Abstract
A number of studies show the prevalence of fears among natives that migrants could undermine support for the welfare state. In this article, we turn the focus to migrants’ views of other migrants. Employing data from the Migrants’ Welfare State Attitudes survey, administered among ten migrant groups in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany, we find that migrants, like natives, perceive other migrant groups as benefitting more from the welfare state than they contribute. These attitudes follow a relatively consistent ranking. Migrants from western EU countries were viewed as being least likely to benefit disproportionately, followed by migrants from rich countries outside Europe, those from eastern EU countries and those from poor countries outside Europe. Furthermore, according to our analyses, this order of ranking is explained largely by a combination of socio-economic factors and a sense of belonging to the country of residence and the group of migrants in general.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
The above-described rank-ordering also appears when applying multilevel regression analyses with dummies of the country of origin and the control variables. These additional analyses can be requested by contacting the first author.
References
Arts, W.A., and J. Gelissen. 2010. Models of the welfare state. In The Oxford handbook of the welfare state, ed. F. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger, and C. Pierson, 569–583. New York: Oxford University Press.
Bekhuis, H., T.F. Hedegaard, V. Seibel, and D. Degen. 2018. MIFARE Survey: Migrants’ welfare state attitudes methodological report. Nijmegen: Univeristy of Nijmegen.
Brooks, C., and J. Manza. 2007. Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Castles, F.G. 2008. What welfare states do: A disaggregated expenditure approach. Journal of Social Policy 38 (1): 45–62.
de Koster, W., P. Achterberg, and J. van der Waal. 2013. The new right and the welfare state: The electoral relevance of welfare chauvinism and welfare populism in the Netherlands. International Political Science Review 34 (1): 3–20.
de Swaan, A. 1995. Widening circles of identification: Emotional concerns in sociogenetic perspective. Theory, Culture & Society 12 (2): 25–39.
Debets, P., and E. Brouwer. 1989. MSP (Mokken Scale analysis for Polychotomous items). iec ProGRAMMA. Kraneweg, 8, 9718.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
Galle, J., and F. Fleischmann. 2019. Ethnic minorities’ support for redistribution: The role of national and ethnic identity. Journal of European Social Policy 0958928719840580
Hagendoorn, L. 1995. Intergroup biases in multiple group systems: The perception of ethnic hierarchies. European review of social psychology 6 (1): 199–228.
Hagendoorn, L. 1993. Ethnic categorization and outgroup exclusion: Cultural values and social stereotypes in the construction of ethnic hierarchies. Ethnic and racial studies 16 (1): 26–51.
Hagendoorn, L., and J. Hraba. 1989. Foreign, different, deviant, seclusive and working class: Anchors to an ethnic hierarchy in the Netherlands. Ethnic and Racial Studies 12 (4): 441–468.
Hagendoorn, L., and J. Pepels. 2003. Why the Dutch maintain more social distance from some ethnic minorities than others: A model explaining the ethnic hierarchy. In Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration. ed. Hagendoorn, L., J. Veenman, and W. Vollebergh, 41–46. Aldershot: Ashgate.
Hagendoorn, L., and J. Pepels. 2017. Why the Dutch maintain more social distance from some ethnic minorities than others: A model explaining the ethnic hierarchy. Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration. Routledge, 57–78.
Hedegaard, T.F. 2019. Migration and meritocracy: Support for the idea that hard work will get you ahead in society among nine migrant groups in Denmark, the Netherlands, and Germany. Nordic Journal of Migration Research 9 (1): 1–18.
Hedegaard, T.F. 2017. Indvandrergrupper og etniske minoriteter i surveys. In Survey, ed. M. Frederiksen, P. Gundelach, and R.S. Nielsen, 419. Copenhagen: Hans Reitzels Forlag.
Hedegaard, T.F. 2015. The dynamics of stability: How processes of policy feedback help reproduce support for the nordic welfare model, Videnbasen for Aalborg UniversitetVBN, Aalborg UniversitetAalborg University, Det Samfundsvidenskabelige FakultetThe Faculty of Social Sciences, CCWS-Centre for Comparative Welfare StudiesCentre for Comparative Welfare Studies-CCWS.
Hedegaard, T.F., and C.A. Larsen. 2019. Coming to Europe: American exceptionalism and American migrants’ adaption to comprehensive welfare states. International Journal of Sociology 49: 130–147.
Hemker, B.T., K. Sijtsma, and I.W. Molenaar. 1995. Selection of unidimensional scales from a multidimensional item bank in the polytomous mokken I RT model. Applied Psychological Measurement 19 (4): 337–352.
Hjerm, M., and K. Nagayoshi. 2011. The composition of the minority population as a threat: Can real economic and cultural threats explain xenophobia? International Sociology 26 (6): 815–843.
Hjorth, F. 2015. Who benefits? Welfare chauvinism and national stereotypes. European Union Politics 17 (1): 3–24.
Hubbert, K.N., W.B. Gudykunst, and S.L. Guerrero. 1999. Intergroup communication over time. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23 (1): 13–46.
Hutnik, N. 1991. Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.
Kolbe, M., and M.M. Crepaz. 2016. The power of citizenship: How immigrant incorporation affects attitudes towards social benefits. Comparative Politics 49 (1): 105–123.
Kootstra, A. 2016. Deserving and undeserving welfare claimants in britain and the Netherlands: Examining the role of ethnicity and migration status using a vignette experiment. European Sociological Review, jcw010.
Kremer, M. 2016. Earned citizenship: Labour migrants’ views on the welfare state. Journal of social policy 45 (3): 395–415.
Lucassen, G., and M. Lubbers. 2012. Who fears what? Explaining far-right-wing preference in Europe by distinguishing perceived cultural and economic ethnic threats. Comparative Political Studies 45 (5): 547–574.
Mau, S. 2003. The moral economy of welfare states: Britain and Germany compared. London: Routledge.
Operario, D., and S.T. Fiske. 2001. Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice: Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27 (5): 550–561.
Petersen, M.B., R. Slothuus, R. Stubager, and L. Togeby. 2011. Deservingness versus values in public opinion on welfare: The automaticity of the deservingness heuristic. European Journal of Political Research 50 (1): 24–52.
Pinel, E.C. 1999. Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (1): 114.
Reeskens, T., and W. Van Oorschot. 2015. Immigrants’ attitudes towards welfare redistribution. An exploration of role of government preferences among immigrants and natives across 18 European welfare states. European Sociological Review 31 (4): 433–445.
Renema, J.A., and M. Lubbers. 2019. Immigrants’ support for social spending, self-interest and the role of the group: A comparative study of immigrants in The Netherlands. International Journal of Social Welfare 28: 179–195.
Rothstein, B. 1998. Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 1993. Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review 87 (1): 334–347.
Seibel, V., and T.F. Hedegaard. 2017. Migrants’ and natives’ attitudes to formal childcare in the Netherlands, Denmark and Germany. Children and Youth Services Review 78: 112–121.
Snellman, A., and B. Ekehammar. 2005. Ethnic hierarchies, ethnic prejudice, and social dominance orientation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 15 (2): 83–94.
Svallfors, S. (ed.). 2007. The political sociology of the welfare state: Institutions, social cleavages, and orientations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.
Svallfors, S. 2006. The moral economy of class: Class and attitudes in comparative perspective. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.
Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: CUP Archive.
Tajfel, H., J.C. Turner, W.G. Austin, and S. Worchel. 1979. An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. Organizational identity: A Reader 56–65.
Taylor, D.M., and F.M. Moghaddam. 1994. Theories of intergroup relations: International social psychological perspectives. Westport: Greenwood Publishing Group.
van der Waal, J., P. Achterberg, D. Houtman, W. de Koster, and K. Manevska. 2010. ‘Some are more equal than others’: Economic egalitarianism and welfare chauvinism in the Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy 20 (4): 350–363.
van Oorschot, W. 2000. Who should get what and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy and Politics 28 (1): 33–48.
van Oorschot, W., F. Roosma, B. Meuleman, and T. Reeskens. 2017. The social legitimacy of targeted welfare: Attitudes to welfare deservingness. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing.
Verkuyten, M., M. Drabbles, and K. van den Nieuwenhuijzen. 1999. Self-categorisation and emotional reactions to ethnic minorities. European Journal of Social Psychology 29 (5–6): 605–619.
Verkuyten, M., L. Hagendoorn, and K. Masson. 1996. The ethnic hierarchy among majority and minority youth in the Netherlands. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 26 (12): 1104–1118.
Verkuyten, M., and B. Martinovic. 2016. Dual identity, in-group projection, and out-group feelings among ethnic minority groups. European Journal of Social Psychology 46 (1): 1–12.
Vollebergh, W., J. Veenman, and L. Hagendoorn. 2017. Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration. Abingdon: Routledge.
Vroome, T., M. Verkuyten, and B. Martinovic. 2014. Host national identification of immigrants in the Netherlands. International Migration Review 48 (1): 76–102.
Funding
Funding was provided by NORFACE partners and the European Commission (Grant No. 618106).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
On behalf of all the authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hedegaard, T.F., Bekhuis, H. Who benefits? Perceptions of which migrant groups benefit the most from the welfare state among ten migrant groups in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany. Acta Polit 56, 49–68 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-019-00144-5
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-019-00144-5