Wer ist in Deutschland willkommen?

Eine Vignettenanalyse zur Akzeptanz von Einwanderern
Abhandlungen

Zusammenfassung

Vor dem Hintergrund der aktuellen Einwanderungswelle untersuchen wir in dieser Vignettenstudie, welche Einwanderer in Deutschland akzeptiert werden und welche Rechte ihnen von der einheimischen Bevölkerung zuerkannt werden. Dabei unterscheiden wir zwischen einem generellen Aufenthaltsrecht, dem Recht auf Arbeit und dem Recht auf Sozialleistungen. Unsere Ergebnisse zeigen, dass die Akzeptanz von politisch verfolgten Personen deutlich höher ist als die Akzeptanz von Personen, die aus ökonomischen Motiven einwandern, dies gilt insbesondere für den Sozialleistungsbezug. Gleichzeitig legen unsere Analysen nahe, dass es eine deutliche Präferenz für Einwanderer mit hoher Humankapitalausstattung und geringer kultureller Distanz gibt. Individuelle Arbeitsmarktkonkurrenz scheint für die Akzeptanz von Einwanderern dagegen eher eine untergeordnete Rolle zu spielen.

Schlüsselwörter

Faktorielles Survey Vignettendesign Migration Migranten Einwanderung Flüchtlinge Geflüchtete Asyl Kulturelle Bedrohung Ökonomische Bedrohung Gruppenkonflikte Deutschland 

Who is welcome in Germany?

A Vignette Study on the Acceptance of Immigrants

Abstract

Germany is currently experiencing a huge inflow of migrants. In this vignette study, we analyze how much different kinds of migrants are accepted in Germany. We investigate three different rights for migrants: the right to stay in Germany, the right to work in Germany and the right to receive social benefits. Our results show that people who flee from political persecution are much more accepted compared to migrants who come because of economic reasons. This is particularly true for the right to receive social benefits. On the other hand, our results suggest that there is a strong preference for high-skilled and culturally non-distant migrants. Concerns regarding individual competition on the job market seem to play only a minor role.

Keywords

Factorial survey Vignette study Migration Immigrants Refugees Asylum seekers Group threat Group conflict Cultural threat Economic threat Germany 

Notes

Danksagung

Wir bedanken uns herzlich bei Dominik Leiner, dem Betreiber des SoSci Panels und des SoSci Surveys, für die Unterstützung unserer Forschung. Sara Carol danken wir für ihre hilfreichen Kommentare. Unser Dank gilt weiterhin Hermann Dülmer, der das Vignettensample mit Hilfe der Software SAS gezogen hat. Außerdem möchten wir uns bei Tamara Gutfleisch für ihre Unterstützung bei der Fertigstellung des Manuskripts bedanken.

Literatur

  1. Allport, Gordon W. 1979. The nature of prejudice. New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  2. Andreß, Hans-Jürgen, Alexander Schmidt-Catran und Katrin Golsch. 2013. Applied panel data analysis. Berlin: Heidelberg: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Appelbaum, Lauren D. 2002. Who deserves help? Students’ opinions about the deservingness of different groups living in Germany to receive aid. Social Justice Research 15:201–225.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Atzmüller, Christiane, und Peter M. Steiner. 2010. Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology 6:128–138.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Auspurg, Katrin, Thomas Hinz, Carsten Sauer und Stefan Liebig. 2015. The factorial survey as a method for measuring sensitive issues. In Improving survey methods: Lessons from recent research, Hrsg. Uwe Engel, Ben Jann, Peter Lynn, Anette Scherpenzeel und Patrick Sturgis, 137–149. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  6. Bratt, Christopher. 2005. The structure of attitudes toward non-western immigrant groups: Second-order factor analysis of attitudes among Norwegian adolescents. Group processes & intergroup relations 8:447–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Chandler, Charles R., und Yung Tsai. 2001. Social factors influencing immigration attitudes: an analysis of data from the general social survey. The Social Science Journal 38:177–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Coenders, Marcel , Marcel Lubbers, Peer Scheepers und Maykel Verkuyten. 2008. More than two decades of changing ethnic attitudes in the Netherlands. Journal of Social Issues 64:269–285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Coenders, Marcel, Marcel Lubbers und Peer Scheepers. 2013. Resistance to Immigrants and Asylum Seekers in the European Union. In Immigration and public opinion in liberal democracies, Hrsg. Gary P. Freeman, 21–50. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  10. DeStatis. 2015. Zahl der Zuwanderer in Deutschland so hoch wie noch nie. Pressemitteilung Nr. 277. https://www.destatis.de/DE/PresseService/Presse/Pressemitteilungen/2015/08/PD15_277_122.html (Erstellt: 3. Aug. 2015). (Zugegriffen: 12. Nov. 2015).Google Scholar
  11. Dülmer, Hermann. 2007. Experimental plans in factorial surveys. Sociological Methods & Research 35:382–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dustmann, Christian, und Ian Preston. 2007. Racial and economic factors in attitudes to immigration. The B.E. Journal of Economic Analysis & Policy 7:1–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Esses, Victoria M., John F. Dovidio, Lynne M. Jackson und Tamara L. Armstrong. 2001. The immigration dilemma: The role of perceived group competition, ethnic prejudice, and national identity. Journal of Social Issues 57:389–412.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Facchini, Giovanni, und Anna Maria Mayda. 2009. Does the welfare state affect individual attitudes toward immigrants? Evidence across countries. The Review of Economics and Statistics 91:295–314.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Facchini, Giovanni, und Anna Maria Mayda. 2012. Individual attitudes towards skilled migration: An empirical analysis across countries. The World Economy 35:183–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Facchini, Giovanni, Anna Maria Mayda und Riccardo Puglisi. 2013. Individual attitudes towards immigration – economic vs. non-economic determinants. In Immigration and public opinion in liberal democracies, Hrsg. Gary P. Freeman, 129–157. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Hainmueller, Jens, und Dominik Hangartner. 2013. Who gets a Swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review 107:159–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hainmueller, Jens, und Michael J. Hiscox. 2007. Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization 61:399–442.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hainmueller, Jens, und Michael J. Hiscox. 2010. Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review 104:61–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hainmueller, Jens, und Michael J. Hiscox. 2013. Voter attitudes towards high-and low-skilled immigrants: evidence from a survey experiment. In Immigration and public opinion in liberal democracies, Hrsg. Gary P. Freeman, 158–204. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Hainmueller, Jens, und Daniel J. Hopkins. 2014a. The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science 59:529–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Hainmueller, Jens, und Daniel J. Hopkins. 2014b. Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science 17:225–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Hainmueller, Jens, Michael J. Hiscox und Yotam M. Margalit. 2011. Do concerns about labour market competition shape attitudes toward immigration? New evidence APSA 2011 Annual Meeting Paper. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1900149 (Zugegriffen: 25. Nov. 2015).Google Scholar
  24. Hanson, Gordon H., Kenneth Scheve und Matthew J. Slaughter. 2007. Public finance and individual preferences over globalization strategies. Economics & Politics 19:1–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Hopkins, Daniel J. 2015. The upside of accents: language, inter-group difference, and attitudes toward immigration. British Journal of Political Science 45:531–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Iyengar, Shanto, Simon Jackman, Solomon Messing, Nicholas Valentino, Toril Aalberg, Raymond Duch, Kyu S. Hahn, Stuart Soroka, Allison Harell und Tetsuro Kobayashi. 2013. Do attitudes about immigration predict willingness to admit individual immigrants? A cross-national test of the person-positivity bias. Public opinion quarterly 77:641–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Jackson, Lynne M., und Bruce Hunsberger. 1999. An intergroup perspective on religion and prejudice. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 38:509–523.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Jasso, Guillermina. 1988. Whom shall we welcome? Elite judgments of the criteria for the selection of immigrants. American Sociological Review 53:919–932.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Kuhfeld, Warren F. 2010. Marketing research methods in SAS. Experimental design, choice, conjoint and graphical techniques. Cary: SAS Institute.Google Scholar
  30. Kuhfeld, Warren F., Randall D. Tobias und Mark Garratt. 1994. Efficient experimental design with marketing research applications. Journal of Marketing Research 31:545–557.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Loosveldt, Geert, und Nathalie Sonck. 2008. An evaluation of the weighting procedures for an online access panel survey. Survey Research Methods 2:93–105.Google Scholar
  32. Mäs, Michael, Kurt Mühler und Karl-Dieter Opp. 2005. Wann ist man deutsch? Empirische Ergebnisse eines faktoriellen Surveys. KZfSS Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 57:112–134.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Mayda, Anna Maria. 2006. Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. The Review of Economics and Statistics 88:510–530.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. McLaren, Lauren. 2013. Cross-national and cross-time views of immigration: A review of existing findings and new evidence from international social survey programme data. In Immigration and public opinion in liberal democracies, Hrsg. Gary P. Freeman, 51–78. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  35. Möhring, Katja, und Alexander Schmidt. 2013. Stata module to provide multilevel tools. Boston: Boston College Department of Economics. Statistical Software Components S457577.Google Scholar
  36. OECD. 2014. Is migration really increasing?. http://www.oecd.org/berlin/Is-migration-really-increasing.pdf (Zugegriffen: 12. Nov. 2015).Google Scholar
  37. Quillian, Lincoln. 1995. Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: Population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe. American Sociological Review 60:586–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Rowatt, Wade C., Lewis M. Franklin und Marla Cotton. 2005. Patterns and personality correlates of implicit and explicit attitudes toward Christians and Muslims. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion 44:29–43.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sauer, Carsten, Katrin Auspurg, Thomas Hinz und Stefan Liebig. 2011. The application of factorial surveys in general population samples: The effects of respondent age and education on response times and response consistency. Survey Research Methods 5:89–102.Google Scholar
  40. Scheve, Kenneth F., und Matthew J. Slaughter. 2001. Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics 83:133–145.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schmidt-Catran, Alexander W., und Dennis Spies. 2016. Immigration and welfare support in Germany. American Sociological Review 81:242–261.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Sides, John, und Jack Citrin. 2007. European opinion about immigration: The role of identities, interests and information. British Journal of Political Science 37:477–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Sniderman, Paul M., Louk Hagendoorn und Markus Prior. 2004. Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review 98:35–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Spies, Dennis C., und Alexander W. Schmidt-Catran. 2015. Migration, migrant integration and support for social spending: The case of Switzerland. Journal of European Social Policy. Online first. doi:10.1177/0958928715612170.Google Scholar
  45. Steiner, Peter M., und Christiane Atzmüller. 2006. Experimentelle Vignettendesigns in faktoriellen Surveys. Kölner Zeitschrift für Soziologie und Sozialpsychologie 58:117–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. UNHCR. 2014. Asylum trends 2014. Levels and trends in industrialized countries. http://www.unhcr.org/551128679.html (Zugegriffen: 12. Nov. 2015).Google Scholar
  47. Van Oorschot, Wim. 2000. Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics 28:33–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Van Oorschot, Wim. 2006. Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy 16:23–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wallander, Lisa. 2009. 25 years of factorial surveys in sociology: A review. Social Science Research 38:505–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Wright, Matthew, Morris E. Levy und Jack Citrin. 2014. Conflict and consensus on American public opinion on illegal immigration. American University School of Public Affairs Research Paper 2014-0006. http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2476001 (Zugegriffen 12. Nov. 2015).Google Scholar
  51. Zick, Andreas, Beate Küpper und Andreas Hövermann. 2011. Intolerance, prejudice and discrimination – A European report. Berlin: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Cologne Graduate SchoolUniversität zu KölnKölnDeutschland
  2. 2.Institut für Soziologie und SozialpsychologieUniversität zu KölnKölnDeutschland

Personalised recommendations