[WestNileNet] Fw: Who cares about Africa? British and American conservatisms in African development‎

[cdmale]

Posted: 30 Jan 2018 04:00 AM PST ‎Stefan Andreasson examines how the Republican and Conservative parties dealt with African development since the late Cold War era. He explains why American input has been more prominent, while the British have come to resign themselves to a managed decline in relations with Africa. Who cares about Africa? Does political ideology inform whether or not such care exists and how it is translated into action? And are, as we tend to assume, some political ideologies more ‘caring’ than others? For conservatism in particular, the common assumption in popular discourse, and in much of scholarly work, is that it is inextricably linked to neo-colonial attitudes that defend existing hierarchies and inequalities in international relations. So, the assumption is that conservatism places the pursuit of national interest ahead of development. In my own work I examine this assumption about a link between political ideology – in this case British and American conservatism – and actual political engagement by political actors with development in post-colonial Africa. Findings are based on interviews in London and Washington, including with high-level ministers and ambassadors of the Republican and Conservative parties, associated conservative think tanks, lobbying groups and the like. Understanding this link between ideology and politics is instructive for two key reasons. Firstly, it makes it possible to understand how and why conservative governments have shaped policies towards Africa, with all the consequences that the foreign policies of two of the most important external actors engaged in the affairs of many African countries entail. Secondly, it sheds light on conservatism as an ideology, including how conservatives as political actors differ from each other in Britain and the US. The comparative approach is crucial in order to avoid a simplistic view of conservatism as being intellectually homogeneous across different countries and time periods; while change across time is accounted for here by examining shifts in engagement from the Cold War-era Reagan and Thatcher governments to the more recent G. W. Bush and Cameron governments. And while conservatism, like any other political ideology, is not synonymous with the aims and actions of any specific political party, periods of government by the Republican Party and the Conservative Party serve in either case as a the most useful proxy available for understanding the impact of conservatism as an ideological force in politics. Differences between British and American approaches to dealing with issues of African development have emerged from each country’s trajectory in the post-World War II era and are somewhat paradoxical. The findings are more substantial in the case of US conservatism and policymaking by Republican governments than they are for their counterparts in the UK. A greater degree of ideological heterogeneity and distinctiveness among American conservative interest groups, combined with a bureaucratic environment in the US that provides more direct channels for ideological input into policy, have resulted in a more clearly conservative stamp on Africa policy. The characteristics and consequences of US conservatism stand in contrast to a more coherent but also less animated brand of conservatism in the UK where ideological lines on development have become more blurred since the 1997 New Labour government and the creation of the Department for International Development. One key difference is the way in which American conservatives have actively shaped policy towards Africa through their impact on health and social policy during G W Bush’s presidency, the capstone of which was the US President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief policy which remains the greatest single investment by any entity into public health in Africa. This active involvement reflects a confident and influential evangelical Christian dimension of conservatism that has no comparable presence in the UK, irrespective of a modest revival during the years in opposition leading up to 2010 including the modest Christian rhetoric employed by Cameron and some of his ministers when discussing Britain’s heritage and the Big Society. This engagement on the part of American conservatives has emerged even though the country’s historical ties to Africa are less significant than those of Britain, the considerable population of African descendants in the US notwithstanding. By contrast British conservatives have, despite a history of Empire and sentimental ties including substantial migration of Britons to settle across Africa, somewhat cynically come to resign themselves to a managed decline in relations with Africa, including a diminishing ability to impact events across the continent. While US political commentators are fond of the notion that “politics ends at the water’s edge”, this is more so the case in the UK when it comes to post-colonial relations with Africa. The big difference is not primarily in terms of how British and American conservatives differ from their domestic ideological opponents on engagement with Africa, but how they differ from each other. For their African counterparts, this means that relations with the UK have remained largely a case of dealing with – depending on the perspective – a familiar ally or adversary, whereas in their engagement with the US it has increasingly become a case of needing to familiarise themselves with a new suitor. Recent political upheaval within both American and British conservatism obscures any hints of future developments as the sense of priorities and direction of both Prime Minister May’s government and President Trump’s administration are, to put it mildly, fraught with uncertainties. But future relations will surely be shaped by broader ideological shifts in the West prompted by a need to adapt to the transformation of international relations as a result of the rise of the Global South, including the transformation of Africa’s role in the global system and its gradual shift away from the West. _____ Note: the above draws on the author’s published work in Commonwealth & Comparative Politics. About the Author Stefan Andreasson is Senior Lecturer in the School of History, Anthropology, Philosophy and Politics at Queen’s University Belfast.     All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. Featured image credit: Pixabay, Public Domain.     Why culture is more important than skills: understanding British public opinion on immigration Posted: 29 Jan 2018 04:00 PM PST Opposition to immigration is largely cultural and psychological, and policy will have to address this, writes Eric Kaufmann. He provides recent survey evidence that backs his argument, and explains why current policy-making seems to be based on the wrong assumptions. The report of the House of Commons Home Affairs Committee Immigration Policy: basis for building consensus was released in January. It makes many helpful suggestions, including the idea of an annual migration report, streamlined immigration processing, and the importance of balancing competing interests. However, it draws the wrong conclusions about public opinion and policy due to its reliance on focus-groups, which suffer from social desirability bias. As a result, it makes two assumptions. First, that citizens who oppose immigration do so mainly because of their perceptions of its effects on prosperity or public services. If so, immigration is an issue that can be addressed by directing financial resources to areas affected by migration, holding consultations, and communicating the economic contribution immigrants make. The second assumption is that voters are primarily concerned about control, not numbers. If they are reassured that things are under control, and migration is being calibrated to economic needs, they will be content with higher numbers. The report’s principal research base stems from polling and focus group work by British Future which indicates that skills are the most important consideration for people when they think of a desirable immigrant. This gains support from a new literature which uses survey experiments asking people to choose between two stylised immigrants who differ in either economic or cultural ways from each other. Across a wide variety of different pairwise comparisons, analysts such as Jens Hainmuller and Dan Hopkins, using the conjoint technique, are able to assess which aspects of an immigrant render them more or less desirable – whether they speak the language, whether they are European or non-European, Muslim or not, their skill level, employment and so forth. This work shows that national origin, religion and race matter, but most respondents in most countries prioritise immigrants’ skill levels over ethno-cultural considerations. This seems to indicate that people are most interested in the economic contributions migrants can bring. Yet, as behavioural economists repeatedly caution, ‘people aren’t rational, they rationalise.’ So too with immigration attitudes. The reasons people say they oppose immigration are those they are aware of, or feel to be socially acceptable. This is especially the case in focus groups, where peer pressure is strong. Consider the Brexit vote. Leave voters told exit pollsters it was about sovereignty and feeling ‘left behind’ by prosperous London. But as Harold Clarke, Matthew Goodwin and Paul Whiteley show, survey data clearly reveal that the vote was linked to opposition to immigration. Indeed views on capital punishment count far more in predicting whether someone is a Brexiteer than their class, income or beliefs about whether ‘the people’ should make decisions rather than politicians. The consensus in the quantitative academic literature is that personal economic circumstances matter much less than cultural/psychological orientations in predicting immigration attitudes. So we have a disconnect: the multivariate survey research finds that cultural attitudes correlate most strongly with views on immigration levels, with economics counting less. Yet the experimental research seems to indicate that people value skills more than ethnicity in an immigrant. How can this be? The mystery drops away when we consider that the experimental surveys ask about the properties of desirable immigrants, not those of immigration. When people think of immigrants, they think of an individual, and assess them accordingly. When they think of immigration, they consider aggregate effects, which their minds treat as a separate question. As I’ll show, people are sensitive to the skill level of the immigrant intake, but this is trumped by their concern for the cultural impact of a larger inflow. To illustrate, I draw on data from a new Yougov-Birkbeck-Policy Exchange survey of 1643 individuals from 5-6 November 2017, of which 1450 are of White British ethnicity. The question asked: ‘The government is considering its options for Britain’s immigration policy after Brexit. Currently Britain has net migration of 275,000 per year of which about half is European. After Brexit, European migration is expected to decline. Two options are on the table, which do you prefer?’ The sample was divided into nine equal groups for analysis. The first of nine groups saw the following set of options: (a) Increase skilled immigration from outside Europe, keeping net migration at 275,000, raising the skilled share from 40% to 50%. (b) Decrease skilled immigration from outside Europe, decreasing net migration from 275,000 to 125,000, lowering the skilled share from 40% to 20%. (c) Don’t know. People are being asked to trade off between a high-skill/high intake and low-skill/low-number intake option. 34% opted for option high skill/high intake, 30% for low skill/low intake, with 36% saying ‘don’t know’. This even holds when we ask about raising numbers, as with: (a) Increase skilled immigration from outside Europe, increasing net migration from 275,000 to 375,000, raising the skilled share from 40% to 60%. (b) Decrease skilled immigration from outside Europe, decreasing net migration from 275,000 to 125,000, lowering the skilled share from 40% to 20%. Result among those who answered are 31% for increase, 29% for decrease. In other words, 52% of those who answered the question backed the high skill, high immigration option. So far so good: a modest endorsement of the experimental literature, and of British Future’s work, which shows that when the skill set is right, a (bare) majority of people will endorse current levels. But now consider the next group’s set of choices. The only change in wording here is that I have replaced ‘outside Europe’ with ‘Africa and Asia’: (a) Increase skilled immigration from Africa and Asia, keeping net migration at 275,000, raising the skilled share from 40% to 50%. (b) Decrease skilled immigration from Africa and Asia, decreasing net migration from 275,000 to 125,000, lowering the skilled share from 40% to 20%. (c) Don’t know. Now just 18% are content with a high-skill/current migration level mix, 40% want a decrease with a lower skill mix, and 43% don’t know. That’s 69% in favour of a decrease in numbers and skills versus 31% for current levels with higher skills. Culture clearly matters. Yet it turns out this is not the strongest cultural effect we find. Consider the next set of options, based on ethnic population projections: (a) Increase immigration from outside Europe, keeping net migration at 275,000, raising the skilled share from 40% to 50%. As a result, the White British share of the UK’s population will decline from 80% today to 58% in 2060. (b) Decrease immigration from outside Europe, decreasing net migration from 275,000 to 125,000, lowering the skilled share from 40% to 20%. As a result, the White British share of the UK’s population will decline from 80% today to 65% in 2060. This time, the wording remains unchanged from that of the first group, but we draw attention to the impact higher numbers will have on long-term ethnic change. Rather than a – still substantial – shift from 80% to 65% White British by 2060 under the low immigration option, we note that current immigration levels will mean a change from 80% to 58% White British by 2060, broadly in line with projections. With this choice in front of them, only 27% favour current levels with higher skills compared to 73% who prefer a decrease even though this means a lower skill mix. Across all nine variations, focusing on the 1450 White British respondents, we get the results in figure 1. Figure 1. This shows that a majority of White British respondents want reduced immigration even if skill levels fall. But when the question is worded, as in example 1, as new skilled immigrants coming from ‘outside Europe’ and when the decline in White British share is not mentioned, it’s possible to get almost 45% of White Britons to back the high skill mix-with-high levels of immigration option. Mention ‘Asia and Africa’ as the source for new skilled immigrants and support slips ten points to 35%. More importantly, mentioning the ethno-cultural impact of higher numbers on the long-term share of White Britons in the population drops support for current immigration levels by 17-22 points to just 18-25%. We shouldn’t kid ourselves. The trends in figure 2, showing a link between net migration, news coverage, and the salience of immigration, is likely to continue in Britain. It’s a trend James Dennison and his colleagues have noticed in most West European countries. This is largely because of its cultural and psychological impact, which immigration opponents are compelled by social norms to rationalise in economic terms. Focus groups are especially susceptible to this. The Committee seem to have taken these rationales at face value, drawing distorted policy conclusions. Figure 2. Source: Ipsos-Mori ‘Shifting Ground,’ 2015, p. 5. Moving to a Canadian-style system of three-year immigration plans, as the report recommends, may be problematic for Britain. Canada’s latest three-year migration plan for 2018-20 will welcome 330,000 immigrants per year, equivalent in UK terms to net migration of around 600,000 per annum, twice the current UK level. This has occurred because norms of political discourse in English-speaking Canada are similar to those which obtained in Germany and Sweden prior to 2015 – in which it is deemed improper for politicians or editorial pages to advocate reducing immigration. Part of this, note Emma Ambrose and Cas Mudde, stems from broadly-defined hate speech laws grounded in the 1971 Multiculturalism Act, which arguably encompass voicing opposition to immigration. This is clearly not the case in Britain, thus an attempt to transplant the Canadian approach is likely to encounter considerable resistance. Opposition to immigration is largely cultural and psychological. Policy options will therefore have to address this. Bracketing the question of numbers, I’ve argued here and here that one approach is to alter our current form of political communication to frame immigration to conservative voters as something which their ethnic group will ultimately absorb through intermarriage and assimilation leaving the country little changed. Only by engaging with voters’ actual cultural-psychological concerns can we begin to approach the common ground the report’s authors seek. By contrast, the economic measures and procedures the Committee recommends are unlikely to affect public opinion. ________ Note: a version of this article was originally published on Policy Exchange. About the Author Eric Kaufmann is Professor of Politics at Birkbeck, University of London and author of Whiteshift: Populism, Immigration and the Future of White Majorities (Penguin, October 2018).   All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science. You are subscribed to email updates from British Politics and Policy at LSE. To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. Email delivery powered by Google Google, 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway, Mountain View, CA 94043, United States

_______________________________________________
WestNileNet mailing list
WestNileNet@kym.net
http://orion.kym.net/mailman/listinfo/westnilenet

WestNileNet is generously hosted by INFOCOM http://www.infocom.co.ug/

The above comments and data are owned by whoever posted them (including 
attachments if any). The List's Host is not responsible for them in any way.
_______________________________________________