Since the rise of a right-wing populist movement in 2002, the issue of the 'unsuccessful' integration of ethnic minorities is at the centre of Dutch public debate. The quest for promising social spheres to bridge gaps between the autochthonous Dutch population and minority groups has brought recreational sport to the political agenda. Sport participation is widely advocated as an effective and unproblematic way for interethnic contact and socialization. In this article we report on two studies conducted in the city of Rotterdam to test these assumptions. One study, focusing on motivations to participate in sport, showed that among participants meeting different people is less valued than expected, especially among marginalized migrant-groups who primarily want to confirm their ethnic identity through homogeneous sport activities. Further research on sport encounters between different ethnic groups made it clear that, particularly in soccer, these encounters frequently result in aggression and can seldom be labelled as trouble-free contact. This can be explained as much by the aggressive elements of the game itself as by the fact that inter-ethnic tensions from other social spheres are imported and even magnified in these sports activities. In sum, although recreational sport (such as soccer) might seem ideal for meaningful cultural crossovers, in practice ethnic differences are reinforced in this sphere instead of bridged.

Dutch citizens on welfare have to volunteer at Civil Society Organizations (CSOs) in return for their benefits. Through applying the 'worlds of justification' of Boltanski and Thévenot, this article aims to provide a better theoretical and empirical understanding of social justice of policies that obligate welfare clients to participate in CSOs. The analysis of 51 in-depth interviews with Dutch welfare recipients shows that respondents perceive these policies partly but not unilaterally as unfair. If respondents perceive welfare as 'free money' and if they are convinced that civic behavior demands interventions against free riding on welfare resources, 'mandatory volunteering' is considered as fair. Our main contribution is to the theoretical debate on recognition and redistribution by showing empirically how 'othering' plays an important role in determining when mandatory volunteering becomes a matter of redistribution or recognition.

No abstract

Many politicians in Western societies assume that strong concentrations of public housing have a debilitating effect on the residents and produce high social costs. The general expectation is that mixed housing projects can help overcome integration problems. In the United States, Belgium, France, Sweden, and the Netherlands, opportunities to mix neighbourhoods vary due to different traditions in housing, as well as specific institutional and socioeconomic conditions. In this comparative article we show that yet another parameter--the predominant view on integration and multiculturalism in each country--is relevant when explaining differences in antisegregation strategies. Plusieurs hommes politiques dans les socidtds occidentales supposent que de fortes concentrations de logement social ont un effet ddbilitant sur les rdsidents et entrafnent des co~ts sociaux dlevds. De fafon gdndrale, l'on croit que les projets d'habitations hdtdrog~nes peuvent aider ?~ surmonter les probl~mes d'intdgration. Aux Etats-Unis, en Belgique, en France, en Sukde et aux Pays-Bas, les occasions de crder des quartiers mixtes varient en fonction des traditions diff&entes lides au logement et des conditions institutionnelles et sociodconomiques particuli~res. Dans cet article comparatif l'onddmontre que pour expliquer les diffdrences entre les stratdgies anti-sdgrdgation, iI faut tenir compte d'un autre crit~re, c'est-h-dire la vision qui prddomine dans chaque pays quant ?~ l'intdgration et le multiculturalisme.

No abstract