Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Who benefits? Perceptions of which migrant groups benefit the most from the welfare state among ten migrant groups in the Netherlands, Denmark, and Germany

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bekhuis, H., T.F. Hedegaard, V. Seibel, and D. Degen. 2018. MIFARE Survey: Migrants’ welfare state attitudes methodological report. Nijmegen: Univeristy of Nijmegen.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brooks, C., and J. Manza. 2007. Why welfare states persist: The importance of public opinion in democracies. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Castles, F.G. 2008. What welfare states do: A disaggregated expenditure approach. Journal of Social Policy 38 (1): 45–62.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Swaan, A. 1995. Widening circles of identification: Emotional concerns in sociogenetic perspective. Theory, Culture & Society 12 (2): 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hjorth, F. 2015. Who benefits? Welfare chauvinism and national stereotypes. European Union Politics 17 (1): 3–24.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hubbert, K.N., W.B. Gudykunst, and S.L. Guerrero. 1999. Intergroup communication over time. International Journal of Intercultural Relations 23 (1): 13–46.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hutnik, N. 1991. Ethnic minority identity: A social psychological perspective. Oxford: Clarendon Press/Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mau, S. 2003. The moral economy of welfare states: Britain and Germany compared. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pinel, E.C. 1999. Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 76 (1): 114.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rothstein, B. 1998. Just institutions matter: The moral and political logic of the universal welfare state. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, A., and H. Ingram. 1993. Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review 87 (1): 334–347.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Snellman, A., and B. Ekehammar. 2005. Ethnic hierarchies, ethnic prejudice, and social dominance orientation. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 15 (2): 83–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svallfors, S. (ed.). 2007. The political sociology of the welfare state: Institutions, social cleavages, and orientations. Stanford: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Svallfors, S. 2006. The moral economy of class: Class and attitudes in comparative perspective. Redwood City: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tajfel, H. 1981. Human groups and social categories: Studies in social psychology. Cambridge: CUP Archive.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • 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.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vollebergh, W., J. Veenman, and L. Hagendoorn. 2017. Integrating immigrants in the Netherlands: Cultural versus socio-economic integration. Abingdon: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vroome, T., M. Verkuyten, and B. Martinovic. 2014. Host national identification of immigrants in the Netherlands. International Migration Review 48 (1): 76–102.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Funding

Funding was provided by NORFACE partners and the European Commission (Grant No. 618106).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Political Science, Aalborg University, Fibigerstræde 1, 9220, Aalborg Ø, Denmark

    Troels Fage Hedegaard

  2. Department of Sociology/ICS, Radboud University, PO Box 9104, 6500 HE, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Hidde Bekhuis

Authors
  1. Troels Fage Hedegaard
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hidde Bekhuis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Troels Fage Hedegaard.

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

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

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

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-019-00144-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation