The influence of Roma stereotypes on policymaking: case studies from Romania and the United Kingdom in the context of EU Roma frameworks

Abstract

The central question of this thesis is: To what extent do stereotypes of Roma shape policymaking? The answer it provides is that stereotypes of Roma significantly influence the design of integration policies, as strong patterns of similarity are identified in how policies are written and how Roma are socially constructed in both case studies: Romania and the United Kingdom. Findings reveal that poor policy design is evident in the integration policies of these two very different countries, where Roma are frequently portrayed as ‘needy’, a ‘problem’, ‘uneducated’, not important enough, and different from the general population. These shared stereotypes demonstrate how deeply embedded such views are across Europe. In addition to the central question, the thesis explores the following related research questions: Is there any prejudicial language present within the content of the analysed Roma integration policies? Which are the Roma stereotypes identified? Are there any existing policy gaps where Roma are not mentioned at all? Which stereotypes were identified within the Roma integration strategies from both Romania and the United Kingdom? What are the differences between the policies implemented by Romania and the ones implemented by the United Kingdom? Which stereotypes have only been identified in one of the case studies and not in the other? Were these policies genuinely intended to improve the conditions of this minority group, or are they merely symbolic gestures? To provide answers to these questions, this study adopts an interpretivist epistemological approach (constructivism) and qualitative methodology. It uses Critical Discourse Analysis to assess the extent to which policymaking is influenced by stereotypes of Roma, and Comparative Analysis (Mill’s Method of Difference) to evaluate the differences between the Roma integration policies designed and implemented by Romania and the United Kingdom.

This thesis situates itself within existing literature by engaging with key debates around Roma identity, marginalisation, and the persistence of antigypsyism. It supports the view that deep-rooted discrimination contributes to both material disadvantage and cultural exclusion (McGarry, 2010; Kóczé, 2018), and that policymaking plays a significant role in shaping how Roma identity is constructed (Surdu & Kovats, 2015). It also aligns with existing research that emphasises the diversity of Roma identity (Birzescu, 2013), and the shift toward more subtle, institutional forms of antigypsyism despite increasing emphasis on human rights and inclusion (Slepickova & Bobakova, 2020). This thesis contributes to academic discussions about Roma rights and integration by exposing the subtle stereotypes embedded in integration policies. Its original contribution lies in the comparative analysis of the Roma integration policies designed and implemented by two very different European countries, Romania and the United Kingdom. While Flora et al (2009) examined Roma in Romania and Bulgaria, Ilie (2007) focused solely on Romania, Brown (2022) studied only the UK, and Slepickova and Bobakova (2020) analysed the Czech Republic, no existing study has directly compared Romania and the UK through the lens of policy discourse. Despite their contrasting political histories and EU membership status, this thesis shows that both countries reflect strikingly similar patterns in how Roma are portrayed in official integration policies. Although some may question the validity of comparing such different national contexts, this thesis demonstrates that doing so brings to light policy and discourse parallels that are crucial to understanding the persistence of Roma marginalisation across Europe.

This thesis recommends that progress in improving Roma integration policies requires policymakers to move beyond persistent stereotypes, actively involve Roma representatives in the design process, and review policies for bias prior to their implementation. Future research could extend this work through broader multi-country comparisons or by observing how policy design unfolds in practice.

Date of Award	2024
Original language	English