social solidarity and the roma people

TILBURG UNIVERSITY 2011

Social Solidarity and the Roma People

Solidarity & Welfare

P.V. Gutierrez Zarate

(141341)

ABSTRACT. This paper elucidates, from the sociological perspective, matters of consideration regarding the implications of the social standing of Roma people in modern society, the welfare state, and the European Union level. Information about Roma people and their current standing social position is reviewed. Given that they are a different ethnic group, the implications of such standing are first analyzed with literature from acculturation and, then enlightened with literature on social solidarity. Furthermore, the crowding-out hypothesis is studied when considering the provision of aid at European state level to this ethnic group. This analysis concludes with a proposal to study welfare programs for Roma people in European Union countries with two purposes: (1) to see how their differences or similarities are explained by the theoretical framework of social solidarity and acculturation, and (2) to analyze the crowding-out hypothesis that the European Union provokes at nation-state level.

Solidarity & Cultural Diversity December 16, 2011

INTRODUCTION

Romani people, also known as Gypsies, first arrived to Europe around the thirteen

century (Hancock, 2005); they were nomadic people who earn their living by performing arts

and working their crafts. They preferred living without compromising their freedom, their

ethnic identity, or their occupational and residential flexibility (Fraser, 2005). That is, they

were not tied to the soil in which they temporarily resided, and did not care much about

establishing themselves as part of the community. On feudal times, they were treated as

slaves, and from the mid-sixteenth to the late eighteen century, European attitude towards

them was also negative and was further exacerbated by racial prejudice and religious

hostility (Fraser, 2005). This feeling underlies the many anti-Gipsy laws around Europe at

that time which explicitly prohibited entry of these people in their lands and penalized those

who helped them do so. Even during the beginning of the twentieth century some new laws

prohibiting immigration were enacted, for example in Sweden. Furthermore, in some

countries, Roma people were required to carry identification with their fingerprints on them

and, in others, the prohibition of nomadism was introduced. Eventually, Roma people had to

settle and coexist with the host culture, many times in a forced situation. Nowadays, about

10 to 12 million Roma people have sizeable populations settled in 18 EU member countries

(European Commission, 2010). These populations, in their majority, are underprivileged and

strongly depend on welfare benefits to survive. Furthermore, they are usually not integrated

with the local community and are subject of discrimination.

Roma people are an ethnic group without a nation, discriminated since their arrival

to Europe, originally nomads that were many times forced to settle, and now settled all

across Europe and mostly living in poverty conditions and subject to discrimination by locals.

They are a group interesting to study especially because of these features and the fact that

they “are arguably the most impoverished and marginalized ethnic minority group on the

European continent” (Goldston, 2010). Specifically, from the acculturation perspective, it is

interesting to see what kind of impact having to settle had on the identity of the Roma

Page 1 of 14


people, the consequences on the first ‘official encounters’1, and their current social situation.

Furthermore, from this study follows an analysis on how this impact influences on the

motivation both by individuals and the state to provide welfare for these people. This

analysis is made from the perspective of social solidarity and takes into account aspects

such as individual motivations, deservingness, and social capital. Finally, the crowding-out

hypothesis, a popular concept which has been refuted by many researches, is revisited to

analyze it on a different level; namely, the impact of the European Union programs on the

national welfare programs targeted to the Roma people.

This paper is structured as follows: first, theories on acculturation are reviewed to

better understand the current social standing of Roma people. Then, this information is used

to better understand the implications on social solidarity, at individual and national level.

Implications are also reviewed at EU-level were the crowding-out hypothesis is revisited.

Finally, a research study is proposed that analyzes welfare programs for Roma people in

European Union member countries with two purposes: (1) to see how their differences or

similarities are explained by the theoretical framework of social solidarity and acculturation,

and (2) to analyze the crowding-out hypothesis that the European Union provokes at nation-

state level.

THEORETICAL PERSPECTIVES

Acculturation

Borhis et al (1997) developed the Interactive Acculturation Model (IAM) in which

they assess “(1) the acculturation orientations adopted by immigrant groups in the host

community; (2) acculturation orientations adopted by the host community towards specific

groups of immigrants; (3) interpersonal and intergroup relational outcomes that are the

1 ‘Official encounters’ is said in the sense of interaction between the host population and the newly nationalized Roma.

Page 2 of 14


product of combinations of immigrant and host community acculturation orientations”. This

model will be used in assessing the current social standing of the Roma population. The

assessment is done for European Union member countries in general therefore; some

assumptions are made based on historical trends and the current situation as observed by

studies and efforts towards integration.

In order to analyze each component of the model, it is important to again highlight

the special case of the Roma people as an ethnic group without a nation who were nomad

until they were forced to settle in a place that some did not intentionally choose. Taking

these factors into consideration, it can be assumed firstly, that being forced into a sedentary

life went against their traditions and thus, was a personal attack on their identity; second,

being a closed ethnic group, they did not see fit practices of assimilation or integration to the

host culture and became more separatists in reaction; and third, they did not have the

abilities, as sedentary groups do develop, of knowing how to live, work, and construct a life

in one land on a permanent basis.

In order to better understand the acculturation orientations adopted by the Roma

people in the host community, the Revised Bi-dimensional Model of Immigrant Accultural

Orientations from Borhis et al (1997) is used. According to it, because it is considered of

value to Roma people to maintain their immigrant cultural identity and they do not see value

in adopting the cultural identity of the host community, they are separatists. Separatism

indicates that they have no desire of being part of the host community or having relations to

it and strongly prefer to be with members of their own community.

The acculturation orientations of the host communities to the Roma people can be

summarized in the following extract: "[f]or most of this history, the Roma experience in

Europe has been one of discrimination, subjugation, and oppression. Negative stereotypes

that persist to this day have long deprecated nearly every aspect of Roma existence, from

their lifestyle (as nomadic peoples) to their intelligence, hygiene, work ethic, and—perhaps

the most widely known canard—an alleged predisposition to crime” (Goldston, 2010). The

Bi-dimensional model of host community acculturation orientations in Borhis et al (1997) is

Page 3 of 14


used to further define the attitudes of the host community. It is difficult to determine, in

general, the feelings, attitudes and behavioral intentions of the host community, but on

aggregate it is assumed that, initially, they did not find it acceptable that the Roma

maintained their cultural identity and, at the same time, they were so prejudiced that they

would not accept the Roma as one their own people. This is assumed because Roma were

labeled with many negative stereotypes that became, in the eyes of the host culture, part of

the identity of this ethnicity. This, according to the categorization model, is an exclusionist

attitude towards the Roma. Even though, quite some efforts are seen nowadays towards

more comprehensive programs that aim at integration, it is assumed that the host

community’s sentiment is still one of prejudice that either excludes the Roma or expects

them to assimilate. Assimilation is referred here in the sense of wanting the Roma to forego

their cultural values for those of the host community. An example of exclusion is last year’s

deportation of Roma from France; an example of assimilation relates to efforts to give Roma

education that does include their own history, language, or traditions. A more extreme

example of assimilation was the project called the ‘Kinder der Landstrasse’ in Switzerland,

where children were removed from their parents and placed either in an orphanage or with

foster parents (Infosud Human Rights Tribune, 2008).

According to the IAM, the relational outcomes between the Roma as a separatist

group and a host community with exclusive and/or assimilation orientations towards the

Roma are, as expected, conflictual. History has shown that this is a trend that has

maintained over the years, even with considered efforts to promote integration of both

communities. The following part will analyze further what this has meant in relation to social

solidarity.

Social Solidarity

Individual Motives for Contributing

Page 4 of 14


Van Oorschot (1998) identifies four individual motivations underlying payments for

welfare taken from solidarity, reciprocity, and rational choice theories: (1) mutual affection

and identification, (2) moral convictions, (3) (long-term) self-interest, and (4) accepted

coercion. An assessment on these motives can enlighten further the sentiments of the host

nation towards the Roma and the impact on their motivation to contribute to welfare that

benefits this ethnic group. Furthermore, the reverse impact is also revised to see whether

these sentiments are exacerbated or mitigated by welfare policies.

It is highly unlikely that the host nation has mutual affection for or mutually identifies

with the Roma people. On the side of the Roma, this is because they are a separatist group

and do not wish to make contact with the host community. In this sense, the host community

sees limited or no chance of bonding and finding a mutual ground with these people. On the

side of the host community, Roma people are visibly different in terms of their physical

appearance. Furthermore, there is still strong prejudice prevalent today which mostly has

become part of how the host community defines the Roma; that is, in their eyes, it is not

prejudice, but it is the Roma identity. Even though one could say that shared history could be

a valid starting point, the history between Roma and Europe has been one of conflict since

the beginning. In conclusion, since both sides are generally unwilling or unable to create a

shared identity or develop mutual affection they cannot create a ‘collective conscience’2 and

therefore, their interests are not collective but exclusive from each other. Solidarity is not

born out of this motive; conversely, lack of collective conscience excludes the Roma people.

Moral conviction or moral obligation “depends on culturally based convictions” (van

Oorschot, 2002). That is, people feel intrinsically obliged to express solidarity towards

others. It is questionable whether that is the case with the Roma. Much has been said and is

known about the strong prejudice however, there is also growing interest in creating

comprehensive programs that help Roma integrate and improve their social situation. This

interest is evidenced by the efforts at private, state, and European level; and also by

2 “Durkheim uses the term to refer to a body of beliefs, practices, and customary enacments which are held in common by all members of a society.” (Morrison, 2006)

Page 5 of 14


education which specializes in this topic. In this sense, it could be said that even though the

majority does not feel positive towards the Roma, there is a growing preoccupation for their

wellbeing. Therefore, moral obligation is a potential motivational component of solidarity

towards the Roma.

Even though concern for others is fundamental in cooperating, it alone does not

determine when it is that an individual will cooperate or not (Axelrod, 1984). The reason is

that another aspect of cooperating is the effect on us. The Prisoner’s Dilemma is a game

developed in economic theory to understand whether interaction results in cooperation

between two individuals that have to make decisions which affect the other. Research has

shown that it is more likely that individuals will cooperate when the game consists of an

infinite number of interactions, than when the interactions are finite. Not cooperating in

repeated interactions will cause distrust and consequent retaliation by the other player. From

this perspective, contributing is on the individual’s interest because, in the long term, the

contribution is balanced, or because not doing so is on the individual’s own detriment. In this

sense, the host community could see that it is less harmful to help than not to help because

they will have to live with these people anyway. Furthermore, supported on their prejudice,

they could think that not contributing to welfare could mean increased crime rates and

consequently, deterioration of the quality of life of their own. On the other hand, just as in the

case of France, the host community might believe that the best solution to the Roma

problem is deportation. As in the case of mutual affection and shared identity, this

motivational factor might have excluding effects towards the Roma people.

Finally, as van Oorschot (2002) argues, “solidarity is not necessarily spontaneous

or completely voluntary”. The state is the authorized form of coercion that obliges

contribution according to certain standards, and acts as a mechanism of control for free-

riders. The Roma could be thought of in this point as free-riders because they greatly

depend on welfare and are seen by the host community as doing nothing to get of that

Page 6 of 14


situation. The result of unwillingly helping the Roma might be the intensification of the

negative attitudes towards them because of a feeling of negative reciprocity3.

Deservingness Perceptions

Van Oorschot (2006) found that Europeans have certain common notions about

deservingness: they categorize people as being more or less worthy. The groups studied in

this paper were elderly people, sick and disabled people, unemployed people and

immigrants; with immigrants being the ones who scored lowest in the scale of

deservingness.

Merely for the fact that they are migrants, the Roma are at the bottom of the

deservingness rank. Their situation as a ‘nation without a country’ makes it difficult for the

host community to deal with them in the sense that, for example, they do not have elsewhere

to go or to be sent to. Furthermore, being a separationist group it is even harder for the host

community to try to understand their attitudes or behaviour. Therefore, it is easier to believe

that they are marginal people taking advantage of the state, instead of people living in a

marginal condition who are not able to survive without welfare benefits.

Van Oorschot (2006) mentions that average conditionality is higher in the poorer

countries of Europe; however he also states that welfare regime type and welfare spending

are not significantly related to national levels of conditionality. The former can be understood

from the burden immigrants impose on nationals, and the perceived negative balance in

reciprocity, especially by groups perceived as free-riders, such as the Roma. The latter

finding together with evidence that welfare policies have been modified to avoid being taken

advantage of by the Roma4, motivates the proposal for research found at the conclusion.

3 Negative reciprocity is meant as “a form of exchange in which the aim is to get something for as little as possible.” (Haviland et al, 2011)4 In 2004, Slovak government decided to reduce direct social payments which resulted in riots by the Roma community because it would affect them the worst. (Vermeersch, 2007)

Page 7 of 14


The social capital

According to Field (2008), social capital can be summarized as: ‘relationships

matter’. Bourdieu, who developed the theory of social capital in the late twentieth century,

agreed with this statement in the sense that he viewed social networks as a resource and

highlighted their importance. Later on, Putnam classified social capital in three components:

trust, social norms and obligations, social networks of civil activity (Siisiäinen, 2000). Each

component, as defined by Putnam and further elaborated by Van Oorschot, will be analysed

for the Roma population on the following lines.

Social norms comprise shared civic values, norms and habits of cooperation (van

Oorschot & Arts, 2005). In this sense, because the Roma people have a separatist

orientation, their moral obligations and norms are to their own people. This would be a good

contribution to social capital if the relationship analysed was one with Roma people;

however, considering that Roma live together with other people, such a stance is detrimental

to their social capital.

Social trust comprises generalized trust in social institutions and in other people.

More would need to be researched in order to give a further account on the attitude of Roma

towards the institutions and the people of the country at which they are residing. The

assumption is made that they do not have much trust in institutions or people because they

are separatists, and because of historical reasons; namely of being forced to settle

themselves in lands and continuous discrimination. On the other hand, it could be argued,

that they have some trust that institutions will provide them with the necessary minimum

means to live.

Social Networks refer to the relations within and between families and friends,

involvement in community and organizational life, and public engagement (van Oorschot &

Arts, 2005). Roma living in disadvantaged communities are usually uneducated and

Page 8 of 14


unemployed. Latent discrimination is both present in the education as in the employment

arena which hinders the opportunities of Roma to extend their social network. Furthermore,

they lack the ability to plan their life in financial terms, for example, which becomes a

pressuring matter considering that the Roma are usually part of big families. Consequently,

they are likely to get involved in high criminality, begging or scamming to survive. On top of

this, the poorest Roma live in crowded small shelters built with whatever they can find or

built by the government and provided to them. Both of these have segregating

consequences. In some cases, it is even clearer that the objective is to keep Roma out or

far5.

In summary, the Roma are likely to have very low social capital and this puts them

in a considerably disadvantaged position because, according to Bourdieu, “social capital

becomes a resource in social struggles that are carried out in different arenas or fields”

(Siisiäinen, 2000).

The Crowding-Out Hypothesis

The crowding-out hypothesis is defined by Van Oorschot & Arts (2005) as: “[f]or

every welfare state, if social obligations become increasingly public, then its institutional

arrangements to an increasing extent crowd out private obligations or make them at least no

longer necessary”. This hypothesis has been refuted for the state level however, here is

proposed to look at it from another perspective; namely European welfare’s effect on the

schemes of welfare states for Roma people.

There has been increased attention at European Union level towards minorities,

Roma people within them, which has resulted in initiatives for improving their current

situation. The crowding-out hypothesis can help elucidate whether these European-level

initiatives were the reaction of a lack of support at national level. Furthermore, it can also

5 An example of that can be found on the following article: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8548417.stm

Page 9 of 14

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/8548417.stm


help analyze the impact of these initiatives at national level, by for example asking whether

these are being supported at national level, or brought forward in majority by members of a

certain European Union member country. It is possible that, even though the initiatives

brought forward are meant to help, in abundant numbers they will actually do the opposite

because of decreased social capital and a stronger feeling of negative reciprocity of the host

community. That is, the relevance of doing such a study comes from the special situation of

the Roma and their dependency on the welfare states but, most of all, of the real impact of

policies brought forward at European Union level and imposed on a national level.

CONCLUSION (summary, limitations, indications for future research)

From the acculturation theories, the interaction between the Roma and their host

communities in various countries in Europe was studied. It was found that the Roma are a

separatist group and the host communities have exclusion and/or assimilationist orientations

towards the Roma. The IAM model then predicts that the relations between the Roma and

their host communities are conflictual. This prediction is supported by past events but also

by modern developments regarding the Roma presence in Europe.

Regarding sociological theories, first the individual motivations to contribute were

analyzed. It was found that mutual affection and identification had exclusive effects towards

Roma people. Arguably, long-term self-interest and accepted coercion also have detrimental

effects. This conviction is supported on events such as the deportation of the Roma from

France. Furthermore, it is assumed that accepted coercion makes the host community

contribute but, at the same time, exacerbates the negative attitudes towards them because

of a feeling of negative reciprocity. Finally it was found that moral convictions were one

potential motivator for solidarity towards the Roma. Second, deservingness criteria were

studied. Van Oorschot (2006) found that the lowest rank of deservingness was of the

immigrants and that there was no significant correlation between conditionality and welfare

Page 10 of 14


regime type and welfare support. Roma people are among the group seen as most

underserving but their unique characteristics make them a special type within this group.

Furthermore, it is believed that in the case of the Roma, welfare policies have been modified

as a mechanism of control therefore, a research study on this topic is proposed on the final

paragraph of this paper. Third, social capital was also analysed in the components defined

by Putnam and further categorized by van Oorschot & Arts (2005). The conclusion of the

assessment was that the Roma are likely to have very low social capital and this puts them

in a considerably disadvantaged position because, according to Bourdieu, “social capital

becomes a resource in social struggles that are carried out in different arenas or fields”

(Siisiäinen, 2000). Finally, the crowding-out hypothesis was revisited but from another angle;

namely the impact of European Union initiatives to improve conditions for the Roma on the

welfare states.

This paper lacked data to correctly confirm some hypothesis and assumptions

made. For this reason, and having shed some light on the current social standing of the

Roma people, a research study is proposed that analyzes welfare programs for Roma

people in European Union member countries with two purposes: (1) to see how their

differences or similarities are explained by the theoretical framework of social solidarity and

acculturation, and (2) to analyze the crowding-out hypothesis that the European Union

provokes at nation-state level.

Page 11 of 14


References

1. Axelrod, R. (1984). The Evolution of Cooperation. In Hechter, M. & Horne, C. (2009),

Theories of Social Order: A Reader (pp. 175-185). United States of America:

Stanford University Press.

2. Bourhis, R.Y., Moïse, L.C., Perreault, S. & Senécal, S. (1997). Towards an

Interactive Acculturation Model: A Social Psychological Approach. International

Journal of Psychology, 32(6), 369-386.

3. European Commission. (2010). Improving the tools for social exclusion and non-

discrimination of Roma in the EU. Retrieved December 14, 2011, from:

http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/improving-the-tools-for-the-social-inclusion-and-

non-discrimination-of-roma-in-the-eu-summary-and-selected-projects-2010.pdf

4. Field, J. (2008). Social Capital (2nd ed.). United States of America: Routledge.

5. Fraser, A. (2005). The Gypsies. United Kingdom: Blackwell Publishing.

6. Goldston, J.A. (2010). The Struggle for Roma Rights: Arguments that Have Worked

[Electronic Version]. Human Rights Quarterly, 32, 311-325.

7. Hancock, I. (2005). We are the Romani People. Great Britain: University of

Hertfordshire Press.

8. Haviland, W.A., Prins H.E.L., McBride, B., Walrath, D. (2011). Cultural Anthropology:

The Human Challenge. United States of America: Cengage Learning.

9. Infosud Human Rights Tribune. (2008, February 6). Swiss gypsies relive a painful

past. Retrieved 14 December, 2011, from: http://www.infosud.org/spip.php?

article2784

10. Morrison, K. (2006). Marx, Durkheim, Weber: Formations of Modern Social Thought

(2nd ed.). Oxford: The Alpen Press.

11. Siisiäinen, M. (July, 2000). Two Concepts of Social Capital: Bordieau vs. Putnam.

Dubling: ISTR Fourth International Conference. Retrieved December 15, 2011, from:

http://www.istr.org/conferences/dublin/workingpapers/siisiainen.pdf

Page 12 of 14

http://www.istr.org/conferences/dublin/workingpapers/siisiainen.pdf

http://www.infosud.org/spip.php?article2784

http://www.infosud.org/spip.php?article2784

http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/improving-the-tools-for-the-social-inclusion-and-non-discrimination-of-roma-in-the-eu-summary-and-selected-projects-2010.pdf

http://www.errc.org/cms/upload/file/improving-the-tools-for-the-social-inclusion-and-non-discrimination-of-roma-in-the-eu-summary-and-selected-projects-2010.pdf


12. Van Oorschot, W. (November, 1998). Shared Identity and Shared Utility: On

Solidarity and its Motives. Work and Organization Research Centre, 98.11.008/2.

13. Van Oorschot, W. (2002). Individual motives for contribution to welfare benefits in

The Netherlands [Electronic Version]. The Policy Press, 30(1), 31-46.

14. Van Oorschot, W. & Arts, W. (2005). The social capital of European welfare states:

The crowding out hypothesis revisited [Electronic Version]. Journal of European

Social Policy, 15(1), 5-26.

15. Van Oorschot, W. (2006). Making the difference in social Europe: deservingness

perceptions among citizens of European welfare states [Electronic Version]. Journal

of European Social Policy, 16(1), 23-42.

16. Vermeersch, P. (2007). The Romani Movement: Minority Politics & Ethnic

Mobilization in Contemporary Central Europe. United States of America: Berghahn

Books.

Page 13 of 14

social solidarity and the roma people

Documents