The article analyses how the programmatic structure of welfare schemes in Denmark, the Netherlands and Germany shape public perceptions of and preferences for migrants’ entitlement to social benefits and services. First, the article finds that despite high complexity and the presence of some severe misconceptions, the entitlement criteria of migrants within existing social benefits and services do shape public perceptions of reality. Second, the article finds that these institutional shaped perceptions of reality strongly influence preferences for how migrants’ entitlement criteria should be. This status quo effect is more moderate among populist right-wing voters, in general, and in the critical case of attitudes to non-EU migrants’ entitlement to social assistance in Denmark. However, in all segments, one finds strong correlations between ‘are’ and ‘should be’, which is taken as indications of clear and sizeable institutional effects.
AlesinaA.GlaeserE. (2004) Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
2.
AndersenJ.G. (2007) ‘Restricting Access to Social Protection for Immigrants in the Danish Welfare State’, Benefits15(3): 257–69.
3.
AndersenJ.G.BjørklundT. (1990) ‘Structural Changes and New Cleavages: The Progress Parties in Denmark and Norway’, Acta Sociologica33(3): 195–217.
4.
BayA.FinseraasH.PedersenA.W. (2013) ‘Welfare Dualism in Two Scandinavian Welfare States: Public Opinion and Party Politics’, West European Politics36(1): 199–220.
5.
BekhuisH.HedegaardT.F.SeibelV.DegenD. (2018) MIFARE Survey: Migrants’ Welfare State Attitudes Methodological Report. Nijmegen: University of Nijmegen.
6.
BlaubergerM.HeindlmaierA.KramerD.MartinsenD.S.SchenkA.ThierryJ.S., et al. (2018) ‘ECJ Judges Read the Morning Papers: Explaining the Turnaround of European Citizenship Jurisprudence’, Journal of European Public Policy25(10): 1422–41.
7.
BreidahlK.N. (2017) ‘Den danske velfærdsstat og de nye medborgere: Bakker ikke-vestlige indvandrere og efterkommere op om velfærdsstatens centrale værdier’, Politica49(3): 273–91.
8.
CarejaR.Elmelund PræstekærC.Baggesen KlitgaardM.LarsenE.G. (2016) ‘Direct and Indirect Welfare Chauvinism as Party Strategies: An Analysis of the Danish People’s Party’, Scandinavian Political Studies39(4): 435–57.
9.
CrepazM.M.L.DamronR. (2009) ‘How the Welfare State Shapes Attitudes about Immigrants’, Comparative Political Studies43(3): 437–67.
10.
De KosterW.AchterbergP.Van der WaalJ. (2013) ‘The New Right and the Welfare State: The Electoral Relevance of Welfare Chauvinism and Welfare Populism in the Netherlands’, International Political Science Review34(1): 3–20.
11.
EgerM.A.ValdezS. (2014) ‘Neo-Nationalism in Western Europe’, European Sociological Review31(1): 115–30.
12.
EgerM.A.ValdezS. (2018) ‘From Radical Right to Neo-nationalist’, European Political Science17(1): 1–21.
13.
EgerM.A.LarsenC.A.MewesJ. (in press) ‘Welfare Nationalism before and after the “Migration Crisis”’, in MeulemanB.OorschotWv.LaenenT. (eds) Welfare State Legitimacy in Times of Crisis and Austerity: Between Continuity and Change. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
14.
EmmeneggerP. (2012) The Age of Dualization: The Changing Face of Inequality in Deindustrializing Societies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
15.
Esping-AndersenG. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.
16.
Esping-AndersenG. (1999) Social Foundations of Post-Industrial Economics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
17.
FordR. (2016) ‘Who Should We Help? An Experimental Test of Discrimination in the British Welfare State’, Political Studies64(3): 630–50.
18.
FreemanG.P. (1986) ‘Migration and the Political Economy of the Welfare State’, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science485(1): 51–63.
19.
FurnhamA. (2003) ‘Belief in a Just World: Research Progress Over the Past Decade’, Personality and Individual Differences34(5): 795–817.
20.
GerhardsJ.LengfeldH. (2013) ‘European Integration, Equality Rights and People’s Beliefs: Evidence from Germany’, European Sociological Review29(1): 19–31.
21.
HallP.A.TaylorR.C. (1996) ‘Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms’, Political Studies44(5): 936–57.
22.
HeizmannB.JedingerA.PerryA. (2018) ‘Welfare Chauvinism, Economic Insecurity and the Asylum Seeker “Crisis”’, Societies8(3): 83.
23.
HjorthF. (2015) ‘Who Benefits? Welfare Chauvinism and National Stereotypes’, European Union Politics17(1): 3–24.
24.
HomansG.C. (1974) Social Behavior: Its Elementary Forms. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
25.
KahnemanD.KnetschJ.L.ThalerR. (1986) ‘Fairness as a Constraint on Profit Seeking: Entitlements in the Market’, The American Economic Review76(4): 728–41.
26.
KjærsgårdA.P. (2012) ‘Scandinavian Attitudes to Pay – Egalitarianism and Aversion Towards Top Excess’, CCWS Working Paper no. 2012-77, 21March. Aalborg: Department of Political Science, Aalborg University.
27.
KootstraA. (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: 32(3): 325–38.
28.
LarsenC.A. (2008) ‘The Institutional Logic of Welfare Attitudes’, Comparative Political Studies41(2): 145–68.
29.
LarsenC.A. (2017) ‘Revitalizing the “Civic” and “Ethnic” Distinction. Perceptions of Nationhood across Two Dimensions, 44 Countries and Two Decades’, Nations and Nationalism23(4): 970–93.
30.
LernerM.J. (1980) The Belief in a Just World: A Fundamental Delusion. New York: Plenum Press.
31.
MarchJ.G.OlsenJ.P. (1989) Rediscovering Institutions: The Organizational Basis of Politics. New York: Free Press.
32.
MarshallG.SwiftA.RouthD.BurgoyneC. (1999) ‘What Is and What Ought to Be: Popular Beliefs about Distributive Justice in Thirteen Countries’, European Sociological Review15(4): 349–67.
33.
MarxP.NaumannE. (2018) ‘Do Right-Wing Parties Foster Welfare Chauvinistic Attitudes? A Longitudinal Study of the 2015 “Refugee Crisis” in Germany’, Electoral Studies52: 111–6.
34.
MauS. (2004) ‘Welfare Regimes and the Norms of Social Exchange’, Current Sociology52(1): 53–74. doi: 10.1177/0011392104039314.
35.
MettlerS.SossJ. (2004) ‘The Consequences of public policy for democratic citizenship: Bridging policy studies and mass politics’, Perspectives on politics2(1): 55–73.
36.
MewesJ.MauS. (2012) ‘Unraveling Working-Class Welfare Chauvinism’, in SvallforsS. (ed.) Contested Welfare States: Welfare Attitudes in Europe and beyond, pp. 119–57. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
37.
MewesJ.MauS. (2013) ‘Globalization, Socio-economic Status and Welfare Chauvinism: European Perspectives on Attitudes toward the Exclusion of Immigrants’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology54(3): 228–45.
38.
MillerD. (1993) ‘In Defence of Nationality’, Journal of Applied Philosophy10(1): 3–16.
39.
PenningsF. (2012) ‘EU Citizenship: Access to Social Benefits in Other EU Member States’, International Journal of Comparative Labour Law and Industrial Relations28(3): 307–33.
40.
PenningsF.Seeleib-KaiserM. (2018) EU Citizenship and Social Rights: Entitlements and Impediments to Accessing Welfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
41.
ReeskensT.Van der MeerT. (2018) ‘The Inevitable Deservingness Gap: A Study into the Insurmountable Immigrant Penalty in Perceived Welfare Deservingness’, Journal of European Social Policy29(2): 166–81.
42.
ReeskensT.Van OorschotW. (2012) ‘Disentangling the “New Liberal Dilemma”: On the Relation between General Welfare Redistribution Preferences and Welfare Chauvinism’, International Journal of Comparative Sociology53: 120–39.
43.
RothsteinB. (1998) Just Institutions Matter. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
44.
RuhsM.PalmeJ. (2018) ‘Institutional Contexts of Political Conflicts around Free Movement in the European Union: A Theoretical Analysis’, Journal of European Public Policy25(10): 1391–402.
45.
SchaefferM. (2013) ‘Ethnic Diversity, Public Goods Provision and Social Cohesion: Lessons from an Inconclusive Literature’, WZB Discussion Paper no. SP VI 2013-103. Berlin: WZB Berlin Social Science Center, available at: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/86148/1/770694160.pdf.
46.
SchumacherG.Van KersbergenK. (2014) ‘Do Mainstream Parties Adapt to the Welfare Chauvinism of Populist Parties?’ Party Politics22: 300–12.
47.
SvallforsS. (2003) ‘Welfare regimes and welfare opinions: A comparison of eight western countries’, in VogelJ. (ed.) European Welfare Production, pp. 171–196. Springer: Dordrecht.
48.
SvallforsS. (2007) The Political Sociology of the Welfare State: Institutions, Social Cleavages, and Orientations. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
49.
SvallforsS. (2012) Contested Welfare States: Welfare Attitudes in Europe and beyond. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
50.
TitmussR.M. (1974) Social Policy: An Introduction. London: Allen and Unwin.
51.
Van Der WaalJ.De KosterW.Van OorschotW. (2013) ‘Three Worlds of Welfare Chauvinism? How Welfare Regimes Affect Support for Distributing Welfare to Immigrants in Europe’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice15(2): 164–81.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
