In recent years, the use of field experiments to investigate discrimination in areas such as housing and labor markets has grown substantially. These studies consistently reveal that rental candidates from ethnic minority backgrounds often face refusal for property viewings or are severely limited in their housing options. But how do local governments respond to this well-documented issue? Our study seeks to answer this question by analyzing 45 policy documents and conducting 24 semi-structured, in-depth interviews with alder(wo)man and diversity officers across nine Belgian cities. By combining questions on why, what, how, and when local anti-discrimination policy and related actions are established, we develop a temporal framework to understand these initiatives (figure 1).
For anti-discrimination policy to be implemented, awareness about the issue is a crucial first step. However, actions can only be taken if local governments possess both the willingness and capability – encompassing financial and non-financial resources – to act on this awareness. Regardless of the local context, initial actions typically emphasize prevention and are soft in nature, focusing on raising awareness and sensibilization. These actions can be categorized as either general awareness initiatives (General Awareness Actions), efforts targeting potential perpetrators (Targeted Awareness Actions), or support measures aimed at potential victims (Targeted Support Actions). While a top-down is often preferred, these policies can also be developed collaboratively with civil society organizations, particularly in areas with a significant population of non-Belgian origin.
Following the implementation of the initial set of actions, local governments typically enter a phase of re-evaluating awareness. During this stage, they assess whether discrimination remains a significant issue in their locality and evaluate the effectiveness of previous initiatives. Harder, more reactive measures (Targeted Enforcement Actions) are introduced only if discrimination is still identified as a local concern and the government remains both willing and capable to address it. In practice, however, only one of the observed cities considered sanctions as a viable course of action.
This framework is valuable, because it views policy not as fixed but as a dynamic process, focusing on how actions evolve over time - even within a single anti-discrimination policy. This approach allows scholars and policymakers to identify decision-making patterns, predict future changes, and understand contextual influences. Furthermore, unlike existing models rooted in integration or diversity policy, our framework captures the unique aspects of anti-discrimination policy. This distinction provides deeper insights into the factors driving the adoption — or non-adoption — of specific anti-discrimination measures.
Open-Access to full article: To read more about the framework, you can access the paper here.
Reference: Martiniello, B., Verhaeghe, P.P. (2024). Local Governments’ Response To Discrimination: A Temporal Framework To Analyze Local Anti-Discrimination Policy And Actions. Journal of Race, Ethnicity, and Politics, 1-28.
