Political scientists generally pay great attention to the creation of policies, but relatively little to the absence of policies. This article examines the reasons why Great Britain has not developed affirmative action policies, and in doing so, tries to shed some light on why the United States has. The author finds that both institutional and cultural factors explain the absence of preferential treatment in Great Britain, in particular the salience of the immigration issue, the absence of a leading oppressed group, the structure of the Labour Party and the electoral system, and the centralization of the British political system. The author argues that Great Britain seems to be moving along a different trajectory from that of the United States and that although their antidiscrimination policies are less developed than those in the United States, they may be more effective in the long term. As a result, the British experience may hold lessons for the United States.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Ball, W. , & Solomos, J. (Eds.). (1990). Race and local politics. London: Macmillan.
2.
Banton, M. (1983). Racial and ethnic competition. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
3.
Benyon, J. (Ed.). (1984). Scarman and after. Oxford: Pergamon.
4.
Braham, P. , Rattansi, A., & Skellington, R. (1992). Racism and anti-racism. London: Sage.
5.
Business in the Community. (n.d.). Race for opportunity: Questions and answers [On-line]. Available: http://www.blink.org.uk/reports2/oppques.htm
6.
Coleman, D. , & Salt, J. (1992). The British population: Patterns, trends and processes. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
7.
Commission for Racial Equality . (1995). Large companies and racial equality. London: Author.
8.
Conservative Party . (1997). Conservative party manifesto. London: Author.
9.
Edwards, J. (1995). When race counts: The morality of racial preference in Britain and America. London: Routledge.
10.
Employment Department Group . (1996). Ten point plan for employers. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
11.
Forbes, I. , & Mead, G. (1992). Measure for measure: A comparative analysis of measures to combat racial discrimination in the member countries of the European community. London: Equal Opportunities Study Group, University of Southampton.
12.
Geddes, A. (1996). The politics of immigration and race. Manchester: Baseline.
13.
Glazer, N. , & Young, K. (1983). Ethnic pluralism and public policy. Lexington, MA: Lexington.
14.
Gold, M. E. (1985). Griggs' folly: An essay on the theory, problems and origins of the adverse impact definition of employment discrimination and a recommendation for reform. Industrial Relations Law Journal, 7, 429-598.
15.
Hansard. (1976a, February 21). 905, c. 596. Proceedings of the British Parliament.
16.
Hansard. (1976b, March 4). 906, c. 1547. Proceedings of the British Parliament.
17.
Hepple, B. , & Szyszczak, E. (1992). Discrimination: The limits of the law. London: Mansell.
18.
Her Majesty's Civil Service . (1996, September). Good practice for equal opportunities staff complaints procedures. London: Author.
19.
Holdaway, S. (1991). Recruiting a multiracial police force. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
20.
Institute for Public Policy Research . (1997). IPPR Attitudes to Race Survey. London: Author.
21.
Jones, T. (1996). Britain's ethnic minorities. London: Policy Studies Institute.
22.
Kelly, E. & Dobbin, F. (1998). How affirmative action became diversity management: Employer response to antidiscrimination law, 1961 to 1996. American Behavior Scientist, 41, 960-984.
23.
London Borough of Lambeth v. Commission for Racial Equality. (1990). Industrial Relations Law Review, pp. 231-236.
24.
Loury, G. (1997). How to mend affirmative action. The Public Interest, 127, 33-43.
25.
McCrudden, C. (1992, September). Affirmative action and fair participation: Interpreting the fair employment act 1989. Industrial Law Journal, 21(3), 170-198.
26.
Modood, T. , & Berthoud, R. (Eds.). (1997). Ethnic minorities in Britain. London: Policy Studies Institute.
27.
Office of National Statistics . (1996). Social focus on ethnic minorities. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
28.
Office of Populations Censuses and Surveys (Social Survey Division). (1996). Living in Britain: Results from the 1994 General Household Survey. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
29.
Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state?. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
30.
Race Relations Employment Advisory Service . (n.d.) Positive action: Promoting racial equality in employment. London: Author.
31.
Rhoads, S. (1981). Incomparable worth: Pay equity meets the market. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
32.
Scarman. (1981). The Brixton disorders, 10-12 April 1981. (Cmnd. 8427). London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
33.
Schiek, D. (1996). Positive action in community law. Industrial Law Journal, 25(3), 241.
34.
Sewell, T. (1993). Black tribunes: Black political participation in Britain. London: Lawrence & Wishart.
35.
Skrentny, J. D. (1996). The ironies of affirmative action. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
36.
Sowell, T. (1990). Preferential policies. New York: William Morrow.
37.
Teles, S. M. (1996). Whose welfare? AFDC and elite politics. Lawrence: University Press of Kansas.
38.
U. S. Bureau of the Census . (1996). Statistical abstract of the United States: 1996 (116th ed.). Washington, DC: Government Printing Office.
39.
Wavell, S. (1995, March 26). Wrestling for an equal share. Sunday Times, pp. 9-12.
40.
Welsh, C., Knox, J., & Brett, M. (1994). Acting positively: Positive actions under the race relations act 1976, employment department group (Research Series No. 31).
41.
Wrench, J. , & Hassan, E. (1996). Ambition and marginalisation: A qualitative study of underachieving young men of Afro-Caribbean origin. London: Her Majesty's Stationery Office.
