ArticlePDF Available

Abstract

Východiská: Protirómsky rasizmus sa výrazným spôsobom podieľa na sociálnom vylúčení Rómov a následnej chudobe, v ktorej sa väčšina obyvateľov z marginalizovaných rómskych komunít nachádza. Eliminácia protirómskeho rasizmu je v procese začleňovania vylúčených skupín do spoločnosti nevyhnutná. Cieľ: Cieľom štúdie je zistiť, či Rómovia vnímajú predsudky, rasizmus a diskrimináciu ako jednu z bariér vstupu a udržania sa na trhu práce. Metódy: Výskum prebehol v rámci projektu APVV-17-0141 v dvoch fázach – kvantitatívnej a kvalitatívnej. Za kvantitatívnu časť bol využitý neštandardizovaný dotazník – n=739 a za kvalitatívnu časť polo štruktúrovaný rozhovor. Výberová vzorka v kvalitatívnej sekvencii pozostávala z n=40 participantov, ktorých vek sa pohyboval v rozmedzí od 18 do 58 rokov. Výskum bol primárne zameraný na zisťovanie bariér Rómov na trhu práce. Výsledky: Na základe analyzovaných údajov je možné konštatovať, že protirómsky rasizmus je z pohľadu samotných Rómov dôležitým faktorom, ktorý ovplyvňuje ich začlenenie sa na trh prace. Zamestnanosť zohráva kľúčovú úlohu v procese sociálneho začleňovania Rómov a v boji proti ich chudobe. Ako ukazuje rad štúdii, vrátane našich zistení, dôležitým determinantom v týchto procesoch je segregácia – jednak priestorová (v bývaní), ale aj segregácia vo vzdelávaní a v ďalších oblastiach života. Ako v článku ukážeme, segregácia je jedným z prejavov protirómskeho rasizmu. Implikácie: Uznanie protirómskeho rasizmu ako vážneho spoločenského problému pomôže pri odstraňovaní viacerých prekážok, ktoré bránia pri budovaní otvorenej a inkluzívnej spoločnosti. Môže mať vplyv aj na pomáhajúce profesie – konkrétne sociálnu prácu, ak do svojho portfólia zaradí prístupy zamerané na odstraňovanie rasizmu a opresii z dôvodu etnickej odlišnosti.
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
40
VYLÚČENIE Z TRHU PRÁCE V KONTEXTE
PROTIRÓMSKEHO RASIZMU
Zuzana Havírová
 ,
 Nitre
Abstrakt:

       
z      
rasizmu je v  
         
a   
     -17-0141 v  
 
 n=739 a      
vzorka v  
pohyboval v           


rasizmus je z   
      procese
 v 
eterminantom v 
         v 
        prejavov

      

otvorenej a 
          
 opresii z 
Kľúčové slová:      

1 ÚVOD
       celej

Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
41
       
   
         kol., 2020;
        
         
 
          
  
        
         
a 
          
 avenie (OECD, 2019; EK,

     APVV-17-0141 Analýza bariér prístupu k pracovným
príležitostiam pre marginalizované skupiny obyvateľstva: Vybrané regióny Slovenska v sociálno-
ekonomickej, geografickej a sociálno-antropologickej perspektíve a   
          
 predsudky sa
 
1.1 Teórie sociálneho vylúčenia a chudoby v kontexte marginalizovaných rómskych
komunít
          
               
         

     

        kontexte
        
  
         


 na       

            
  
   
dnotlivcom a 
 




Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
42
 
        

        
         
         

        
         
(Esping-Andersen, 2001). Shildrick a Ruce 
           
     
 
        javmi

          
          -
           
           

  
          
           
        
spojen


1.2 Segregácia a protirómsky rasizmus ako bariéra pri vstupe na trh práce
        
           
 
             
   017).

               
s           
           
           
        prosperitu
         

         
      
      

Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
43
v boji s    
1
    
            
           
   
         

 
      
      
    

        
           
 
Defin
 

 
            
         msky rasizmus nebude
        
 
           
              
          
a            
  
 
  
             
        
           
 
       
 
 
2 METÓDY
V         projektu APVV-17-0141 
       
V         
            
a  
1
Protirómsky rasizmus sa v niektorých štúdiách a v zahraničnej lexikológii uvádza ako
anticigánizmus a s tým spojené preklady napr. anglický výraz „antigypsyism“.
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
44
       
        
z        
a  zamerali
          
 
        
          
            
v       
a            
            


3 VÝSLEDKY
V           
 „Aké sú podľa vás najzávažnejšie prekážky alebo problémy v
dostupnosti práce?“
 
k 
        

        
          rodine,
potreba starostlivosti o        
        
           
        
-
        
v            
Semyonov, Glikman, 2009).
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
45
Graf 1 Prekážky v dostupnosti práce

V     
stretli niekedy s 
Tab. 1 Diskriminácia pri hľadaní si zamestnania
Otázka: Stretli ste sa niekedy s  



kraj
 povedali mi

o   
tam niekoho zobrali a 
  rokov,

kraj
           povedali mi na

  

kraj

som im tam, ale n
           
  ani

0
50
100
150
200
250
300
 vzdelanie 

cestovanie, choroba


Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
46
       j v    


Tab. 2 Premosťovacia väzba pri hľadaní si zamestnania
Otázka: Ako ste sa dostali do zamestnania?
 rokov,

  
 A vedia o   
        
sme tam 
  

kraj
      
povie o   
  

 kus 
 
4 DISKUSIA
          
             
         
            
           
  kontext, v ktorom je
            
„neprispôsobivých“       
        
           
           
       a    
        
            
       
   
inteligenciou a v 
Kohn, 1999; Nisbett, 2015; Stanovich, 2010; Ste     
           
          
            
           
          
  
I            
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
47
         
     
z   nadanie, ale ak
 nie
a   kol., 2017).
          
          
        
       

chu        
        

(2012           
medzi minoritnou chudobou a       
  
segr       
          
s     
chudob   to z

tohto procesu oddelenia je        

         
          
s  
         
 
      
          
        

vedie k      k    
 a 
 

  kto      
    
            
           
          
 

    
       priatelia, susedia, rodina
a 
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
48
5 ZÁVER
 s  
     v      
         
           oblasti
        
  trval
 
  
       
           
              
               
  
       
 
  
      
 z 
          
  
           

   -    
s   dopustili sa
  
k  roku 2016.
Dlhodobo je v prieskumoch d     
a             
        
   
  
v 
             
     zamestnaniu z   
           
n             
          
     
       
               
           

Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
49
LITERATÚRA
    A persisting concern: anti-Gypsyism as a
barrier to Roma inclusion. Luxembourg: Publication Office of the European Union, 2018. 55 s.
ISBN 978-92-9491-927-4.
Albert, G. et al. 2016. Anticiganizmus -  Brusel: ERGO network, 2016.
<https://romadatadotorg. files.wordpress.com/2019/04/anticiganizmus1.pdf >.
Asen, R. 2001. Visions of Poverty: Welfare Policy and Political Imagination. Michigan: Michigan
State University Press, 2001. 325 s. ISBN 978-0870136009.
Bergham, J. 1995. Social Exclusion in Europe: Policy Context and Analytical Framework. In:
Room, G. (ed). Beyond the Treshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion. Bristol:
Policy Press, 1995. s. 10-28. ISBN 9781861340030.
Bridges, K. M. 2017. The Deserving Poor, the Undeserving Poor and Class-Based Affirmative
Action. In Emory Law Journal. 2017, Vol. 66, issue 5, p. 1049-1112. ISSN: 0094-4076.
Briggs, X. 2003. Bridging Networks, Social Capital and Racial Segregation in America: research
working papers. Cambridge: Harvard University, 2003. 38 s.
Cvek a kol.: Monitorovacia správa občianskej spoločnosti o implementácii národnej stratégie
integrácie mov na Slovensku. Zhodnotenie pokroku v kľúčových oblastiach stratégie.
Luxemburg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2019. ISBN 978-92-76-09165-3.
          
- Exklúzia a sociálna situácia na Slovensku. Bratislava: VEDA, s. 26-
32. ISBN 978-80-89267-07-1.
- Exklúzia a sociálna situácia na Slovensku. Bratislava: VEDA.,
2007. 328 s. ISBN 978-80-89267-07-1.
ECRI. 2011. General Policy Recommendation No. 13 on Combating Anti-Gypsyism and
Discrimination Against Roma. Strassbourg. Strassbourg: Council of Europe, 2011. 10 s.
<https://www.coe.int/en/web/european-commission-against-racism-and-
intolerance/recom mendation-no.13>.
EK. 2017. The 2018 Ageing Report: Underlying Assumptions and Projection Methodologies.
Institutional Paper 065. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2017. 220 s.
ISBN 978-92-79-64714-7
Esping Andersen, G. et al. 2001. A New Welfare Architecture for Europe? Report submitted to
the Belgian Presidency of the European Union.
2001.<https://www.researchgate.net/publication/238758771_A_NEW_WELFARE_ARCHITE
CRE_FOR_EUROPE_Report_submitted_to_the_Belgian_Presidency_of_the_European_Union>.
Fleurbaey, M. 2007. Poverty as a form of oppression. In Pogge, T. (ed.). Poverty as a Human
Rights Violation. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. s. 13354. ISBN 978-0-19-922631-
3
       In Financial times.
<https://www.ft.com/content/f881fb55-8f06-4508-a812-815a10505077#comments-
anchor>.
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
50
Gardner, H. 1983. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
440 s. ISBN 978-0-465-02508-4.
Gardner, H. 2011. Frames of Mind: The Theory of Multiple Intelligences. New York: Basic Books.
440 s. ISBN 978-0-465-02434-6.
- Príjmy a životné podmienky v marginalizovaných rómskych
komunitách. Vybrané ukazovatele zo zisťovania EU SILC MRK 2018. Bratislava: USVRK SR,
2018.ISBN 978-80-969971-9-0.
Granovetter, M. 1995. Getting a job. A study of contacts and careers. 2nd edition. Chicago: The
University of Chicago Press, 1995. ISBN 978.0-226-30581-3.
Hall, R. a kol. 2019. Analýza zistení o stave školstva na Slovensku. [online]. 
rozum, 2019. <https://analyza.todarozum.sk>.
Herrnstein, R. J. - Murray, C. 1994. The Bell Curve: Intelligence and Class Structure in American
Life. New York: The Free Press, 1994. 912 s. ISBN 978-06-848-2429-1.
Hess, CH. et al. 2019. Does Hypersegregation Matter for Blac-White Socioeconomic Disparities?
In Demography. 2019, vol. 55, no 6. ISSN 0070-3370.
  - 
T. (ed.). Čiernobiele svety. Bratislava: Veda, s. 40 58. ISBN 978-80-224-1413-5.
Hsieh, C.T. et al. 2018. The Allocation of Talent and U.S. Economic Growth. In Econometrica. 2018,
vol. 87, no. 5. <http://klenow.com/HHJK.pdf >. ISSN 1468-0262.
IZ. 2019. Diskriminácia Rómov pri vstupe na trh práce. 
<https://www.iz.sk/download-files/sk/evs/diskriminacia-romov-na-trhu-prace.pdf>.
Jencks, C. 1998. Racial bias in testing. In Jencks, C. Phillips, M. (eds.): The BlackWhite test
score gap. [online]. Washington: Brookings Institution Press, 1998, s. 5585. ISBN
9780815746119.
Kahanec, M. a kol. 2020. The social and employment situation of Roma communities in Slovakia.
Luxembourg: Policy Deparment for Economic, Scientific and Quality of Life Policies, European
Parliament. <https://www.europarl.europa.eu/RegData/etudes/S
TUD/2020/648778/IPOL_STU(2020)648778_EN.pdf>.
Kohn, M.L. 1999. Two Visions of the Relationship between Individual and Society: The Bell
Curve versus Social Structure and Personality. In: Moen, P. Mcclain, D.D- Walker, A. (eds.). A
Nation Divided: Diversity, Inequality, and Community in American Society. New York: Ithaca,
Cornell University Press. s. 3451. <https://www.fly-unicorn.com/lp_ta/index.cfm?_=163492
6471071&T=439380>.
Koncepcia boja proti radikalizácii a extrémizmu do roku 2024. 

- - Karoly, M. 2020. Combatting Antigypsyism. Expert reports building on
forwatd-looking aspects of the evaluation of the EU framework for National Roma Integration
Strategies. Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2020. 99 s. ISBN 978-92-
76-16310-7.
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
51
Laurence, J. 2017. Wider-community Segregation and the Effect of Neighbourdhood Ethnic
Diverstiy on Social Capital: An Investigation into Intra-Neighbourhood Trust in Great Britain
and London. In Sociology. 2017, vol. 51 (5). ISSN 0038-0385.
           Hoffner, C. Zoonen, L. The
international encyclopedia of media effects. Chichester, West Sussex, Malden, MA: John Wiley &
Sons, 2017. ISBN 978-1-118.78376-4.
Madanipour, A. - Shucksmith, M. Talbot, H. 2015. Concepts of poverty and social exclusion in
Europe. In Local Economy. 2015, vol. 30, no 7. ISSN 1470-9325.
Machlica, G. - - Hidas, S. 2014. Bez práce nie koláče.   
   <https://www.mfsr.sk/files/archiv/priloha-stranky/4895/
27/2014_16_Trh_prace.pdf >.
          Menšiny a
marginalizované skupiny v České republice.     
Georgetown. 350 s. ISBN 80-210-2307-4
Sociální exkluze a sociální
inkluze menšin a marginalizovaných skupin. Brno: Masarykova univerzita v  
80-210-3455-6
Mark, C. 2020. A belief in meritocracy is not only false: it’s bad for you. [online]. Princeton
University Press. <https://press.princeton .edu/ideas/a-belief-in-meritocracy-is-not-only-
false-its-bad-for-you>.
Massey, D. S. Denton, N.A. 1993. American apartheid: Segregation and the making of the
underclass. Harvard University Press, 1993. ISBN 9780674018211.
Massey, D. S. Tannen, J. 2015. A Research Note on Trends in Black Hypersegregation. In.
Demography. 2015, vol. 52, no 3. ISSN: 1533-7790.
Massey, D. S. Tannen, J. 2016. Segregation, Race, and the Social Worlds of Rich and Poor. In.
KIRSCH, I. BRAUN, H. The Dynamics of Opportunity in America. Evidence and Perspectives. New
York : Springer. s. 508. ISBN 978-3-319-25991-8.
Mingione, E. 1997. Enterprise and Exclusion. In CHRISTIE, I. - PERRI, H. (eds). 1997. The Wealth
and Poverty of Networks: Tackling Social Exclusion. London: DEMOS, 1997.
          
<https://ergonetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/Valeriu-Nicholae_towards-a-
definition-of-antigypsyism.pdf>.
Nisbett, R.E. 2015. Mindware: Tools for Smart Thinking. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
338 p. ISBN 9780374112677.
OECD. 2019. Economic Surveys: Slovak Republic 2019. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2019.
<https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/economics/oecd-economic-surveys-slovak
republic2019_eco_ surveys-svk-2019-en>.
OECD. 2017. Economic Surveys: Slovak Republic 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing, 2017.
<http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/eco_surveys-svk-2017-en>.
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
52
  kol. 2014. Politika zamestnanosti, budúcnosť pre Slovensko 
zamestnanosti, 2014. 150 s. ISBN 978-80-970204-6-0.
       nkluzívne zamestnávanie.  
zamestnanosti, 2013. 156 s. ISBN 978-80-970204-4-6.
Poslom, X.D. a kol. 2020. Postoje, politický diskurz a kolektívne správanie majority voči Rómom
na Slovensku.       
   -postoje-voci-romom-suvisia-s-
nepriatelskym-politickym-diskurzom/ >.
Putnam, R. D. 2000. Bowling alone: The collapse and revival of American community. New York:
Touchstone Books, 2000. 544 s. ISBN 978-0743203043.
Room, G. (ed). 1995. Beyond the Treshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion.
Bristol: Policy Press, 1995. 278 s. ISBN 978-1861340030.
Room, G. (ed). 1995. Beyond the Treshold: The measurement and analysis of social exclusion.
Bristol: Policy Press, 1995. 278 s. ISBN 978-1861340030.
Rozsudok v mene Slovenskej republiky 15C/14/2016-
Semyonov, M. Glikman A. 2009. Ethnic residential segregation, social contacs and anti-
minority attitudes in European societies. In European Sociological Review. 2009, Vol. 25, Issue
6. ISSN 1468-2672.
Shildrick, T. Rucell, J. 2015. Sociological perspectives on poverty. A review of sociological
theories on the causes of poverty. York: Joseph Rowntree Foundation, 2015. 44 s. ISBN 978-1-
90958-680-2.
Silver, H., 1994: Social Exclusion and Social Solidarity: Three Paradigms. IILS Discussion
Papers No. 69, vol. 133, Geneva, ILO.
Stanovich, K.E. 2010. What Intelligence Tests Miss: The Psychology of Rational Thought. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2010. 308 s. ISBN 978-0300164626
Steele, C.M. Aronson, J. 1995. Stereotype Threat and Test Performance of Academically
Successful African Americans. In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. [online]. 1995,
Vol. 69, no. 5. ISSN 0022-3514.
Sternberg, R.J. 1989. The Triarchic Mind: A New Theory of Human Intelligence. New York:
Penguin, 1989. 368 s. ISBN 978-0140092103
Stratégia rovnosti, inklúzie a participácie Rómov do roku 2030. 

Strier, R. Binyamin, S. 2009. Developing Anti Oppressive Service for the Poor: A Theoretical
and Organisational Rationale. In British Journal of Social Work Advance Access. 2009, vol. 40,
no. 6. ISSN 1468-263X
 - -     - information on possibilities of job
application in the enviroment of marginalized roma communities in Slovakia. Zahgreb, 2020.
ConferenceEconomic and Social Development, 76th International Scientific Conference on
Economic and Social Development - Building Resilient Society. ISSN 1849-7535.
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
53
Valentine, Ch. 1968. Chulture and Poverty: Critique and Counter-Proposals. In Current
Antropology.1968, vol. 10, no 2/3. ISSN 0011-3204.
  kol. 2017. Inklúzia Rómov od raného detstva+.    
  -80-
89571-16-1
        Indikátory chudoby a sociálneho vylúčenia.
B-80-8121-828-6.
Walker, A. Walker, C. 1997. The Growth of Social Exclusion in the 1980s and 1990s. London:
Child Poverty Action Group. 308 s. ISBN 9780946744916
Quillian, L. 2012. Segregation and poverty concentration: The role of three segregations. In
American Sociological Review. 2012, Vol. 77(3). ISSN 1939-8271.
EXCLUSION FROM THE LABOUR MARKET IN THE CONTEXT
OF ANTI-ROMA RACISM
Abstract:
Background: Anti-Roma racism contributes significantly to the social exclusion of Roma and the
subsequent poverty in which the majority of people from marginalized Roma communities are
living. The elimination of anti-Roma racism is essential in the process of inclusion of excluded
groups in society.
Goal: The goal of the study is to find out whether Roma perceive prejudice, racism and
discrimination as one of the barriers for entering and remaining in the labour market.
Methods: The research was conducted within the project APVV-17-0141 in two phases
quantitative and qualitative. For the quantitative part a non-standardized questionnaire was
used n=739 and for the qualitative part a semi-structured interview was applied. The sample
in the qualitative sequence consisted of n=40 participants whose ages ranged from 18 to 58 years.
The research was primarily aimed to identify the barriers of Roma in the job market.
Results: Based on the analysed data, it can be concluded that anti-Roma racism is an important
factor affecting Roma access to the labour market from the perspective of Roma themselves.
Employment plays a key role in the process of social inclusion of Roma and in the fight against
poverty. As a number of studies, including our findings, show, an important determinant in these
processes is segregation - both spatial (in housing), but also segregation in education and other
areas of life. As we will show in the paper, segregation is one aspect of anti-Roma racism.
Implication: Recognition of anti-Roma racism as a significant societal problem will help to
remove many of the obstacles that block the building of an open and inclusive society. It can also
have an impact on the helping professions - specifically social work - if it includes in its portfolio
approaches aimed at eliminating racism and oppression on the grounds at the basis of ethnic
diversity.
Keywords: Anti-Roma racism. Social exclusion. Poverty. Roma. Segregation.
Pomáhajúce profesie, Roč. 5, č. 2, 2022, 40-54
54
Grantová podpora:
    -17-    
       
v -ekonomickej, geografickej a -
ResearchGate has not been able to resolve any citations for this publication.
Conference Paper
Full-text available
The high unemployment rate of Roma in Slovakia, which according to the European Union Agency for Fundamental Rights (2016) is three times higher than the unemployment rate of the majority population, is also related to the possibilities of Roma to search for information about free job vacancies. Several studies show that people living in social exclusion have limited access to social networks outside their immediate circle. This can have serious consequences, as networks connecting different "social worlds" are important means by which people find a good job. We will look at the issue from the point of view of theories of social exclusion and social networks. The aim of our contribution is to show from what sources marginalized Roma draw information about job opportunities. We will look at the issue from the point of view of theories of social exclusion and social networks. We obtained research data from the project APVV-17-0141 (questionnaire research) focused on barriers affecting the employment of residents from marginalized Roma communities. A total of n = 677 respondents participated in the research, number n = 222 (32,70%) out of the total of respondents were currently employed. As the important sources of information and opportunities about the employment possibilities in case of men and women from marginalised communities were identified social sources and municipality offices or directly employers. The category "known" was relatively low in the results of the mentioned research. In the context of the above mentioned theories, these findings are interesting because they can also be interpreted as that people in a marginalized (or spatially segregated) environment turn mainly to resources in their immediate vicinity, which may be unemployed without information about job opportunities. This fact is also a confirmation of the importance of the so-called formal resources. Keywords: Employment, Marginalized Roma communities, Social exclusion, Social networks
Technical Report
Full-text available
D2.9 Národná správa POSTOJE, POLITICKÝ DISKURZ A KOLEKTÍVNE SPRÁVANIE MAJORITY VOČI RÓMOM NA SLOVENSKU Výsledky reprezentatívneho prieskumu výskum zrealizoval Ústav výskumu sociálnej komunikácie SAV www.kvsbk.sav.sk v rámci projektu DG JUST PolRom • Ľudia na Slovensku vo všeobecnosti považujú za prijateľnejšie, keď politici hovoria o Rómoch negatívne a nepriateľsky, než keď o nich hovoria pozitívne-napríklad keď tvrdia, že ľudia majú Rómom pomáhať, alebo keď tvrdia, že Nerómovia by sa mali s Rómami spojiť v boji proti diskriminácii. • Až 80% respondentov verí, že väčšina ľudí na Slovensku nemá rada Rómov a myslí si, že Rómovia majú negatívne vlastnosti. Napriek tomu si len menej ako polovica respondentov myslí, že Rómovia na Slovensku sú diskriminovaní. Čím viac sú respondenti presvedčení o tom, že Rómovia na Slovensku majú nezaslúžené výhody, tým menej si zároveň myslia, že Rómovia sú diskriminovaní. • Respondenti, ktorí sa domnievajú, že Rómovia predstavujú hrozbu pre národnú identitu, a že na Slovensku nie sú diskriminovaní, zároveň vo väčšej miere vnímajú Rómov prostredníctvom negatívnych stereotypov (tzv. anticiganizmus). • Respondenti, ktorí uznávajú hodnotu rómskej kultúry zároveň prejavujú aj väčšiu empatiu a súcit voči Rómom. Títo respondenti sú súčasne motivovaní nielen pomáhať Rómom, ale aj postaviť sa za ich práva a bojovať proti ich diskriminácii.
Article
Full-text available
Extensive research has demonstrated that neighbourhood ethnic diversity is negatively associated with intra-neighbourhood social capital. This study explores the role of segregation and integration in this relationship. To do so it applies three-level hierarchical linear models to two sets of data from across Great Britain and within London, and examines how segregation across the wider-community in which a neighbourhood is nested impacts trust amongst neighbours. This study replicates the increasingly ubiquitous finding that neighbourhood diversity is negatively associated with neighbour-trust. However, we demonstrate that this relationship is highly dependent on the level of segregation across the wider-community in which a neighbourhood is nested. Increasing neighbourhood diversity only negatively impacts neighbour-trust when nested in more segregated wider-communities. Individuals living in diverse neighbourhoods nested within integrated wider-communities experience no trust-penalty. These findings show that segregation plays a critical role in the neighbourhood diversity/trust relationship, and that its absence from the literature biases our understanding of how ethnic diversity affects social cohesion.
Chapter
Full-text available
Residential segregation has been called the “structural linchpin” of racial stratification in the United States. Recent work has documented the central role it plays in the geographic concentration of poverty among African-Americans as well as the close connection between exposure to concentrated deprivation and limited life chances. Here we review trends in racial segregation and Black poverty to contextualize a broader analysis of trends in the neighborhood circumstances experienced by two groups generally considered to occupy the top and bottom positions in U.S. society: affluent Whites and poor Blacks. The analysis reveals a sharp divergence of social and economic resources available within the social worlds of the two groups. We tie this divergence directly to the residential segregation of African-Americans in the United States, which remains extreme in the nation’s largest urban Black communities. In these communities, the neighborhood circumstances of affluent as well as poor African-Americans are systematically compromised.
Article
Massey and Denton’s concept of hypersegregation describes how multiple and distinct forms of black-white segregation lead to high levels of black-white stratification. However, numerous studies assessing the association between segregation and racial stratification applied only one or two dimensions of segregation, neglecting how multiple forms of segregation combine to potentially exacerbate socioeconomic disparities between blacks and whites. We address this by using data from the U.S. Census from 1980 to 2010 and data from the American Community Survey from 2012 to 2016 to assess trajectories for black-white disparities in educational attainment, employment, and neighborhood poverty between metropolitan areas with hypersegregation and black-white segregation, as measured by the dissimilarity index. Using a time-varying measure of segregation types, our results indicate that in some cases, hypersegregated metropolitan areas have been associated with larger black-white socioeconomic disparities beyond those found in metropolitan areas that are highly segregated in terms of dissimilarity but are not hypersegregated. However, the contrasts in black-white socioeconomic inequality between hypersegregated metropolitan areas and those with high segregation largely diminish by the 2012 to 2016 observation.
Book
Across the country, our children are beginning life from very different starting points. Some have aspirations and believe they can be achieved. For too many others, aspirations are tempered, if not dashed, by the sobering realities of everyday life. These different starting points place children on distinctly different trajectories of growth and development, ultimately leading to vastly different adult outcomes. How did we get to a place where circumstances of birth have become so determinative? And what must we do, within communities and across our country, to better equalize opportunity for more Americans – both young and old? The editors of this volume contend that if, as a nation, we do nothing, then we will continue to drift apart, placing an unsustainable strain on the nation’s social fabric and the character of its democracy. Consequently, understanding the dynamics governing the distribution and transmission of opportunity – and transforming this understanding into policies and programs – is critical for not only the life outcomes of individual Americans and their children, but also the country as a whole. The goal of Educational Testing Service’s Opportunity in America initiative is to explore these powerful dynamics and to describe and convey them in a way that advances the national conversation about why we must take action – and how best to do so. This volume contains 14 chapters, including an epilogue, written by leaders from a range of fields including education, economics, demography, and political science. Collectively, they not only illuminate key aspects of the problem but also offer suggestions of what policies, programs, and changes in practices could begin to reverse the trends we are seeing. Written in an engaging style, this volume constitutes an essential foundation for informed discussion and strategic analysis.