Despite the difficulties presented by the Covid-19 pandemic, a significant amount of material was collected and analyzed about the institutional domains of nine minority populations. I will summarize below the main results emerging from the comparative analysis.
1. Minority institutional capital (comprised of organizations sustained by ethnic minority members) is necessary for democratic inclusion in multiethnic majoritarian states. Minority actors are invested in maintaining institutions despite the high cost associated with them (regarding human resources and a continuous search for funding), because institutions create "time horizons" for minorities, and they provide possibilities for minority members to actively develop and improve their conditions, rather than merely performing the roles designed for them by dominant political actors in state centers.
2. Minorities across the region maintain a similar set of key institutional domains. Educational institutions are seen as the most important. It is the only domain sustained by guaranteed public funding, hence also the most closely controlled by governments. Yet there is great cross-regional variation in the degrees of agency that minority actors gain in designing and implementing educational policies and experiences. Other institutions are maintained in the non-governmental sphere, primarily through the unpaid work of volunteers. Cultural-recreational and religious institutions make up the largest domains, while political organizations are comparatively small.
3. The uncertainty of funding generates significant concern and reinforces minorities' motivations to seek external support. Kin-state support is generally seen as necessary (for cultural reinforcement and to complement funding from home-states). When kin-state governments attach political strings to institutional support, the democratic agency of minority actors is weakened. European integration enables transnational networking and provides access to European funding, but concerns arise about the usefulness of EU funds for institutional sustainability, and for the capacity of minority organizations to apply successfully for these funds.
4. Minorities balance bonding and bridging activities in every setting. Cultural institutions are the main bonding sphere; education is the main domain for negotiating bonding and bridging (and therefore the most contested); and politics is the main domain for bridging.
5. Strong linkages exist between minority civil society and the political organizations supported by minorities. Local governments (mayoral offices and municipal councils) play a major role as “intermediary elites” that create space for minority democratic agency and seek access to resources for sustainable minority institutions.
Due to the pandemic, the dissemination of the findings summarized above has been delayed. Results were presented at conferences, invited lectures, and virtual workshops; they informed teaching and academic mentoring activities at the University of Graz; and they were also integrated in knowledge exchange with scholars and non-academics involved in the Association for the Study of Nationalities (ASN), the largest international academic organization focused on issues of nationalism and ethnicity. The ASN membership includes mostly academics and graduate students, but it's activities through the "Virtual ASN" platform reach policy-makers, civil society actors, and the general public. The exploitation and dissemination of the results continues. Several publications are in progress, among which many are co-authored with local researchers who have helped with data collection. This list includes: two monographs (one single-author, the other co-authored); two special issues; and several articles. Most publications are co-authored with local researchers who helped with data collection. The project also provides the base for an open-source comparative index of minority institutions that is currently developed and will be hosted at Queen's University.
