Skip to main content
Log in

Immigration and Preferences for Redistribution: An Empirical Analysis of European Survey Data

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

This paper explores the relationship between perceptions of immigration and preferences for redistribution, using survey data from the European Social Survey. Some recent literature argues that hostility toward immigrants will reduce the preferred level of redistribution, primarily because people care about who they redistribute towards (the anti-solidarity hypothesis). Less attention has been paid to the possibility that immigration might be perceived as increasing the risk of income loss, something that should increase the preferred level of redistribution (the compensation hypothesis). This paper finds some evidence in favour of both hypotheses. Furthermore, the paper argues that anti-solidarity effects should be stronger in countries classified within the Social Democratic welfare state regime type and compensation effects should be stronger in countries within the Conservative welfare state regime type. There is some empirical support for this argument in the data.

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

Access this article

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Data are from the social expenditure database (OECD, 2004), except for Slovenia (the Statistical Office of the Republic of Slovenia, http://www.stat.si/eng/novice_poglej.asp?ID=882) and Israel (Kop, 2003).

  2. See Moene and Wallerstein (2001) for a formal model incorporating both motives of welfare state support. The ideas put forward in this paper can be derived directly from their model. In their model, a higher probability of losing income in the future increases the preferred level of spending, while a lower level of solidarity decreases the preferred level of spending.

  3. Sniderman et al. (2004) make a similar argument about how economic and cultural variables can simultaneously be important for views on immigrants.

  4. The data I use allow me to do this type of analysis on a Southern European cluster and a Central and Eastern European cluster also. There are, however, problems with such analysis. First, it is not clear whether these two clusters can be considered as welfare state regime types in the Esping-Andersen terminology (see Arts and Gelissen, 2002; Jæger, 2006, 160). Second, even if one can make an empirical case in support of treating these clusters as distinct regime types, the absence of a theoretical description of why these countries operate under a similar logic makes it difficult to derive hypothesis of how the particularities of the welfare state institutions in the Southern European regime and the Central and Eastern European regime will affect the relationship between the immigration variables and redistribution support.

  5. Countries included are Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the UK. The Czech Republic is excluded due to missing data on the question about father's education level.

  6. Results are almost identical if I use the original coding, and no conclusions are affected.

  7. The same is true if we replace rights and wages with the additive indexes.

References

  • Aalberg, T. (2003) Achieving Justice: Comparative Public Opinion on Income Distribution, Leiden: Brill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, D., Johnson, S. and Robinson, J. (2001) ‘The colonial origins of comparative development: an empirical investigation’, American Economic Review 91: 1369–1401.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., Devleeschauwer, A., Easterly, W., Kurlat, S. and Wacziarg, R. (2003) ‘Fractionalization’, Journal of Economic Growth 8: 155–194.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., Glaeser, E. and Sacerdote, B. (2001) ‘Why doesn't the United States have a European-style welfare state?’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 32: 187–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A.F. and Glaeser, E.L. (2004) Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A. and La Ferrara, E. (2005) ‘Preferences for redistribution in the land of opportunities’, Journal of Public Economics 89: 897–931.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arts, W. and Gelissen, J. (2002) ‘Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more? A state-of-the-art report’, Journal of European Social Policy 12: 137–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bay, A.H. and Pedersen, A.W. (2006) ‘The limits of social solidarity. Basic income, immigration and the legitimacy of the universal welfare state’, Acta Sociologica 49: 419–436.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blekesaune, M. and Quadagno, J. (2003) ‘Public attitudes toward welfare state policies: a comparative analysis of 24 nations’, European Sociological Review 19: 415–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brüker, H., Epstein, G.S., McCormick, B., Saint-Paul, G., Venturini, A. and Zimmermann, K. (2002) ‘Welfare State Provision’, in T. Boeri, G.H. Hanson and B. McCormick (eds.) Immigration Policy and the Welfare System, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cusack, T.R., Iversen, T. and Rehm, P. (2006) ‘Risk at work: the demand and supply sides of government redistribution’, Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22: 1–25.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Elff, M. (2007) ‘Social structure and electoral behavior in comparative perspective: the decline of social cleavages in Western Europe revisited’, Perspectives on Politics 5: 277–294.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Estevez-Abe, M., Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2001) ‘Social Protection and the Formation of Skills: An Reinterpretation of the Welfare State’, in P. Hall and D. Soskice (eds.) Varieties of Capitalism. The Institutional Foundations of Comparative Advantage, Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J. (2003) ‘Ethnic and cultural diversity by country’, Journal of Economic Growth 8: 195–222.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Freeman, G.P. (1986) ‘Migration and the political-economy of the welfare-state’, Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 485: 51–63.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Garrett, G. (1998) ‘Global markets and national politics: collision course or virtuous circle?’ International Organization 52: 787–824.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. (1995) ‘Racial-attitudes and opposition to welfare’, Journal of Politics 57: 994–1014.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gilens, M. (1996) ‘“Race coding” and white opposition to welfare’, American Political Science Review 90: 593–604.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goul Andersen, J. (2006) Immigration and the Legitimacy of the Scandinavian Welfare State: Some Preliminary Danish Findings, Aalborg: Aalborg University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hainmueller, J. and Hiscox, M.J. (2007) ‘Educated preferences: explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe’, International Organization 61: 399–442.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton, L.C. (1992) Regression with Graphics: A Second Course in Applied Statistics, Belmont, CA: Duxbury Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, E. and Stephens, J.D. (2001) Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets, Chicago: The University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2001) ‘An asset theory of social policy preferences’, American Political Science Review 95: 875–893.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iversen, T. and Soskice, D. (2006) ‘Electoral institutions and the politics of coalitions: why some democracies redistribute more than others’, American Political Science Review 100: 165–181.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jæger, M.M. (2006) ‘Welfare regimes and attitudes towards redistribution: the regime hypothesis revisited’, European Sociological Review 22: 157–170.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kittel, B. (2006) ‘A crazy methodology? On the limits of macro-quantitative social science research’, International Sociology 21: 647–677.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kop, Y. (2003) Israel's Social Services 2003, The Herbert M. Singer Annual Report Series, Jerusalem: Taub Centre for Social Policy Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (2003) ‘New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–95’, American Political Science Review 97: 425–446.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Linos, K. and West, M. (2003) ‘Self-interest, social beliefs, and attitudes to redistribution. Re-addressing the issue of cross-national variation’, European Sociological Review 19: 393–409.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Long, J.S. and Freese, J. (2006) Regression Models for Categorical Dependent Variables Using Stata, 2nd edn, College Station, TX: Stata Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mayda, A.M. and Rodrik, D. (2005) ‘Why are some people (and countries) more protectionist than others?’ European Economic Review 49: 1393–1430.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moene, K.O. and Wallerstein, M. (2001) ‘Inequality, social insurance, and redistribution’, American Political Science Review 95: 859–874.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2005) Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • OECD (2004) Social Expenditure Database, Paris: OECD.

  • Pierson, P. (1996) ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, World Politics 48: 143–179.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Piketty, T. (1995) ‘Social-mobility and redistributive politics’, Quarterly Journal of Economics 110: 551–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rehm, P. (2005) Citizen Support for the Welfare State: Determinants of Preferences for Income Redistributionno. SP II 2005-02. Berlin: WZB.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (1997) Has Globalization Gone Too Far? Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (1998) ‘Why do more open economies have bigger governments?’ Journal of Political Economy 106: 997–1032.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J.E. and Van der Straeten, K. (2005) ‘Xenophobia and the size of the public sector in France: a politico-economic analysis’, Journal of Economics 86: 95–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roemer, J.E. and Van der Straeten, K. (2006) ‘The political economy of xenophobia and distribution: the case of Denmark’, Scandinavian Journal of Economics 108: 251–277.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheve, K. and Slaughter, M.J. (2004) ‘Economic insecurity and the globalization of production’, American Journal of Political Science 48: 662–674.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Scheve, K. and Stasavage, D. (2006) ‘Religion and preferences for social insurance’, Quarterly Journal of Political Science 1: 255–286.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Semyonov, M., Raijman, R. and Gorodzeisky, A. (2006) ‘The rise of anti-foreigner sentiment in European societies, 1988–2000’, American Sociological Review 71: 426–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P., Hagendoorn, L. and Prior, M. (2004) ‘Predisposing factors and situational triggers: exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities’, American Political Science Review 98: 35–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stephens, J.D. (1979) The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism, London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Strabac, Z. (2007) ‘Ethnic attitudes in contemporary European societies’, Doctoral theses at the Norwegian University of Science and Technology, Trondheim, p. 197.

  • Svallfors, S. (1997) ‘Worlds of welfare and attitudes to redistribution: a comparison of eight western nations’, European Sociological Review 13: 283–304.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oorschot, W. (2007) ‘Culture and social policy: a developing field of study’, International Journal of Social Welfare 16: 129–139.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Oorschot, W. and Uunk, W. (2007) ‘Welfare spending and the public's concern for immigrants: multilevel evidence for eighteen European countries’, Comparative Politics 40: 63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

See Tables A1 and A2.

Table a1 Descriptive statistics
Table a2 Dependent variable is preference for redistribution. Ordered logit models

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Finseraas, H. Immigration and Preferences for Redistribution: An Empirical Analysis of European Survey Data. Comp Eur Polit 6, 407–431 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2008.3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2008.3

Keywords

Navigation