitative research within the time frame of a Masters’ thesis.

3.2 Operationalization

According to Patton, qualitative research methods “consist of three kinds of data collection: (1) in-depth, open-ended interviews; (2) direct observation; and (3) written documents” (1990, p. 9-11). Direct observation of how the integration potential criterion has developed over time in resettled refugee admission policy would only be possible when I would have taken part in selection missions as an evaluator at multiple moments in the past, which is not solely an issue of time but also of receiving entry to an administrative institution for research purposes.

Therefore I have chosen to incorporate both written documents and in-depth open-ended interviews as an intrinsic part of the data collection on the basis of which I conduct my analysis. Each of the separate elements or chapters of this research uses a different set of data, as it is aimed at answering particular sub questions in relation to the overall aim of the research. For the chapter on the politicization of and shift in perception on immigrant integration in the Netherlands, coalition agreements of the governments from Kok-II to Rutte-I are analyzed, as well as all the election programs of the traditionally largest parties within this time frame (Volkspartij voor Vrijheid en Democratie, hereafter: VVD; Partij van de

Arbeid, hereafter: PvdA & Christen-Democratisch Appèl, hereafter: CDA) and the specific

programs of parties who have been incorporated in a coalition between 1998 and 2012 for the election after which they became part of that coalition (Democraten ’66, hereafter: D66, 1998 & 2003; Lijst Pim Fortuyn, hereafter: LPF, 2002; Christen Unie, hereafter: CU, 2006) or of parties that belonged to the four largest after a particular round of parliamentary elections with more than 10% of the votes (Socialistische Partij, hereafter: SP, 2006; Partij voor de

Vrijheid, hereafter: PVV, 2010). For the period preceding the time frame 1998-2012, I trust

on previous (academic) research.

The written documents that are used to detect developments regarding the integration potential criterion at the policy-making level consist out of papers ‘produced’ by the Dutch government that relate to refugee resettlement such as policy frameworks, letters to the Lower House (Tweede Kamer, hereafter: TK), reports of consultations between the members of government in charge of the refugee resettlement policy and members of parliament, as well as versions of the Dutch country chapter in the UNHCR Resettlement Handbook. The specific discourse that describes the weight and content of the integration potential criterion is the unit

of analysis in this chapter. Again, for the historical context I make use of previous academic work on the Dutch refugee resettlement policy.

For the part of the research in which my aim is to assess the integration potential criterion in the way it is being implemented, the dataset comprises of in-depth open-ended interviews with national and international professionals working in the field of refugee resettlement, who are at least closely involved in the Dutch selection process, if not making the decisions on who to select themselves, with the intention of understanding the world as seen by the respondent. Previously conducted interviews by a Master student in 2009 with Dutch experts on the same topic are used in order to make a comparison between perceptions then and now. Unfortunately there is no data available of international experts on the integration potential criterion as it was applied by the Netherlands in the past; what this means for the limitations of this research will be discussed in a moment.

With respect to the national actors involved in the decision-making process, I have opted to leave the Ministry of Foreign Affairs out of consideration, as their current role in the selection missions is to give advise on the political situation of mission destinations and regarding specific cases that could have political repercussions for the Netherlands with respect to its foreign political interests. This has no direct connection with the integration potential of the selected refugees. Furthermore, if certain Dutch embassy personnel has been involved in the organization of a selection mission in the field, this does not take place structurally since destinations vary in line with refugee crises and foreign policy of the government in power.

I make use of the ‘interview guide’ approach to ensure that basically the same information will be obtained from a number of people, by specifying in advance a list of issues, but leaving room for anticipation, conversational and situational input from the respondents and the interviewer (Patton, 1990). In this way, I intend to keep an open mind to directions that may not have been explored earlier in the research and be constantly aware of the influence that a researcher inescapably has on a respondent by the questions posed. For the sake of privacy of my respondents, they are de-identified in this thesis.

Furthermore, I have spoken with Walter Palm at the beginning of my data collection process, a senior policy officer working for the Ministry of Social Affairs and Employment, involved in policy-making on integration, who was able to provide me with a detailed historical overview of the societal and political developments regarding integration in the Netherlands. At the final stage of gathering data, I have talked with Erry Stoové, the former director of the Central Body for the reception of Asylum seekers (Centraal Ograan opvang

Asielzoekers, hereafter: COA) in the period between 1995 and 2002. He gave me an

impression of the role that COA played in the selection of refugees for resettlement during a time slot on which the other data that I was able to retrieve did not mention the position of COA. Lastly, in order to broaden my scope a bit to other resettlement countries and being able to place the Dutch case amongst other Western European countries, I spoke with Laurent Dalmasso, senior program officer at the Intergovernmental Consultations on Migration, Asylum and Refugees (hereafter: IGC). This organization hosts various meetings between migration departments of its member states on all kinds of themes related to migration, so he was able to speak about general trends and exceptional cases.

3.3 Limitations

Even though interviews provide for deeper knowledge and are indispensable when striving to gain insight in the implementation of a certain policy, it also poses a number of limits to this research. Firstly, when dealing with the civil service, one can encounter a lack of institutional memory, since civil servants occasionally transfer within or between governmental organizations, which makes research aimed at analyzing a specific development over time challenging; the possibility of crucial information missing detracts strength from the eventual outcome. Moreover, when being dependent on people in order to collect particular information, the researcher is not only reliant on willingness of a person to speak about a certain topic, especially when this topic is highly politicized, but also the ability to speak freely and even practical issues like availability. This has led for instance to the unforeseen situation in which I had to adjust the interviews with individual respondents to a group interview, since there was not enough time to do it otherwise. This of course had an impact on the answers of the respondents to my questions due to group dynamics, which possibly has negatively affected validity and variance of this research.

Qualitative methods typically generate a wealth of detailed information on a small amount of people and cases, which is beneficial for understanding the situations that are being studied, but at the same time reduces generalizability (Patton, 1990). The possible outcome of a relationship between the integration potential criterion in the admission policy for resettled refugees and the national political discourse on immigrant integration can therefore only be interpreted as valid for the specific Dutch case that will be studied here. However, the framework that I have opted for provides for a valid and reliable method to answer my research questions in the best possible way.

CHAPTER 4

T

4.1 Partiality and impartiality

In order to find clarification for the developments that the Dutch refugee resettlement admission policy has gone through in the past 15 years, in response to the political climate change in the Netherlands regarding integration of minorities, I opt for the influence of the opposing concepts of Matthew Gibney, partiality and impartiality. The first has a clear connection to Miller’s conception of national responsibility, while the latter is related to his idea about global justice (2008). A combination of both perspectives is to be expected in this case study, as rejecting one of them does not inescapably mean a full compliance with the other and could therefore lead to various intermediate approaches. Especially in a multi-party democratic political system as prevalent in the Netherlands, one or the other can hardly prevail.

One way a state could approach refugee admission policy-making and justify its choice to handle this as restrictive as possible is described by Gibney in his perspective on partialism: the “view (that) works with an ideal of states as distinct cultural communities possessing a right to self-determination which justifies priority for the interests of citizens over those of refugees in entrance decisions” (2004, p. 23). According to partialists, members of a nation are authorized to enjoy the maximum amount of autonomy over the way their collective life is being shaped, thereby transferring a degree of this autonomy to the sovereign state in order to exercise control over the entry of foreigners on behalf of its population (Gibney, 2004), which is both the right and the duty of a state.

Being enabled to publicly express a shared culture is believed to be an essential element of individual autonomy and this cultural membership vice versa creates a form of identity that defines our sense of self (Gibney, 2004). Exactly this relationship between individual and cultural group well-being is the core of partiality, in pleading for national communities to have a moral right in protecting their ‘integrity’ (Gibney, 2004). The cultural unity of citizens, be it objective or subjective, functions as the foundation for solidarity principles of redistributive and social security programs from this partialist point of view. Keeping up the cultural unity of a population is therefore the only way the welfare state is able to survive. However, this partialist conception of refugees emphasizes the potential danger to society, as a burden on the welfare system, while refugees may as well contribute to it by the human or other forms of capital that they possess.

Supporters of partiality do not deny the fact that all states have been shaped over time by immigrants and refugees, but restriction is considered necessary to be able to protect the fundamentals of the liberal democratic society (Gibney, 2004). The growing amount of new residents in a state may not only turn into a political power block, partialists also fear changes in the dominating language, forms of religion and embedded customs (Gibney, 2004). Citizens are alleged to be the only agents who can decide on whether their culture is under threat. A legitimate refugee policy must therefore reflect the values and interests of the members of a state, even when that does not match the urgent needs of refugees (Gibney, 2004). But this statement carries the underlying assumption that consensus exists in liberal democracies on the definition of membership and even on how refugees should be treated. Gibney therefore argues that the only consensus regarding refugee policy that would be able to hold in a democratic system focuses on no more than procedural aspects, on the basis of which entry should be decided (2004).

Another problematic aspect of the partialist perspective is the assumption of the state as the host of one singular nation, while contemporary states are much more ethnically and culturally heterogeneous. But dissociating oneself from this conception of the state would be to the partialists’ own detriment, as it would lead to a minimalist claim of the state based on commitment to shared political values only, which would not necessarily entail exclusion of foreigners (Gibney, 2004). When recognizing that the cultural and moral identity of its citizens has been shaped, to a greater or lesser extent, by the state itself via educational, cultural, symbolic and industrial means, thereby safeguarding legitimacy through a pretense of homogeneity (Parekh, 1994), the ‘integrity’ argument loses much of its initial strength.

What restrains states in their ethically defensible view on restrictive admission policies are “the universal demands of the principle of mutual aid in their dealings with refugees” (Walzer, 1983, p. 48-51). Partialists seek a balance between prioritizing domestic interests, while adhering to international requirements in such a way that it would not turn against the own benefits of the state. In an absolute form of partiality, a government would obviously not join in the refugee resettlement program when it is aiming for an absolute minimum of immigrants. In supporting the UNHCR resettlement program, partialists would consider the material and immaterial costs of inviting refugees and likewise the benefits for their international position; the quota is a direct effect of that, reflecting a subjectively measured deliberation which will always be in favor of native citizens. Since the refugee resettlement program is not an obligation for state parties to the 1951 Convention, partialists could feel strengthened in their claim to have taken account of moral considerations by partaking in the

program and accepting refugees on a ‘voluntary’ basis, thereby creating a morally defensible entitlement for the state to set a minimum of demands for these refugees.

It may be self-evident that the opposite concept to partiality reasons from a different perception of the state, namely as a cosmopolitan moral agent, that has the ethical obligation to take into consideration both the interests of citizens and the rights of foreigners when determining its entrance policy. The impartiality model has clear links with Kant’s universalizability: if the action of a state could be universalized, meaning everyone who faces the same set of circumstances could reach the same decision, then it becomes morally acceptable. Impartialists therefore argue that “(…) current entrance restrictions on immigrants and refugees are a gross violation of human liberty” (Gibney, 2004, p. 60). The liberal impartialists even proclaim that in the current global context of major inequality between countries, their case for free movement of people would be the most accurate response. But the extreme inequality and the amount of people involved, yearly over 10 million refugees, a number that would increase substantially when borders would no longer form a discouraging obstacle, make this sudden redistribution of people entail great consequences in practice.

Hence, states should be able to base exclusion of foreigners on legitimate grounds, but imperialists differ amongst themselves what grounds are considered valid. Another debate arises over the applicability of certain grounds, like serious overpopulation or genuine danger of being culturally submerged by foreigners, to relatively thinly populated and culturally diverse Western states (Gibney, 2004). Imperialist do agree that liberal democratic states have the duty to take in new inhabitants until the costs to the current residents are greater than the benefits for the newcomers (Gibney, 2004). According to utilitarian impartialists, states should be allowed to restrict their entrance policies when tolerance in a multicultural society is breaking down due to a growing resentment within the native community, which could possibly reach a point where the security of previously accepted immigrants is at stake (Singer & Singer, 1988). Impartialists recognize the urgency of limiting admission when public order, national security or liberal institutions face genuine threat, but thereby bearing in mind that “fellow citizens or nationals have no greater or lesser claim to our ethical concern than anyone else” (Gibney, 2004, p. 63).

The basic welfare system of public goods like health care and unemployment benefits, familiar to most Western states, forms a clear pull factor for immigrants in comparison with the standard of living offered to them in the country they leave behind. The welfare state is based on a principle of collective solidarity and would be placed under high pressure when the composition of the population rapidly and significantly changes (Gibney, 2004). Even though

impartialists believe that states have no right to restrict those benefits to citizens only, the question is whether the welfare state would survive a situation of open borders. And would survival of the welfare state count as a morally justifiable reason for controlling admission? Utilitarian impartialists argue to allow access to the most needy, such as refugees, and focus on further enhancement of global equality by redistributing resources more profoundly (Gibney, 2004).

When applying impartiality to the admission policy for the refugee resettlement program, limitations on the amount of refugees that a state is able to resettle without risking resentment or insecurity would become point of debate. The issue of validity concerning the quota of invited refugees as determined by the Dutch government cannot be disconnected from the total amount of refugees entering the Netherlands every year. In addition to that, impartialists would argue for an equal treatment of resettled refugees in comparison with all other immigrants who show up randomly at state’s borders and even with all citizens. Therefore selecting on other grounds than the most needy of protection would be morally unjustifiable.

4.2 Path dependency

The research question that I have singled out in this thesis will lead to a historical analysis in which the influence of national and international political events on the development of a policy will be evaluated. The concept of path dependence can be used here to “label a certain type of temporal process” (Kay, 2005, p. 554). It can not be interpreted as a theory, model or framework, as it “does not per se provide necessary or sufficient conditions to understand or explain that which it labels” (Kay, 2005, p. 554), but rather as an empirical category that is a form of explanation to a phenomenon (Kay, 2005).

This organizing concept of path dependence assumes that “preceding steps in a particular direction induce further movement in the same direction” (Pierson, 2000, p. 252), creating for a self-reinforcing process as each move down one path increases the probability of further steps along the same path (Pierson, 2000). As such, Pierson argues that “earlier events matter much more than later ones, and hence different sequences may produce different outcomes” (2005, p. 253). In this way path dependent processes can help to understand the importance of timing in politics and why certain junctures are critical, inducing the statement that “history matters” (Pierson, 2000, p. 252-253); future politics are transformed by the establishment of policies and institutions at one point in time (Hacker, 2002).

At the core of this reasoning lies the idea that relative benefits of an institutionalized activity increase with time in comparison with alternative options (Pierson, 2000). In this process of increasing returns, the rising costs of switching paths play a key role. Firstly, organizations and individuals have a strong tendency to stick with the option that required high set-up costs. Furthermore, the knowledge and experiences that have been gained over time are likely to encourage innovation in the same direction. When others start to adopt the same option, the benefits for the individual rise to hold on to it; this counts for technologies too, since increased use will support investments which in turn will attract more users. Finally, expectations have a self-fulfilling character in a way that individuals adjust their actions to “help make those expectations come true” (Pierson, 2000, p. 254).

Pierson distinguishes four aspects of the political arena that make it more sensitive to increasing return processes: the central role of collective action, the high concentration of institutions, the exercise of political authority and the complex nature in combination with a lack of transparency (2000). Due to collective action, a linear relationship between effort and effect is missing while organizations that are subject to the self-reinforcing dynamics of collective action “have a strong tendency to persist once they are institutionalized” (Pierson, 2000, p. 259). Consequently, increasing return processes are considerably intensified in politics, since self-correction mechanisms are limited, time horizons of political actors are too short and political institutions have a strong status quo bias built in (Pierson, 2000).

Path dependency thus claims that current policy is an outcome of past conditions. It often requires an ideological shift in societal and political environment to make the switch of paths possible. As a result, path-dependent accounts have as a feature period-specific and non-generalizable causes (Haydu, 1998). To construct explanatory sequences, path dependency outlines eventful and underdetermined switch points in combination with deterministic lock-in mechanisms (Haydu, 1998). By recognizlock-ing both the distlock-inctive character of each period and the continuities across periods (Haydu, 1998), policies can be compared over time. Kay argues that the dualism between stability and change “can be avoided by considering the sedimentation of policy decisions or the growing complexity of policy space that is implied by the notion of path dependency” (2005, p. 567).

Apart from the applicability of path dependence on immigrant integration policy in the Netherlands, which has been studied by Swinkels in 2011, this concept guides me through the contextual influences that have had an impact on the development of the Dutch refugee resettlement selection policy. Within the time frame that I focus on, a shift in the political discourse on integration has taken place, which may be significant to the discourse used in the

resettlement policy by certain political actors, enforced by a sequence of events. Even in the implementation of the policy in practice, it may be possible to detect increasing return processes, as both organizations and individuals have the tendency to stick with the option

that has been institutionalized rather than induce a fairly unknown alternative.

4.3 Street-level bureaucracy

In the analysis of the practical implications of the evolving selection policy for resettled refugees in the Netherlands, the theory of Michael Lipsky on street-level bureaucracy could explain for the challenges faced by civil servants who are in charge of making the actual decisions on who to select. Since no policy evaluation or academic research on the effect of applying the ‘integration potential’ criterion on the integration of resettled refugees in Dutch society has been conducted, there is no technocratic foundation for the policy-making officials on the basis of which means could be developed that come closest to realizing the goal. This would leave room for own interpretation at the policy implementation level, where civil servants face the moral boundaries of the integration potential criterion. Discretion, the central concept in Lipsky’s theory, therefore needs to be discussed in this case study.

Let me first briefly elaborate on the concepts used to refer to the employees at the policy implementation level. Although Lipsky explicitly chose the term ‘street-level bureaucrat’, meaning a public service employee who “interacts with citizens in the course of the job and has discretion in exercising authority” and who “cannot do the job according to ideal conceptions of the practice because of the limitations of the work structure” (2010, p. xvii), the definition of a ‘bureaucrat’ is one that carries a negative connotation: “an official in a government department, in particular one perceived as being concerned with procedural correctness at the expense of people’s needs” (Oxford Dictionaries, 2014c). Throughout this thesis, I prefer to make use of the more neutral term ‘civil servant’, defining it as a member of the permanent official branches of a state’s administration. ‘Bureaucrat’ will thus only be applied when directly referring to the theory of Lipsky.

Lipsky’s theory elaborates on how bureaucrats’ individual decisions together comprise the delivery of governmental services and hence how they demarcate people’s lives and opportunities (2010). Decisions of street-level bureaucrats are usually made on the spot, tend to be redistributive and allocative (Lipsky, 2010), and in a way are zero-sum: the approval of one client’s claim to benefit from governmental goods and services at the expense of taxpayers encompasses the denial of another one’s claim, because resources are not infinite. Due to the fact that resources are constrained, a civil servant is forced to find ways in how to

cope with the consequences of his decisions. Triaging can help to make a reliable differentiation among clients, but if the amount of clients worthy of a favorable decision still exceeds the resources, street-level bureaucrats tend to prioritize the ones who are most likely to affect the bureaucrat’s personal or his agency’s success in a positive way (Lipsky, 2010).

The major dimensions of public policy are being shaped by political elites and administrative officials. However, street-level bureaucrats play a key role in ‘policy-making’ due to high levels of discretion related to the relative autonomy from organizational authority (Lipsky, 2010). Stricter top-down rules on implementation may even be counterproductive to supervision, since the more voluminous and sometimes contradictory regulations are, the more selectively they will be appealed to (Lipsky, 2010). An expansion of rules would also not contribute to the level of discretion necessary for street-level bureaucrats to make the judgments they have to make (Lipsky, 2010). Some situations that street-level bureaucrats face are too complicated to reduce to formats or require human responses and flexibility in order to preserve legitimacy for the welfare state among both bureaucrats and clients (Lipsky, 2010). Extensive rules on official procedures can be used though by governmental agencies to mold the job conception of their workers, in order to release some of the tension they are confronted with. The nature of this tension requires further clarification.

When the interests of the street-level bureaucrat differs from the interests of the higher officials, a discrepancy between the formulated policy and the performed policy can be expected, particularly when incentives and sanctions are not sufficiently available at the higher level (Lipsky, 2010). The relationship between street-level bureaucrats and their managers is therefore likely to be conflicting as well as one of mutual reliance (Lipsky, 2010). Managers can choose to respect professional claims and provide for freedom from supervisory control as long as street-level bureaucrats perform adequately, as the nature of bureaucracy does not allow for measuring job performance on the basis of market transactions (Lipsky, 2010). Discretion is therefore an inescapable element that higher officials deal with in delegating work to civil servants.

The conflicting and ambiguous goals of the street-level bureaucrat’s work interferes with measuring job performance as well. As Lipsky argues,

“public service goals also tend to have an idealized dimension that make them difficult to achieve and confusing and complicated to approach. Goals such as good health care, equal justice, and public education, are indeed, as Martin Landau has observed, “more like receding horizons than fixed targets” (1973)” (Lipsky, 2010, p. 40).

Political leaders need to deal with both coalition and opposition parties as well as their political associates in creating a policy that convinces a majority of the ruling elite to support it. It is a well-known business to agree on the mainline, with rather vague conceptions of the practical implications (Lipsky, 2010). It is also not uncommon to create mechanisms that pass on an intractable legislative conflict when it occurs at the policy-making level to the executive level for it to be resolved or maintain its contradiction (Lipsky, 2010). When constituents disagree over a welfare policy, conflicting goals can explicitly be preserved to keep all sides committed to the compromise, given that none can prevail (Lipsky, 2010).

At the same time, interaction exists between means and goals. Uncertainty about the way to achieve a goal allows for a variety of approaches, while in turn goals are constantly modified to better fit the available methods. Lipsky provides for an interesting hypothesis on the way conflicting goals affect the performance of the street-level bureaucrat:

“To the extent that communities are indifferent to the nature of bureaucratic policy or fail to express their views in politically salient ways, street-level bureaucracies will perform with internally generated objectives. Conversely, the stronger community sentiment is concerning proper bureaucratic behavior, the more street-level bureaucracies will respond to community orientations. The more heterogeneous community sentiments are, however, the more street-level bureaucracies will experience goal conflict” (Lipsky, 2010, p. 46).

In this way, decisions of a civil servant are sensitive to pressure from within the community. The environment of a person affects his or her discourse at all times, shaped by previous experience and under influence of nurture. In a field of work where job measurement is subjective and human responses are desired, an imperative level of personal preconceptions are implicitly being accepted (Lipsky, 2010). In addition, the unequal relationship between street-level bureaucrat and client leads Lipsky to assume that discretion is inherently related to discrimination. He substantiates this claim with multiple examples in which

“the social construction of the client, involving the client, others relevant to the client, and the public employees with whom they must deal is a significant process of social definition often unrelated to objective factors and therefore open to the influences of prejudice, stereotype, and ignorance as a basis for determinations” (Lipsky, 2010, p. 69).

As stated before, prejudice may be intrinsically related to the general orientations that exist within a society. This can for instance be found in agencies’ policies that are inclined to focus on helping the morally favored instead of the ones who require its services the most (Lipsky, 2010). According to Lipsky, the problem does not lie with the fact that moral judgments are