Title: Inter-ethnic relationships and the role of public policy in the Czech cities
Author: Toshiba
Last saved by: Ján Andruch
Company: MU FA_Sociálních studií

Social Inclusion of Romanies: 
the Potential of Romani Population
- and Options for Public Policy (the Czech Case)^*

^* This article was financed by Research Engagement of the Ministry of Education of the Czech Republic ‘Ethnics, Minorities, and Marginalized Groups in the Czech Republic’ MSM 142300001.

Tomáš Sirovátka
Faculty of Social Studies
Masaryk University
Czech Republic

Phone + 42 05 41615206
Fax + 42 05 41615100
e-mail: sirovatk@fss.muni.cz

Paper for the 10^th NISPAcee Annual Conference: 
Delivering Public Services in CEE Countries: Trends and Developments
Krakow, Poland, April 25-27, 2002

Working Group on Democratic Governance of Multiethnic Communities

Abstract
The aim of the paper is to identify what potential – human, social, cultural, and political – there is for the integration on the part of Romani minority, what kind of consensus there is between the minority and majority as regards a preferred model of minority inclusion; and finally, what role is played (and can be played)by public policy in the integration of Romani minority.
The paper is based on survey of 1,000 representatives of Romani minority and 1,000 representatives of the majority in neighbourhood in ten Czech cities. Coming from empirical findings I argue that the position of Romanies in the majority society in the Czech Republic is, similarly as in other societies, a marginal one. Nevertheless, their socio-economic position is markedly differentiated: many of them posses sufficient integration potential but still, they also meet significant social barriers. Romanies are not really involved in the implementation of the interests of Romani community by political means, and their potential in this sphere is weak. The assimilation model of coexistence and Romanies´ integration predominate; they are enforced by unequivocal demands from the side of the majority, as well as by their acceptance by the majority of Romanies. Full recognition and acceptation of the principle of common responsibility for integration on the side of the majority is a main necessary condition for successful integration of the major part of Romani community.

Dimensions and models of social exclusion and social inclusion of ethnic minorities
There are several aspects of the concept of social exclusion and social inclusion. We find them in compliance with other authors (Room 1995, A. B. Atkinson 1998, R. Atkinson 2001) on social, economic, cultural, and political levels.
On the social level, there is a conflict between two developmental trends of the (post)modern society. On the one hand, we can point at the general problem of social integration identified by Durkheim, respectively at the weakening of social solidarity; on the other hand we can point at individualization and anomic trends of the modern society. In this respect, Bauman’s hypothesis (2000) on the crisis of identity of the (post)modern society and on the functional need of social exclusion of minorities for the sake of identity confirmation and solidarity within the majority society, is significant. Minorities therefore serve as an ‘external enemy’ so that the members of majority can identify themselves socially and can integrate. Then it is possible to estimate a fatal tendency of the majority society towards a social exclusion of minorities, which impacts interethnic relations in ethnically heterogeneous societies of today. 
Against this ‘pessimistic’ hypothesis there is an ‘optimistic’ one about the central role of citizenship in the (post)modern society. It is also based on Durkheim, who sees in the socially associative potential of citizenship a possibility of solidarity reconstruction and of the integration of modern society. This hypothesis is later developed (e.g. Flora, Heidenheimer 1981, Dahrendorf 1991). Civil rights, equal opportunities and equal life chances superpose barriers of cultural, property and other social inequalities.
On the economic level, the main axis of the integration of minorities is represented by access to markets (especially to labor market), and by the possibility to take part in equal (fair) market contest. However, for labor markets in the (post)modern society is typical dualism (Berger, Piore 1980), which originates as an answer of social groups to economic insecurities and risks of modern society. In an even bitter race for jobs in the (post)modern globalized economy, the qualities of human capital, as well as of social and cultural capital (or socially and culturally defined ports of entry) are crucial when penetrating the primary segments of labor market. In the (post)modern society, work force with low human, social and cultural capital is more and more marginalized for many reasons.

On the role of human, social, and culture capital, cf. especially Bourdieu (1986).

On the other hand, the process of globalization gradually changes the role as well as the character of the secondary segment of labor market. If insecure and low paid jobs in this market do not provide people with good prospects of a meaningful existence, but contrariwise, they demand and request further flexibilization and adaptation, then there is a better alternative for the marginalized work force – that is an escape into the informal gray economy, or the change of the secondary segment of labor market into a ‘gray zone’ of economy. Naturally this way, the position of being marginal is then fixed, more or less, permanently.

Beck (2000) speaks of ‘Brazilianization’.

On the cultural level, the integration of ethnic minority does not on principle require an entire uniformity and assimilation to the dominant culture. Yet the ‘structural integration’ of minorities conditions also a certain level of ‘cultural integration’, which relies on mutual acquaintance, as well as on respecting the culture of minority and majority. There are usually higher demands on the minority, and on their capability to ‘operate’ with the majority culture, which involves also command of language and respecting the basic social norms (for example work ethics). This ‘cultural capital’ also provides for better opportunities on the economic level and becomes part of human (intellectual) and social capital: a certain level of cultural integration is a prerequisite of structural integration (Szalo 2002).
On the political level, ethnic minorities are usually in the system of representation democracy in a disadvantageous position compared with the majority. Therefore it is significant to ask, to what extent there are possibilities of representing their interests, and to what extent minorities have possibilities to participate in the public policy making process on government level, whether central or local, and how these possibilities are used.

For example, the need to exceed the 5% minimum of votes for a political party to be represented in the Parliament, blocks on principal the possibility of Romani ethnic demands be enforced politically in the Czech Republic.

The inclusion or integration of ethnic minorities into majority society is in the scope of the concept of citizenship possible only by guaranteeing and realizing equal rights (civil, political, cultural, and social rights), as well as by assigning the same duties to all citizens, regardless of differences in ethnic or national origin.
The coexistence of minorities and the majority society can, as a result of a varied degree of participation and integration of minorities in the above-mentioned levels of social inclusion, acquire various forms – some authors speak about ‘models of integration’ (e.g. Castles 1993, Cross 2000). There can be than defined a model of ‘pluralism’ (as a policy of common citizenship that retains the cultural diversity of minorities), a model of ‘assimilation’ (a policy of adaptation of minorities to the values and models of behavior of the dominant majority culture), and finally ‘differential exclusion’ (as a policy of neglecting the rights and claims of minorities to common citizenship). By analogy, these models can be depicted as multiculturalism, assimilation, and segregation (apartheid). There is indeed one more solution, which rules out the coexistence of minorities and the majority – and it has been employed in history and is still employed towards minorities nowadays – that is the policy of rejection of coexistence, implemented by ‘expulsion’ or ‘liquidation’ of a minority by the majority society or by ‘escape’, ‘emigration’ of the minority.

Also Romani emigration from the Czech Republic and Slovakia, which is underway now at the turn of the century, can be understood to be such solution.

	If the minority is to be socially integrated, there must be met certain prerequisites on the side of the minority as well as on the side of the majority society. First of all, this concerns human, social, cultural and political potential of both of these parts of society, and their strategies employed when building mutual relations between the minority and the majority society. Generally we can talk about the ‘potential of integration’. Among other issues it is especially significant, to which model of integration this potential on the side of minority and majority gives prospects, and to what extent an agreement is possible between the minority and majority society on the enforcement of a certain model of coexistence. The Romani ethnic has always looked for their place in the majority society with difficulties, as there was lacking the necessary cultural, social, and political potential. Apart from this fact, the majority society has traditionally exerted the policy of exclusion or segregation that, particularly under the communist regime, turned into a policy of forced assimilation, which indeed impinged upon the shortfall of potential for such assimilation on the side of Romanies. It remains a question, to what extent and in what time horizon it will be possible to mobilize in the new democracies the necessary potential for the social inclusion of the Romani minority on the part of the minority and also on the part of the majority society.

Questions, hypothesis and data
In this article we deal with the question what potential – human, social, cultural, and political – is there for the integration on the part of Romani minority, and on the part of the majority society in the Czech Republic; what kind of consensus between the minority and majority as regards a preferred model of minority inclusion there is; and finally, what role is played by public policy (and can be played) in the integration of Romani minority.
We are convinced, and that is our central hypothesis, that when approaching the problematics of integration of Romani ethnic, we must conceive of them on all four levels of social exclusion/inclusion: on the social, economic, cultural, and political level. For example processes of social deprivation or economic marginalization of members of ethnic minority are nevertheless demonstrated also in resignation, decreased aspirations and in cultural patterns of fatalism and social dependency, or in devious patterns of behavior, which are understood and interpreted by the majority society as a cultural attribute of the Romani ethnic. Therefore on the side of majority, social distance and aversion intensifies. As a part of the mentioned hypothesis there is a supposition about a significant impact of social institutions representing the majority society. They can at least partly influence the position of Romanies as well as influence the public, or better to say, act as equipoise in view of processes of social deprivation and marginalization of ethnic minority. These institutions are important at least because of their symbolic influence: they strengthen social aspirations and trust on part of Romani minority. Trust in social institutions of the majority society is then crucial for the growth of aspirations, motivation, and readiness to cooperate from the point of minority.
To clarify the questions that are of our interest, we used mainly empirical research based on semi standardized interviews (and questionnaires) in ten localities (towns, cities) in the Czech Republic. We interviewed about 100 members of the majority and of Romani minority in each locality; the total sample being 1,000 members of the majority and 1,000 members of Romani minority. The localities were chosen according to a typological key, so that there would be represented localities with conflict relationships between the Romani minority and the majority, but also localities in which relationships are rather harmonious and the minority is in fact integrated, and finally localities that can be considered the representatives of partially harmonized type of coexistence. Respondents were selected using the ‘snowball’ technique in the localities where the majority and Romani minority neighbor. We have also monitored the “objective” indicators of living conditions of Romanies in these local neighborhoods as well as the role of public policies aimed at Romani minority there.

The research was backed by Phare project: ‘Inter-ethnic Relationships’ (CZ 9901.01).

The following sections deal with the main areas which form an “integration potential” of Romani community: a) human, cultural, social and political capital of Romani community itself, b) their socio-economic position and material as well as social disadvantage and deprivation, c) real and potential role of public policies and consensus about the mode of inclusion of Romanies into society.

Romanies in the Czech Republic: legacy of the past
Romanies underwent ‘a triple shock’ in the Czech lands during last half-century: the slaughter of the major part of settled population in concentration camps during World War II, then the socialistic experiment of forced assimilation combined with paternalistic practices towards this population, and finally market transformation. Today Romanies are socially, but also culturally, crumbling community that gradually loses their cultural roots, and only partly upkeeps their original value models and finds it difficult to determine their own representation. The majority, confronted with negative, to a degree also socially pathological manifestations, of this deprived and very often spatially concentrated population, is assured of their preconceptions. These dominate the public discourse – and political representatives are no exception.
After the holocaust of Romanies in World War II, the majority of Romanies arrived into the Czech lands from Slovakia during the ‘socialistic industrialization’ looking for work, income and better living conditions. Their coexistence with the majority was affected by forced assimilation, for which most of them were not prepared. Essentially, this policy of assimilation was based on forced settlement and obligatory permanent jobs, however, these jobs were exclusively unskilled. It was accompanied by providing easily attained social advantages (housing, welfare benefits). Under the communist regime, the majority of Romanies were not led towards personal or civic responsibility (yet in the given conditions, the majority population was also slowly losing this responsibility). 
The fact that the Romanies were not well prepared for the new social situation in the course of market transformation, and that social changes would necessarily mean a turn in their current way of life, was not sufficiently reflected by the majority society and it was omitted by politicians, who could back the social position of Romanies. In the process of market transformation Romanies were largely pushed out of the labor market; as work opportunities for unskilled labor force were being drastically reduced in the nineties.
Many of those Romanies, who under the old regime gained the position of ‘working class’ and with their material and cultural standards they came close to the mainstream, lost jobs and the source of income after 1990. On the other hand, social assistance benefits and state welfare (support) benefits (and also unemployment benefits) were enacted, which became easily accessible by Romanies. As a result of low qualification, reduced demand on labor market of unskilled labor and also discrimination, some Romanies fell for fatalism as regarded the possibilities to work on the formal labor market, and they prefer life on welfare benefits, or in combination with occasional work in the informal labor market, which opened for them – unlike the formal labor market – with open arms. In consequence of spatial concentration of the unemployed and materially deprived Romani communities, there arose ‘ethnic ghettos’ and Romani urban underclass. Problems in the coexistence of Romanies and the majority society proved, among others, also in open conflicts.
Resulting from everyday experience with the Romani community, whose segment demonstrates characteristics of ‘underclass’ and socio-pathological traces, the Romani ethnic is often a subject of contempt by the majority population. Even racist views are sometimes tolerated (also by state institutions), violent acts by extremists movements are not tackled consistently (attacks on Romanies are not unique in the Czech Republic, nor are they always sufficiently punished). Also by this ‘symbolic toleration’, the negative stereotypes about the Romani ethnic are strengthened. Fatalism and the dependency of part of Romani community on social benefits, as well as the Romani participation in gray economy, therefore initiate the stereotype of ‘udeservingness’ of Romanies to welfare benefits or to other forms of support provided by the state, and this stereotype strongly impacts also the attitude of state institutions towards them.
Great many of Romanies trust little, in the given circumstances, the majority society, its institutions, and a will to quality coexistence from the side of the majority. There emerge reactions such as resignation, attempts to emigrate, or forms of conflictful and social pathological conduct. The tensions between the minority and majority are on the increase.

The potential of Romani minority themselves for integration
Insufficient human, cultural, social, and political capital is generally understood as the main problem preventing the social integration of Romani minority. This presupposition holds truth in many cases, yet at the same time we can observe in this regard an inner structure of Romani ethnic as well as a positive developmental trend. 
Most of all, it is important to notice the development in the structure of education of Romani ethnic in the period of ten years between 1991-2001.

However, we can be skeptical towards these numbers, because in regard to the snowball technique of respondents’ selection, this does not concern strictly representative research based on random selection requirements.

Table 1   A comparative example of the structure of education of Romanies and the results of Census in 1991 (in %) 

Maximum attained education

Romani respondents
(2001- research)

Romani nationality (Census 1991)

Difference from Census

Maximum elementary education (incl. the category without education) | 69.4 | 88.3 | - 18.9
Skilled without A-levels | 20.7 | 9.7 | 11
High school without A-levels | 3.6 | 0.4 | 3.2
High school with A-levels | 4.6 | 1.1 | 3.3
University degree | 1.7 | 0.4 | 1.3
T o t a l | 100.0 | 100.0 |
Source: Census 1991 (‘Sčítání lidu, domů a bytů’, SLBD) – ‘Romani Nationality’ (Selection requirements: age - 20 years old and above) 

The proportion of Romanies who did not attend school or did not finish elementary school is very low at present, even though this most problematic group is not insignificant (15%). In contrast, 30% of Romanies have higher education then elementary school. It is also essential to notice that mostly grew the number of Romanies with completed secondary education and university degree (approximately four times). A class of Romani intelligence has been created, although not a numerous one, yet it is already well visible; including traditionally socially valued professions of lawyers and doctors. Higher proportions of Romanies with university degree can be found mainly in large cities – in Prague, Brno, and Ostrava. 

Table 2   A detailed structure of education of Romanies (in %)
| Did not attend school | Special school | Unfinished elementary education | Elementary education | Skilled without A- levels | Skilled with A-levels | High school without A-levels | High school with A-levels | Univ. degree | Total
T o t a l | 2.9 | 15.8 | 10.1 | 40.6 | 20.7 | 2.4 | 3.6 | 2.2 | 1.7 | 100.0
n = 863

A significant number of Romanies gradually manage to strengthen their cultural capital, which is signaled chiefly by the command of the language of majority. About 40% of Romani respondents in the Czech Republic declared certain problems with the use of Czech language, out of which only one fourth (in total 10%) had major difficulties. The aspiration and effort for cultural adaptation are considerable: only 18% of Romani families speak solely or mainly Romani language at home, 28% speak both languages on the same level, but 21% speak predominantly Czech, and 28% speak only Czech (10% of respondents did not answer). Thus about a half of Romanies use also in private more the language of the majority rather than their own language. This change also indicates the loss of cultural identity: about one fifth of Romani respondents actually admitted that their children could not speak Romani language.

Similarly, the author of this article encountered a young ethnic Romani woman who works on the position of a Romani advisor and considers herself Romani, yet does not speak the language of Romani minority.

The social potential of Romani community lies particularly in the degree of their acceptation by the majority and in the relationship with majority. As an indicator of this elementary degree of acceptation and at the same time of self-confidence in social relationships can serve for example experiences with discrimination from the side of the majority society, judged by Romanies themselves. 

Table 3 Assessment of individual experiences of discrimination from the side of the majority 
(answers ‘Yes’ in %)
By employer | 33.3
At institutions | 36.0
In public (and in social life) | 55.8
My children at school | 26.7
Wording of the question: ‘Have you ever experienced that non-Romanies suppressed your rights (discriminated you) because you are of Romani origin?’

Even if 10-15% of respondents did not answer this question (in case of discrimination of children at school it was even one third), it seems that discrimination in public is the key form of Romani discrimination. In contrast, rather lesser part of Romani minority (yet not by far insignificant) encounter discrimination within the system of institutions, either in education, or employment, or public assistance etc.
	One can also note that the potential of political participation of Romani minority is low, and the same applies for their trust in the majority of institutions of the majority society; with the exception of school system. Particularly low is the trust in institutions representing power and control by the majority society: the police and laws are not at all perceived by Romanies as institutions that would protect them.

Table 4  Trust of Romanies in some institutions of the majority society (answers ‘Yes’ in %)
| Trusts a lot (1) | Trusts less (2) | Trusts – total (1+2)
Trust in schools | 40 | 34 | 74
Trust in public institutions | 15 | 44 | 59
Trust in government | 3 | 40 | 43
Trust in courts, laws | 14 | 28 | 42
Trust in police | 6 | 40 | 46

Romanies are little interested in voting – only 25% show interest in parliamentary elections participation; on the other hand 42% decline to vote (34% were undecided). Obviously, the little trust in institutions and political representation expresses a low level of integration of Romani minority in political and civil dimension. 
This is a result of their marginal position in the specific dimension: Romanies themselves become self-aware of this disadvantage. As we could see in the results of the international research carried out by International Labour Organisation in the five post-communist countries (BG, CZ, HU, SK and RO) at the beginning of 2002, 70% of Romani respondents conditioned Romanies’ becoming equal citizens by ‘employing Romanies in local bureaus of public administration, 63% conditioned this by ‘employing Romanies in central bureaus, and 52% by Romanies’ representation in the government’.

The Challenge of Roma Human Development Project (1,000 respondents in each participating country, representative sample).

The socio-economic position of Romanies 
The socio-economic position of Romanies can be understood as an indicator of the structural aspect of social integration. In what way is represented the potential of integration of the Romani minority in their real socio-economic situation? 
According to the position at work, Romani population is substantially differentiated. Approximately half of Romanies are unskilled or trained manual laborers. About 15% of Romanies in economically active age have the status of qualified laborers, and over 10% have also an even higher socio-economic status – this concerns mainly the category of lower skilled labor. One fifth of Romanies above the age of 20 have not worked yet; or their socio-economic status cannot be deduced from their position at work.

Table 5 The socio-economic status according to current or previous position at work in ten neighborhoods
(without pensioners and students, in %)
| Romanies | The majority
| Men | Women | Total | Men | Women | Total
Senior specialist | 0.0 | 0.3 | 0.1 | 2.6 | 2.1 | 1.9
Junior specialist | 1.0 | 0.5 | 0.8 | 9.4 | 10.3 | 9.8
Senior non-manual | 0.5 | 1.1 | 0.8 | 9.1 | 17.9 | 13.7
Junior non-manual | 4.2 | 9.3 | 6.7 | 7.2 | 19.0 | 13.3
Small owner with employees | 2.1 | 0.3 | 1.2 | 2.4 | 0.9 | 1.6
Small owner without employees | 1.6 | 0.3 | 0.9 | 5.3 | 3.1 | 4.2
Technician, foreman | 1.3 | 0 | 0.7 | 9.1 | 1.8 | 5.3
Skilled laborer | 22.9 | 7.9 | 15.6 | 31.0 | 19.7 | 25.1
Trained laborer | 23.4 | 19.6 | 21.6 | 8.7 | 8.5 | 8.6
Help | 30.2 | 28.3 | 29.3 | 4.1 | 6.3 | 5.2
Farmer | 1.6 | 0.8 | 1.2 | 1.7 | 1.1 | 1.4
Was not employed | 8.6 | 30.8 | 19.4 | 7.5 | 9.4 | 8.5
No answer | 2.6 | 0.8 | 1.7 | 1.9 | 0.9 | 1.4
Total | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0
n= 751 (Romanies), n = 863 (the majority)

In the process of social mobility of Romani population we can trace processes of social differentiation; in Romani population, the category of ‘losers’ of the economic transformation has grown (represented by the unemployed and underemployed, above all by the long-term unemployed). On the other hand, the category of ‘winners’ is disproportionably small. If we accepted the hypothesis on parallel ‘ethnically’ differentiated social stratification systems within one society, and if we traced the social stratification through the optics of Romani community, then we could observe that the previously formed ‘Romani socialistic middle class’ (on this term, see Vašečka 2000:156) partly disintegrates in the nineties, and contrariwise, a large category of long-term unemployed welfare benefit dependents is formed. The entrance of Romanies into the ‘old’ or ‘new’ middle class defined from the point of the majority society (and the same applies to the categories of skilled labor force) is far too slow and little assertive. On the other hand, the positive shift in the structure of qualification/education might tempt one into certain optimism for the future. However, this has not proven much in the position of Romanies on the labor market, which can negatively influence certain distance of Romanies as regards the importance of education for their life chances.
In the Czech Republic, there is not noticeably a different social group that would be definable by its distinct social trait, whose specific unemployment rate would be higher than that of Romanies. 

Table 6   Romanies – their social position in relation to education (in %)
| Employed | Underemployed | Unemployed | Not active | Pensioners | Total
Incomplete elementary ed. | 3.7 | 9.4 | 13.1 | 13.5 | 30.8 | 12.9
Elementary ed. | 47.7 | 65.9 | 59.1 | 60.0 | 53.3 | 56.3
Skilled/high school | 38.1 | 17.6 | 22.6 | 21.1 | 13.3 | 24.4
A-levels/univ. degree | 10.6 | 7.1 | 5.2 | 5.4 | 2.5 | 6.4
| 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0 | 100.0
n = 860; notes: the association is significant at level .000 (contingency coefficient CC = .301, Cramer coefficient Cr = 182)

The finding that the chances of Romani employment are more related to the qualities of human capital rather than to the ascribed social characteristics is considered significant. Whereas age differences, according to our findings, did not impact the chances of Romanies to work; differences are sharply graded chiefly by attained education: for economically active persons with incomplete elementary education, the relative indicator of chances to work is 0.28, for economically active persons with elementary education it is 0.81, for skilled labor it rises to 1.69, and for persons with A-levels or university degree its value is already 2.00, all compared to average value 1.00. 
The accumulation of unemployment in households is an important factor that worsens the social position of a part of Romani community. It is worthy to pay attention to the fact that only in 17% of households of unemployed Romanies, the partner is employed full-time, whereas in households of the employed, almost 50% of partners are employed. Most probably, low human capital (education) of both partners as well as low motivation to work resulting from the comparison of expected income (usually small) on the one hand and welfare benefits (often higher than expected income – especially in numerous households or households of lone mothers) on the other hand, play a role. Social capital plays also an important part in here, or better to say the social networks, which make it possible to get work - but which are closed in case of unemployment of both partners. 

The association between the respondent’s social position and the partner’s social position is statistically significant at level .000 (contingency coefficient CC = 0.536, Cramer coefficient Cr = 0.318).

Next to social capital, also the cultural capital (indicated by knowledge of Czech language) determines the chances of Romanies to get permanent full-time jobs: 84% of full-time employed Romanies declared good command of Czech language, whereas among the unemployed and underemployed this was slightly over 50% (55%, respectively 52%). 
We can also trace that in localities such as Ostrava, Chomutov, Přerov, Ústí n.L., in which the general rate of unemployment is high, Romani unemployment is also high. In contrast, localities with low unemployment such as Český Krumlov and Pardubice show low unemployment of Romani population.
Feelings of discrimination by the employer are stronger in those categories of Romanies, who are more disadvantaged on the labor market, or more struck by unemployment (even though the differences are not so distinct). Therefore, it is difficult to distinguish, to what extent we deal in the cases of ‘discrimination’ with a real racial undertone, or – on the side of Romanies – with a feeling and stereotype intensified by the actual higher risk of unemployment resulting from other factors.
However, the declared experience with discrimination on the side of Romanies does not match with the rate of unemployment in the locality. For example, it is the highest in Prague, where there is low unemployment, and also in Vsetín, where unemployment slightly exceeds the Czech average. On the other hand, the experience with discrimination is low in Chomutov and Přerov, towns with high unemployment rate.

Table 7  Romani experience with discrimination by employer in ten localities (in %)
| Yes | No | No answer | Total | Rate of unemployment
Brno | 38.0 | 51.0 | 11.0 | 100.0 | 8.2
Český Krumlov | 17.0 | 60.0 | 23.0 | 100.0 | 7.2
Chomutov | 28.0 | 65.0 | 7.0 | 100.0 | 16.5
Ostrava | 34.0 | 39.0 | 27.0 | 100.0 | 16.4
Pardubice | 32.0 | 47.0 | 21.0 | 100.0 | 5.9
Prague | 48.0 | 47.0 | 5.0 | 100.0 | 3.5
Přerov | 28.0 | 44.0 | 28.0 | 100.0 | 14.0
Uh. Hradiště | 21.3 | 68.1 | 10.6 | 100.0 | 6.5
Ústí n.L. | 33.0 | 58.0 | 9.0 | 100.0 | 14.3
Vsetín | 47.0 | 39.0 | 14.0 | 100.0 | 9.5
Total | 33.3 | 50.9 | 15.8 | 100.0 | 8.7
n = 947; notes: the rate of unemployment according to the Ministry of Work and Social Affairs (MPSV) in June 2001, in the table as the rate of unemployment for the Czech Republic

Worse conditions on the labor market thus do not necessarily mean for Romanies a bigger threat of discrimination. We can propose a hypothesis that disadvantaging (if we were to prefer this term to discrimination) on the labor market is quite stable – as it has deeper social foundation than the current development on the labor market. It is therefore a comparatively stable factor of disadvantaging of Romanies, even on a relatively favorable labor market.
The profile of employment and unemployment of Romanies is shaped by the structure of local labor market, and also by the route of their migration in the past years. For example, we can trace a high proportion of unskilled workers (helps) in areas such as Chomutov, Ostrava but also Vsetín (75-80% of economically active persons). In contrast we find relatively higher proportion of skilled labor force (and not only for manual laborers) in Prague, Český Krumlov, Pardubice, Brno and also in Uherské Hradiště, and in contrast we find lower proportion of categories of unskilled laborers in Pardubice (only 37% of economically active people), in Český Krumlov (55% of economically active), in Prague (58%), Brno and Uherské Hradiště (slightly above 60%).
It is to some extent surprising that the frequency of previous unemployment of Romanies is not the highest in regions with the highest unemployment or in regions with the highest unemployment of Romanies, but in regions, in which labor market is a bit more favorable, yet not overly favorable – this concerns the regions of Ústí, but also Vsetín and even Prague: here we find only 9-15% of economically active Romanies who have not encountered unemployment. On the other hand, in towns such as Český Krumlov, Pardubice, and also Uh. Hradiště, there is a group of Romanies, who have not encountered unemployment yet, that is even more numerous (29-36%). 
In our view, the hypothesis on the fact that Romanies (resulting from more factors – see above) rotate permanently on the secondary labor market, and at the same time use actively the available possibilities there, is confirmed. When it is possible, and in their opinion beneficial, they accept at least some temporary and unstable jobs that this market offers. Yet they are indeed the first to be made redundant when their employers have troubles. As a result, the frequency of previous unemployment of Romanies is high even in places where labor markets do not show an extremely high rate of unemployment. In any case, we observe that the majority of Romanies is, despite high specific rate of unemployment, an active population.

Material deprivation of Romanies
We used, as an indicator of subjective experience of poverty, the classic (modified) question of H. Deleeck from the University of Antwerp. The question was changed for the respondents – Romanies – to a five-point scale instead of six-point one (which is usually used), as the original scale proved rather complicated during the questionnaire testing.
About half of Romanies declared that they fount it difficult to make ends meet, 21% found it very difficult – exactly this category is regarded as poor when researching subjective poverty. The risk of poverty is for Romanies more than double in comparison with the majority population. In the majority population, the number of poor people researched this way in 1998 was 10% (Ekonomická očekávání a postoje – Economic expectations and attitudes 1998); in the majority population in the vicinity that we researched, the number was over 8%.
We found a significant difference in the degree of subjective poverty of Romanies in the relation to the position on the labor market, where the unemployed are the most deprived group – in comparison with employed Romanies the proportion of poor people among the unemployed is four times higher.

Table 8  Subjective poverty of Romanies in relation to the position on the labor market (in %)
How do you find it to make ends meet? | With great difficulties | With difficulties | It depends | Easily | Very easily | Do not know/no answer |
Employed | 8.7 | 21.0 | 51.1 | 15.5 | 3.2 | 0.5 | 100.0
Underemployed | 15.9 | 48.9 | 28.4 | 4.5 | 1.1 | 1.1 | 100.0
Unemployed | 34.9 | 31.0 | 27.4 | 4.8 | 0.4 | 1.6 | 100.0
Not active | 25.5 | 34.0 | 28.2 | 7.4 | 3.7 | 1.1 | 100.0
Pensioners | 22.0 | 43.1 | 25.2 | 8.9 | 0.0 | 0.8 | 100.0
Total | 22.5 | 32.6 | 33.3 | 8.6 | 1.8 | 1.0 | 100.0
n = 870; the association is significant at level .000 (contingency coefficient CC = 0,345 and Cramer coefficient Cr = 0.184)

Although the proportion of the unemployed Romanies approaches 30% of adult population, and similarly the subjective experience of poverty was found with 20-30% of Romani adult population, the declared dependency on welfare benefits is even higher: 46% of Romanies classified themselves as social assistance benefits recipients (up to the subsistence minimum). It can be therefore it can be estimated that the dependency of Romani households on social assistance benefits is approximately threefold in comparison with the majority population in the vicinity, and the same applies also in comparison with the whole majority population.

In the majority population in the neighborhood we also found 17% of social assistance benefits recipients. In 2000 there were (according to the statistics of the Ministry of Labor and Social Affairs) in total 14% households registered as recipients of repeated social assistance benefits. The higher ratio of recipients in our sample could be, in our view, caused by little ability of the respondents to orient themselves in the problematic (they do not differentiate precisely – despite being informed by interviewers – between social support benefits and social assistance benefits), secondly, in the sample of interviewed respondents of the majority there was also a slightly higher ratio of the unemployed than is the average in the Czech Republic (resulting from the selection of ten districts, in which in four of them the unemployment is a lot higher than the average).

The position on the labor market is a determining factor of Romani dependency on welfare benefits, where the overwhelming majority of the unemployed and economically not active are dependent on welfare benefits, whereas it is only 15% for employed Romanies. Apart from this it is indicative that almost a third of pensioners – Romanies – are dependent on social assistance benefits. Their low incomes in the past, and short or fragmented job career allowed them very often to obtain only minimum pensions. Also, it seems that the effect of the welfare system eliminates at least to a certain extent material deprivation of Romanies. Subjective experience of poverty was actually found only with approximately 20-30% of respondents – Romanies, regardless of the rather long-term dependency of almost half of them on welfare benefits. 
The position on the labor market is the decisive factor of Romani poverty. This does not concern only unemployment, but also low paid jobs, underemployment, non-employment and low entitlements resulting from the system of pension (and welfare) schemes because of insufficient work history of many Romanies – pensioners. Poverty is indeed found also with the employed, economically not active, and with pensioners. The total of the above mentioned characteristics of the current or past position on the labor market then creates in the Romani community a powerful stratum of permanent claimants for welfare benefits.
In summary it can be noted that the subjective experience of poverty and the dependency on benefits are differentiated – on the condition that we take into consideration mainly the differences between larger groups of Romanies, especially according to the qualities of human and cultural capital – according to education, command of Czech language, health and in line with this, according to the relationship to work (current and past). 
In dependency on the different character of previous migration, the structure of Romani population in localities and the ‘potential of integration’, there can be observed evident differences in the socio-economic position of Romanies in various localities in the Czech Republic.

Table 9  Social position of Romanies in ten localities 
(the percentage from the total of respondents is given in each column)
| Employed | Unemployed | Benefits | Poor
Brno | 30.0 | 24.0 | 53.0 | 32.3
Český Krumlov | 55.1 | 12.8 | 17.0 | 10.4
Chomutov | 12.0 | 40.0 | 67.0 | 40.0
Ostrava | 17.7 | 38.5 | 56.0 | 52.1
Pardubice | 32.1 | 15.5 | 23.0 | 13.1
Prague | 29.7 | 25.3 | 45.0 | 36.6
Přerov | 15.0 | 45.0 | 56.0 | 27.5
Uherské Hradiště | 22.7 | 25.0 | 59.6 | 38.6
Ústí nad Labem | 26.3 | 32.3 | 47.0 | 34.0
Vsetín | 15.3 | 26.5 | 47.0 | 12.2
Total | 25.2 | 29.0 | 46.4 | 29.8
n = 870

In a nutshell, the socio-economic position of Romani minority is in comparison to the majority really marginal; especially as regards the access to formal labor market. Nonetheless, the position of Romanies on the labor market is markedly differentiated, and there is a bigger majority of adult Romani population who work. Indeed, among employed Romanies there is only a small number of cases of welfare recipients, and their material deprivation also is not so manifest as is in the case of Romanies who do not work. In fact, their proportion is identical with the proportion we find with the majority population. There are substantial differences in positions on the labor market and the material standard of the members of Romani community among the localities in the Czech Republic; this is dependant on previous routes of mobility of Romanies. The worst situation is in regions, in which there was the process of ‘socialistic industrialization’ under way in the past; and which are after 1989 in contrast exposed to processes of economic decline and social disintegration. The concentration of Romanies, who are the mostly struck part of population by these processes as they are the most vulnerable, actually intensifies the social disequilibrium and tensions in these regions.

The potential of integration and the role of public policy
Measures regarding the support of integration of Romani community have a chance to succeed if they are based on an agreement about the right strategies of coexistence from the part of Romani minority as well as the majority. Therefore, we notice on the one hand the favored principles of solution of mutual coexistence, and on the other, the legitimacy of integration activities focused on Romany community.
	On the level of general principles of the solution of coexistence, both Romanies and members of majority reject the solution of mutual relationships based on segregation principles (separating the Romani minority or Romani leaving – emigration). In contrast, they support from major part jointly the principle of mutual understanding, which is the basis of the multicultural model of coexistence. However, from the side of the majority society, there is an even stronger demand that Romanies adapt to the majority (the principle of assimilation model of coexistence). It is interesting that the majority of Romanies on principle accept this demand.

Table 10  Opinions on the solution of coexistence of Romanies and non-Romanies – the majority (in %)
Opinions on the solution of coexistence of Romanies and non-Romanies | The majority | Romanies
| Yes | No | No answer | Total | Yes | No | No answer | Total
Learning to understand one another | 84.5 | 7.8 | 7.7 | 100.0 | 80.9 | 3.6 | 15.5 | 100.0
Romances should adapt to the majority society | 79.1 | 11.3 | 9.6 | 100.0 | 52.1 | 23.9 | 24.1 | 100.0
Romanies should live separately from the majority society | 15.4 | 70.4 | 14.3 | 100.0 | 3.5 | 78.1 | 18.4 | 100.0
Romanies should spread out in the majority society | 63.1 | 21.1 | 15.9 | 100.0 | 64.0 | 15.6 | 20.4 | 100.0
Romanies should go to somewhere else | 14.5 | 65.9 | 19.7 | 100.0 | 7.7 | 71.2 | 21.1 | 100.0
The majority society should do more for Romanies | 12.5 | 72.0 | 15.6 | 100.0 | 67.1 | 14.5 | 18.5 | 100.0
Romanies themselves should try to improve their position | 90.1 | 2.3 | 7.6 | 100.0 | 64.3 | 11.1 | 24.6 | 100.0

Fundamentally different, however, is the opinion of Romanies and the majority on the responsibility for the solution of mutual coexistence. Whereas the majority univocally demand that Romanies themselves try to improve their position (90 %), and only 13% of the majority agree that the majority society should do more for Romanies, Romanies themselves acknowledge the need to try and improve their position (67%), but they also demand more distinct help from the side of majority (64%). 
	On the level of the principles of coexistence thus exists a potential for forming a multicultural society. It seems, however, that the demand for the adaptation of Romanies to majority is even stronger. The strategy of assimilation was implemented systematically in the past, and it is evident that great part of Romanies themselves have accepted this imposed form of coexistence with the majority as a real chance and strategy for the improvement of their position. This evidences mainly the spread of Czech language in Romani households, as well as highly positive attitudes of Romanies towards mixed marriages (only 12 % of Romanies declare that they would mind if their children married a member of the majority), and finally the statement of their nationality – in Census in 1991 approximately 33,000 Romanies declared their nationality, in Census in 2001 it was only 11,000 (on estimate, this covers about 5-7% of members of this ethnic in the Czech Republic).
	The majority society recognizes the right to cultural identity, political participation and Romani support from the side of the majority. These should in their view continue to have or receive a real institutional form. At the same time, Czechs at the end of the nineties support the constituted roles of Romani counselors in the local sections of state institutions and of Romani educational assistants at schools.

Table 11  The support of the rights of minority and measures for its benefit by the majority (in %)
| Definitely yes | Rather yes | Not decided | Rather no | Definitely no | No answer | Total
Participation in the solution of their problems | 41.6 | 28.9 | 20.5 | 19.7 | 17.3 | 4.0 | 100
Representation in local councils | 28.7 | 28.7 | 20.5 | 9.7 | 9.4 | 3.0 | 100
Own cultural life | 55.7 | 28.8 | 8.3 | 3.1 | 2.2 | 1.9 | 100
Romani assistants at schools | 33.4 | 34.5 | 16.1 | 7.6 | 5.2 | 3.2 | 100
Classes in Romani language | 17.3 | 21.5 | 20.5 | 19.7 | 17.3 | 4.0 | 100
Wording of the question: ‘Would you agree to have, as ethnic minority of Romanies, the right to…’

Czechs from great part share towards Romani community quite tolerant and friendly attitudes. These attitudes are even in concordance with Romani demands on their political participation and representation in state institutions. On the other hand, they do not concede to their own greater engagement in the interest of improving the social position of Romani minority and their integration. According to 60% of Czechs, the state takes sufficient care of Romanies, over 20% even declare that the state takes greater care than it should. Also, more than 70% of Czechs decline that the majority society should do more for Romanies than it does nowadays (with this option agree only 13%). About 18% of Czechs answered Yes to the question about the employment of affirmative action, 20% was undecided, and 63% rejected this idea.

Wording of the question: ‘Do you think that there should be measures taken in order to level the Romani position in relation to the majority, for example advantages in schools or at work?’

We observe – even though unsystematic – still by far not insignificant institutional effort to support the integration of Romani community: in all ten localities, in which the Romani minority respondents were interviewed, there were backed projects on the support of leisure activities of Romani community; in nine localities there worked Romani speaking assistants at schools; in eight localities there were backed projects aimed at the improvement of coexistence of the majority and minority; similarly in eight localities there worked civic associations focused on the cooperation of the minority and majority; in eight of them there was a committee on the local level for the matters of Romani community; in eight localities there were operational preparatory classes for Romani children of pre-school age; in seven of them there were Romani staff – educational advisors at elementary schools; in seven localities there worked Romani curators (social workers); and finally, in five localities there were backed projects on further education of Romani adults.
In principle, the majority creates with their attitudes space for the employment of the potential of integration for Romani community itself, and it can be expected that this space will be used by some part of this community. However, major part of Romani community find themselves in a poor socio-economic position – this involves particularly access to jobs and education. The majority population does not admit that the change of this position and the integration of Romani minority is also in their own interest and that it demands from their side special effort and support. They rather expect that Romanies will make their own effort to assimilate and adopt to the majority and to their demands and will be successful in doing that – after all, no one prevents them from doing so.

Conclusion
The position of Romanies in the majority society in the Czech Republic – if we are to judge this ethnic as a whole – is similarly as in other societies, a marginal one. Despite this, it seems inadequate to approach the ethnic minority as one whole. Firstly, their socio-economic position is markedly differentiated (even though there predominate groups with low social status). Secondly, the identity of members of this ethnic with their own ethic is unclear (putting aside more profound inner ethnic and generic differences of this ethnic). Before 1989, Romanies were treated as a socially not adaptable category of population and assimilation by means of incorporation into ‘working population’ was forced on them, and in here they were forced the role of unskilled labor force. After 1989, the socio-economic position of part of this ethnic worsened; on the other hand there opened up new possibilities to enforce social, cultural and political demands for civil rights, as well as chances of economic and social advance – on the condition that the members have sufficient human, social and cultural capital. Next to this, there also opened possibilities of life on welfare benefits, whose amount actually comes near the income of households of unskilled laborers, and also opportunities in gray economy, or even perhaps illegal activities. 

This worsening does not concern the standard of material living as such, but rather life chances and access to them – i.e. education, jobs and housing. In this respect, the importance of education is more significant; yet in this area Romanies are still - despite some progress - distinctly behind.

Part of Romanies – notably those who have lived with the Czech majority for longer time – have adapted to this development. Those with sufficient integration potential follow the path of assimilation most often; they adapt to the majority society and look for their place in its social structure. Romanies who do not have this possibility, occupy a marginalized position, they make use of welfare benefits, which very often top up incomes from informal economy. At present, Romanies are not really involved in the implementation of the interests of Romani community by political means, and their potential in this sphere is weak.
The majority society is on the level of principles welcoming towards Romani minority and their integration. Still, the assimilation model of coexistence and Romani integration predominate; and they are enforced by unequivocal demands from the side of the majority, as well as their acceptance by the majority of Romanies. However, the Romani minority has one important claim, which is not accepted by the majority: they expect larger help and support in their incorporation into the majority society. 
Of course, there are localities in the Czech Republic with substantially different levels of Romani integration. In two out of ten localities that we researched, the degree of coexistence was exceedingly better than elsewhere. In these cases this was a result of long-term development, in which, on the one hand, there was influential the better potential of integration on the part of Romani community; on the other hand, there was an open local policy on the part of local authorities, who – although they did not formulate any special measures for the benefit of Romani community – accepted positively Romanies’ attempts, they negotiated and cooperated in solving their problems. This ‘civic’ model can operate with success in the Czech Republic even in the future; however in the near future, it has no potential to integrate effectively a larger part of Romani ethnic in the problematic localities – in which the integration potential of Romani ethnic is low and their social position is marginal. These localities are indeed predominant in the Czech Republic.
Consequently, the crucial challenge for future lies in the reassessment of the principles of policy towards Romani minority, and in providing a more distinct and systematic support of forming and employing their integration potential in all areas that form it. Above all, full recognition and acceptance of the principle of common responsibility for integration on the side of majority would be necessary.

References

Atkinson, A.B. Social Exclusion, Poverty and Unemployment. In A.B. Atkinson, J. Hills (eds) Exclusion, Employment and Opportunity. London: Paper No 4, Centre for Analysis of Social Exclusion, London School of Economics, 1998.

Atkinson, R. Občanství a boj proti sociální exkluzi v kontextu reformy sociálního státu (Citizenship and the Battle against Social Exclusion in the Context of Welfare State Reform). Pp. 47-66, in Sociální exkluze a nové třídy (Social Exclusion and New Classes). Brno: Sborník prací Fakulty sociálních studií brněnské univerzity 5 (Brno: Collection of Works of the Faculty of Social Studies of Brno University), 2000. 

Bauman, Z. What it Means „To Be Excluded“: Living to Stay Apart – or Together ? pp. 73-88, in Askonas P., A. Stewart (eds) Social Inclusions: Possibilities and Tensions. Macmillan, St Martin´s Press, Inc., 2000. 

Beck, U. The Brave New World of Work. Cambridge: Polity Press, 2000. 

Berger, S., M. J. Piore. Dualism and Discontinuity in Industrial Societies. Cambridge Univ. Press, 1980. 

Bourdieu P. The Forms of Capital. New York: Columbia University Press, 1986.

Castles, S. Migration, and Minorities in Europe. Perspectives for the 1990s: Eleven Hypotheses. Pp. 17-34, in Racism, and Migration in Western Europe. Oxford: Berg, 1993. 

Cross, M. Managing Multicultural Societies in Western Europe: National and Regional Perspectives. Paper presented at the Annual meeting of the Network of Institutes and Schools of Public Administration (NISPAcee), Budapest, April 2000.

Dahrendorf, R. The Modern Social Conflict. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson,1988. 

Flora, P., Heidenheimer, A.J. (eds.) The Development of Welfare States in Europe and America. London and New Brunswick: Transaction Publishers, 1981. 

Room, G. Beyond the Threshold: The Measurement and Analysis of Social Exclusion. Bristol: The Policy Press, 1995. 

Szalo, C. Proces kulturní asimilace a konstrukce identity přistěhovalců (The Process of Cultural Assimilation and the Construction of Identity of Immigrants). In: Sirovátka T. (ed.) Menšiny a marginalizované skupiny v České republice (Minorities and Marginalized Groups in the Czech Republic). Brno: Georgetown a Masarykova univerzita (Brno: Georgetown and Masaryk University), 2002. 

Vašečka M. et al. Sociálna a ekonomická situácia potenciálnych žiadatelov o azyl zo Slovenskej republiky (Social and Economic Situation of Potential Asylum Seekers from the Slovak Republic). Bratislava: IOM, 2000.