The development of Dutch immigrant policy over the past decades has been characterised by the rise and fall of several policy frames. The role that social researchers and research institutes have played in these frame shifts has changed significantly. This article reveals that there was a clear relation between the structure of the policy-making process in the Netherlands, including the division of labour between social research and policy-makers therein, and the culture of policy-making or how immigrant integration was framed. A trend was discerned from a technocratic policy structure with a very direct role of researchers in depoliticised processes of policy-making to more engineering-like policy structures with a strong political primacy and a more selective approach to using scientific expertise for legitimating policy discourse. This article argues that these structural changes provided an important condition for the rise of a more assimilationist frame of immigrant policy in the Netherlands.
Advies Commissie Onderzoek Minderheden (ACOM) (1989) Een Beter Beleid? (The Hague: ACOM).
2.
AndewegR. B. and IrwinG. A. (2005) Governance and Politics of the Netherlands (Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan).
3.
BaumgartnerF. R. and JonesB. D. (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics (London: University of Chicago Press).
4.
BaumgartnerF. R. and JonesB. D. (2005) The Politics of Attention (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
5.
BaumgartnerF. R.Green-PedersenC. and JonesB. D. (2006) ‘Comparative studies of policy agendas’, Journal of European Public Policy, 13:7, 955–970.
6.
BleichE. (2003) Race Politics in Britain and France: Ideas and Policymaking since the 1960s (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).
7.
EntzingerH. (1975) ‘Nederland immigratieland? Enkele overwegingen bij het overheidsbeleid inzake allochtone minderheden’, Beleid & Maatschappij, 2:12, 326–336.
8.
EntzingerH. (2006) ‘Changing the rules while the game is on: From multiculturalism to assimilation in the Netherlands’, in BodemannM. and YurkadulG. (eds), Migration, Citizenship, Ethnos: Incorporation Regimes in Germany, Western Europe and North America (New York: Palgrave MacMillan), 121–144.
9.
FerminA. (1997) Nederlandse Politieke Partijen over Minderhedenbeleid 1977–1995 (Amsterdam: Thesis Publishers).
10.
GierynT. F. (1983) ‘Boundary-work and the demarcation of science from non-science: Strains and interests in professional ideologies of scientists’, American Sociological Review, 48, 781–795.
11.
GuiraudonV. (1997) Policy Change behind Gilded Doors: Explaining the Evolution of Aliens' Rights in France, Germany and the Netherlands, 1974–94 (Harvard University, Ph.D. thesis, unpublished).
12.
GusfieldJ. (1981) The Culture of Public Problems: Drinking-Driving and the Symbolic Order (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).
13.
HoppeR. (2005) ‘Rethinking the science–policy nexus: From knowledge utilization and science technology studies to types of boundary arrangements’, Poiesis & Praxis: International Journal of Technology Assessment and Ethics of Science, 3:3, 199–215.
14.
KoopmansR. (2003) ‘Het Nederlandse integratiebeleid in internationaal vergelijkend perspectief: Etnische segregatie onder de multiculturele oppervlakte’, in PellikaanH. and TrappenburgM. (eds), Politiek in de Multiculturele Samenleving (Amsterdam: Boom), 64–100.
15.
LijphartA. (1968) The Politics of Accommodation: Pluralism and Democracy in the Netherlands (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).
16.
PellikaanH. and TrappenburgM. (eds.), Politiek in de multiculturele samenleving (Amsterdam: Boom).
17.
PenninxR. (2005) ‘Bridges between research and policy? The case of post-war immigration and integration policies in the Netherlands’, International Journal on Multicultural Studies, 7:1, 33–48.
18.
PrinsB. (2002) ‘Het lef om taboes te doorbreken: Nieuw realisme in het Nederlandse discours over multiculturalisme’, Migrantenstudies, 4, 241–254.
19.
RathJ. (1991) Minorisering: De sociale constructie van ‘etnische minderheden’ (Amsterdam: SUA).
20.
ReinM. and SchönD. (1994) Frame Reflection: Toward the Resolution of Intractable Policy Controversies (New York: Basic Books).
21.
SalterL. and LevyE. (1988) Mandated Science: Science and Scientists in the Making of Standards (Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic Publishers).
22.
SchattschneiderE. E. (1960) The Semisovereign People (New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston).
23.
SchefferP. (2000) Het Multiculturele Drama. NRC Handelsblad, 29 January.
24.
SchnabelP. (2000) De multiculturele illusie: Een pleidooi voor aanpassing en assimilatie (Utrecht: FORUM).
25.
SchneiderA. L. and IngramH. (1997) Policy Design for Democracy (Kansas: University of Kansas Press).
26.
ScholtenP. (2010) Framing Immigrant Integration: Dutch Research–Policy Dialogues in Comparative Perspective (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press).
27.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (1989) Immigrant Policy (The Hague: SDU).
28.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (2001) The Netherlands as an Immigration Society (The Hague: SDU).
29.
Scientific Council for Government Policy (2007) Identification with the Netherlands (Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press).
30.
ShapinS. (1992) ‘Discipline and bounding: The history and sociology of science as seen through the externalism–internalism debate’, History of Science, 30:90, 333–369.
31.
SnidermanP. and HagendoornL. (2007) When Ways of Life Collide: Multiculturalism and Its Discontents in the Netherlands (Princeton: Pinceton University Press).
32.
Social and Cultural Planning Office (2002) Werkprogramma 2002–2003 (The Hague: SCP).
33.
Social and Cultural Planning Office (2003) Rapportage Minderheden 2003 (The Hague: SCP).
34.
SoysalY. N. (1994) Limits of Citizenship: Migrants and Postnational Membership in Europe (Chicago, IL: Chicago University Press).
35.
Van AmersfoortJ. M. M. (1984) ‘Migratie-onderzoek, overheidsfinanciering en beleid: Aantekeningen van een participant’, Grafiet, 1983:4:130–154.
36.
VastaE. (2007) ‘From ethnic minorities to ethnic majority policy: Multiculturalism and the shift to assimilationism in the Netherlands’, Ethnic and Racial Studies, 30:5, 713–740.
37.
Verwey-Jonker Institute (2004) Bronnenonderzoek: Tijdelijke Commissie Onderzoek Integratiebeleid (The Hague: SDU).
38.
WeberM. (1922) The Theory of Social and Economic Organization (New York: The Free Press).
39.
WeissC. H. (1977) ‘Research for policy's sake: The enlightenment function of social science research’, Policy Analysis, 3:4, 531–545.
40.
WildavskyA. (1979) The Art and Craft of Policy Analysis: Speaking Truth to Power (London: Macmillan).
41.
WittrockB. (1991) ‘Social knowledge and public policy: Eight models of interaction’, in WagnerP. (ed.), Social Sciences and Modern States: National Experiences and Theoretical Crossroads (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press), 28–85.
42.
WRR, Scientific Council for Government Policy (1979) Etnische Minderheden (The Hague: SDU).
