COMMUNITY INFLUENCES ON WHITE RACIAL ATTITUDES: What Matters and Why?

Tracing the roots of racial attitudes in historical events and individual biographies has been a long-standing goal of race relations scholars. Recent years have seen a new development in racial attitude research: Local community context has entered the spotlight as a potential influence on racial views. The race composition of the locality has been the most common focus; evidence from earlier decades suggests that white Americans are more likely to hold anti-black attitudes if they live in areas where the African-American population is relatively large. However, an influential 2000 article argued that the socioeconomic composition of the white community is a more powerful influence on white attitudes: In low-socioeconomic status (SES) locales, “stress-inducing” deprivations and hardships in whites' own lives purportedly lead them to disparage blacks. The study reported here reassesses this “scapegoating” claim, using data from the 1998 to 2002 General Social Surveys linked to 2000 census information about communities. Across many dimensions of racial attitudes, there is pronounced influence of both local racial proportions and college completion rates among white residents. However, the economic dimension of SES exerts negligible influence on white racial attitudes, suggesting that local processes other than scapegoating must be at work.     

COMMUNITY COHESION,ASYLUM SEEKING AND THE QUESTION OF THE ‘STRANGER’

This paper addresses the changing governance of the social through the conjunction of international, national and local strategies where attempts to regulate migration and promote community safety meet. Migration has been increasingly subjected to processes of ‘securitization’ and ‘criminalization’ that encounter and align with new pressures in ‘domestic’ crime and safety policies. The paper offers a critical evaluation of the sociological grand narratives that frame these events, arguing instead for a more nuanced analysis of the instabilities and volatilities of governance strategies and practices – and the normative issues that they bring into view.     

WILL THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITY MAKE THE 1992 DEADLINE ON THE ABOLITION OF INTERNAL BORDER CONTROLS ?

The efforts by the 12 European countries to develop a single market are in jeopardy because of several factors including a failure to come to agreement on the Schengen Supplementary Agreement. If this agreement is not signed soon, the deadline of January 1, 1993 for the opening of the borders will pass. If this occurs, it will signify a failure of the 1st great test of European unity. The Schengen group includes the Benelux, FRG, and France, Italy (as of November 1991), and will probably include Spain and Portugal by June 1991. The primary reason for this trouble stems from the lack of parliamentary control during the negotiation process. Other problems stem from a failure to come to an agreement about the text of the agreement in regards to asylum seekers. The Agreement is not allowed to be modified by signatory States, they must either ratify it or not. There is a great deal of pressure to change this aspect of the Agreement, because it is felt by many that is abandons sovereignty about a crucial issue like frontier borders. Harmonizing rules of entry and granting of asylum are the 2 most powerful forces motivating people to fight against Community competency. Part of this problem is that the number of asylum seekers is growing rapidly and international rules of human rights are conflicting with the vested interests of the member states. Another source of discord was the Group of Coordinators's Palma Document which was approved by the European Council. In it, measures without consensus were called desirable, and those that could be approved were called essential. This way of doing things still created a democratic deficit and maintained the incoherent plan to lift internal borders. Decisive actions are required during the 2nd half of 1991 if the deadline is to be met because the rotating presidency goes to Portugal next. Portugal does not have the political power necessary to finalize the agreement. Denmark is then next after Portugal and is even less interested in coming to agreement than the UK. Therefore, if the agreement is to succeed it must be do so quickly or else suffer from political weakness.