How Conceptualisation Matters for Representation: The Case of Migrantised Groups

There is wide agreement in the literature that migrantised groups are underrepresented in political institutions. Who belongs to a migrantised group and the extent to which (under)representation is causally linked to the group’s constituent criteria remains less clear. Comparative political science research distinguishes two central concepts: migration background and visible minority. With each concept, different positions and shared experiences are brought ‘into presence’ (Phillips, 1998) and ‘acted for’ (Pitkin,1967). To illustrate how representation gaps differ across concepts, we draw on attitudinal data from the European Social Survey as well as original, hand-coded data on descriptive representation in national and subnational German parliaments (2013–2025). We show that conceptual differences manifest as varying levels of discrimination experiences, and that there are small yet significant differences in group interests. Crucially, while descriptive representation gaps generally increase from the political left to the right, this pattern changes with the concept used: moving from migration background to visible minority, gaps on the political right become significantly more pronounced. We conclude by stressing that more attention should be paid to the use of concepts to understand the mechanisms of political (under)representation of marginalised groups.