Welfare Chauvinism Research Articles

Explaining Differences in Welfare Chauvinism Between and Within Individuals Over Time: The Role of Subjective and Objective Economic Risk, Economic Egalitarianism, and Ethnic Threat

Abstract A considerable portion of European citizens are in favour of limited or conditional access for migrants to welfare provisions. Previous studies found that this welfare chauvinism is stronger among citizens with less favourable economic positions. This study seeks to explain the relationship between economic risk, both objective and subjective, and welfare chauvinism by looking at two distinct mechanisms: the traditional economic explanation of economic egalitarianism and the cultural explanation of ethnic threat. Given the lack of longitudinal studies, we also examine whether changes in economic risk, economic egalitarianism and threat can explain changes in welfare chauvinism over time. Using a four-wave panel-study (2013–2015) collected in Great Britain and the Netherlands, these relationships were studied both cross-sectionally and longitudinally. The longitudinal mediation model was tested by making use of parallel process latent growth curve modelling. In both Great Britain and the Netherlands, economic egalitarianism and ethnic threat explained the link between economic risk and welfare chauvinism. Furthermore, in both countries, an increase over time in perceptions of ethnic threat was found to be the driving force behind an increase in welfare chauvinism, irrespective of changes in economic egalitarianism.

Neoliberalism and Welfare Chauvinism in Germany

Anti-immigration sentiments can take on a variety of forms, but a particularly prevalent version across Europe is welfare chauvinism. According to welfare chauvinism, the services of the welfare state should be provided only to natives and not to immigrants. Like many other European countries, German politics also features welfare chauvinism, and not only on the far right segment of the political spectrum. What drives welfare chauvinism? Most studies of welfare chauvinism try to assess whether economic or cultural factors matter most. In an attempt to bridge these perspectives, this article brings in neoliberalism. An examination of survey results from EBRD’s Life in Transition project suggests that neoliberal economic attitudes are a key determinant of welfare chauvinism. German respondents who have neoliberal economic views tend to see immigrants as a drain on the welfare state, while those who have economically leftist views tend to see immigrants as providing a positive contribution.

Facets of nativism: a heuristic exploration

ABSTRACTContemporary radical right-wing populism is an ideational compound of anti-elite populism and nativism, the latter encapsulated in the notion that ‘the own people’ should come first. Like populism, nativism has proven to be a rather elusive concept, particularly when it comes to its relationship to related concepts, such as patriotism, nationalism and particularly racism. Originally developed to analyse anti-immigrant sentiments in the United States and Canada, the term ‘nativism’ has recently been increasingly used to understand the success of the radical populist right in Europe and elsewhere. In this article, Betz present three facets of nativism: economic nativism, centred on the notion that jobs should be reserved for native citizens; welfare chauvinism, based on the notion that native citizens should be accorded absolute priority when it comes to social benefits; and symbolic nativism, advancing the notion that government should do everything to defend the cultural identity of a given national society. Whereas, in the past, economic considerations, including concerns about the viability of the welfare state, were central to anti-immigrant sentiment, in recent years, symbolic nativism, grounded in a defence of national cultural identity, is central to the success of radical right-wing populist mobilization.

Immigrants and Poverty. The Role of Labour Market and Welfare State AccessEugster, BeatriceLondon/New York, ECPR Press/Rowman&Littlefield (2018), 259 p., ISBN 978‐1785522932

Book Review: Are immigrants poorer than natives? Which categories of immigrants are poorer? Do immigrants’ poverty patterns follow the traditional welfare state regime typology? Can institutions–particularly social rights in terms of access to welfare provision and the labour market–explain the variation in immigrants’ poverty levels? These are the fundamental questions that Beatrice Eugster analyses in her new book.

Migration Incorporation Regimes and Institutionalized Forms of Solidarity: Between Unconditional Institutional Solidarity and Welfare Chauvinism

Despite compelling literature, research has so far failed to provide substantive empirical evidence on the relationship between individual preferences on the inclusion of immigrants into institutionalized forms of solidarity and migration incorporation regimes. I argue that, apart from individual factors and welfare state generosity, citizenship models shape citizen’s attitudes on immigrant social rights. Concretely, I examine the effect of the civic and cultural dimensions of the models of citizenship relative to attitudes of unconditional institutional solidarity toward immigrants and welfare chauvinism. The results show that individual attitudes about welfare eligibility of migrants differ among sociodemographic characteristics, political economic orientations, and social depositions of deservingness but at the same time yield from the cultural barriers to the access of immigrants to the political community.

Welfare State Chauvinists? Gender, Citizenship, and Anti-democratic Politics in the Welfare State Paradise

The rise of the far-right poses a pressing challenge to democratic politics and the democratization of political participation in Western Europe. This paper addresses this issue in the Scandinavian context, examining the importance of welfare chauvinism and gendered citizenship claims in the political rhetoric of the far-right. In so doing, we contribute to a need to examine closely the interplay between gender, citizenship, and welfare politics and the rise of exclusionary and anti-democratic politics. The paper draws on an examination of the party platforms of the three principle far-right-wing parties currently active in Scandinavia: the Danish People’s Party, the Norwegian Progress Party, and the Sweden Democrats as well as descriptive statistics on ethnonationalist tendencies among the Scandinavian populations in recent years, retrieved from the International Social Survey Programme’s (ISSP) 2013 survey on nationalism. We conclude that the far-right in Scandinavia uses gender and ethno-nationalist claims to simultaneously valorize and challenge egalitarianism in the welfare state while also shoring up exclusionary and anti-democratic claims to citizenship and belonging in the Nordic welfare state.

Europe's (Lack of) Welfare Chauvinism: Evidence from Surveys and Spending

Immigration’s effect on European welfare states is complicated. On one hand, increased immigration might undermine social solidarity and impose greater fiscal burdens on redistribution, reducing support for welfare spending. On the other, natives could respond to greater globalization with economic anxiety, increasing support for redistribution in order to mitigate risk. Welfare chauvinism predicts a mixed effect—increased spending for programs that middle-class natives use and reduced spending for programs that benefit immigrants disproportionately. I test this theory by analyzing (1) European attitudes towards immigration and welfare spending and (2) actual spending on these programs, particularly social housing. Additionally, I present a brief case study of France’s immigration/welfare relationship. Despite large increases in immigration, I find no significant increase in welfare chauvinistic attitudes and no systematic relationship between immigration and social spending. This surprising result—which contradicts recent empirical findings—suggests that immigration-based fears about Western European welfare states are overstated.

Rethinking the Consumer Metaphor versus the Citizen Metaphor: Frame Merging and Higher Education Reform in Sweden

Neoliberal metaphors of students often describe students as consumers, managers and even as commodities, but this analysis often disregards the discursive complexity of education. We argue that frame merging is essential to understand the hybrid modalities of neoliberal images of students in the Swedish context, where the image of the student is suspended between a social democratic welfare service model, academic capitalism, new public management and welfare nationalism. We demonstrate this through the case study of introducing student fees for non-EU students in Swedish higher education, and how the merging of universal tax financing with a more individualised fee paying solution creates variegated and complex metaphors of students and higher education. These metaphors are infused with social democratic social citizenship, neoliberal reform of welfare services, academic capitalism and nationalist welfare chauvinism. This implies that, in practice, it is nigh on impossible to disentangle the neoliberal consumer metaphor from that of social citizenship; instead they merge to generate multiple contextually relevant metaphors to fit the local debates in higher education.

A New Blue-collar Force

Within a mere five years, the Alternative for Germany (AfD) has established itself in the German party system. During the same period, however, it has undergone a significant ideological transformation as well. Initially regarded as a direct competitor to the small-government Free Democrats, the AfD has since adopted the tried-and-tested electoral approach of other rightwing populist actors by embracing welfare chauvinist positions, linking the survival of the welfare state to that of the nation state. In doing so it has made substantial inroads into the blue-collar electorate, in some German states even overtaking the Social Democrats as the preferred choice of the working class.

Universalism, diversity and norms: gratitude, healthcare and welfare chauvinism

ABSTRACTAccess to universal healthcare is a normative expectation of citizens in European welfare states. As part of a comparative study of healthcare in diverse European neighbourhoods, we met women who described failures of the public healthcare system, together with gratitude for that system. Challenges to European welfare states of ageing populations, the retraction of resources available for healthcare, and globalised migration streams have been linked to xenophobic ‘welfarist’ attempts to restrict access to services for new arrivals and those seen as failing to contribute sufficiently. Stories of healthcare systems’ failure to treat symptoms, pain, and suffering in a timely and caring fashion came from eight women of non-European migrant backgrounds as part of a wider interview study in four European cities (Birmingham, Uppsala, Lisbon, Bremen). These accounts suggest that a normative aspect of welfare provision has been reproduced – that is, the expression of gratitude – despite inadequate services. Where welfarist attitudes to migration meet normative aspects of healthcare, suffering may be compounded by an expectation of gratitude. The regrettable unmet healthcare need of the eight women whose cases are presented suggests that other marginalised healthcare users may also be under-served in apparently universal healthcare systems.

Reviewing the relationship between social policy and the contemporary populist radical right: welfare chauvinism, welfare nation state and social citizenship

AbstractWhilst populism has a long-standing relationship with social policy, the recent emergence of radical right populism as a considerable political force across Europe and beyond compels us to think further about this relationship. The aim of this review essay is to bring together literature on populism, welfare chauvinism and social citizenship in order to highlight the role social policy plays in the rhetoric and political approach of the populist radical right. This essay reviews, how, by developing artificial distinctions between culturally homogeneous ‘people’ and corrupt ‘elite’, the populist radical right generates interpretations of social citizenship that confers social rights based on of cultural or ethnic belonging, rather than as a matter of right. By simplifying the nature of complex social policy problems, radical right populism further problematises the mainstream social policy agenda. Consequently, radical right populism will continue to present a significant challenge to progressive and inclusive social policy.

Radical right framing of social policy in Hungary: between nationalism and populism

AbstractThe populist radical right (PRR) is increasingly associated with welfare chauvinism, but the literature mainly focuses on Western and Northern European cases. Turning attention to Central Eastern Europe, this article investigates how PRR parties in Hungary frame welfare issues in five social policy areas from 2010 to 2016. This is done through a critical frame analysis applied to party manifestos and State of the Nation speeches by the Fidesz and Jobbik parties. Special care is taken to delineate the interlocking but not interchangeable concepts of nationalism and populism, as recent research asserts this distinction is often overlooked. The main findings are threefold: First, these parties articulate their positions chiefly through nationalist rather than populist framing; Second, while Hungary's PRR exhibits welfare chauvinist framing similar to Western and Northern Europe, a main difference detected was the role of the communist legacy; Third, beyond the article's original goals, the findings revealed a strong connection between nationalist framing and the role of gender, suggesting that the two are not mutually exclusive.

‘Framing social policy and populism in a changing European context’

This themed section focuses on the political and social policy discourses of resurgent welfare chauvinism and identity politics in contemporary Europe. The populist radical right, in particular, has utilised these discourses to great effect, reframing social policy and social citizenship through a heady mix of arguments evoking the nation state and ethnicity, often contemporaneously. Although the explanations for the outcome of the referendum on the withdrawal of the United Kingdom from the European Union, or Brexit, cannot be distilled to any single issue or cause, it is also impossible to deny the relevance of social policy to the outcome. For example, vote choice in the referendum was influenced by factors such as education levels and levels of labour market vulnerability (Hobolt, 2016), ultimately dovetailing with the well-known thesis about globalisation's ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ (Kitschelt & McGann, 1995; Mudde, 2007; Rydgren, 2007; Kriesi et al., 2012) and the structural failures of post-industrial economies to stop growing inequality.

Welfare Chauvinism, Economic Insecurity and the Asylum Seeker “Crisis”

Immigration has been a major trend in the last decades in Europe. However, immigrant access to the social security systems has remained a contentious issue having gained additional salience in light of the recent asylum-seeking developments. We focus on welfare chauvinism, the idea that immigrants should not participate in welfare resources, as an attitudinal dimension. We seek to answer two primary questions: To what extent are different types of objective and subjective material deprivation related to welfare chauvinism? What is the role of the recent asylum seeker influx? Using European Social Survey data and employing binary and generalized ordered logit models with country fixed effects, we find perceptions of deprivation to be more meaningful than objective factors related to potential job loss, and some relationships depend on the specific type of deprivation. On the country level, in line with the deservingness of asylum seekers as a group, higher levels of asylum seeking are related to lower levels of welfare chauvinism, while GDP per capita is not associated with welfare chauvinism. Finally, the generalized ordered logit model shows that some relationships vary according to the strictness of welfare chauvinism, which would not be visible in a conventional ordered logit model.

Let's have more Russian babies. How anti-immigrant sentiment shapes family leave policy in Russia

This paper builds on scholarship of welfare chauvinism in Europe to present evidence of the relationship between xenophobia and family leave policies in contemporary Russia. I argue that popular anti-immigrant moods pressure government into providing more generous family benefits to Russian families while proposing restrictions to migrants. Findings are based on elite interviews, as well as content analysis of mass media, policy documents, public speeches, and party manifestos. I show that xenophobia is widespread in Russia among the public and policymakers alike, and find that xenophobia is embraced by policymakers to guide decisions regarding the allocation of social benefits.

Access to general social protection for immigrants in advanced democracies

Immigration has become a central socio-political issue in most advanced democracies. While research mainly focuses on immigrant-specific policies in the area of immigration, integration and citizenship, we still know very little about the incorporation of immigrants into mainstream social policies. By analysing cross-national differences in the inclusion of immigrants into general social protection across 27 rich democracies on the basis of comparative indicators from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) dataset, we seek to address this gap in a quantitative study. A cross-national comparison of these indicators shows a particularly large variation in the inclusiveness of the access to social protection for immigrants across countries. By drawing on the welfare state and integration regime literature, we assess the power of two contrasting perspectives, namely, the post-national welfare state and the welfare chauvinism models, in explaining this large cross-national variation in immigrants’ access to social security and social housing. Our overall findings suggest that both the welfare chauvinist and the post-national welfare state models comprise two theoretical perspectives that turn out to be fruitful to interpret cross-national variation in immigrants’ access to social protection. According to the welfare chauvinism model, we find robust evidence that left-wing cabinets are particularly reluctant to open general social protection schemes to immigrants. By contrast and in line with expectations derived from the post-national welfare state model, countries with an overall generous welfare state and countries facing large immigration flows tend to provide immigrants with more generous access to social protection.

Conflict thinking: Exploring the social basis of perceiving the world through the lens of social conflict

Both human rights organisations and studies in political communication have noticed an increasing use of conflict frames in contemporary politics within Western societies. As such frames are only interesting for political actors if they find resonance among a substantial share of the population, these observations raise the question as to who supports conflict thinking and why? Whereas public opinion research has studied many attitudes that are based on conflict thinking (e.g., ethnic prejudice, populism, feelings of collective deprivation, and welfare chauvinism), this paper addresses the more fundamental question as to whether it is possible to measure people's general tendency to perceive the world through the lens of social conflict. Data from the European Quality of Life Survey (34,655 respondents; 34 countries) reveal strong correlations between the perceptions of the amount of tension between seven pairs of groups. These correlations are combined into a single scale reflecting the amount of perceived social conflict in society. Subsequent multilevel analyses support the claim that conflict thinking is embedded in different feelings of vulnerability. In the conclusion, we elaborate on the implications of our findings.

It's not Economic Interventionism, Stupid! Reassessing the Political Economy of Radical Right‐wing Populist Parties

AbstractThis paper engages in a comparative analysis of the economic positions of radical right‐wing populist parties in Western Europe. Following Ennser‐Jedenastik (), we argue that those parties’ political economy is best captured in terms of the nativist, populist and authoritarian features of their core ideology, each of which produces a specific set of economic policies independent from the issue of government intervention in the economy. On basis of an analysis of the election manifestos of seven radical right‐wing populist parties in Western Europe in the period 2005‐2015, we argue that those parties share similarities in their economic nativism, authoritarianism and populism, whilst their positions on the traditional role of the state in the economy are more diverse. The findings indicate also a unified ‘nativist’ response to the global financial crisis both in terms of welfare chauvinism and economic protectionism. We discuss the role of internal and external factors in explaining the economic profile of radical right‐wing populist parties.

Public opinion towards targeted labour market policies: A vignette study on the perceived deservingness of the unemployed

The issue of welfare targeting is back on the political agenda in European welfare states. Benefit recipients are subject to different rules, depending on age, family status and work. For instance, strict conditions and harsh sanctions apply, in particular, to young unemployed people. This article investigates public opinion towards welfare targeting in three policy areas – unemployment benefits, conditionality of benefits and sanctions – and utilizes a factorial vignette experiment presented within a representative German survey. The results suggest strong support for welfare targeting. Respondents are more likely to offer generous benefits and fewer obligations and sanctions to unemployed people who are elderly, have caring responsibilities, are of German ethnicity and have high job-seeking ambitions. The negative effect of foreign ethnicity is moderated by the ideological standpoint of the respondent, highlighting the mechanisms underlying welfare chauvinism. Accordingly, policy support strongly depends on the individual circumstances of the affected target group.

Does political discourse matter? Comparing party positions and public attitudes on immigration in England

The 2015 UK General Election campaign was mostly dominated by the issues of immigration, public debt, and income inequality. While most political parties adopted austerity-led programmes in order to reduce the level of public deficit, their stances on immigration vary significantly despite the two main parties converging on a welfare chauvinist frame. This article compares party positions to policy recommendations formulated by participants in a democratic forum as part of the ‘Welfare States Futures: Our Children’s Europe’ project in order to determine whether recent party pledges on immigration are being used by citizens in a large group discussion over the future of welfare policy in the United Kingdom. The analysis shows that while participants are committed to tougher policies in order to reduce existing levels of net migration, most of the policy priorities formulated do not match those of the two mainstream parties (i.e. the Conservative Party and the Labour Party) but rather those of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). It also demonstrates that participants’ individual political preferences do not seem to match their own positions on immigration and that there is little difference between left-leaning and right-leaning voters.