Robert E. Koulish Ph.D.
What Roma Want Survey: Roma Civic Attitudes
in
January 2001
“The gypsies are a litmus test not of
democracy but of civil society.” Vaclav Havel
Summary of Findings
·
Roma have knowledge about local issues,
minority self government functions and responsibilities.
·
Roma want to be involved and have input on
civic issues.
·
Roma lack the civic tools and skills for
effective involvement.
·
A strong
plurality (44.6%) of Roma give their local
MSGs a failing grade of Poor.
·
A solid
plurality (40%) have no trust in their MSGs
to deliver on its promises.
·
Overall Roma feel their local MSG is
ineffective at providing the responsibilities enumerated by law (say in
cultural activities).
·
There are significant differences among
the five cities in the effectiveness of Roma MSGs.
·
Of the Roma asked in the five cities, 90%
of Roma oppose abolishing MSGs.
·
Roma want MSGs to be working on job training,
welfare payments, housing, and investigating discrimination complaints more
than they want MSGs do be organizing classes on Roma culture, language, history. The only things they wanted less is to see their
MSG assume all the responsibilities of the local government, including garbage
pick up and supplying water and electricity.
·
The Roma feel a great deal stronger about
having their MSG control for social rights than for minority rights.
·
Roma do not want self-determination.
Abstract: The What Roma Want Survey, a
sample of 500 Roma in five cities, shows significant differences in Roma
responses from city to city, reflecting in part the civic health of the
specific communities. Since the transition, numerous attempts have been made to
include Roma in democratic life. The MSG system has a rare opportunity to
overcome obstacles to effective civic engagement. Overall, the survey finds
that Roma have civic knowledge, civic interest and want to be involved in civic
life. The Roma know about their MSG, they do not want to see it abolished.
Beyond that, however, the Roma want substantial changes in MSGs to reflect dire
social conditions in these communities.
Introduction
In the ten years since
Throughout the 1990s, the Roma have been
The simple answer to this question is NO. Civil Society is not beyond
the abilities or desires of the Roma. It may be beyond their reach, however,
and it is here where things get complicated. A recent study shows Roma civic
interest higher than non-Roma interest. We follow this track and endeavor to
reconcile high civic interest and admittedly low civic skills and achievement
among the Roma. This Report focuses on Roma citizenship in the wake of several
policy measures designed to lend support to Roma civil society, by giving the
Roma special rights. Because formal rights on paper have meant little to the
real world social existence of 20th century Roma, the Report only
briefly mentions the legal dimension of minority citizenship and refers instead
to real world civic practices: Roma connection to local institutions and
issues, voting and participating in local activities.
This idea for discussing Roma citizenship emerges from the UN
Declaration on Minorities as well as Articles 25 and 27 of the International
Convention on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) as they are adapted to Hungary’s
LXXVII Act of 1993 on National and Ethnic Minorities (herein The Act). Article
2 of the United Nations Declaration on Minorities, recognizes the right of
minorities to participate in…social, economic and public life.” Article 25 of
the ICCPR guarantees the right to political participation. According to the
head of the United Nations Working Group on Minorities, the purpose of minority
rights as codified in Articles 25 and 27 is to link good government with
effective participation of minorities in public life. These rights, according
to scholars, consist of having say and control to some
degree over social, economic, and public affairs.
Following the Hungarian Constitution that holds that international law
is binding only when incorporated into law enacted by the Hungarian Parliament, these international standards of good
citizenship are embedded in the Act to encourage the Roma to gain some
semblance of control and mastery over their social, economic and public lives.
The Act takes these minority rights and introduces measures designed to get
Roma to deliberate about their communities and participate in shaping forces
that contribute to the community as a public whole.
Specifically, the What Roma Wants Survey investigates the
applicability of the Act to the Roma experience in
We focus on the notion of democratic rights and responsibilities for all
as the glue that holds together local civic communities, and refer to strong
civic attachments in terms of civic health or good citizenship. Civic health is
a process of civic engagement in which Roma voices are heard and reciprocated,
if not heeded. The subjective attitudes of Roma must indicate they are involved
and satisfied with the process and intended outcomes, if not the actual
outcomes.
The Roma and other actors in the civic community are bound together by horizontal
relations of reciprocity and cooperation, not by vertical relations of
authority and dependency. Roma and non-Roma alike must interact as equal, not
as patrons or clients of the state or local government, or MSG. Given this
circle of civic attachment, specific measures of Roma civic health logically
include: norms of reciprocity, mutual trust, networking, and other forms of
voluntary cooperation.
For this to work, however, and for strong civic attachments to take root
and grow, Roma leaders must conceive of themselves as accountable and
responsive to their fellow citizens. The Roma must be considered equals: their
involvement must count, and they must be satisfied with the ends or direction
of these evolving civic attachments.
Putnam’s template would overlook Rom civic assets altogether because the
Roma may lack basic writing and reading skills as prerequisites to civic
attachments. We disagree. Putnam’s standard would also hold civil society
beyond the grasp of ordinary Roma. Rather in our study, this is the topic of
inquiry. First, we adhere to the belief that civic health need not be
logo-centric. We countenance Putam’s reliance on literacy as a prerequisite. We
focus on norms of interaction between Roma—minority self-government, NGOs and
local government that have a basis in oral communication as well as written
information. In the process, we hope to reveal which political and civic
institutions along with such non-political factors as education, income, and
age come together to form networks capable of supporting strong civic
attachments
This Report accepts the Roma as rational and capable of strategic
self-interest. This means that the Roma, like anybody, make decisions in order
to advance their needs/interest. It also takes the view that civic practice is
relational, that is, people in a successful civil society are interdependent.
This also means people are influenced in their decisions and behavior by their
objective surroundings (socio-economic factors, institutions, history,
tradition, etc.).
The dilemma the Roma face is a collective action problem. A common view
in
We hold that the MSG system is beneficial in that it generates
opportunities for civic attachments to take root, nurture and grow. Unlike
other associations in Hungary, MSGs hold the potential to overcome this
collective action problem, not because of their iron-clad enforcement
mechanisms (they have none), but because they have a political and legal
mandate to engage the Roma in skill building practices as trust, leadership and
cooperation. In other words, MSGs have that rare potential to create a fabric
of trust that enables the Roma community to overcome opportunism. What is less clear, and thus also the subject of inquiry, is if the MSG
functions and is structured to effectively overcome the collective action.
Minority Rights
The Act LXXVII of 1993 on the Rights of National and Ethnic Minorities
(the Act) that went into effect in ’94-5 guarantees the Roma and 12 other
minorities in
Of all the possible ways to investigate civic institutions, we focus on
effectiveness because this is the term of choice in international reports that
have discussed the participation of minorities in public life. The current
minority rights framework for civic attachments is effective to the extent it
generates trust, dialogue and associational activity, and offers a strategy
that is appropriate to the people’s needs and interests.
We feel that any effective minority rights framework must provide an
inclusive, transparent, and accountable process of consultation with local
government, and service the Roma community in a way that is responsive to its
needs. The notion of subsidiarity, a theoretical foundation for local minority
self-governance, in this case-study requires dialogue and information and
resource sharing. The logic here is that information and resource sharing
democratizes community, boosts trust and confidence among local actors, and
fosters intercultural understanding, all criteria of civic community.
We also consider subjective factors such as favorable job performance
ratings, as important criteria for effectiveness, where Roma rank some MSGs
more successful than others.
The findings in this Report show conclusively overall, that the vast majority of Roma have knowledge, civic interest and want to
be involved in civic life, and this finding holds for even the weakest civic
city. Likewise, there are obstacles to involvement in even the strongest civic
city. Some of these obstacles deal with individual characteristics, and other
obstacles deal with institutions that tie the Roma to civil society. That the
Roma want to be more involved should come as no great surprise. What is
surprising is that civic institutions such as local governments, Roma MSGs and
NGOs are incapable of providing the Roma with effective access to public life.
Overall, the findings might do little more than muddy these already
complex waters. Hopefully, they will bring to the fore a dialogue about whether
or not civil society as highlighted in minority rights are the appropriate
remedy for the problems that beset a Roma people that have yet to secure basic
economic survival and political rights.
Findings
The questions cover Roma interest in being involved in a host of local,
regional and national issues as well as in such civic activities as voting,
selecting local leaders, participating in trainings, attending church and
volunteering. Voting is considered one of the most important measures of civic
participation. We spend a lot of time drilling into civic interest because
every other part of this study hinges on this issue of how much Roma are
interested in and want to be involved in local decisions that affect their
lives.
Roma Say
Civil society is marked, first of all, by active participation in public
affairs. According to the political thinker Michael Walzer, “Interest in public
issues and devotion to public causes are the key signs of civic virtue.” Of
course citizens need not be virtuous for civil society to function. What is
needed, Alexis de Toqueville tells us, is “self interest, broadly understood,”
that is, self interest defined in the context of community needs, or self
interest, as Robert Putnam says, “that is alive to the
interest of others.”
We start simply by asking, “Overall, how much say do Roma have in
decisions relevant to their life?” The logic here is twofold. First, we want to
attack the stereotype of Roma ignorance and apathy—is there any merit to these
claims? —Second, we want to get a basic threshold for measuring civic
involvement among the Roma overall and in the five cities. In particular, the
responses to this battery of questions tell us about: 1) the interest/impact
that Roma have over local matters, and 2) the amount of
knowledge they have about local matters.
We give three response choices, asking if Roma have 1=“no say,” 2=“not
much,” 3=”a lot.” “Not much” to “no say” means the
Roma feel they have little interest and virtually no opportunity to get
involved in public life. At the other extreme “a lot” of say means Roma have a
great deal of interest in being involved and are active in their communities.
We measure the amount of say that Roma have in their communities in
terms of 1) personal characteristics of the Roma, 2) their local communities,
and 3) particular local issues. To what extent, if at all, is having a say
linked to personal characteristics and where the Roma live?
First, we find real practical differences among personal
characteristics. Roma who are younger and have higher education have the
highest knowledge of local issues and impact on their communities.
Second, there are significant differences among the five cities.
Nagykanizsa’s Roma have the most impact. Batonyterenye’s Roma place second,
Budapest assumes the broad middle, Tiszavasvari’s Roma are fourth—they score
high at the two extremes of having say (“a lot” and “none”), and Szeged’s Roma
places last, suggesting they are disconnected from the public life of their
city.
Third, what are the local issues that hold the Roma’s interest? We
sought their response to questions about eight different issues that fall under
local jurisdiction according to the Municipalities Act (1990). We ask about the
following issues: 1. Schools; 2.Housing; 3. Police and civil patrols; 4.Health
and medical service delivery; 5.Job training; 6.Basic utilities like
electricity and water; 7.Cultural events; and, 8.Choosing local political
leaders. The logic to this battery of questions is to determine if the Roma
know what is going on in their city and if they feel they have any
impact/influence on local matters. The question about choosing local leaders is
designed to get at issues of local democracy and political representation.
There is a big difference in Roma having say among the local issues. Of
the 8 issues listed, Roma have the most influence over education, and the least
influence over policing.
Rank Ordering of Say/Interest in Local Issues
1.Schools
2. Health
3. Cultural Events
4. Basic Utilities
5. Choosing Local Leaders
6. Job Training
7. Housing
8. Police
Because these responses correspond nicely to local issues delineated in
the Act and/or the1990 Municipalities Act, we can plausibly infer that the Roma
have at least an intuitive knowledge about what is going on in their city. They
know the most about local/ethnic-based issues like schools and cultural events,
and less to say about those issues that are ostensibly beyond the scope of
local politics: policing -- still a national issue in Hungary--. The issues of
which they are most aware are by objective measure, those issues that are open
to local citizen influence.
It is important to note that even though schools place first, the Roma
influence over schools is small. The Roma input in cultural activities is less
than in schools. Perhaps of greatest concern is the lack of Roma influence in
choosing local leaders. The Roma have almost no say in selecting the people who
are their leaders. This means the Roma recognize their voices are not heeded in
the political process. The only area where the Roma feel even less empowered is
in policing, a national issue that has caused a lot of pain in the Roma
community.
With regard to the amount of say Roma have in the local issues, we find
there are significant differences from one city to the next. When we examine
specific issues like education we find that only the Roma in Nagykanisza rate
their involvement above the medium level of “not much say.” The Roma in
Batonyterenye place a distant second regarding interest in schools, but it is
worth noting that their interest in education is between “not much” and “none.”
The major city of
Although four of the five cities have almost the same interest in
schooling, the more interesting story is revealed in the bar chart below. It
shows the polarization of interest, most markedly in Tiszavasvari, almost tied
with Nagykanisza at the top with many people having “a lot” of say, and with
The five cities also differ when it comes to cultural activities. Roma
have the most input in cultural activities in Nagykanisza. This finding
coincides nicely with the prevalence of actual programs run by the Nagykanisza
MSG and local NGOs. The only other city where Roma register some say in
organizing cultural activities is
In sum, according to the rank ordering of issues, we find it plausible
to say that the Roma know what is going on in their city. Further, the Roma
have little impact over these issues, particularly those that are supposed to
generate civic attachments: education and culture.
Civic Aspirations
Next we ask how much say the Roma would like to have in local matters
that affect their lives, and find overall and in each city separately, they
would like to have more influence in local matters. In Nagykanisza, not
surprisingly, the Roma want “a lot of say.” In the other two
cities—Tiszavasvari and
Civic Interest Gap: Roma Civic Health
To make sense of the relationship between the influence they possess and
the amount they desire (question 2 and question 35), and get a first clean
swipe at defining Roma civic interest, we introduce a “civic interest gap”
(C-Gap) variable, to register the difference, if any, between these two
categories of interest. The overall citizenship gap (the difference between the
mean score for 2 and the score for 35 =2.609) is the difference in the
average for question 2 and 35.
The existence of this gap shows that Roma want to be more involved. The
gap also shows whether existing outlets for civic expression satisfy the Roma.
First, there is no significant difference among the individual characteristics
of Roma. Even adjusting for education, income, age and sex, Roma want more from
their civil society. This means that even Roma with little to no educational
achievement want more say; Roma who depend on state benefits as their only
source of income want more say too. The existence of this gap contradicts the
common sense view that Roma have tuned out and internalized characteristics
that are the benchmark of a culture of poverty.It means that Roma interests in
being involved are not being met by existing institutions and programs.
Second, there are significant differences in “the C-gap” among the five
cities, as the graph below illustrates: Nagykanisza and Batonyterenye have a
small gap, which means the Roma there do not want to be much more involved.
There exists bigger civic interest gaps in
The C-Gap for Nagykanisza and Batonyterenye is small, but interpreting
this finding shows the huge difference in the civic health of these respective
cities. In Nagykanisza, the Roma start out much more involved than in any other
city. They also score highest in the amount of say they want to have. The
narrowness of the gap tells us that Roma are roughly satisfied with the
influence they have. This finding together with the finding that Roma in
Nagykanisza top the five cities in terms of having say, provide strong
indicators that Nagykanisza has a healthy civic community for Roma.
The situation in Batonyterenye is much different. The small gap there,
together with the finding that the Roma do not have much or any say in local
matters, strongly suggests a weak civic community. The Roma do not have say and
do not want to get involved. We take solace here in finding, however, that even
in Batonyterenye, the Roma want to be involved and with say more than want to
give up (hence even the smallest of positive gaps).
In Tiszavasvari, the large C-Gap evokes the sense of civic potential in
that city. In Tiszavasvari, the Roma want to be a great deal more involved than
they are at present. Obstacles to more effective involvement are no doubt in
evidence and mush be examined.
C-Gap Graph (here)
Case Summaries
CITGAP
|
Which town? |
N |
Mean |
Grouped Median |
% of Total Sum |
% of Total N |
|
|
82 |
.3119 |
.2500 |
23.6% |
19.8% |
|
|
78 |
.3776 |
.3750 |
27.2% |
18.8% |
|
Tiszavasvári |
86 |
.4369 |
.1597 |
34.7% |
20.7% |
|
Bátonyterenye |
76 |
6.790E-02 |
-7.6923E-02 |
4.8% |
18.3% |
|
Nagykanizsa |
93 |
.1128 |
.1250 |
9.7% |
22.4% |
|
Total |
415 |
.2609 |
.1151 |
100.0% |
100.0% |
In sum, the citizenship gap provides important information about the
civic health of the different cities as it pertains to the Roma.
Next we take a step beyond knowledge and interest questions and towards
tangible indicators of civic involvement that include: voting, volunteering,
participating in civic trainings (msg/ngo), and going to church.
Voting
As indicated in several studies, voting is one of the standards of civic
participation. What we find interesting in this section is that voting has no
impact on the amount of say the Roma feel they have, or on the C-gap. Cities
with Low civic health have high voting rates, and cities with high civic health
have lower voting rates. This means voting is not an effective determinant of
civic commitment. There is little if any civic meaning attached to it.
Overall, we find that the Roma vote almost regularly, and in some cities
they vote regularly in surprisingly high numbers. Over all, 52% Roma say they
vote regularly, in comparison to 20% who never vote. We find that a greater
majority of people in the weak civic communities of Tiszavasvari and
When we examine individual characteristics in the five cities and ask
which factors if any are connected to voting among the Roma, we find age is a
key determinant. At a significance level of .046, we find that younger people—under forty-- are more likely than older—over fifty-- to
vote overall. No other individual characteristic sheds significant light on
Roma voting.
In four of the five cities they vote only occasionally. The Roma of
Tiszavasvari have the highest voting rate of Roma in
any of the five cities. In Tiszavasvari, 76.4% Roma vote regularly. Although
this figure seems astronomically high, city records in the office of the notary
in Tiszavasvari support this finding. Next comes Nagykanisza at 61.3%,
Batonytereny, with 47.3%,
|
|
Roma Voting Rate |
|
Tiszavasvari |
76.40% |
|
Nagykanisza |
61.30% |
|
Batonyterenye |
47.30% |
|
|
44.20% |
|
|
32.70% |
Next, we examine the voting rate in each of the five cities by
individual characteristics. In
Volunteering
Although, volunteering is perhaps the key to having a civic society, we
were wary of drafting questions about Roma volunteering. Several Roma Rights
advocates told us that volunteerism is not only a foreign concept in
We start with a somewhat abstract question to ask if the Roma would
choose to volunteer in local decisions that affect their lives if the option
arose. Here four of five cities report that by the slimmest of margins, they
would choose to volunteer. By a slim margin, the Roma in
Next we ask how willing Roma would be to volunteer 2-3 hours per month
to work with their local MSG office. There is a dramatic difference among towns
in willingness to volunteer. Here the Roma offer a strong sign of support for
MSGs saying overall they would be willing to help out. When disaggregated by
city, only the responses for Batonyterenye show a strong disinclination to
volunteer. In the other four cities, the Roma are probably or definitely
willing to help with their time.
We ask the same question as it pertains to non-profits, or NGOs. An even
stronger pattern holds here, with Roma in Batonyterenye once again turning
their backs on volunteering, and Roma in the other four cities saying they
would probably or definitely volunteer if given the chance.
We ask if they are willing to get involved (volunteer) with local
organizations (MSG or non-profits for several hours a month). The responses to
these more exacting questions show an ebb in Roma
willingness to volunteer. Of course, there are differences among the cities. Of
responses among the five cities, the Roma in Nagykanisza have the most
volunteer experience (training programs), and the Roma in
Next, we follow up these questions by asking if the Roma have anything
to do with MSGs or NGOs in their settlement. By a whopping majority, overall,
the Roma report they have nothing to do with their local MSGs. We find
differences among the cities, Nagykanisza is the only city where a majority of
respondents report having anything to do with their MSG. About three times as
many Roma in Nagykanisza are involved than opt out. This is reversed for the
other four cities, where only 20%-30% have anything to do with the MSG. Here,
by similar 3:1 margins, the Roma report having nothing to do with their MSGs.
Next we ask about actual experiences with NGOs. Few responded when we
ask if the Roma in the five cities have ever volunteered or participated in an
NGO sponsored activities or training programs. The highest response rate is
If good news can be gleaned from these findings, it is that age shows a
significant relationship, and the strongest instance of civic activity comes
from young adults in their twenties. One might say this bodes well for future
generations. The Roma’s optimism about the future is worth noting in yet
another response where they report that they prefer leaders who are younger and
professional rather than older with experience.
Church Going.
Church attendance is not a dependable measure of Roma civic interest.
Overall more than two-thirds Roma never go to church. Almost 25% attend on
special occasions and, barely 10% attend regularly.
|
|
|
|
Tiszavasvari |
29.9% |
|
Nagykanisza |
52.6% |
|
Batonyterenye |
29.3% |
|
|
21.3% |
|
|
32.6% |
Conclusion
These questions about civic interest were motivated by our interest in
three aspects of civic participation: knowledge about local issues, the amount
of say, and actual involvement —these aspects all come together in the larger
investigation of the amount of control and mastery that Roma have over their
own lives.
The Roma have a limited amount of mastery and control over their lives;
clearly they would like to have more. They vote, do not go to church, and would
be willing to volunteer and get involved. The Roma want more from civic
community than voting. Put another way, voting does not tell us much about
satisfaction with civic society. The measures of civic involvement that are of
greater importance to the Roma are not available.
For some as yet unarticulated reason, civic institutions are failing to
tap into this resource and develop and nurture this community. The inability of
the Roma to have say and gain mastery and control over their lives, and feel
they belong is even more prescient. Our hunch was that MSGs provide this
desired platform. We find, however, that although Roma know of their MSG, they
have little if anything to do with their local MSG, and while few know of NGOs,
even fewer participate in NGO sponsored events such as training programs. It
remains to explain the gap between Roma interest in being involved and the lack
of involvement with MSGs and NGOs.
Methodology
The research methodology consists of survey research: finding and
interviewing a representative sampling of Roma in each city; and open ended
interviews with decision-makers and Roma and non-Roma leaders involved in the
triangular relationship connecting Roma-MSG-Local government. Devising an
appropriate survey instrument was the summer’s most agonizing task. I arrived
in
For about three weeks, a small team of research assistants, consultants
and I worked almost nonstop on the survey. We sought and received input from
academics; advocates in the Roma rights movement, political and civic Roma
leaders, Ph.D students studying the Roma, and representatives from NGOs in
During this time, we held training sessions in
The research tour consisted of Nagykanizsa, Budapest District 8;
Tiszavasvari; Batonyterenye, and
Mapping Roma Identity
In each city the first task is to map out where the Roma live in order
to approximate a representative sampling of the community for our survey. In
the five cities, I deployed a random sample of Roma in two (Tisavasvari and
Batonterenye) and snow-ball methods in three (Nagykanisza,
The following story-line describes initial steps taken in each city: The
first order of business upon driving across the city line is to access a street
map of the city and then ask various local leaders where the Roma lived. My
strategy was to ask at least two different sources; MSG, and LG where the Roma
lived. I was told in
At each stop I pulled out the municipal map and different color markers.
As MSG or local government (LG) leaders told me they could not know or tell me
who the Roma are, they started to point out on the map the streets and neighborhoods
where Roma lived.
Next we took a drive to these streets and neighborhoods and LG and/or
msg officials started pointing out houses where Roma lived. We marked down the
addresses, assigned numbers to the houses and depending on the number of houses,
selected every second or third as potential interview sites. Once in the field,
interviewers asked the first person to open the door who was 17 or older if
they would agree to answer survey questions “about what Roma want.” If they
answered no, the interviewer asked to see a member of the family 17 or older.
As the topic of the research was described to the person who opened the door
and finally to the person who agreed to be interviewed, the subjects self
selected as Roma by agreeing to participate. From 15-20% of the respondents for
one reason or another refused the interview. The others spoke to us. We
interviewed a total of 100 individuals in each city. The number of houses that
we approached in specific neighborhoods was based upon the reporting to us by
LG and MSG officials of the approximate percentage of the city-wide Roma
population purported to reside on these streets/in these neighborhoods
The reluctance of LG and MSG officials to share relevant data about the
Roma must direct our attention to
The relevant provision of the Act deals with personal data and sensitive
data; the former relates to a specified natural person; the latter to an individuals racial origin, national or ethnic origin,
political opinion, religious or other belief, criminal conviction, condition of
health and sexual orientation. Sensitive data enjoy special attention: they may
only be processed with the written consent of the data subject or if specified
by the law.
My initial greeting in these cities reinforces to us the absurdity of
some of the unintended consequences inherent in the implementation of data
protection laws. The hypocrisy of data protection is also obvious. Designed to
protect vulnerable members of vulnerable social groups, data protection has the
unintended consequence of impeding effective delivery of special programs,
services and benefits tailored to Roma interests. Each of the policymakers and
MSG representatives who told me they couldn’t tell me who or where the Rome
are, were also recipients of state funding that gives monies on the basis of
the number and location of Roma. Of course they know. Money depends on it.
Three quick examples of monies coming to MSGs/ local governments on basis of
Roma population:
·
MSG receives funding for catering to
specific minority concerns.
·
Local governments receive normative
funding from State on basis on number of Roma. Normative funding comes from the
State central budget for each student. This money is different for
kindergarten, primary school, and specialized schooling. There is a very special
quota for handicapped people, additional funding for handicapped people, and
there is an other quota for ethnicity, which is
basically a funding source for Roma students. So, you get a certain quota for
each student, and if you have a Roma student, then you get additional money.
·
Schools receive funding to establish
separate Roma classes on basis of requests from the parents of 8 Roma school
children.
We provide an example of a typical interaction we had that shows the
difficulties of data protection for positive discrimination because positive
discimination requires divulging personal and sensitive data.
A Typical Interaction taken from real
interview mid-June 2000.
Topic: State Normative Formula for Roma in Public Schools
Q: How do you know … (who) is Roma?
·
A: That is a quite funny legal problem…
but I wouldn’t like to go into details because this whole issue is dangerous.
According to the law in
·
In the same interview. I asked about how
the normative formula works in practice, Q. How do you decide in practice, not
in terms of the written law?
·
A. It is quite easy in practice.
The Mayor instructs the directors of the
schools to declare how many individuals would like to declare normative
support; Teachers have a look at students; count them and provide number to the
Mayor. End of story.
With this ascriptive process of identification in mind we were able to
sidestep the nuances of data protection and start tackling the thorny issue of
Roma identity as we went about finding subjects for the survey. As part of our
own research methodology we identified Roma corresponding to two prevailing
approaches to Gypsies as a social group: 1). Ascription: we tracked the Roma
initially in terms of if others assigned them Roma identity. “Where do the Roma
live?” We asked this question of Roma MSG leaders; and non-Roma officials of
the local government. 2) Self- Selection: After we knocked on the door, the
person self selected as Roma by agreeing to the interview.
Why local government?
After fifty years of top-down, central authoritarian control, Hungarians
have increasingly turned to civic opportunities to forge local civic
attachments. A recent study shows that Hungarians are turning away from
national-based and overtly partisan attachments in favor of local civic
matters. This is the stuff of paving streets, filling potholes, getting public
transportation, better schools, and administering health care and social
service benefits. This “scale-up” bias coincides nicely with the logic of local
democracy where it is preferrable to keep public decision making and policy
implementation as close to the people who are affected by it as possible. When
deciding about the level of government appropriate to addressing a public
problem, the “scale principle” also coincides nicely with
Before the transition, local government had few real powers and
functioned administratively and politically as surrogates or mouthpieces for
the state. Following the changes in 1990 and the first free elections for local
municipalities in May of that year, local governments gained independence from
the state and the county/ and received a wide range of authority. The Municipal
Act of 1990 facilitated the growth of civil society at the local level by
devolving responsibility of many important social issues from the state to local
government. Such devolution allows citizens to participate directly and
meaningfully in self-governance.
Why urban areas? A majority of
Why these cities? These cities were
selected to represent a mixture of 1) geographic diversity-our cities are
located in four sof Hungary’s six regions (see below); 2) different sized
cities: Nagykanisza: 36,000; Budapest District 8: 83,398; Tiszavasvari: 15,000;
Batonyterenye__; Szeged: 173,000; and 3) common views of the types of MSG-LG
relationships: strong and weak (4:1).
The distribution of gypsies varies by region. The estimated number is
highest in North Hungary (120,000—Borsod, Heves, Nograd); about 100,000 in East
Hungary (Szabolcs, Hajdu, Bekes), 60,000 in the southern Plain (Csongrad, Bacs,
Jasz Nagykun), 90,000 in
|
Region |
County |
# Roma MSGS |
|
|
|
23 |
|
|
Fejér |
16 |
|
|
Gyor-Moson-Sopron |
14 |
|
|
Komárom-Esztergom |
8 |
|
|
Vas |
13 |
|
|
Veszprém |
21 |
|
|
Baranya |
63 |
|
|
Somogy |
54 |
|
|
Tolna |
27 |
|
Nagykanisza* |
Zala |
32 |
|
Middle |
Bács-Kiskun |
25 |
|
|
|
45 |
|
|
|
33 |
|
|
Borsod |
122 |
|
|
Heves |
55 |
|
Batonyterenye* |
Nógrád |
40 |
|
|
Békés |
19 |
|
Tiszavasari* |
Csongrád |
7 |
|
|
Hajdú-Bihar |
34 |
|
|
Szabolcs-Szatmár.Bereg |
87 |
find
population disaggregated by county*
Acknowledgement
I would like to thank