welfare threat and exclusionism of immigrants. perception of immigrants in different european...

7/27/2019 Welfare threat and exclusionism of immigrants. Perception of immigrants in different European welfare states. (R

1/28

Welfare threat and exclusionism of immigrants. Perception of immigrants

in different European welfare states. (Radka Klvaov)

home list theses contence previous next

1. Immigration, welfare state and xenophobia

Immigration into Western Europe after the Second World War followed various tracks[1],

and as a result of these immigration processes, an environment of cultural and ethnic

heterogeneity emerged in Europe, which brought a new challenge for the European, so far

relatively ethnically homogeneous, societies organized in the forms of nation states.

Not only was the cultural environment affected by immigration, but also the

institutional structure of the modern nation states was confronted. International migration

in its various forms challenges organizational and conceptual boundaries, borders,

important forms of social organization, such as the welfare state, as well as ways of thinkingabout us and them (Geddes, 2003a: 2). The civil, political and social rights originally

conceptualized as the exclusive entitlements of the native population forming the contract

between the state and citizens were partially extended also to some of the newcomers

(Phalet, Swyngedow, 2002). The state organized solidarity, founded originally on the notion

of ethnically based citizenship that indicated the community of legitimate receivers of

welfare state provision, has been challenged.

The welfare state is one of the most powerful institutions that immigrants are

confronted with in the European countries in a sense that it determines their position in the

society in different ways and divides them into various categories (Ireland, 2004: 5). As a

tool of both inclusion and exclusion the welfare state system also became a method of

regulation of migration by means of providing welfare support to some migrants and

denying it to others (Geddes, 2003b: 153).

The immigrants living and arriving in European countries often face negative attitudes of the

natives. This creates a barrier for their further integration into the society and increases

tensions between the ethnic groups. However, the attitudes towards immigrants vary across

countries, and yet not many studies tried to explain those differences, since they rather

focused on finding the similarities explaining xenophobia across Europe. This study aims at

finding whether living in a particular welfare state affects the perception of immigrants as a

source of threat to the welfare of the native population, and thus whether the differences in

the attitudes towards immigrants in various European countries can be explained by the

structural differences.

1.1 Welfare state types

There are different types of welfare states based on different ideas of social solidarity. In my

paper, I use Esping-Andersens typology of welfare states (1990, 1999). He distinguishes

fare threat and exclusionism of immigrants. Perception of immigran... http://www.ethesis.net/immigrants/immigrants.htm

28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


2/28

among three welfare state regimes. Firstly, the liberal welfare state emphasizes the market

dominance in welfare provision that is distributed according to ones efforts on the labour

market and stresses the individual responsibility for ones well-being. The level of

decommodification or independence from the market is the lowest among all the welfare

state regimes, and the basis for the social rights entitlement is a demonstrated need of the

deserving poor. State organized horizontal as well as vertical solidarity is on a very low

level. Secondly, the conservative-corporatist welfare statetype is based on the principle of

subsidiarity and thus the role of the state in the welfare provision is limited to the situations

where the lowest networks of solidarity, especially the family, fail. The degree of

decommodification is limited and the horizontal solidarity is favoured over the vertical

solidarity. The society is strongly segmented according to the status derived from the

position on the labour market, which is the main basis for the benefits entitlement. Thirdly,

the social democratic welfare state regime emphasizes the principle of universal solidarity

and the entitlement for social rights is based on citizenship. The degree of

decommodification is the highest among the three welfare regimes and the state takes the

responsibility for social welfare of its citizens. An extensive vertical redistribution attempts

to minimize the market as well as family dependency.

One of the topics discussed in the context of the welfare state and immigration is the effect

of the generosity of the welfare state on the extent of immigration and the type of

immigrants. An extensive research on the effect of immigration on the welfare state exists

(e.g. Borjas, 1999; Razin, Sadka, 2004, Lundborg, Segerstrom, 2002, Brcker et al., 2001),

but there is no room for discussion of these effects in this paper. Most authors conclude that

immigration can put a burden on the welfare state, but the effect of the immigration on thewelfare state depends on the characteristics of the immigrants. An evidence exists that

countries with the most generous welfare system can act as welfare magnets and attract

immigrants that are more likely to depend on the welfare system (so-called welfare

migration) (Brcker et al., 2001: 57, 82).

1.2 Theories of ethnic relations

This section provides an overview of the main theories of ethnic relations referring to

xenophobia, racism, prejudice, and ethnic exclusionism that, even if labeled differently in

the literature, provide explanations of the negative attitudes of the natives towards the

immigrants.

Wimmer (2000) provides a helpful summary of the theories of racism and xenophobia

and he distinguishes among four main explanations of xenophobia and racism[2]: the

rational choice theory, functionalism, sociobiology and discourse theory.

First, according to the rational choice theories, the natives perceive the immigrants

as illegitimate rivals in the competition over scarce resources and xenophobic discourse

helps to legitimate their position in this competition. The realistic conflict theorycomes from

the conflictualist sociological paradigm. Coser (1956) argues that competition over scarce


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


3/28

resources between social groups is inherent in every social system. Blumer (in Quillian,

1995) develops a concept of a collective threat, which results in prejudice of the dominant

group against the subordinate group, because the dominant group views its group position

in relation to the subordinate group, that is perceived as threatening their position and their

ownership of certain resources belonging exclusively to the dominant group members.

Those theories claim that increased competition between ethnic groups for scarce resources

or the availability of those resources for redistribution puts pressure on the inter-ethnic

relations (Ederveen et. al, 2004: 74). The theory of economic self-interestclaims that the

members of the same economic structure share common interests and each class citizen

supports policy that maximizes his own utility. This theory also presents the immigrants as a

threat to the natives economic well-being (Gusfield in Fetzer, 2000). On the individual level,

negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities and immigrants emerge at individuals who are

in competition and conflict with them (Quillian, 1995: 587). The theory of labour market

versus use of services explains the hostility towards immigrants among native population by

the fear that immigrants will take away their jobs because they will accept lower wages and

they will also reduce their wages in the low skilled jobs. Moreover, the natives fear that they

will have to pay more taxes because the increasing number of immigrants will use the

publicly funded services (Muller, Espenshade in Fetzer, 2000).

Second and third type of theories explaining xenophobia in Wimmers classification,

functionalism and sociobiologyprovide an explanation of xenophobia and racism based on

perception of cultural differences. The inability of the foreigners to overcome them and

integrate into the receiving society feeds xenophobia according to the functionalist

discourse, and the fear of cultural incompatibility is the main source of xenophobia in thesociobiological discourse.

The fourth type in Wimmers classification is the discourse theory that does not

focus on the cultural differences of the immigrants, but rather on the construction of

xenophobia in a discourse of power groups, who define the social situations of economic or

political crises and label the immigrants as those responsible for the problems in society.

Moreover, labeling of the immigrants based on their ethnic differences through the

administrative and discursive practices reinforces the perceptions of them as distinct from

the native population.

Wimmer proposes his own thesis of xenophobia and racism called struggle over

collective goods, where he combines both collective and individual mechanisms of formation

of xenophobic attitudes. He proposes that racism and xenophobia are closely related to the

basic characteristics of the nation state representing interests of ethnically defined

community, and as such it serves as basis for the legitimization of xenophobic discourses

and the reinforcement of national identity. Immigrants do not fit into the image of shared

national history, when the institutions like the welfare state were created by joint labour

effort, and thus the xenophobic discourses of exclusion tend to show the immigrants as

people who came to unjustly claim the right for the collective wealth. Moreover, in times of

economic recession or welfare state instability immigrant groups with high unemployment

rates or asylum seekers are perceived as those who impede the state in its welfare provision


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


4/28

to those who are members of the true, legitimately entitled community. However,

because the xenophobic discourses are mainly heard by the members of the community who

are most threatened by crises in the society, the negative attitudes towards immigrants are

not equally distributed along the social strata. Thus people with low level of education and

bad prospects of future career, who are also most likely to depend on the mechanisms of

organized social solidarity, seem to be most appealed by the xenophobic discourses of

exclusion (Wimmer, 2000).

Coenders (2001) presents a valuable concept of ethnic exclusionism when explaining

the negative perception of immigrants and ethnic minorities by the native majority group,

and also combines both the individual and collective level perspective. Ethnic exclusionism is

an outcome of the competition between ethnic groups at both individual and contextual level

that increases the perceived ethnic threat, which consequently reinforces the mechanisms of

social identification and contra-identification. According to the theory of ethnic competition,

which combines the realistic conflict theories and theories of social identification, the

stronger the actual competition, the stronger the perceived ethnic threat (Coenders, 2001:

42-43).

1.3 Welfare state and attitudes towards immigrants: hypotheses

and expectations

It stems from the overview of the theoretical perspectives above that the institutional

structure of modern nation states, and the welfare state based on the ethnically demarcatedsolidarity in particular, is an important factor in shaping the attitudes towards immigrants.

The immigrants can be perceived as a threat to the well-being of the native population, and

especially in time of social and economic crises, they are perceived as those who contributed

to their emergence. My approach to the analysis of the negative attitudes towards

immigrants combines the theoretical thoughts of the rational choice theories, theories on

the welfare state and immigration, and the conceptualization of Wimmer (2000) and

Coenders (2001) with the idea of Svallfors (1997 in Arts, Gelissen, 2001) who claims that

the attitude structure and value commitments are to a large extent based on contextual

factors, particularly on the type of the welfare state.

The study aims at answering two research questions:

1.How does the perceived welfare threat determine the exclusionism of immigrants by the

native population in different European welfare states?

2. How do the individual socioeconomic characteristics vary in their effect on the

exclusionism of immigrants and how do they interact with the perceived welfare threat in

different European welfare states?

Following the classification of the welfare state regimes of Esping-Andersen (1990,

1999) and the different notions of solidarity behind those distinct regimes, I expect that the


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


5/28

perception of immigrants as a source of threat to the welfare of the native population differs

across the welfare states regimes. Following Ederveen et al. (2004) and the idea of welfare

migration (Brcker et al., 2001), I expect that in countries with a broad concept of solidarity

and large redistribution across the society, immigrants will be perceived as a larger threat to

the welfare of the natives, which will form a strong determinant of the exclusionism of

immigrants. In the welfare states where the market and individual self-reliance is

emphasized and the redistribution is minimal, the perceived threat to the welfare of the

natives from the side of immigrants can be expected to be a weaker predictor of the

exclusionism of immigrants. I call this hypothesis a redistribution hypothesis.

However, the logic of explanation of the effect of the type of state organized

solidarity on the attitudes towards immigrants can also be reversed. Coenders, Lubbers and

Scheepers (2003a) also hypothesize that living in a particular welfare state can have an

effect on ethnic exclusionism. They refer to a degree of decommodification, hence the

protection against social risks that differs between the welfare states, and put forward that

the competition over scarce resources can be modified by the state, depending on the

degree to which the state takes responsibility for the welfare provision. On the one hand, in

welfare states with high level of decommodification, the competition over scarce resources

within the society is reduced both with the members of the community and the immigrants,

and hence the perception of immigrants as a threat to the welfare of the native population

as well as the exclusionism of immigrants decreases. On the other hand, in the states with

weak decommodification, the competition over scarce resources is sharpened, and thus the

immigrants are perceived more as a threat to the welfare of the native population. I call this

hypothesis a decommodification hypothesis.The contextual level characteristics that influence the formation of attitudes towards

immigrants can also interact with the individual characteristics. The degree of

decommodification varies across welfare states, and thus also the extent to which the

competition over scarce resources is reduced. Following the rational choice theory logic,

individuals who hold similar position as immigrants in the system of social stratification are

more likely to compete with the immigrants than the others. The degree of

decommodification in the particular welfare state can thus have an important impact on the

perceived threat to the welfare of the native population, and consequently on the degree of

exclusionism of immigrants. Therefore, I expect that the social position in the stratification

system of the individuals from the native population will be more important in predicting the

exclusionism of immigrants due to their higher perceived welfare threat in countries with

low decommodification than in countries, where the independence from the market is

guaranteed by the state. Certain categories of people such as the elderly, low skilled people

and people with low income tend to be more dependent on the mechanisms of organized

solidarity than other people. Therefore, I focus on testing the effect of those characteristics

and their interaction with the perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants.

1.4 Overview of existing research


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


6/28

The research about the welfare state regime influence on the perception of immigrants is

scarce. Coenders, Lubbers and Scheepers (2003b) found that in countries with high GDP per

capita, where more resources are available for redistribution, and the competition for scarce

resources can be reduced, the ethnic exclusionism is lower. ORourke and Sinnott (2004)

found that the effect of high-skills on more favourable attitudes towards immigrants is

greater in countries with less inequality.

Moreover, some researchers also attempt to indicate to what extent the concerns

about the welfare system and the economy are manifested in the negative attitudes towards

immigrant groups (Dustmann, Preston, 2000; Ederveen et al., 2004). Dustmann and Preston

(2000) found evidence that welfare worries are associated with negative opinion toward

further immigration to the United Kingdom, but they concluded that the racial prejudice was

the most important factor. They also found that welfare and labour market concerns are

more strongly associated with the negative attitudes towards immigration of non-manual

workers and more educated people than of manual workers and less educated people.

Regarding the socioeconomic characteristics as determinants of attitudes towards

immigration, Gang, Rivera-Batiz and Yun (2002) in their analysis of the Eurobarometer

surveys of 1988 and 1987 found that Europeans who directly compete with immigrants on

the labour market have more negative attitudes towards non-European Union citizens.

However, recent research of Hainmueller and Hiscox (2005), who used European Social

Survey data from 2003, showed that high skilled and highly educated people are more in

favor of immigration compared to people with low skills and education, regardless of the

rival potential of the immigrants, and thus they deny that the labour market competition

theory explain the negative attitudes towards immigration. Coenders, Lubbers andScheppers (2003b) in their analysis of determinants of immigrants exclusionism found that

people with low educational levels, in the lowest income quartile, depending on social

security, older people and those attending regularly religious services had more negative

exclusionist stances.

2. Research design and measurement instruments

The research is designed as a cross-national comparison of the perception of immigrants in

different welfare state regimes. The focus of the research is not to find general similarities

of the immigrants perception across the welfare states, but it rather attempts to find the

differences that are specific within the particular welfare regime context with respect to the

perception of immigrants. Thus an attention is paid more to the social structure dimension

and its impact on the formation of distinctive perceptions of immigrants, rather than to

individual processes of attitudes construction. However, in practice those two dimensions

interact with each other in the formative process of perception of immigrants (Verkuyten,

ter Wal, 2000).

Esping-Andersen in his theory indicated three models of welfare regimes and has classified

several Western countries according to this typology. In Europe, the only liberal welfare


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


7/28

regime can be found in the United Kingdom, the conservative-corporatist welfare regime is

represented in Germany, Austria, France and Italy and the Scandinavian countries are

prototypes of the social-democratic welfare state (Esping-Andersen, 1990: 27). To measure

the concept of the welfare regimes countries representing the distinct types are selected. In

order to increase the power of the causal inference two countries from each welfare regime

were selected with expectations that the same tendency will reveal in both of them due to

their specific institutional configuration. Liberal welfare regime forms an exception because

in Europe only one country representing this type can be found in reality. Thus United

Kingdom as the liberal welfare state, Germany and Austria representing the conservative-

corporatist type of the welfare state and Denmark and Sweden as archetypes of the social

democratic welfare state were selected for the comparison[3].

2.1 Data collection

In the research the data from European Social Survey (Round 1, 2002/2003) are used for

the analysis. The survey gathered data based on nation-wide samples of 22 countries

including United Kingdom, Denmark, Sweden, Germany and Austria and comprises a module

devoted to attitudes, perceptions, policy preferences and knowledge on immigration and

asylum issues. The data was gathered by interviewers from all the countries in face-to-face

interviews from September 2002 till mid 2003[4].

2.2 Sampling strategy and weighting

The European Social Survey applied strict and rigorous sampling strategy in order to create

equivalent and representative country samples with respect to the population size and

characteristics. The stratified random sampling method was used with requirements for full

coverage of the target group, high response rate, no substitution and the same minimum

effective sample size in participating countries[5]. However, not all the samples reached

enough representativeness, and thus following the recommendation of the authors of the

ESS, I use weights that are designed to correct for the differences in probabilities of

selection in the sample. Those weights, however, do not correct for variation between

different groups neither for non-response in the sample[6].

When studying the attitudes of the native population towards immigrants it is

important to distinguish between the respondents from the majority non-immigrant

population and the respondents who came to live in the country, or are the descendants of

the immigrants. Thus I limited the analysis only to the respondents from the majority

population of non-immigrant origin. I chose those who were born in the respective country

and at least one of their parents as well, and in the paper I call them native population[7].

The rest of the sample was dropped (i.e. 12.6% of the total sample in Austria and Sweden,

12.4% in the United Kingdom, 10.9% in Germany and 6.2% in Denmark). Moreover, cases


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


8/28

with missing values on more than 50% of the variables used in the analysis were also

excluded from the sample. After those transformations there are 1967 cases in Austria,

2599 cases in Germany, 1392 cases in Denmark, 1738 cases in Sweden and 1795 cases in

the United Kingdom.

2.3 Non-response and missing values treatment

Large non-response and missing values on the variables of interest can bias the results, but

there was no weight created to correct for non-response in the sample. The response rate

target for the ESS is set to 70% but not all the countries managed to reach this target. From

the countries of interest the highest response rate was reached in Sweden (69%) and

Denmark (68.4%). The response rate in the rest of the selected countries was lower: 60.6%

in Austria, 55% in the United Kingdom and 53.7% in Germany. Billiet and Meuleman (2005)

simulated the correction of non-response for several ESS samples with respect to gender,

age and education, but they found out that even if some non-response bias can be

eliminated by this weighting the amount of the eliminated bias is minimal compared to the

remaining bias.

Non-response on the items included in the analysis can be another source of bias, in

case that respondents differ systematically from non-respondents, and it also diminishes the

size of the sample. In order to avoid a large reduction in the sample size due to missing

values when creating the scales used in the analysis I took into consideration respondents

that gave answer at least on the 50% of the items forming the scale following the rule usedin scientific journals (Coenders, Lubbers, Scheepers, 2003b: 56). Missing values of the

respondents chosen on the basis of this rule were replaced by their mean score on the rest

of the items.

2.4 Measurement instruments, variables and the method of

analysis

The ESS questionnaire was not designed for the purpose of the present research but it

contains many important items related to the topic that is discussed in this paper. Thus it is

possible to use those items as indicators of the above mentioned concepts[8]. The

exclusionism of immigrants is the dependent variable, and it is measured by three questions

on the extent of immigration the country should allow with respect to the background of the

immigrant. I followed the image of immigrants the respondents expressed in the ESS

answering the question on the ethnic and economic background of most immigrants coming

to their countries. The greater part of the native population perceived that the majority of

immigrants coming to their country had different ethnic or race origin and came from poorer

countries rather than richer countries (see table 2A in the Annex)[9].

The key independent variable is theperceived welfare threatmeasuring the extent to


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


9/28

which natives perceive immigrants and immigration as a threat for the welfare of their

countries. It is measured by five items on the perception of the effects of immigration on

countrys economy, the labour market and the use of welfare services.

Moreover, individual background variables such as gender, age[10], education[11],

income[12], International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status (ISEI) (Ganzeboom,

Treiman, 1996a)[13], and church attendance[14] are controlled for in the analysis. Those

individual characteristics vary across countries and they showed significant impact on the

attitudes towards immigrants in previous research (Coenders, Lubbers, Scheepers, 2003b;

Quillian, 1995; Hainmueller, Hiscox, 2005; ORourke, Sinnott, 2004).

When comparing the perception of immigrants across countries, it can be also

important to control for contextual variables on the macro level. Those characteristics vary

across countries[15] and previous research showed different results with respect to their

impact on the perception of immigrants. In his study of twelve European countries, Quillian

(1995) found that the relative size of the immigrants population and the economic

situation in a country has an impact on the prejudice expressed by the majority native

population. Coenders (2001) compared 22 countries with respect to ethnic exclusionism and

found a link between the economic situation of the country, increase in inflow of asylum

seekers and the exclusionism of immigrants. However, the relationship between the

proportion of ethnically different population and exclusionism of immigrants was not

confirmed. Finally, in their comparative analysis across European countries, Coenders,

Lubbers and Scheepers (2003b) did not found any impact of unemployment, level of GDP,

proportion of non-western foreign born population, number of asylum applications and net

migration on the resistance towards immigrants.In the analysis, I wanted to control for the impact of the unemployment level,

proportion of non-western immigrants in the population, number of asylum applications and

net migration on the exclusionism of immigrants, not to obtain the effect of those

characteristics on the exclusionism of immigrants, but to single out the effect of the other

variables included in the analysis. However, it turned out that most of the contextual effects

are strongly correlated among each other and, where the characteristics of the country are

the highest from all the countries, they also correlate strongly with the dummy variable for

the respective country[16]. Thus there is a problem of high multicollinearity among the

independent variables and its negative consequences for the results[17]. Since the purpose

of the analysis is to assess the differences among the countries, it is not desirable that their

coefficient estimates might be biased. Therefore, in order to avoid this bias, I do not control

for those contextual effects in the analysis, but those characteristics are described and

discussed in the Annex, Table 5A.

Multiple ordinary least square regression is used as a method of analysis of the effect of

perceived threat to the welfare on the exclusionism of immigrants. First, separate analyses

are run for every country. Second, all the countries are included in the same regression

equation in order to assess the differences between the countries more in details.


28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


10/28

2.5 Comparability

Although the European Social Survey is a research project applying strict methodological

rules, the quality of the data is not the same in every country, and the data is not always

directly comparable across countries (see Billiet, 2005). It is behind the scope of present

paper to test for the comparability of the data across countries, and thus I rely on several

studies assessing the quality and comparability of the ESS data, and also, the use of the data

in previous research.

Billiet (2005) shows some traps in the ESS cross-nation research, mainly concerning

the problems with translations, also in connection with the effects of the context. Thus for

my research, I avoid using items from the ESS survey that were found problematic in the

previous research. Moreover, Billiet and Welkenhuysen-Gybels (2004) assessed cross-

national construct equivalence of the six items, on the extent of immigration respondents

thought their country should allow, with respect to the ethnic and economic background of

the immigrants. The authors concluded, that even if the scale constructed of those six items

was not scalar invariant, it was metric invariant, which is the minimum level of equivalence

required for measuring the same latent variable with the same set of indicators across all

the countries (Billiet, Welkenhuysen-Gybels, 2004: 16). However, following Coenders,

Lubbers and Scheppers (2003b), who acknowledged that in some countries the respondents

(in the case of present research it was Denmark and Germany) distinguished between the

immigrants from poor and rich countries and the immigrants with different race or ethnic

origin, and following the image the respondents had about the majority of immigrants in all

the countries, I included only three items on the extent of immigration from the six includedin the questionnaire[18].

3. Results

In this chapter, the results of the regression analysis are presented, and the hypotheses are

tested. First, I describe how the key variables, exclusionism of immigrants and the

perceived welfare threat, differ across countries. Second, to answer the first research

question, I discuss how the perceived welfare threat determines the exclusionism of

immigrants by the native population in different European welfare state. Third, I present the

conclusions for the second research question, how the individual socioeconomic

characteristics vary in their effect on the exclusionism of immigrants, and how they interact

with the perceived threat to welfare in different European welfare states.

3.1 Perceived threat to welfare and the exclusionism of

immigrants in different welfare regimes

First, description of the dependent variable exclusionism of immigrants and the key


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


11/28

independent variableperceived welfare threatin the selected countries is shown in Table 1.

The descriptive statistics for other independent variables included in the analysis are

presented in the Table 1A in the Annex.

Table 1: Means and standard deviations for exclusionism of immigrants and perceived threat

to welfare in selected countries

Exclusionism of

immigrants

(1-low; 4-high)

Perceived threat to

welfare

(1-low; 5-high)

Country Mean Std.Dev. Mean Std.Dev.

Austria (N=1967) 2.64 0.68 3.10 0.70

Germany(N=2599) 2.34 0.68 3.27 0.67

Denmark(N=1392) 2.37 0.66 2.93 0.63

Sweden (N=1738) 1.95 0.65 2.79 0.61

United Kingdom

(N=1795)

2.58 0.74 3.30 0.68

Source: ESS 2002/2003, authors computations

The strongest exclusionism of immigrants is found in Austria with the mean value of

2.64 on the four points scale. United Kingdom follows with the mean value of 2.58, Germany

and Denmark are somewhere in the middle, and Sweden has the lowest score on the scale of

exclusionism of immigrants from all the countries (1.95). The analysis of variance shows

that the differences among the countries are statistically significant (F = 270.9; df = 4,

9224; p < 0.001). Games-Howell post-hoc test of the pairwise differences between the

countries indicates that the difference between Austria and the United Kingdom, and

Germany and Denmark in the exclusionism of immigrants is not statistically significant (p >

0.05).

People in the United Kingdom and Germany perceive immigrants as the strongest

threat to the welfare of their country from all the countries with the mean value of 3.3 on

the five point scale, followed by the Austrians and the Danish. The lowest threat to the

welfare from the side of the immigrants is perceived by respondents in Sweden, which alsocorresponds to their favourable attitudes concerning the acceptance of immigrants.

Comparison of the means of the separate countries on the scale perceived welfare threat

shows that the differences among the countries are statistically significant (F = 193.3; df =

4, 9275; p < 0.001). However, a closer investigation of the means differences in the Games-

Howell post hoc test shows that the differences in the mean perceived welfare threat are not

significant when comparing Germany and the United Kingdom.

In order to answer the first research question, how the perceived threat to welfare

determines the exclusionism of immigrants by the native population in different European

welfare states, I conduct, first, separate regression analyses for every country of interest

and, second, I include all the countries in one regression equation in order to be able to

assess the differences between the countries.


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


12/28

The first estimated model can be considered as a series of k regression equations,

such that:

Eik

= ak

+ Xik

k

+ eik

, (1)

where Eik

is the level of exclusionism of immigrants for individual i in country k. Xik

is a

matrix of 9 independent variables in country k, k

is the corresponding estimated coefficient

and ak

is the intercept for country k, and eik

is an error term.

The results of the multiple OLS regression analyses conducted separately for every

country are shown in Table 3A in the Annex. The effects of the perceived welfare threat are

statistically significant at the 1% level and the magnitude of its effect is the highest from all

the independent variables included in the model (comparing standardized betas). The effect

is the highest in the United Kingdom, which is also the country with the strongest

exclusionism of immigrants. On the exclusionism of immigrants scale of 1 to 4, one unit

change on the perceived welfare threat scale ranging from 1 to 5 is expected to increase the

exclusionism of immigrants by 0.560, controlling for the individual background

characteristics. However, the effect of perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of

immigrants is the second highest in Sweden (=0.493), which is the country with the lowest

perceived welfare threat and the lowest exclusionism of immigrants. It is followed by

Germany (=0.441); Denmark (=0.402) and Austria (=0.371) show the lowest effect of

the perceived threat to welfare on the exclusionism of immigrants from all the countries.

All the independent variables included in the model explain 24% of the variance of

the exclusionism of immigrants in Austria, 26% in Denmark, 29% in Germany, 31% in

Sweden, and 37% in the United Kingdom. Clearly the amount of explained variance follows

the pattern of the magnitudes of the effects of perceived welfare threat across the countries.

The results concerning the effect of the perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism

of immigrants do not follow the pattern of welfare regimes which would mean that Denmark

and Sweden would show similar results, and Austria and Germany too. Thus the

expectations that the countries belonging to the same welfare regime show the same

tendency in the effect of the perceived threat to welfare on the exclusionism of the

immigrants are not met.

However, the regression coefficients from the separate regression equations do not show,

how large the differences of the effects of the perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism

of immigrants are between the countries. For this purpose the countries are included in the

same regression equation, which allows assessing the significance of the differences

between the countries:

Ei

= a + Xi

i+ AT

1+ DE

2+ DK

3+ SE

4+ AT*PWT

5+ DE*PWT

6+

DK*PWT7

+ SE*PWT8

+ ei, (2)

where Eiis the level of exclusionism of immigrants, a is the intercept, X

iis the matrix of 9

independent variables included in the model, i

are the corresponding regression

coefficients. 1

to 4

are the estimated coefficients for the country dummies, 5

to 8

are the

estimated coefficients for the interaction terms of the variable perceived welfare threat and

the dummy variables for each country, and ei

is an error term. United Kingdom is the


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


13/28

reference country in this model.

Parameter estimates for the above mentioned model are shown in the Table 2 below.

Model 1 shows the regression estimates for the independent variables from the pooled data

analysis, when all the samples of the five countries are included in the regression equation,

but without adding the dummy variables for the countries. In model 2, the dummy variables

for the four countries are added in the analysis, and the differences in the intercepts in the

different countries are shown. Finally, model 3 includes also the interaction terms of the

variable perceived welfare threat and the country dummies, and thus the differences in the

effects of the perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants in different

countries are indicated.

In model 2, the predicted values on the exclusionism of immigrants in separate

countries, when controlling for the perceived welfare threat and the socio-demographic

characteristics, can be assessed. In the hypothetical situation when all the independent

variables have zero value, and assuming there are no method effects in the separate

countries Austria has the highest predicted value on the exclusionism of immigrants

(1.692[19]), followed by the United Kingdom (1.526) and Denmark (1.386) that do not

differ significantly from each other. Germany (1.311) and Sweden (1.110) have the lowest

predicted exclusionism of immigrants.

Table 2: Parameter estimates from ordinary least square regression analysis of exclusionism

of immigrants

(all countries included in the model)

Independent variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3Perceived welfare threat 0.494**

(0.010)

0.457**

(0.010)

0.564**

(0.021)

Education -0.024**

(0.003)

-0.027**

(0.002)

-0.028**

(0.002)

Age (ref: 26 - 55)

- 15 25 -0.167**

(0.022)

-0.169**

(0.021)

-0.172**

(0.021)

- 56 + 0.058**(0.015)

0.081**(0.015)

0.081**(0.012)

Male (ref. = female) -0.008

(0.015)

-0.011

(0.013)

-0.013

(0.013)

Income -0.00001

(0.000004)

-0.00001**

(0.000004)

-0.00001**

(0.000004)

ISEI -0.003**

(0.001)

-0.002**

(0.001)

-0.002**

(0.001)

Country (ref.=UK)

Austria 0.166**

(0.021)

0.792**

(0.096)


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


14/28

Germany -0.215**

(0.019)

0.196*

(0.091)

Denmark -0.014

(0.022)

0.469**

(0.103)

Sweden -0.415**

(0.021)

-0.158

(0.096)

Country x perceived welfare

threat (PWT) (ref.=UK)

Austria x PWT -0.195**

(0.029)

Germany x PWT -0.124**

(0.027)

Denmark x PWT -0.151**

(0.033)

Sweden x PWT -0.007*

(0.031)

Church attendance (ref.=

never)

- once a month 0.058**

(0.019)

-0.018

(0.019)

-0.014

(0.019)

- rarely -0.0004

(0.015)

0.013

(0.014)

0.015

(0.019)

Intercept 1.261**

(0.050)

1.526**

(0.052)

1.169**

(0.079)

Adjusted R 0.298 0.370 0.373

Note: N = 8,337; **parameter estimate is significant at the 1% level (p-value < 0.01);

*parameter estimate is significant at the 5% level (p-value < 0.05). Numbers in

parentheses are standard errors.


In model 3, when controlling for the individual background characteristics the

perceived welfare threat is the strongest predictor of exclusionist stances in the United

Kingdom (0.564), and this effect differs significantly from the other countries. The strength

of the effects varies across the other countries, but after testing the differences between

other pairs of countries[20], I conclude that when following the order according to the

magnitude of the effect the lowest in Austria (0.369[21]), then Denmark (0.413),

Germany (0.439) and Sweden (0.492) - the countries next to each other do not differ

significantly from each other. Austria does not differ significantly from Denmark, Denmark

does not differ significantly from Germany, and Germany and Sweden do not differ

significantly in the effect of perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants.From the perspective of the welfare regime theory, in the United Kingdom, representing the

liberal welfare regime, the perceived welfare threat influences most intensely the

exclusionism of immigrants compared to the other countries representing different welfare


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


15/28

regimes. This result supports the decommodification hypothesis, stating that the level of

decommodification influences the competition over scarce resources, and not the

redistribution hypothesis, stating that the level of redistribution influence the effect of

perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants. However, according to the

decommodification hypothesis, in the countries with the highest decommodification, the

effect of perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants should have been the

lowest, which is not the case shown in the results of the analysis. While in one of the

representative countries of the social democratic regime (Denmark) the effect of the

perceived welfare threat is among the weakest from all the countries, in the other one

(Sweden) the effect of the perceived welfare threat is the second strongest, not the weakest

as was hypothesized. Moreover, the countries representing the same welfare regime differ

significantly from each other in the effect of the perceived welfare threat on the

exclusionism of immigrants.

The results show that the effects of the perceived threat to the welfare from the

immigrants side differ across countries. However, no clear relationship between the type of

welfare regime and the effect of the perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of

immigrants exists.

3.2 Individual socio-economic characteristics, perceived welfare

threat and the exclusionism of immigrants

In this part, I answer the research question, how the individual socioeconomiccharacteristics vary in their effect on the exclusionism of immigrants, and how they interact

with the perceived welfare threat in different European welfare states. Separate regression

analyses are conducted for this purpose, and stepwise regression method is used, to

determine whether the interaction effects of the socio-economic characteristics income,

occupational status and age with the perceived welfare threat exist. The results of the

regression analysis are presented in Table 3A and Table 4A in Annex[22].

Controlling for other background characteristics and perceived welfare threat, the

International Socio-Economic Index of Occupational Status has a slight negative effect on

the exclusionism of immigrants, which is statistically significant on the 0.01 level in

Germany and Sweden. People with higher occupational status have, on average, lower

tendency to exclude immigrants in Germany and Sweden. However, no interaction effect of

the occupational status and the perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants

emerged.

Controlling for the rest of the variables in the regression analysis, income has no

statistically significant impact on the exclusionism of immigrants in any of the countries, nor

is there a different effect of perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants

depending on the level of income.

Age is a significant predictor of the exclusionism of immigrants in all the countries

when controlled for the other background variables and the interaction effect of age and


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


16/28

perceived welfare threat. People aged 15 to 25have significantly less exclusionist stances

than people aged 26 to 55 in all the countries, except for Sweden. People older than 56

show stronger tendency towards exclusionism of immigrants as compared to the people

aged 26 to 55 in all the countries, except for Denmark. No interaction effect of age and

perceived welfare threat exists, except for Sweden[23] (weaker effect of perceived welfare

threat on the exclusionism of immigrants among those older than 56 compared to the

middle age group).

Concerning the other control variables included in the analysis, men have on average

more exclusionist stances than women in Germany and Denmark, while in the United

Kingdom it is the reverse. Education has a significant negative effect on the exclusionism of

immigrants in all the countries. Church attendance has a significant impact only in Austria

and the United Kingdom. In Austria, people who attend religious services have, on average,

more exclusionist attitudes towards immigrants than people who never go to church. The

effect is reversed in the United Kingdom, where people who go to church at least once a

month have, on average, significantly less negative exclusionist stances than people who

never attend religious services.

The hypothesis that the individual socio-economic characteristics are more important

predictors of the exclusionism of immigrants in countries with less decommodification

(strong effect in the United Kingdom, moderate effect in Germany and Austria) than in

countries with high level of decommodification has not revealed true. No clear welfare

regime type based pattern concerning the effect of the individual characteristics on the

exclusionism of immigrants and their interaction with the perceived welfare threat emerged.

4. Discussion and conclusion

This paper aimed at indicating whether living in a particular welfare state affects the

perception of immigrants as a source of threat to the welfare of the native population and

how it determines the exclusionism of immigrants. The main finding of the study is that the

perception of immigrants as a source of threat to the welfare among the native population

differs across countries, but no clear relationship between the type of welfare regime and

the effect of the perceived welfare threat on the exclusionism of immigrants exists. Even if

the impact of the individual background characteristics on the exclusionism of immigrants

differs across the countries, and it does not always show the same tendency and

significance, there is no welfare regime based pattern of the effect of the individual

socioeconomic characteristic on the exclusionism of immigrants.

The study suggests that the welfare regime theory cannot explain the differences in

xenophobia in various European countries. Thus a question arises: which other factors can

explain the differences in exclusionism of immigrants across countries? Why is the

perceived welfare threat such a strong determinant of the exclusionism of immigrants in the

United Kingdom compared to Austria, given that both countries have almost the same level

of xenophobia?


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


17/28

The countrys macro-level characteristics such as the proportion of foreign born

population, number of asylum seekers or unemployment level do not seem to provide a

satisfactory explanation since they showed ambiguous results in previous research.

Moreover, Wallace (1999: 11) remarks that it is not so much about the actual extent of

immigration as about its perception, and the way how the issue of immigration is expressed

in public discourse.

Some authors tried to explain the differences in attitudes towards immigrants across

countries with type of immigration policy. Bauer, Lofstrom and Zimmermann found an

evidence that countrys immigration policy affects which immigrants come to the country,

their economic performance, and thus also their perception by the native population. Their

findings suggest that in countries that select the immigrants according to the needs of the

labour market (Canada, New Zealand) the natives perceived them as generally good for the

economy, than in countries that receive mainly refugees (the Netherlands, Sweden) (Bauer,

Lofstrom and Zimmermann in Brcker et al., 2001: 53).

The study of immigration policy determinants of the natives attitudes towards

immigrants or the comparison of public discourses could be the possible directions to go

further to explore the factors determining the varying degrees of xenophobia across

European countries. Comparative analysis of the attitudes towards immigrants in different

countries can reveal the causes of xenophobia that can be consequently to some extent

eliminated by various policies in order to ameliorate the inter-ethnic relations and facilitate

the integration of the growing number of immigrants in European countries.


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


18/28

Annex

A1. Annex 1: Tables

Table 1A: Means and standard deviations for the independent variables

Variables Austria

(N=1967)

Germany

(N=2599)

Denmark

(N=1392)

Sweden

(N=1738)

UK

(N=1795)

Mean

(Std.Dev.)

Mean

(Std.Dev.)

Mean

(Std.Dev.)

Mean

(Std.Dev.)

Mean

(Std.Dev.)

Perceived

welfare

threat

3.10 (0.70) 3.27 (0.67) 2.93 (0.63) 2.79 (0.61) 3.30 (0.68)

Education 12.27

(2.90)

12.93

(3.33)

13.24

(3.60)

11.89

(3.40)

12.55

(3.16)

ISEI 43.32

(13.97)

44.21

(15.20)

41.92

(16.81)

42.90

(16.84)

42.36

(16.84)

Male 0.48 (0.50) 0.48 (0.50) 0.52 (0.50) 0.51 (0.50) 0.49 (0.50)

Income 2,327

(1,311)

2,659

(1,646)

3,316

(1,870)

2,505

(1,371)

3,207

(2,312)

Age 15-25 0.15 (0.35) 0.13 (0.34) 0.12 (0.33) 0.14 (0.35) 0.13 (0.34)

Age 26 - 55 0.59 (0.49) 0.52 (0.50) 0.54 (0.50) 0.50 (0.50) 0.50 (0.50)

Age 56 + 0.27 (0.44) 0.35 (0.48) 0.33 (0.47) 0.36 (0.48) 0.36 (0.48)

Church

attendance

- once a

month

0.35 (0.48) 0.19 (0.39) 0.09 (0.28) 0.11 (0.31) 0.16 (0.36)

- rarely 0.38 (0.49) 0.44 (0.50) 0.52 (0.50) 0.51 (0.50) 0.31 (0.46)

- never 0.26 (0.44) 0.37 (0.48) 0.39 (0.49) 0.38 (0.48) 0.54 (0.50)

Note: Means for the categorical variables show the proportions of the categories in the

sample.


Table 2A: Majoritys image of the ethnic and economic background of immigrants in their

country

Race/ethnic

background of mostimmigrants

Austria

N=1967

Germany

N=2599

Denmark

N=1392

Sweden

N=1738

UK

N=1795

Same as majority 5% 10% 5% 15% 4%


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


19/28

Different than

majority

73% 68% 70% 46% 69%

Half and half 22% 22% 25% 40% 27%

Economic background

of most immigrants

from Europe

Richer countries 2% 1% 3% 8% 3%

Poorer countries 80% 91% 66% 60% 76%

Half and half 18% 8% 31% 32% 21%

Economic background

of most immigrants

from outside Europe

Richer countries 2% 1% 1% 4% 2%

Poorer countries 84% 93% 88% 81% 80%

Half and half 14% 5% 11% 15% 18%


Table 3A: Parameter estimates from separate ordinary least square regression analyses of

exclusionism of immigrants

Independent

variables

Austria

(N=1559)

Germany

(N=2207)

Denmark

(N=1264)

Sweden

(N=1600)

UK

(N=1708)

Perceived welfare

threat

0.371**

(0.023)

B=0.383

0.441**

(0.019)

B=0.440

0.402**

(0.026)

B=0.381

0.493**

(0.023)

B=0.460

0.560**

(0.022)

B=0.519

Education -0.028**

(0.006)

B=-0.119

-0.024**

(0.005)

B=-0.117

-0.041**

(0.006)

B=-0.227

-0.024**

(0.005)

B=-0.122

-0.024**

(0.005)

B=-0.103

Age

(ref: 26 - 55)

- 15 - 25 -0.227**

(0.048)

B=-0.108

-0.197**

(0.048)

B=-0.076

-0.192**

(0.054)

B=-0.091

-0.074

(0.043)

B=-0.038

-0.158**

(0.046)

B=-0.070

- 56 + 0.115**

(0.036)

B=0.075

0.060*

(0.027)

B=0.043

-0.022

(0.037)

B=-0.016

0.125**

(0.034)

B=-0.092

0.118**

(0.033)

B=0.078

Male (ref. =

female)

-0.006

(0.030)

B=-0.005

0.055*

(0.040)

B=0.021

0.076*

(0.032)

B=0.058

-0.007

(0.006)

B=-0.019

-0.067*

(0.029)

B=-0.046

Income -0.000002

(0.00001)

B=-0.004

-0.00001

(0.000008)

B=-0.027

-0.00001

(0.00001)

B=-0.032

-0.00001

(0.00001)

B=-0.022

-0.00001

(0.00001)

B=-0.039


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


20/28

ISEI 0.001

(0.001)

B=-0.018

-0.003**

(0.001)

B=-0.069

-0.001

(-0.001)

B=-0.030

-0.003**

(0.001)

B=-0.068

-0.001

(0.001)

B=-0.031

Church attendance

(ref.= never)


(0.039)

B=0.116

-0.047

(0.035)

B=-0.027

-0.010

(0.062)

B=-0.004

-0.079

(0.048)

B=-0.037

-0.134**

(0.042)

B=-0.067

- rarely 0.146**

(0.038)

B=0.106

-0.034

(0.027)

B=-0.025

0.057

(0.034)

B=0.043

0.013

(0.029)

B=0.010

-0.027

(0.032)

B=-0.017

Intercept 1.774**

(0.119)

1.369**

(0.102)

1.777**

(0.120)

0.968**

(0.105)

1.162**

(0.109)

Adjusted R 0.239 0.293 0.264 0.310 0.368

Note: **parameter estimate is significant at the 1% level (p-value < 0.01); *parameter

estimate is significant at the 5% level (p-value < 0.05). Numbers in parentheses are

standard errors.


Table 4A: Parameter estimates from separate ordinary least square regression analysis of

exclusionism of immigrants,

including interaction with age

Independent

variables

Austria

(N=1559)

Germany

(N=2207)

Denmark

(N=1264)

Sweden

(N=1600)

UK

(N=1708)

Perceived welfare

threat

0.384**

(0.028)

0.459**

(0.025)

0.434**

(0.035)

0.558**

(0.032)

0.574**

(0.029)

Education -0.028**

(0.006)

-0.024**

(0.005)

-0.041**

(0.006)

-0.024**

(0.005)

-0.023**

(0.005)

Age (ref: 26 - 55)

- 15 25 -0.572**

(0.223)

-0.583*

(0.260)

-0.036**

(0.268)

-0.024

(0.199)

-0.596**

(0.235)

- 56 + 0.406**

(0.160)

0.299*

(0.130)

-0.235

(0.166)

0.632**

(0.140)

0.382*

(0.153)

Welfare threat x

younger age

0.117

(0.073)

0.116

(0.077)

-0.054

(0.089)

-0.019

(0.070)

-0.132

(0.070)

Welfare threat x

older age

-0.091

(0.049)

-0.072

(0.038)

-0.072

(0.055)

-0.181**

(0.049)

-0.078

(0.045)

Male (ref. =female)

-0.007(0.030)

0.052*(0.025)

0.078*(0.032)

-0.013(0.027)

-0.070*(0.029)

Income -0.000003

(0.00001)

-0.00001

(0.00001)

-0.00001

(0.00001)

-0.00001

(0.00001)

-0.00001

(0.00001)


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


21/28

ISEI -0.001

(0.001)

-0.003**

(0.001)

-0.001

(-0.001)

-0.003**

(0.001)

-0.002

(0.001)

Church attendance

(ref.= never)


(0.038)

-0.046

(0.035)

-0.005

(0.062)

-0.081

(0.048)

-0.136**

(0.042)

- rarely 0.139**

(0.038)

-0.034

(0.027)

0.058

(0.034)

0.015

(0.029)

-0.032

(0.032)

Intercept 1.745**

(0.133)

1.312**

(0.116)

1.683**

(0.139)

0.799**

(0.118)

1.112**

(0.129)

Adjusted R 0.242 0.294 0.263 0.316 0.371

Note: **parameter estimate is significant at the 1% level (p-value < 0.01); *parameter

estimate is significant at the 5% level (p-value < 0.05). Numbers in parentheses are

standard errors.


Table 5A: Selected country-level characteristics

Country Proportion of

non-Western[24]

non-nationals in

population

(2000)[25]

Average annual

number of

asylum

applications per

1,000 capita

(2001-2002)[26]

Average annual

net migration

per 1,000 capita

(1995-2000)[27]

Unemployment

rate

(2002)[28]

Austria 10.2 % 4.27 0.6 4.2 %

Germany 6.1 % 1.09 2.3 8.2 %

Denmark 4.9 % 1.73 2.7 4.6 %

Sweden 7.7 % 3.18 1.0 4.9 %

UK 3.4 % 1.89 1.6 5.1 %

Source: Different sources; see the footnote

The highest proportion of non-Western non-nationals in the total population can be

found in Austria (10.2%), followed by Sweden (7.7%) and Germany (6.1%). In Denmark

and the United Kingdom, the proportion of non-Western non-nationals in the population

(4.9%, 3.4% respectively) is the lowest among those five countries. Austria also receives

the highest average number of asylum application per year (4.27), assessed per 1,000

inhabitants. The second country with the highest number of asylum seekers is Sweden with

3.18 asylum applications per 1,000 capita per year. Those countries are followed by the

United Kingdom with 1.89 asylum applications and Denmark with 1.73 asylum applications

per 1,000 capita per year. Germany has the lowest yearly number of asylum seekers per1,000 inhabitants among all those countries. However, Germany and Denmark are countries

with the highest yearly net positive migration per 1,000 inhabitants (2.3, 2.7). The United

Kingdom follows with 1.6 immigrants and Sweden with 1 immigrant per 1,000 capita per


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


22/28

year. Austria has the lowest number of immigrants per 1,000 capita per year (0.6). Finally,

Germany has rather high unemployment rate (8.2%) compared to the other countries,

where the unemployment is on a similar level: 5.1% in the United Kingdom, 4.9% in

Sweden, 4.6% in Denmark, and 4.2% in Austria.

A2. Annex 2: Items measuring the key concepts (ESS 2002/2003questionnaire)

Exclusionism of immigrants

(1) To what extent do you think (country) should allow people of a different race or

ethnic group as most (country) people to come and live here?[29]

(2) To what extent do you think (country) should allow people form poorer countries

in Europe to come and live here?

(3) To what extent do you think (country) should allow people from poorer countries

outside Europe to come and live here?

The reliability of the scale exclusionism of immigrants is high in all the countries (Cronbach

alpha higher than 0.9).

Perceived welfare threat

(1) Would you say that people who come to live here generally take jobs away from

the workers in (country) or generally help create new jobs?

(2) Most of the people who come to live here work and pay taxes. They also usehealth and welfare services. On balance, do you think people who come here take out more

than they put in or put in more than they take out?

(3) Would you say that it is generally bad or good for (country)s economy that people

come to live here from other countries?[30]

(4) How much do you agree or disagree that average wages and salaries are generally

brought down by people coming to live and work here?

(5) How much do you agree or disagree that people who come to live and work here

generally harm the economic prospects of the poor more than the rich?

The reliability of the scaleperceived welfare threatis good: Cronbach alpha is 0.7 in

Austria, Denmark and Sweden and 0.8 in Germany and the United Kingdom.

A3. Annex 3: Definition of immigrants generations and the native

population in the sample

In scientific literature, the immigrants generations are usually defined as follows: first

generation immigrants are those who came to live in a country but they were born in

another country (Saucedo, White, Glick, 2003; Fertig, Schmidt, 2001), 1.5 generation

immigrants are defined as those who immigrated in a country with their parents in their


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


23/28

early life, and grown up there (Choi, Cranley, Nichols, 2001),second generation immigrants

are those who were born in the country their parent(s) immigrated into (Strelitz, 2004;

Saucedo, White, Glick, 2003; Choi, Cranley, Nichols, 2001; Fertig, Schmidt, 2001).

Ramakrishnan (2004), giving the example of the immigrants into the United States, claims

that in most studies those who were born in the U.S., and at least one of their parents were

born outside the U.S are also defined as second generation immigrants. However, the author

labels those as the 2.5 generation immigrants. The third generation immigrants are the

descendants of the second generation (Ramakrishnan, 2004; Choi, Cranley, Nichols, 2001).

To find an explicit definition of the native is rather difficult and in the scientific

studies they are often contrasted to the immigrants generations mentioned above. In the

paper, I use a term native population to refer to those who are not the first, 1.5, and

second generation immigrants, thus to those who were born in the respective country and at

least one of their parents as well. I do not include the second generation immigrants,

because even if they were born in the country their parents immigrated into, they are often

raised in the immigrants communities, they might perceive themselves as immigrants, and

they are often perceived as immigrants by the non-immigrant population. Ireland says about

the immigrants from Southern Europe to Western Europe: Due to persistent discrepancies

between Southern Europeans socioeconomic, cultural, and political situation and that of

the native stock residents, even second- and third- generation Italians, Iberians, and Greeks

have been considered part of the immigrants-origin population, notwithstanding their

ancestral homelands membership in the European Union and new status as countries of

immigration on their own right (Ireland, 2004: 2). I think this idea can be broadened also

to other groups of immigrants in Western Europe, even if there are undoubtedly differencesbetween the immigrants groups of different origin. Whether the exclusionism of

immigrants among the population of immigrant origin is stronger, or weaker, or the same as

among the population of non-immigrant origin is disputable, but it is behind the scope of the

present research to deal with this question.

References

Arts, W., Gelissen, J. 2001. Welfare States, Solidarity and Justice Principles: Does the

Type Really Matter? InActa Sociologica, Vol. 44 (4), 283-306.

Berry, W.D., Feldman, S. 1985. Multiple regression in practice. Sage University Paper

series on Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, 07-050. Newbury Park, CA:

Sage.

Bauer, T.K., Lofstrom, M., Zimmermann, K.F. 2000. Immigration Policy, Assimilation of

Immigrants and the Natives Sentiments towards Immigrants: Evidence from 12

OECD-Countries. IZA Discussion Paper No. 187. Bonn: Institute for Study of LabourBilliet, J. 2005. Some examples of traps in cross-nation research. Some examples from

ESS round 1. Leuven: ISPO/K.U. Leuven.

Billiet, J., Meuleman, B. 2005. Corrections for non-response in the ESS round 1:


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


24/28

weighting for background variables. A simulation. Leuven: K.U. Leuven, Centre for

Survey Methodology.

Billiet, J., Welkenhuysen-Gybels, J. 2004. Assessing the cross-national construct

equivalence in the ESS. The case of six immigration items. Leuven: K.U. Leuven,

Departement Sociologie.

Borjas, G. 1999. Heavens Door. Princeton: Princeton University Press.

Brcker, H., Epstein, G.S., McCormick, B., Saint-Paul, G., Venturini, A., Zimmerman, K.

2001. Managing Migration in the European Welfare State. URL: www.frdb.org/images

/customer/copy_0_paper1_23jun01.pdf

Choi, S., Cranley, M.E., Nichols, J.D. 2001. Coming to America and Becoming

American: Narration of Korean Immigrant Young Men. InInternational Education

Journal, Vol. 2 (5), 47- 61. URL: http://www.flinders.edu.au/education/iej

Coenders, M. 2001. Nationalistic Attitudes and Ethnic Exclusionism in a Comparative

Perspective. Nijmegen: Katholiek Universiteit Nijmegen.

Coenders, M., Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P. 2003a. Majority populations attitudes

towards migrants and minorities. Report 1 for the European Monitoring Centre on

Racism and Xenophobia, Ref. no. 2003/04/01. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.

Coenders, M., Lubbers, M., Scheepers, P. 2003b. Majority populations attitudes

towards migrants and minorities. Report 4 for the European Monitoring Centre on

Racism and Xenophobia. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.

Coser, L.A. 1956. The Function of Social Conflict. Glencoe: Free Press.

Dustmann, C., Preston, J. 2000. Racial and Economic Factors in Attitudes to

Immigration. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 2542Ederveen et. al. 2004. Destination Europe. Immigration and Integration in the

European Union. The Hague: CPB Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis.

Esping-Andersen, A. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton:

Princeton University Press.

Esping-Andersen, A. 1999. The Social Foundation of Post-industrial Economies. Oxford:

Oxford University Press.

Fertig, M. Schmidt, C.M. 2001. First- and Second-Generation Migrants in Germany

What Do We Know and What Do People Think. IZA Discussion Paper No. 286. Bonn:

Institute for Study of Labour.

Fetzer, J.S. 2000. Public Attitudes toward Immigration in the United States, France,

and Germany. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

Gang, I.N., Rivera-Batiz, F.L., Yun, M.-S. 2002. Economic Strain, Ethnic Concentration

and Attitudes Towards Foreigners in the European Union. IZA Discussion Paper No.

578, Bonn: Institute for the Study of Labor.

Ganzeboom, H.B.G., Treiman, D.J. 1996a. Internationally Comparable Measures of

Occupational Status for the 1988 International Standard Classification of Occupations.

In Social Science Research 25, 201-239.

Ganzeboom, H.B.G., Treiman, D.J. 1996b.International Stratification and Mobility File:

Conversion Tools. Utrecht: Department of Sociology. URL: http://www.fss.uu.nl


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


25/28

/soc/hg/ismf

Geddes, A. 2003a. The Politics of Migration and Immigration in Europe. London,

Thousand Oaks, New Delhi: SAGE Publications.

Geddes, A. 2003b. Migration and the Welfare State in Europe. In Political Quarterly,

Vol. 74 (4), 150-162.

Hainmueller, J., Hiscox, M.J. 2005. Educated Preferences: Explaining Attitudes Towards

Immigrants in Europe. URL: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpot

/0505013.htm

Hardy, M.A. 1993. Regression With Dummy Variables. Sage University Paper series on

Quantitative Applications in Social Sciences, 07-093. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Ireland, P. 2004. Becoming Europe. Immigration, Integration and the Welfare State.

Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press.

Jowel, R., Central Co-ordinating Team. 2003. European Social Survey 2002/2003:

Technical Report. London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University.

Lundborg, P., Segerstrom, P. 2002. The Growth and Welfare Effects of International

Mass Migration. InJournal of International Economics. Vol. 56 (1), 177-204.

ORourke, K.H., Sinnott, R. 2004. The Determinants of Individual Attitudes Towards

Immigration. URL:

Phalet, K. Swyngedouw, M. 2002. National identities and representations of

citizenship: A comparison of Turks, Moroccans and working-class Belgians in Brussels.

In Ethnicities 2002 (2), 5-30.

Ramakrishnan, S.K. 2004. Second-Generation Immigrants? The "2.5 Generation" in

the United States. In Social Science Quaterly. Vol. 85 (2).Razin, A., Sadka, E. 2004. Welfare migration: Is the net fiscal burden a good measure

of its economic impact on the welfare of the native born population?NBER Working

Paper 10682. Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research. URL: http://www.nber.org

/papers/w10682

Quillian, L. 1995. Prejudice as a Response to Perceived Group Threat: Population

Composition and Anti-Immigrant and Racial Prejudice in Europe. In American

Sociological Review, Vol. 60 (4), 586-611.

Ter Wal, J., Verkuyten, M. 2000. Introduction: Racism in a Comparative Perspective.

In ter Wal, J., Verkuyten, M. (eds.). Comparative Perspectives on Racism. Aldershot:

Ashgate.

Population Division of the United Nations Secretariat. 2002. International Migration

2002. URL: http://www.unpopulation.org

Saucedo, S.E.G., White, M.J., Glick, J.E. 2003. Between Family, Job Responsabilities and

School. Generation Status, Ethnicity and Differences in Routes out of School. URL:

www.migracionydesarrollo.org

Strelitz, J. 2004. Second Generation Immigrants to the UK: Outcomes in Early

Adulthood and Patterns of Social Mobility. Paper to European Association of Population

Studies, 2nd

Conference of the EAPS Working Group on International Migration in

Europe. URL: http://www.irpps.cnr.it/ricmob/web_conf/download/Strelitz_paper.pdf


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


26/28

Wallace, C. 1999. Xenophobia in Transition: Austria and Eastern Europe Compared.

Vienna: Institute for Advanced Studies.

Wimmer, A. 2000. Racism in Nationalized States: A Framework for Comparative

Research. In ter Wal, J., Verkuyten, M. (eds.) Comparative Perspectives on Racism.

Aldershot: Ashgate.

Other online sources:

http://ess.nsd.uib.no/2003_Fworksummary.jsp

http://ess.nsd.uib.no/2003_documentation.jsp

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/

home list theses contence previous next

[1] Geddes (2003a: 17) recognizes the primary migration between 1950s and thebeginning of 1970s with workers invited to help with European economic reconstruction,

followed by family migration for the purpose of family reunification with those workers,

and finally, asylum and illegal migration accelerated in the 1990s, as the three main

periods of immigration into Europe.

[2] Wallace (1995: 5) defines xenophobia as a reaction to foreigners, while racism as a

reaction to a generic group which have been racialised.

[3] In the choice of the countries for comparison also the data quality was taken into

account.

[4]http://ess.nsd.uib.no/2003_Fworksummary.jsp

[5] Final report: Sampling for the European Social Survey,

http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/

[6] Weighting European Social Survey Data, http://ess.nsd.uib.no/2003_documentation.jsp

[7] See Annex 3A for more information about the definition of the immigrantsgenerations

and the native population.

[8] The items forming the key scales as well as their reliability coefficients are presented in

the Annex A2.

[9] The only exception is Sweden where less than half of the respondents perceived the

immigrants having different race or ethnic origin.

[10] Age is recoded into three categories, 15-25, 26-55, 56+, since the relationship with

perceived welfare threat is not linear and thus cannot be included in OLS regression.

Moreover, I want to separate the effects for the categories of the population in education,

working population and the older population that tend to be more dependent on the social

security (the actual retirement age in Europe is often below 60).

[11] Measured in years of total education

[12] Due to the large number of missing data on income in the data set in most of the

countries (36% in Austria, 21% in Germany, 16% in the United Kingdom, 14% in Denmark

and 6.5% in Sweden), the missing values are replaced with the mean income of the


f 28 09/10/2013 04:11 p.m.


27/28

countries in order to avoid loosing too many cases for the regression analysis. Mean

imputation can be problematic because it decreases the variance, and thus low significance

levels are reached more easily. However, in the regression analysis, I checked for the

differences in the results both with the original variable and with the variable with replaced

missing values and the results did not differ markedly.

[13] ISEI was created using a conversion tool of Ganzeboom and Treiman (1996b) that

allow converting the ISCO-88 Standard Occupational Classification into International Socio-

Economic Index of Occupational Status. This index can be perceived as measuring the

attributes of occupations that convert persons education into income and it is measured on

a scale from 16 to 90 (Ganzeboom, Treiman (1996a).

[14] I wanted to control for religious affiliation but there is high non-response on this

variable and some religious denomination are not represented in some countries while they

are very common in the others (e.g. in Sweden there are no Catholics in the sample). Thus, I

chose to control for church attendance; this variable has three categories: going to church at

least once a month (1), rarely (2), never (3)

[15] Those characteristics for the selected countries are presented in the Annex, Table 5A

[16] Unemployment is strongly correlated with number of asylum applications (-0.752,

p


28/28

[22] Only the interactions that were statistically significant at least at one of the compared

countries are shown.

[23] The interaction between age and perceived welfare threat explains additional 6% of

the variance of the exclusionism of immigrants.

[24] Citizens of countries except for EU-15 countries, EFTA countries, USA, Canada,

Australia and New Zealand (Coenders, Lubbers, Scheppers, 2003b: 86)

[25] Source: Eurostat, Office for National Statistics (UK), Statistisches Bundesamt

(Germany) in Coenders, Lubbers, Scheppers (2003b: 86)

[26] Source: UNHCR and Eurostat in Coenders, Lubbers, Scheppers (2003b: 86)

[27] Source: UN Population Division (2002). Net migration is the annual number of

immigrants less the annual number of emigrants (including both citizens and non-citizens).

The rate is computed as the net number of migrants, divided by the average population of

the receiving country, expressed per 1,000 population of the country.

http://www.unpopulation.org

[28] Source: Eurostat (2002). The unemployment rate is the proportion of unemployed

persons in total labour force. http://epp.eurostat.cec.eu.int/

[29] The answer was recoded as follows: 4=allow many to come and live here; 3=allow

some; 2=allow a few; 1=allow none.

[30] Items 1 to 3 were recoded from the 11 point scale into the 5 point scale in order to

allow combining them with items 4 and 5 that were measured on the 5 point scale.


welfare threat and exclusionism of immigrants. perception of immigrants in different european...

Documents