Welfare solidarities in the age of mass migration: evidence from European Social Survey 2016

Gugushvili, Dimitri, Ravazzini, Laura, Ochsner, Michael, Lukac, Martin, Lelkes, Orsolya, Fink, Marcel, Grand, Peter and van Oorschot, Wim (2021) Welfare solidarities in the age of mass migration: evidence from European Social Survey 2016. Acta Politica, 56 (2). 351 - 375. ISSN 0001-6810

Text (Welfare solidarities in the age of mass migration: evidence from European Social Survey 2016) - Published Version Available under License Creative Commons Attribution. Download (955kB)

• Author

Abstract

Welfare opinion research has traditionally viewed migration as a potential hazard for welfare solidarity. In this article, we argue that while increased presence of foreigners can indeed make some people less supportive of public welfare provision in general or trigger opposition to migrants’ social rights, the link between migration and solidarity is not universally a negative one. Instead, many people can combine support for migration with high preferences for comprehensive social protection; others can endorse migration while they are not particularly supportive of an all-encompassing welfare state. Based on this line of reasoning we construct a taxonomy of four ideal types of welfare solidarity that are present in contemporary European welfare states. To illustrate the usefulness of this heuristic tool, we apply Latent Class Factor Analysis to European Social Survey round 8 data. We find that the majority of Europeans (56%) combine strong support for both migration and the welfare state (extended solidarity). However, exclusive solidarity is also widely spread as over a quarter of respondents (28%) oppose migration while expressing strong support for the welfare state. People who oppose migration and have relatively low preference for the welfare state (diminished solidarity) represent a small minority (5%). A little more than a tenth (11%) of Europeans endorse migration, but express relatively low support for the welfare state, which we assume to be a reflection of cosmopolitan solidarity. Despite considerable variation in the incidence of the four solidarities across countries, the preference structure is the same for all. Further, we find that at the individual level, the propensity to hold one of these types of solidarities is influenced by social trust, citizenship and country of birth, financial situation, education, and residence type. However, the extent of migration and social spending do not appear to be related with the propensity of holding either type of solidarity as the liberal’s dilemma and the welfare chauvinism theories would predict.

Item Type:	Article
Official URL:	https://www.palgrave.com/gp/journal/41269
Additional Information:	© 2021 The Authors
Divisions:	Methodology
Subjects:	J Political Science > JV Colonies and colonization. Emigration and immigration. International migration J Political Science > JC Political theory H Social Sciences > HN Social history and conditions. Social problems. Social reform
Date Deposited:	20 Jan 2021 15:24
Last Modified:	16 Nov 2024 02:27
URI:	http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/id/eprint/108507

Actions (login required)

View Item