The Role Of Immigrant Serving Organizations In The Canadian Welfare State: A Case Study

by
B. Saddeiqa Holder

CHAPTER TWO

LITERATURE REVIEW

This chapter is a lengthy one with three major sections providing an abbreviated look at: a) theoretical literature on relations between the voluntary sector and the welfare state; b) state/minority relations in Canada; and c) entitlement to rights and benefits from the perspective of social and political philosophy. Chapter Three will examine various dimensions of community based immigrant service organizations, including their role in immigration and settlement policy making.

Voluntary Organizations and the Welfare State

The last decade has witnessed the growth of a significant body of literature on voluntary organizations and the welfare state resulting from the efforts of European governments at cost control, and in the United States, from neoliberal disenchantment with government intervention in social welfare. Five compilations on the voluntary sector in an international context and published in the period since 1990 (i.e., Anheier & Seibel, 1990; Evers & Svetlik, 1993; Gidron, Kramer, & Salamon, 1992; Kuhnle & Selle, 1992; McCarthy, Hodgkinson, Sumariwalla, & Assoc., 1992) were selected for review because of their introductory chapters which fall into the category of existence literature, i.e., identification of the reasons and conditions leading to the sector's existence (Campbell, 1993). The five chapters contain useful analyses on the prevailing terms, concepts and theories in the field and the international scope offers more fruitful insights into the Canadian context than writings that focus solely on the voluntary sector in the United States.

Figuring prominently in these five analyses are attempts to specify the nature of the relationship between the state and voluntary service organizations. The rise of the welfare state has meant that consumption of services is separated from control of services; for example, as federal governments became the primary sponsor of social services, consumption was separated from financing, and agencies have become responsible to the service sponsor rather than the service consumer (Iglehart & Becerra, 1995; Ismael, 1988). Although it may be argued that clients or consumers have never really controlled services, financial accountability to state funders is seen to predominate over other forms of accountability such as the relevance or appropriateness of the services being delivered, or the legitimacy of the organization in claiming to speak or act in the interest of the clients it serves (Leat, 1990).

American authors Gidron, Kramer and Salamon (1992) write from the point of view of dispelling the myth of conflictual relations between public (government) and private (voluntary) activity. In contrast to earlier visions of voluntarism which were hostile to government, some contemporary proponents of voluntarism believe that an expansion of governmental responsibility for social services has buttressed the voluntary sector through increased reliance on these agencies to deliver services. Scandinavian authors such as Kuhnle & Selle (1992) assume a bifurcated social welfare structure, and concentrate their queries on the complexities of state/voluntary sector interactions. Evers (1993), an English scholar, moves beyond the two actor scenario -- state and voluntary sector -- to a formulation that situates voluntary sector activities within civil society, bounded by the state, the market and the informal sector. Evers's presentation attends to dynamics other than service provision which drive voluntary welfare agencies. In general then, according to Scott (1992), literature in this field has focused on the defining characteristics of the voluntary sector, who's in and who's out, and what does the sector do?

The Gidron, Kramer, & Salamon chapter begins with a definition of terms, exploring the nuances of "nonprofit" and "third" sector. The first is found to be inaccurate since nonprofits may earn profits from investments, although these gains accrue to the organization and not to individual owners. They prefer to use third sector to refer to the range of organizations lying between the market and the state. Anheier and Seibel (1990) note a normative element in the use of the term "third sector:"

The "discovery" of a "third sector" occurred at a time when politicians and policy-makers in most Western societies began to reconsider the division of labour between the public and the private sectors, and to examine ways of reducing state responsibilities. This intensified interest in the third sector was supported not only by conservative forces but also by others from across the political spectrum...The broad range of economic and social attributes which exit under the term "third sector" allow politicians to support those parts or aspects of the third sector which seem to support their own critique and interpretations of the "welfare state in crisis." (Anheier & Seibel, 1990, p. 8).

Gidron et al. distinguish three levels of analysis which are useful in discussions of this variegated sphere. The sectoral level encompasses organizations that are constitutionally separate from government, are not primarily commercial in nature, specify processes for self government, and fulfil a public purpose (p. 3). The field of service identifies the arena in which organizations are active, and is relevant in that the dynamics differ among different fields of service although the organizations are all members of the third sector. Third, at the level of the individual organization, characteristics at the sector and field-of-service level may not apply.

They comment upon the dominant paradigms which posit a conflict between the nonprofit sector and the state. In part this view is rooted in Western political traditions which fear the encroachment of the all-encompassing state upon the sphere of the individual. Within the Catholic tradition, an 1891 papal encyclical specified that community institutions such as the family, neighbours and the church are to relied upon first (p. 5). In modern times neoconservative arguments buttress the role of mediating institutions such as voluntary organizations which contain the impact of the ever expanding state. On the Left, voluntary organizations are seen to be ineffective guarantors of public benefits which are more properly provided by the state. Meanwhile, economic theories explain the existence of nonprofit organizations in the failure of the market and state to provide public goods.

According to Gidron et al., the emphasis on conflictual relations between the two sectors ignores several important issues: a) the reality of the situation versus ideological constructs utilized to support particular policy options; b) a failure to investigate the various levels at which interactions occur, e.g., with various levels of government, in certain departments of government, with individual organizations, and within fields of service in the third sector, etc.; c) additionally, both sectors perform various functions vis-a-vis each other and it is feasible that each of these interactions possesses distinctive characteristics; d) financial support for services is distinct from delivery of service and the form of financial support may be more or less neutral upon the organizations' delivery of service; e) the role of the two sectors has been subject to change over time with periods of expansion and contraction influencing the nature of the interaction; and lastly, f) national traditions shape the connections between the two sectors (e.g. degree of decentralization of state functions, legal systems, church and state relations, etc.).

Gidron et al. are not unaware of the element of control in the interplay between government and the third sector; they are desirous, however, of underplaying the regularly held assumption that "he who pays the piper calls the tune" (p. 19). In stressing the cooperative elements of the interaction, they are emphasizing the fact that social welfare organizations receive the bulk of their funding from government, on a consensual basis. Because of the sector's ability to deliver human services combined with its inability to secure financial resources, cooperation with government (through contracts for service, for example) have been a natural outcome. This means that governments are in fact providing service but not through public servants. Hence there is no "government failure" as characterized by economic theories (Campbell, 1993, p. 6). It should be noted that the schema makes no predictions about the level of welfare provision in each model.

While there is little doubt that these organizations have entered voluntarily into funding arrangements with government, the discussion by Gidron et al. lacks empirical support which would reveal the presence or absence of conflict and control and the truly consensual nature of these interactions.

In a recent collection of writings on government and voluntary organizations, Kuhnle and Selle (1992) provide a valuable overview of theoretical approaches to voluntary organizations and the welfare state. Their aim is to remedy the lacuna in welfare state theory that has largely failed to take into account the role of voluntary organizations. In bridging this gap, their point of departure is to argue that relationships between the sectors have arisen out of different political, social and cultural contexts which have received little investigation. Consequently misleading assumptions have arisen about the nature of the voluntary sector and its strength relative to government.

They explore the appropriateness of nomenclature such as "non-profit" (seen to be inaccurate since these organizations may earn profits from investments), "third sector" (seen to be a residual category after the market and the state) and "voluntary sector", opting for the latter term as the one that best conveys information about the sector in that these organizations are formed through a voluntary association of persons.

Welfare State Theory.

Kuhnle and Selle review recent developments in welfare state theory and cite Baldwin's (1990) work in distinguishing between three major approaches, which vary according to the level of explanation. One set of writings situates explanations at a macro (systems) level, accounting for the welfare state in terms of levels of industrialization, political mobilization, modernization, etc., with an emphasis on similarities among nations. The second group of theories, also concerned with general processes, attributes social policy to a functional response to the problems of modern societies, and includes both Marxist and non-Marxist analyses. Both of these approaches stress the laws of motion of systems. Esping-Andersen (1990) has termed the first as "logic of industrialism" theories, and the second as "logic of capitalism" theories.

The third group are intermediate level analyses which emphasize social and political forces rather than economic structures and processes as determinants of social policy. Thus welfare policy is sought by those who stand to benefit and have the political power to influence policy making. Bonapartist interpretations emphasize elite strategies to maintain social control and the existing social order. Social interpretation theory regards social policy as the outcome of working class struggle (or the middle class in Britain according to Baldwin's analysis). Lastly, the state-centred approach views the state as an independent or autonomous actor.

Another intermediate level analysis proffered by the neoinstitutionalism school, prominent in public administration, stresses the role of public institutions as autonomous political actors capable of wielding significant influence over policy making.

According to Kuhnle and Selle, voluntary organization theory falls into two main theoretical approaches - political theories and economic theories. Political theories of voluntary organizations tend to emphasize a conflictual relationship between the sectors wherein public services are characterized as rigid, hierarchical, etc. In Kuhnle and Selle's view, this characterization fails to take into account that the situation may vary depending upon which institutions or parts of government are being discussed (p. 23). For example expositions of the American situation posit that government is needed due to the financial shortcomings in the voluntary sector. Thus, contrary to "market failure" explanations, "the voluntary sector is far from derivative and secondary" (p. 23).

Another set of political explanations emphasize the study of organizational culture specific to different countries:

An important question is to what extent voluntary organizations get (or take, regain, or secure) ideological space in a government-dominated system and in market-dominated systems. From this approach follows the clear understanding that institutional inertia and historical contingencies have an impact on institutional choice. (p. 24).

Institutional factors identified by various authors include the legal system, political tradition, religious heterogeneity, the degree of centralization/decentralization of public welfare activities among levels of government, and the role of political parties and political processes.

Kuhnle and Selle find economic concepts of supply and demand to be inadequate in accounting for the size of the voluntary sector in a number of Scandinavian countries, so that although such theories are more explicit about voluntary organizations in the welfare arena, a more historical contextual analysis with political variables at the core is required. A similar criticism is levelled by Evers (1993) who comments upon a limited economistic understanding which conceives of social life as an arena where actors attempt to maximize their special advantages (Evers, p. 6).

Kuhnle and Selle's own typology for characterizing relations between government and voluntary organizations providing services is graphically depicted below:

GOVERNMENT & VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS:

A RELATIONAL PERSPECTIVE

The nearness/distance dimension identifies the scope, frequency, and ease of communication between the state and voluntary organizations. The degree of closeness may depend upon ideological affinity, physical proximity or other factors. The second dimension pertains to the independence of voluntary organizations. Control is a key element since most human service voluntary organizations are financed by the state. However, the authors stress that the degree of control may vary in market and in state-oriented societies, or it may vary by type of service delivery, or by organizational model.

According to Kuhnle and Selle, most authors implicitly assume a movement from the ideal of a minimal state (box 4) towards boxes 1 and 2 where organizations are strongly influenced and constrained by public policies. Box 3 represents the ideal of pluralism where groups are able to organize themselves to affect public policy without being affected by state actions. Their own investigations and that of others suggest however, that from the beginning voluntary organizations have cooperated with government such that it is not possible to discern the motif of visionary voluntary agency and reactionary public bureaucracy.

They conclude that it is difficult to predict the ideological and service space open to the voluntary sector in different countries. Consensus concerning public responsibility for welfare, and the ideological and economic strength of the non-public sector are important variables.

Kuhnle and Selle retain the emphasis by Gidron et al. on financial relationships as an important variable in understanding government/voluntary organization relations while adding the additional component of nearness/distance of communication and contact between the state and voluntary organizations. In this way variability in interactions between government and particular fields of service, or government and individual organizations is accounted for. Their emphasis on the importance of socio- historical factors stands in contrast to ahistorical economistic analyses.

Turning to England, the portrayal of the voluntary sector as "gap-filling" is also prevalent in British state centred welfare concepts according to Evers (1993). Additionally, proposals for state centred welfare have underrated the care provided by the informal sector, notably women within the family. However, more pluralistic conceptions have emerged featuring a role for voluntary organizations and for-profits as providers of service with a regulator and purchaser of service role played by the state (Evers, p. 10). Evident within this approach is the likelihood for a conflation of democratic pluralist objectives and a push to extend the role of the market sector, as has occurred in Britain (p. 11). Left critiques of welfare pluralism denigrate the variability inherent in decentralization to smaller and local communities, in contrast to models dependent upon formalized collective political participation and entitlements.

Evers assesses the debate to have been framed in ideological terms in an intentional way in order to secure political power for each side. He argues that:

Thereby this debate at least underrates the degree to which the respective transformations of the voluntary and informal sector - as parts of the welfare system - are due to often unintended socio economic and cultural changes like pluralization and individualization or to public discourses below the level of distinct political strategies...(p. 12).

In an environment of tremendous diversity in lifestyles, and variation in value systems, it is impossible to construct uniform services which meet everyone's needs resulting in the creation of alternative service delivery modes.

Evers presents four theses that contain the major theoretical components of the welfare mix concept. His first premise posits the existence of a public space in civil societies, inhabited by the "third sector," and typified by its lack of clear boundaries, and coexistence of diverse rationales and discourses. Public space is that sphere in modern societies, free of market relations, where uncoerced association, social and political interest representation, solidarity, and help and self-help ensue (p. 13).

Conceived of in triangular fashion, the state, the market and the informal sectors of family and community are the cornerstones which exert influence upon and are influenced by developments in the public space (the central area of the triangle). Voluntary agencies reside in that public space in that they reflect the values and convictions of their founders, for example, churches, minority groups, social movements, etc. Thus to focus solely upon the service aspect of these organizations is to reduce their various roles and dimensions. Evers concurs with Kuhnle and Selle that the influence of such organizations in the public space varies according to history and political traditions.

Each of the three cornerstones operates according to a dominant rationale. For state institutions, uniformity in rules and standards dominate; for the market, individualized commodity relations prevail; and in the informal sector, ties of personal obligation obtain. Organizations in the public space may be influenced by state goals, or by commercial values, or by communitarian tendencies. Hence the delineation between the public and private spaces is not clear cut.

Explaining the cooperation between voluntary agencies and government identified by Kuhnle and Selle, Evers' second thesis emphasizes the "intermediary" character of this "tension field" within the public space. By intermediary, Evers is referring to the balancing of interests among different parties in a complex system. For voluntary organizations there is a constant negotiation with the three rationales: between the instrumentalism of the market and the communalism of the public sphere; between the universalism and traditional programs of state institutions and the particularism and innovative strategies of local communities of interest within the public space; and between the informal world of family, neighbourhoods and communities and the relative formality of organizations.

His third thesis stipulates that these organizations are themselves "polyvalent and hybrid" in their intermeshing of tasks, roles and rationales (p. 21), for example: delivering services on a contractual basis, along with advocacy and community education; and relying on state provided resources as well as private fundraising, require a balancing act - a situation that is not altogether negative since it allows space for reforms and greater responsiveness.

Evers’ final thesis concerns the search for more "synergistic welfare mixes" (p. 22) within organizations and between sectors. In effect this means providing a variety of legitimized options for the use of public services, maximizing the strengths and minimizing the weaknesses of organizations and sectors. He concludes with a procedural lesson for policy making: that social policy making address not only state institutions but all of the actors/sectors.

In closing, Evers cautions that there is a danger to institutionalized cooperative and mixed solutions since the preservation of a social movement's political mobilization function may be more important than service delivery.

Evers' contribution enriches the discussion by accentuating voluntary organizations as actors that come into being as a result of the particular motivations of their founders. These organizations are constituted within a nexus of market, state, and informal sector forces which influence the organization's practices in indeterminate ways. In contrast, the formulation by Gidron et al. leaves little space for political and ideological considerations. While Kuhnle and Selle give more consideration to how physical and ideological proximity affect contact and communication between government, or parts of government, and voluntary organizations, they also stress a two actor system revealing their rootedness in a Scandinavian context. In contrast to Evers, neither Gidron et al. nor Kuhnle and Stelle pay much attention to the voluntary organization as a space of competing influences.

In all of these collections, mention is made of an influential discussion by Helmut Anheier (1991) proposing an understanding of the voluntary sector in a comparative fashion, depending upon a country's legal and constitutional structures. Hodgkinson and McCarthy's (1992) introductory chapter to this volume of international writings introduces his argument regarding certain countries operating according to common law, where the nonprofit sector arises out of voluntarism and is fairly competitive. When social welfare entitlements are extended, the tendency in such countries is not to enlarge government but to utilize nonprofits. A second group of countries operating under common law are the social democratic Scandinavian countries, where government provision predominates, with a weaker nonprofit sector, and less well developed notions of volunteering (p. 4).

In countries operating under civil or Roman law and where the corporatist dynamics of the Catholic church predominate, the role of nonprofit organizations in delivering service have been state sanctioned. Anheier's two other categories include the developing countries and Islamic countries. In the former there has been increasing growth in the nonprofit sector as a better means of providing services for the poor. In Islamic countries, citizens are required by their religion to contribute to the poor and thus philanthropy for the most part remains at the individual level, although governments have variously favoured and disfavoured an organized nonprofit sector (p. 5).

In accounting for the rapid development of the nonprofit sector, Hodgkinson and McCarthy emphasize government initiatives, nongovernmental resources, religious and ethical values, and degree of heterogeneity within a given society as contributing to the sector's growth. According to these authors, two recurring themes are the need to strengthen the managerial capacities and political viability of nonprofit activities and the need to augment nonprofit research for the purpose of policy-making.

The five approaches elucidated above highlight the limits of attempts to make generalizations about the nature of government/voluntary sector relations. The particular social welfare histories of countries, the dynamics within particular fields of service and at the level of individual organizations are key variables that impact the degree of dependence and control exerted by government as the primary funder. Evident in these discussions is the significance of macro variables such as social welfare policies, mezzo level service delivery issues, as well as micro level variables operating within agencies (especially ideology). The articles examined illustrate Van Til's analysis of ways of thinking about voluntary action (cited in Scott, 1992). For Van Til action models of the voluntary sector see independent citizen action as good and may reside in any institutional context, not just the third sector. The analysis offered by Gidron et al. is an action model. It concentrates on financing and provision of service, concluding that the predominance of government finances means that government is providing services but not through public servants. Thus a certain neutrality towards both government and the voluntary sector is apparent arising from the perceived reciprocal nature of the relationship - funding in exchange for service provision. In contrast earlier economistic models reflected a view of the voluntary sector as derivative [from Van Til], a marginal economic or political construction playing no special role, resulting from government failure. Meanwhile according to Van Til sectoral models see a distinctive role for the voluntary sector in relation to other sectors - such as Evers' perception of NGOs as potentially democracy-enhancing.

The Canadian Welfare State

In light of the foregoing discussion emphasizing the importance of socio historical factors, an outline of the development of the Canadian welfare state is presented next, as a prior step to reviewing the state of the art of writings on the Canadian voluntary sector.

Underlying the modern liberal welfare state are three principles: that the state may intrude upon economic activity in order to maximize the collective good; that some of the basic needs of citizens will be met by society, including instances where private mechanisms fail; and that formal equality and impersonal procedures permeate the operations of public institutions (Young, 1990, p. 69). The redistributive aspects of the welfare state are seen by liberals to be an accomplishment of democratic objectives; by conservatives as a failure in achieving an end to poverty because of the suppression of individual effort and the consequent dependency of the poor upon the state; and by Left critics as an aid to the preservation of the capitalist system. The Left critique interprets the rise of the welfare state as due to: a) the struggle of workers for better benefits; b) the desire to aid capital accumulation by socializing the costs of production (education, training, transportation infrastructure, etc.); and c) the requirement to legitimate the capitalist system in the eyes of citizens through the distribution of benefits.

Lightman’s (1991) analysis, and those of others, suggest that in Canada the welfare state was conceived more as an adjunct to economic development than as redistribution (p. 156). In part an economic interventionist role is in the long tradition of the federal government's nation-building activities, as it has attempted to forge an east-west country in the face of overwhelming north-south geographical determinants (e.g., rivers and mountain ranges facilitate north south transportation and communication, coastal economies in Canada have more in common with their southern neighbours than with the rest of Canada, as have Prairie farmers with their American mid-Western counterparts).

In general the Canadian welfare state has been characterized as "liberal" (Esping-Andersen, 1990) or residual in nature, providing modestly for those with low incomes, employing strict criteria such as means testing to determine entitlement, and stigmatizing recipients. To briefly summarize the history of social service delivery systems, the tradition in Ontario has been one in which statutory social programs (i.e., mandated by government) were delivered by the public sector and nonstatutory social programs by the nonprofit voluntary sector, with the exception of child protection services which have been delivered by Children's Aid Societies since 1893. At the beginning of this century, most social service delivery was initiated by voluntary religious or secular organizations bolstered in part by public funding. Government provision of welfare services expanded considerably as a result of the Great Depression and continued into the 1960s (Mishra, 1988). The growth of the welfare state during the 1960s and early 1970s followed a trajectory of government funding through program or project grants to foster community based social services and volunteer mobilization (Ismael, 1988). Spurred by government funding, community centres launched crisis intervention, advocacy, self-help, public education, and information and referral activities.

The retrenchment and decline of the Canadian welfare state began in the mid-1970s under the influence of monetarism, and has accelerated in recent years under sway of arguments about the fiscal capacity of the state and the reduction of structural deficits (i.e., the increasing costs of social programs) in the federal budget (Lightman, 1991). (For a more complete political economy analysis of the growth of state welfare in Canada, see Moscovitch & Albert, 1987.) Concurrent with neoliberalism has been the call for social policy reform in terms of remedying individual skills deficits (e.g., literacy) and/or individual dependency or pathology (e.g., substance addiction). Issues requiring government expenditure or intervention are out of fashion (Brodie, 1995). In Ontario, according to Mwarigha (1997), with the election of a conservative government, privatization strategies have included both the commercialization of service provision, and marketization, that is, competitive market type relationships in the nonprofit sector, such as narrowly defined purchase of service agreements, time limited contracts, and reliance on commercial activities such as fee-for-services and product sales.

Theory of Canadian Voluntary Welfare Organizations

Both of the authors below subscribe to frameworks derived from American literature. In his overview of writings on voluntary welfare organizations, Campbell (1993) characterizes the Canadian literature as consisting mainly of surveys, "how to [form a nonprofit board]" literature and limited statistical material. Campbell’s discussion focuses upon Canadian definitions of charity, levels of charitable donations and volunteer labour. He identifies issues for the future including questions about: the efficiency of the nonprofit sector in meeting needs; the determinants of nonprofit dominance in certain sectors and its absence in others; the nonprofit sector as an instigator of social innovation; alternative funding for different services, that is, donations of funds and effort versus tax collection; the extent to which certain nonprofits may be self-justifying; the issue of unfair competition; and the third sector as a means of income redistribution.

According to Campbell, the demand for services has received considerable attention with little attention paid to questions of why charitable organizations are formed by people who are not beneficiaries, and what determines the scale of voluntary activities. There are also questions about the assumption of reducing government expenditures through the use of nonprofits since demands for funding are always increasing and never decreasing.

He found merit in the argument that in democratic societies, the overarching principle of equality before the law, and access to public goods and services may require the provision

of additional services. Such services may be inappropriate to the general population, and may be experimental. In these circumstances non-profit provision plays an important role.

Written from a public administration perspective, Campbell obviously shares the concerns (e.g., efficiency, competition, financial incentives) of the earlier mentioned economistic theories. Viewing nonprofit organizations as largely altruistic, philanthropic providers of service, he does not consider them as arenas for citizen participation, as advocates, and as proponents for social change.

In contrast, Phillips (1995) considers the distinct roles of the sector to be representation, citizen engagement, and service delivery with individual organizations engaging in each of these role to different degrees. As representatives of their constituencies, Phillips distinguishes between two kinds of knowledge provided by voluntary organizations - technical expertise about their constituency/services, and popular knowledge about the issues facing their constituency. She argues that citizen participation benefits individuals’ sense of personal efficacy, and at a broader level buttresses social capital through enhanced mechanisms for civic cooperation and trust. As service deliverers, voluntary sector organizations utilize modes of service delivery different from those in use by government. An important consequence, she contends, is that an equitable distribution of standardized services and avoidance of duplication cannot be expected from the voluntary sector which serves particular populations and hence may be highly concentrated geographically. She argues that the current period of devolution of services in response to economic constraints and demands for more responsive and decentralized government, must be accomplished in tandem with redefining relationships between the two sectors and should not be viewed simply as the opportunity to offload costs.

The origins of the welfare state are seen to lie in: i) levels of economic development that allow for surplus resources to be allocated to social consumption (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Kuhnle & Selle, 1992); or ii) a functional response to problems in modern societies, including Marxist and non-Marxist variants of this argument (Esping-Andersen, 1990; Kuhnle & Selle, 1992); or iii) the failure of a social service delivery system based on standardization and uniformity to respond to the multifarious needs of a plural and diverse society characterized by marked socio-economic and cultural changes (Evers, 1993; Hodgkinson & McCarthy, 1992). Further, legal and constitutional structures, reflecting degrees of absolutism and corporatism, influence both levels of service provision and the distribution of governmental and voluntary sector roles.

A major preoccupation in the literature has been that of the relationship between voluntary organizations and the welfare state. In this respect, several authors (Kuhnle & Selle, 1992; Gidron et al., 1992) challenge the view of a conflictual relationship between government and voluntary agencies. This may or may not be the case depending upon which parts of government and which of the fields of service is being discussed. Nonetheless the interactions between the welfare sector and its primary funder, government, are expressed in two primary variables - fiscal dependence and control, and communication and contact (e.g., ideological affinity, physical proximity).

In addition to their service delivery function, welfare organizations have other dimensions which reflect the values and convictions of their founders, for example, religious, or social reform values (Evers, 1993). Along with welfare organizations as constitutive of the interests of their founders, these organizations may be caught in a mesh of influences emanating from the state, the market and the informal sector of the family and community, affecting their tasks, roles and rationales (Evers, 1993).

A sketchy overview of the macro socio-historical factors leading to development of the Canadian welfare state and the general role of voluntary organizations in Canadian social welfare provision has been provided here. As a number of authors caution, however, the dynamics operating within particular service areas and particular organizations may not characterize the voluntary sector as a whole. What factors prevail in the field of immigrant services? Recalling Jenkins’ (1981) assertion that a society's view of multicultural minorities is reflected in its services to them, the next section reviews writings that have attempted to specify the nature of state/immigrant relations in Canada..

An Overview of State/Immigrant Minority Relations

Assessments of the relationship between the Canadian state and minority immigrant communities are to be found in three major areas of social science literature: the sociology of ethnic and group relations; immigration and refugee policy; and multiculturalism policy. The first part of this section provides a broad overview highlighting dominant themes in this vast literature.

It is necessary to briefly clarify the usage of the terms "race," "ethnicity," and "culture". Critical writings have shown the category of race to be an erroneous social construct (since intragroup variations are as great as intergroup variations), that classifies people on the basis of ancestry and certain perceived physical characteristics (Fleras & Elliot, 1992:318). However:

The illusory nature of race as a basis for identifying genetic difference does not deny its importance as a marker - although not a genetic one...The reality is that race is important as a sociological concept because of racism and that the use of skin colour as a marker for racial stratification is a (sociological) fact - although based on a biological myth. (Sumen, 1991, p. 18).

That is, we must recognize, "the social efffects of ‘race’ despite its lack of a scientific basis" (Dei, 1996b, p. 255).

According to Kallen (1995), "The concept of ethnicity refers to any arbitrary classification of human populations based on the biological criterion of common ancestry in conjunction with cultural criteria such as language or religion" (Kallen, 1995, p. 20). Further, expressions of ethnicity occur in a specific historical context and their assertion is determined to a large degree in response to the activities of the dominant groups. Ethnic communities are at times the basis for collective action -- advancing claims to entitlement, and resisting intrusion into autonomous realms (Adam, 1989) -- while also playing a role in fashioning social identities and in binding individuals together (Stasiulis, 1990). Symbolic ethnicity or voluntary self identification with the cultural heritage of one's ethnic group is based on the social psychological view that ethnic identification meets fundamental human need for communal roots and belongingness. However,

In this endeavour ethnicity can be manipulated. Ethnic symbols are used or created by elites to further their goals; situations are defined by the intellectual leaders of a group, and these portrayals and explanations then become a living reality for followers who, in turn perceive and interpret their individual life experiences in terms of the dominant values of their reference group. (Adam, 1989, p. 19).

An important aspect to contemporary understandings of ethnicity and race is the recognition that racial and ethnic formation are social processes that apply to both minority and majority groupings.

Culture, like ethnicity, refers to something "out there," that is, social; as well as something, "in here," that is, psychological. According to Sumen,

Culture may be described in terms of accumulation of knowledge among people constituting a social group, of 'conceptual' structures that determine the total reality of life within which people live and die, or of social institutions such as the family, the village and so on. In a broad sense, the term culture is applied to all features of an individual's environment, but generally refers to its non-material aspects that the person holds in common with other individuals forming a social group. (Sumen, 1991, p. 3).

From the point of view of the social critic, what connects the race, ethnicity and culture are:

constructs of collectivity and belongingness...postulated through notions of common origin or destiny...These involve mechanisms of inclusion and exclusion of individuals on the basis of categorizations of human subjects into those that belong and those that cannot. (Anthias & Yuval-Davis, 1992, p. 2).

For critical theorists the preoccupation with culture and ethnicity are suspect in that:

...the new racism is expounded in theories of ethnic absolutism based on 'human nature.' This approach posits the existence of 'natural boundaries' between human populations (nations) rooted in immutable cultural [emphasis in original] differences.

...The language of this theory is race-free, but its covert agenda links together race/ethnicity/culture and nation, based on 'legitimate', 'natural' human instincts. ... The language of innocence in which the new racism is couched [is] free of any imputation of racial superiority/inferiority... (Kallen, 1995, p. 30).

What Kallen refers to as the new racism has also been referred to as racialism (Appiah, 1990, p. 4), or racialization. According to Hatcher and Troyna (1993), racialization, in Miles' words (1988, p. 246), refers to "any process or situation wherein the idea of ‘race’ is introduced to define and give meaning to some particular population, its characteristics and actions". In this case "race" refers not only to physiological differences, but includes as well geographical notions of ancestry along with cultural criteria such as nationality, language and religion. Processes in which immigrants are racialized are not uniform within or across nations but are instead conditioned by traditions of nationhood, the specific historical context in which immigration has taken place, the existing immigration regimes (policies and policymakers) and immigrant groups themselves (Joppke, 1996).

At a minimum, antiracism maintains that, "discrimination against visible minorities is embedded in institutions and systems, and their practices and cultures. It also emphasizes that discrimination and racism could be unintentional, that is, have no singular agent" (Harney, 1996, p. 42). In addition to a dismantling of barriers, antiracism advocates the opening up of institutions that exclude racial minority people from positions of power and decision-making.

In Canada, Dei (1996b) explores the meaning of critical antiracism in Euro-Canadian/American contexts. Understanding social interpretation as inescapably linked to the position of the investigator, he asserts that antiracism has an academic and a political agenda and cannot be separated from praxis. Critical antiracism utilizes broader definitions of race than those dependent on skin colour as the only signifier of difference. Moving beyond a depoliticized celebration of diversity to fundamental power-sharing in communities, antiracism deals with questions of equity or justice, and representation, that is, a multiplicity of voices and perspectives as part of the mainstream. It also examines institutional practices in terms of their response to diversity and difference. The intersections of race, class, gender, sexuality, and other forms of social difference are recognized within a race-centred (emphasis in original) analysis.

In a recent Canadian college text on racism in the human services, James (1996) elaborates these premises of antiracism: society is stratified by the unequal distribution of power and resources; although recognized as a social construct, race is central to any analysis; racism is an ideology rooted in colonialism and oppression and permeates society; culture is dynamic and related to the distribution of power based on race, class, ethnicity, gender and so forth; ideologies that sustain racism are the problem, not cultural difference; the experiences of oppressed groups are central to any analysis; the actions of dominant groups towards minority groups shape daily life; society’s institutions must reflect the needs and aspirations of diverse groups; institutions and individuals operate according to a set of norms and are, therefore, not neutral; individual empowerment through social action is the key to change.

Given the differences within groupings and among groupings, James fails to acknowledge the lack of consensus on defining needs, and the consequent difficulty in designing programs and policies to meet highly diverse needs and aspirations. In underscoring the ideological component of racism, the social problems which exacerbate exclusionary beliefs and practices (e.g., unemployment, poverty, etc.) are ignored. Further, in the assertion that power is unequally distributed by "race, ethnicity, class, gender, sexual orientation, abilities, and so on " [emphasis added] (James, 1996, p. 6), evident is the tendency to gloss over the importance of religion which, for Muslims for example, is a major feature of both their identity and exclusion (Modood, 1997). Additionally, this phrasing does not capture how these social differences interlock in specific and different ways. Lastly, there is an overwhelming emphasis on the oppression of minority groups and a lack of recognition of the strength and vibrancy of immigrant groups and forms of life attested to by cultural hybridity so evident in large cities. In short, the text is stronger on advocacy than on analysis.

In the American academic context the term multiculturalism has been adopted for what in Canada is known as antiracism. Distinctions have been made between conservative, liberal, left liberal and critical understandings of multiculturalism (McLaren, 1994). Left liberal versions of multiculturalism are said to emphasize cultural pluralism, or difference, in that racism is seen to be caused by a lack of cultural awareness on the part of the host community. Therefore racism is eradicated by policies and practices which encourage the acceptance of a multicultural society. According to McLaren, cultural pluralist analyses are deficient in their idealist (focus on static characteristics/conceptions of the traits and behaviours of particular groupings) and ahistorical analyses (inattention to the variations in form and content of racism through time). Intersections with class and gender are overlooked. This critique of essentialism seems ill-placed since there are few proponents of cultural pluralism who hold this position. Instead their stress is on the unities and continuities in cultural practices over time (Modood, 1997). It would perhaps be more accurate to say that cultural pluralism displays a certain colour-blindness which results in leaving intact oppressive systems and institutions.

According to McLaren, a critical multiculturalism understands representations of race, class, and gender to be the results of larger social struggles over signs and meanings in particular historical contexts. A central task is the transformation of the social, cultural, and institutional relations in which meanings are generated.

In North America, in addition to antidiscrimination legislation, the two trends are obvious in efforts to combat the effects of racism. Since the 1960s, the major thrust has been to work within the system by monitoring inequality and promoting affirmative action measures. More recently, however, the promotion of separate development is apparent in arguments for same race adoptions, Black schools, etc.

As traditionally understood structural or institutional pluralism refers to an institutional infrastructure for the maintenance of ethnoracial distinctiveness - based on the social scientific notion that an enduring ethnic community infrastructure is required in order to ensure the viability of the ethnic group as an integrated entity (Magnet, 1989, in Kallen, 1995). However, within an antiracist interpretation, structural pluralism is equivalent to power sharing and questions of equity (G. Dei, personal communication, October 17, 1996) and the critique that separate institutions increase fragmentation rests upon the false assumption of a seamless and homogenous society, undivided by power and privilege.

Structural pluralism presents the same dilemma as does essentialism, that is, the assumption of a shared experience among members of a group. Further, empirical evidence raises concerns about accountability. A late 1970s (Breton, 1991) study suggests that there exists a distance between the leaders and the rank and file within ethnic communities. A more recent study of organizations serving immigrants (George & Michalski, n.d.) reports that consumers of services are underrepresented on boards of directors. An across the board implementation of separate institutions also raises the spectre of an unworkable institutional proliferation. Some theorists (e.g., Young, 1990; Williams, 1997) have articulated the elements that would enable us to make the case for separate institutions for different groups. On the question of structural pluralism then, rather than asserting a priori support for the principle, a contextual approach which favours empirical evidence for separate institutions for particular groups is preferable. The issue of choice is of particular importance in the area of immigrant services where oftentimes is heard the story of immigrants who wish to avoid their own community organizations fearing a loss of privacy.

Sociological literature has examined social stratification (especially access to economic and political resources) and ethnicity, beginning with John Porter's (1965) seminal work, The vertical mosaic, and continuing to contemporary studies such as those by Breton, Isajiw, Kalbach, & Reitz (1990) and Li (1988). Subfields examine how ethnic and racial communities and agencies organize and reproduce themselves in reaction to dominant groups, or are organized as a result of the policies and practices of government and dominant social groups (see for example, Stasiulis, 1981, and Ng, 1988).

Anderson (1993) reviewing the "state of the art’ in Canadian ethnic studies, examined the contributions of disciplines such as sociology and anthropology, demography, social psychology, linguistics, geography, political studies and economics, education, and the humanities. Anderson, who writes from a neo-Marxist perspective, finds the dominant sociological and anthropological approaches to have focused upon the survival of various minority ethnic groups in terms of endogenous features such as Breton's (1964) notion of "institutional completeness." He argues that many scholars appear to have missed the point that groups evolve as they do in response to dominant social control mechanisms (p. 18).

Similarly, analyses of assimilation or acculturation imply unidirectional or voluntaristic change as opposed to a conflict model emphasizing forced change and differential minority responses. With regard to ethnic stratification, with a few exceptions, he claims that research has been largely descriptive, in comparison to more sophisticated American analyses of a split labour market, or British studies of internal colonialism.

While Anderson may be correct about the relative underdevelopment of theory in relation to the Canadian context, the specific examples he cites may be poor illustrations. For example, Adam (1989) specifically refutes the applicability of the split labour market analysis to Canada. Similarly, unlike Britain and other European countries, entitlement to citizenship is not highly regulated.

In political studies and economics, the issue of Quebec, immigration, and multiculturalism policy have received most attention. Frideres (1997) has characterised the evolution of Canada’s federal multicultural policy as having had three, or perhaps four phases. The first, "compensatory" phase addressed the cultural and linguistic needs of immigrant which were seen to have hindered their integration into Canadian society. The second enrichment phase endeavoured to educate mainstream Canadians and immigrants about the contributions of diverse groups and to encourage an appreciation for cultural diversity. The third and current phase is aimed at the integration of immigrants into the institutional spheres of mainstream society. Program priorities are to: eliminate racial discrimination; enhance economic opportunity through recognition for education and work experience; implement antiracist educational practices which eliminate stereotyping and promote positive images of all groups; encourage the participation of women in leadership positions; and work with the media to promote a national identity. According to Frideres a fourth stage is being discussed, which involves developing strong ethnic communities to provide positive self esteem as well as fitting into Canadian institutional structures. Anderson cites a comment by the noted scholar, Jean Burnet, that critiques of multiculturalism have not included proposals for operationalizing crucial insights. However, as Frances Henry (Henry, 1995) has remarked, the confusions and connections between race, culture and ethnicity do not lead easily to policy implications.

In general, Anderson finds a dearth of critical political economy analyses examining ethnic stratification, labour market needs, exploitation of immigrants, dominant social control mechanisms and minority responses, and racist and discriminatory attitudes that may affect employment and social mobility (p. 19). In contrast to Anderson's depiction, others have found the literature on the Canadian state and multicultural communities to have followed a variety of trajectories. Pal (1993) has identified three. First, there is the perspective of which Anderson and Frideres (1981) are an example, arguing that the state, through the multiculturalism policy organizes and mobilizes along ethnic instead of class lines, thus serving the interests of the dominant classes. Second, there is the perspective exemplified by Stasiulis (1982) and Ng (1988) that the state performs a social control function by restricting and structuring the alternatives of ethnic communities through: non-recurring project grants rather than core funding; depoliticization and constraining the activities of funded organizations; and bolstering factions of the community who have little popular support.

That influence is not total, however.

While powerful state institutions can enhance or inhibit the political goals of ethnic groups, the political organizing capacities of these groups largely determine their ability to attain influence in public affairs. (Stasiulis, 1982, p. v.).

A third view, articulated by Breton (1986), is more moderate, asserting that policies such as bilingualism and multiculturalism reflect deep forces within society, even while the policy instruments that the government designs may depoliticize and constrain the activities of funded groups and organizations.

For Helly (1993), state promotion of cultural pluralism has as its intended effect compensation for those who experience unequal access to the goods and rewards of mainstream society. But no matter what the assessment of multiculturalism policies, the outcome is to politicize ethnicity by emphasizing:

[the] structuring role that cultural difference plays in the field of social and political relations, and gives to this difference the status of a sociological process. It officially recognizes the process of communalization and the ethnic institutions, and legitimizes and propagates the practices of the ethnic communities. As a result of State intervention, this policy also transforms existing societal relations by creating new ethnic political elites and legitimate lobby groups. (Helly, 1993, p.23).

As will become evident in the next chapter, until the early 1970s, Canada's immigration policy contained provisions designed to restrict the entry of many racial groups. Explicitly racist criteria have been removed, however, immigration policy is still not seen to be neutral in its effects. Stasiulis, in a discussion which draws upon Australian, British and Canadian writing, summarizes present day critiques, especially with regard to women:

Immigration policy establishes the parameters for the ‘legitimate’ entry, settlement, and access to social services and paid work of immigrant women. Citizenship policies (in combination with social welfare policies) severely limit their access and entitlement to the fruits of liberal democratic, feminist and class struggles. (Stasiulis, 1990, p. 286).

In the case of Canada and social welfare entitlements Stasiulis is referring to Boyd's (1989) contention that some elderly immigrants may not receive Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefits or Old Age Supplements (OAS) depending on country of origin. CPP benefits are based upon years in the paid work force. There is a 10 year residency requirement for OAS benefits. However, an accord signed with European countries allows for those immigrants who were entitled to old age benefits in their home country to receive OAS after a one year residency period. Starting in 2001, all sponsored immigrants, European or not, will be subject to the 10 year residency requirement.

In Canada the only legal entitlements that distinguish citizens from noncitizens are the right to vote, official language rights, mobility rights including the right to not be expelled from the country, and the right to not be conscripted (Carens, 1994; Kymlicka, 1992). In recent times the Canadian government has held the position that immigration to Canada is a privilege not a right and that immigrants/noncitizens were not entitled to the same legal protection as Canadian citizens. However, in the case of Singh vs the Minister of Employment and Immigration (1985), the Supreme Court ruled that protections offered through the Charter of Rights and Freedoms apply to both citizens and noncitizens (Whitaker, 1991).

Das Gupta’s (1994) work exemplifies writings on ethnic stratification that link immigration policies to the needs of capitalist development. In her words, Canada has been a resource rich and labour poor country leading to the importation of labour. However, despite labour shortages, prior to 1967 this need was fulfilled very selectively. In Das Gupta’s reading, the removal of racial criteria arose from the needs of the post 1960s capitalist economy. More mechanized labour processes required skilled managerial, technical and clerical workers. According to Das Gupta, workers from the "preferred countries" were less prone to immigration at this time, due to (unspecified) demographic changes. From the late 1970s to the present time, she sees Canada's economic decline as resulting in restrictions on immigration, except for those with "essential skills" designated by government, and those bringing in capital for investment. She notes that most immigrant women are unable to meet the criteria to be independent immigrants and must thus enter as sponsored immigrants.

In describing the immigration history of South Asians in Canada, she concludes:

...we see the state interfering in a very direct way with the capitalist production process. This was done by regulating the labour supply, specifically one which could be super-exploited and kept passive by the denial of political and legal rights [e.g., removal of the right to vote in 1907] rationalized by racist arguments. (Das Gupta, 1994, p. 62).

Contrary to Das Gupta's suggestion, the state did not always operate at the behest of the capitalist development process. Whitaker (1991) points out that during the building of the Canadian National Railway, business interests unsuccessfully pressed the Canadian government for less restrictive entry requirements for Chinese workers. Similarly Calliste (1993) in describing Black immigration from the Caribbean, emphasizes that, despite employer needs for manual and domestic workers, immigration officials were active in restricting the entry of Black immigrant labour. Hence there is evidence to suggest that racist dynamics rather than capitalist development may determine governmental action. Bovenkirk, Miles and Verbunt (1991) caution that historical specificity not be abandoned to universal notions regarding migration. Many migrations are rooted less in capital accumulation and more in the political process of nation-state formation and reproduction, although not to the exclusion of the demands of the accumulation process. (They cite the example of the expulsion of Ugandan Asians.) In the Canadian context, Asian refugees fleeing communist regimes were welcomed despite, for example, historical antagonisms against "Orientals."

Further, the current globalization of production calls upon the underpaid labour supply within the countries of the so-called Third World, making largely redundant the need for a low-cost labour force in the Euro-American economies (Ursal, 1992). Exceptions to this general trend are the foreign domestic workers program and temporary migrant farmworkers program. Target immigration levels for 1997 identify as desirable investor class and skilled workers with skill sets that meet the perceived labour needs of the economic restructuring currently underway. In these selection criteria, a class rather than race bias is evident. The percentage of economic (independent) immigrants admitted has been increasing relative to family class (sponsored) immigrants and, in the independent class, highly skilled, educated immigrants will be favoured (Peirol, 1996: A1). Family class immigrants are predominantly racial minorities because they are sponsored by their families, themselves racial minorities in Canada. Highly literate, educated professionals are welcome, no matter what their country of origin. Of course, in their employment in Canada, many may encounter the so-called glass ceiling in organizations - a limit to mobility beyond certain levels within organizations and wage levels unequal to that of white counterparts (Li, 1988).

Race and the Welfare State

The study of race and racism(s) is a burgeoning field. A significant body of literature has focused upon the conceptual relationships between race, class, ethnicity, and gender (for a review of these discussions see: Anthias and Yuval-Davis, 1992; Stasiulis, 1990; and Williams, 1989), as well as the material manifestation of racial stratification (for example, Li, 1988). In addition, scholars have examined the presence of a White supremacist discourse in the Western world since at least medieval times (see for example: Goldberg, 1993; Said, 1979).

The neglect of race in discussions of social welfare policy has been notable. (Within the Marxist tradition, immigrants, race and the capitalist welfare state have been discussed in terms of a reserve army of labour that is called upon to supply cheap labour as required to enhance capital accumulation.) Williams (1989), writing of Britain, examined how race, class and gender issues are (un)accounted for in the major frameworks analyzing the welfare state. Theoretical perspectives make little reference to race, and policy critiques fail to take into account the differential impact of policies and programs. According to Williams, racism against Blacks in

the British welfare state has manifested itself in ideas of Black family pathology, in the exploitation of Black women as cheap labour in hospitals and home care, and in the linking of immigration controls to social costs of welfare.

There are attempts to remedy this lacuna. As defined by Williams, antiracist critiques view state policy as reflecting shifting relations between imperialism, capitalism, and patriarchy with the welfare state embodying societal racism. Manifestations of racism include the denial of access, second-class provisions, reproduction of racial divisions and maintenance of immigration controls. Williams acknowledges that "anti-racist" may be a misnomer for such an internationalist stance which includes an understanding of imperialism and the international division of labour. Nonetheless she asserts that such a perspective has links for welfare strategy in that eligibility for welfare provision is linked to nationality or length of residence (Williams, 1989, p. xvi) . This definition of antiracism goes beyond the typical antiracist analyses that have as their starting point racism(s) and the interconnected levels--the interpersonal, the organizational/institutional and structural/societal--at which it operates. Williams' emphasis on the expression of racism in relation to the economic processes of contemporary capitalism retains the advantage of linking multiple categories and conditions. However, it is rooted in Britain's colonial history and manifestations of neocolonialism, and bears similarities to functionalist arguments which see sexism and racism as inherent in and necessary to the perpetuation of these systems. What then follows from this universalistic analysis is the necessity to mobilize against these "isms," thus superseding local struggles. All states do not possess the same history and maybe guided by imperatives such as nation-building which in the Canadian context has resulted in relatively high immigration levels as well as national policies which, even if only in symbolic terms, subscribe to a vision of a multicultural society.

In a recent comparison of Germany and the United States, Faist (1995) connects both welfare and immigration policy regimes. He argues that ‘large’ (i.e., characterized by high levels of redistribution and labour market regulation) and ethnically homogeneous welfare states have tended towards fluctuating immigration policies and ‘indirect’ immigrant policies (i.e., no particular provisions for immigrants). Conversely, smaller and ethnically heterogeneous welfare states have been characterized by liberal immigration and direct immigrant policies. The prior argument is that large welfare states resulted from strong ethnically homogeneous labour movements and executive politics from above in fairly ethnically homogeneous societies. In the 1980s and 1990s welfare states with class as the dominant cleavage (e.g., Germany) are experiencing a transition to class-race cleavages and those states characterized by race-class cleavages (e.g., the United States) are witnessing a reinforcement of those cleavages. The retrenchment of the welfare state has thus reopened debates about the effects of immigration figuring a cosmopolitan liberal pro-immigration stance and an opposing national populist perspective. Interestingly, speaking of Europe, he contends that ethnic heterogeneity will be accompanied by a further diminution of the distributive and regulatory activities (in terms of the labour market) of welfare states. In Canada, a ‘small’ welfare state, direct immigrant policies, as they are termed by Faist, have fared comparatively well in the sense that immigration levels are still relatively high and federal expenditures for settlement services have been maintained.

Race and the Canadian welfare state

As previously stated, during the early to middle part of this century, Canada's immigration policies were explicitly exclusionary. At the same time, however, according to Daenzer (1991), a study of Canadian welfare principles demonstrates that immigration status has not figured significantly in the entitlement to rights, protection and resources. Yet in the subsequent period of liberalized policies, Daenzer (1991), studying immigrant domestic workers in Canada, finds domestic workers policy in this period to be anomalous in that it developed in a pattern not consistent with other Canadian labour market and welfare policies. Daenzer's analysis meshes welfare values, the ideology of work (specifically domestic work), and race and gender relations. She suggests that a policy regression occurred from an earlier period to a later period, such that landed immigrant status for domestic workers came to be withheld as there was a corresponding change in the nationality of domestic workers.

In an earlier work Daenzer wrote:

The assumption that Canada offers mobility opportunities is not unfounded. Canada is morally committed to the idea of equality of opportunity, thought to be attainable through the structure of the welfare state. The settlement and adaptation of immigrants is a Canadian policy concern; federally funded services are provided to assist in the settlement and integration of some immigrants. But this commitment to the idea of equality exists in tension with the national economic organization which occurs with a capitalist framework [that rests upon a racially stratified labour force]. This results in the ideological belief in equality being tempered into a more modest promise of "less unequal." The existence of racial minority immigrants in Canada, then, can at best be less unequal than it would have been under a system not modified by the welfare state. Inequality, however, is still the dominant social context. (Daenzer, 1989: p. 56).

In the view of Henry and Tator (1994), the persistence of racial inequality despite notable efforts to address these inequities is attributable to an ideology of "democratic racism" which permits the coexistence of two conflicting sets of ideas, attitudes, and behaviours. One set values a democratic society and egalitarian notions of fairness, justice and equality. A second set contains negative feelings, thoughts or actions towards minority racial groups. Thus lack of support for policies such as affirmative action and other attempts to challenge racism by changing the prevailing social, economic and political order are conceived as threats to liberal notions of democracy and fair play. In effect the ideology of democratic racism reduces the dissonance between egalitarian and nonegalitarian ideals.

Henry, Tator, Mathis, and Rees (1995), reviewing the small body of Canadian empirical research, find the following manifestations of racism in the human services: lack of access to appropriate programs and services, ethnocentric values and counselling practices, devaluing of skills and credentials of minority practitioners, inadequate funding for ethnoracial community-based agencies, lack of minority representation in social agencies, and monocultural or ad hoc multicultural models of service delivery. As will be seen in the next chapter, one might go further than Henry, Tator, Mathis, and Rees to point out that the bifurcated service delivery structure, in which orientation, language and skills training are provided by ISOs during the initial period of resettlement, reifies the conception of immigrants as a labour market commodity.

In examining the organizational response to service delivery in an ethnoracially diverse society Tator (1996) advocates the "ethno-cultural community-based model," as a short term solution. She describes a longer term approach put forward by Agard in which mainstream organizations purchase services from ethnocultural community based organizations. Earlier modes of service delivery are characterised as monocultural assimilationist in their approach to minority clients. Subsequently, in the add-on multicultural phase, front line workers from minority communities were hired. Inherent in this approach was the understanding that racism manifested itself only relationships between workers and minority clients. More recently within the multicultural antiracist approach, mainstream organizations are being pushed to acknowledge racism as a public phenomenon which requires systemic change in all areas of organizational life. Mainstream organizations working collaboratively with ethnospecific agencies results in a more integrated service delivery system ensuring needs are met, buttressing traditions of mutual help and voluntarism, and supporting the self-determination of communities.

The argument for separate ethnoracial institutions is premised on the necessity of community-based culturally appropriate practice. Whatever the content of indigenous practices, these have not been systematized into an accessible body of knowledge. Inquiring into the content of culturally sensitive practice, Agnew (1996) reports only that community based counsellors phrase interventions in the clients’ language, idioms and metaphors, and counsellors understand the clients’ cultural forms which, for example, may put the welfare of the family before the well-being of the individual. Agnew also notes that for some groups the use of appointments over a drop-in system is a formality which deters clients.

Since the early 1980s theorists have argued that the major challenge facing anti-racist work is the culturalization of race which has replaced earlier conceptions of biological racism. In the realm of service delivery, Razack (1994) argues that the premise of cultural differences is used to account for oppression, resulting in the antidote of "cultural sensitivity." From the perspective of cultural differences, service deliverers receive training not about racism, but about the customs of clients. In this way covert racism is denied, and disguised by a progressive language of cultural pluralism, tolerance, and understanding. However, this view conceals a hidden norm; there are no workshops on WASP (white Anglo Saxon Protestant) culture; and it is the dominant groups who do the tolerating of minority cultures.

While Razack's caution is well taken, immigrants' ethnicity may explain their relationship to the welfare state in that the social welfare strategies (i.e., the ways in which people use forms of assistance to meet their needs) may vary among different groupings. Specifically, problem identification, problem labelling, helping strategies for problem resolution and standards for knowing when a problem has been successfully resolved may be group specific (Green, 1982). In the context of the United States, Longres (1991) observes that the cultural model is most appropriate when working with recent refugees and immigrants but is less helpful when working with families and groups who have been residents for many generations and continue to experience minority status.

Mayadas and Elliott (1992) also distinguish between newcomer and indigenous minority groups. Indigenous minority groups suffer the effects of institutionalized discrimination, lack of accommodation and interpersonal prejudice while immigrants and refugees are adversely affected by all of these; in addition to the threat of discrimination, a country's nationalism and national policies may stigmatize and scapegoat the outsider, especially in times of economic recession. Newcomers are also seen as effecting a strain on cultural homogeneity and threatening societal norms. This fear and contempt for foreigners is termed xenophobia, "the self-centred egocentricity of human kind against people who are different" (Mayadas & Elliott, 1992, p. 48).

Scapegoating of newcomers is a recognizable phenomenon which bears highlighting; nonetheless, as Sivanandan writes, "racism ...cannot tell one black from another, a citizen from an immigrant, an immigrant from a refugee - and classes all Third World peoples as immigrants and refugees..." (Sivanandan, 1990, p. 160).

Summary

Most authors acknowledge Canada's attempt to build a multicultural society from a nation state that has deep currents of racism against many ethnoracial communities (e.g., aboriginal peoples, Chinese, Blacks, and Jews). Since the 1970s the Canadian state has developed bodies, special advisors, and programs to represent minority interests in response to community prodding. However these developments have occurred within limits imposed by ideology and the priorities of government actors. Thus, for some there is a certain ambivalence to an interventionist welfare state which has been active in achieving/providing benefits for disenfranchised groups, and at the same time defines and limits the issues. The political tightrope is: whether assertions of ethnic identity result in progressive affirmations of diversity or whether they provide the grounds for discrimination and oppressive state policies; whether assertions of cultural uniqueness prevent minority groups from recognizing their similarities and cooperating to overcome them. The next part of this Chapter will consider entitlement to rights and benefits from the perspective of social and political philosophy.

Social Theory and Minority Rights

Questions of entry, settlement, and entitlements to rights have also been addressed in social and poltical theory. Whereas social science writings have documented the effects of discriminatory practices and raised political questions, social theory has concerned itself with ethically valid grounds for making judgements regarding entry, settlement and allocations to rights and benefits (see, for example, Waltzer, 1983). Foundational or first principles approaches (such as Rawls' seminal 1973 Theory of Justice) seek to establish the moral and theoretical justification of those rules. Others clarify principles of legitimacy that should govern a democratic state's provision of access to membership, but do not seek to establish the moral or theoretical justification for these principles. They locate their examination of these principles within generally accepted norms. The first approach has also been termed as "idealistic" (Carens, 1985) or "justification" (Baubock, 1995) theories, and the second, "realistic" (Carens, 1985), "contextual" (Carens, 1988), or "legitimation" (Baubock, 1995) theories. The review of Carens' work below provides a glimpse of writings such as these.

Carens (1985) posits three major levels at which the moral analysis of social institutions and policies may take place. The first is the domain of universalistic moral theory which sets minimum standards for all social institutions, and applies to arguments about human rights and duties, including questions about international distributive justice. The second level pertains to minimum standards of treatment of members within a particular community however defined. In contradistinction to the first level, these values arise out a particular history or culture and are limited in their application beyond the members of the community. The third level considers the appropriate course of action where reasonable people within a community may disagree.

The right to immigrate raises first level questions and is reconciled in the following fashion by idealistic moral theory ( Carens, 1994). Citizenship is usually assigned at birth, for the most part is not subject to change by individual will or effort, and has a major impact on one's life chances. Therefore limiting entry to a country results in the protection of a birth right privilege. In a just world, birth right privilege should not prevent the development of life chances. Further, freedom of movement within a state is permitted; why is that freedom not permissible across state borders?

The preceding section has illuminated issues in contemporary philosophy with regard to minority community rights. The ongoing dialogue between liberalism and its critics has focused on conceptual as well as institutional critiques. In general conceptual critiques scrutinize the assumptions inherent in foundational definitions such as justice, community, citizenship, etc., seeking to identify that which is excluded. (These ideas will not be taken up herein. They have been presented to indicate the parameters of current debates in this area.) Institutional critiques address the ‘how to’ or implementation issues. For our purposes, the relationship between social welfare entitlements and citizenship is especially relevant. Young and others advocate differential treatment for oppressed groups as a precondition for equality. Do immigrant services constitute differential treatment, and what does the nature of those services imply about how immigrants are viewed?

Conclusion

One of the purposes of this case study is to portray the mesh of influences within which ISOs operate. Three distinct bodies of literature have been surveyed in this chapter. The first, existence literature on the voluntary sector, identifies the reasons and conditions leading to the sector's existence and enumerates multiple determinants: at the macro level, a country's legal/constitutional structure and the evolution of its social welfare policies; at the mezzo level, the dynamics within a particular service sector (in this case immigration and settlement policy); and at the micro level, interactions between individual organizations and their constituencies, including the organization's founders, the community, clients and funders.

Much of this recent literature challenges the view of state funding as a form of social control and views the alleged loss of autonomy to be exaggerated. The relationship with government may in fact be one of mutual dependence; changes in agency structure are part of the natural growth of organizations, and part of the broader social trend towards public accountability in a period of fiscal restraint; and as suggested by Kramer's (1981) study of organizations serving the disabled, bureaucratic and professional agencies are leading initiators of new programs and active advocates.

The second body of literature--an overview of social science writings regarding the status of immigrants in Canadian society--reveals that, despite reforms to immigration policy and the enactment of a multicultural policy, some authors contend that barriers to social and economic advancement remain, amplified by racism and the inaction of the Canadian state. As will be seen in greater detail in the next chapter, some contend that government funding: depoliticizes issues by transforming political questions into social needs issues; distorts the mission of ISOs through government specifications on client eligibility and service approaches; transforms agency structures and staffing through accountability requirements; dilutes ISOs' advocacy efforts through extreme fiscal dependence on government funding; and gives precedence to accountability over accessibility, a primary feature of voluntary organizations. Generally, therefore, the relationship between government and ethnic communities is not one of partnership, given disparities in function, domain, interests and resources.

For other authors the otoh/botoh perspective acknowledges the state's emancipatory as well as regulatory potential. The state has not been monolithic in its intentions and activities. In the past, racism and the requirements of capitalist accumulation have been mediated by state actors in distinct ways at different periods in history. Today immigration policy is being crafted to balance the requirements of a declining birth rate, a "high tech" economy, and a commitment to family reunification. The latter commitment reflects both the strength of a pro-immigration lobby as well as a pragmatic recognition that immigrants who have family supports will require fewer settlement services (Whitaker, 1991). There appears to have been some recognition of the benefits of immigration, settlement services and ISOs: an expanded labour force cannot be maximised without expenditures on language training; immigrant serving organizations are a good return on the dollar (in their recruitment and use of volunteers and comparatively low wage levels), and the beneficial role they play in reducing the isolation of immigrants that may lead to social fragmentation. However arguments such as these emphasize the economic benefits of diversity and lead to weak reforms. Further, the emphasis on cultural politics, or difference between immigrant groups and the dominant cultures is seen by some as a flight from class analysis.

The third body of literature reviewed in this chapter is social theory. Racial and cultural pluralism has resulted in a questioning of the precepts of liberal societies in terms of the rights of those perceived as outsiders. In the Canadian context, the rights of immigrant minorities are weighed in the context of a society that is also grappling with the claims of national minorities. The preoccupation with citizenship based rights--what obligations are owed to each other in a polity--is the legacy of the ongoing French/English/First Nations question. Hence there is apprehension about whether the work of ISOs, in emphasizing the rights of immigrants, fosters fragmentation rather than notions of civic duty, Canadian identity, and integration.

ENDNOTES

Back to Top

Virtual Library		Updated February 09, 2004