Who benefits? Welfare chauvinism and national stereotypes
| Author | Frederik Hjorth |
| DOI | 10.1177/1465116515607371 |
| Published date | 01 March 2016 |
| Date | 01 March 2016 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
European Union Politics
2016, Vol. 17(1) 3–24
!The Author(s) 2015
Reprints and permissions:
sagepub.co.uk/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1465116515607371
eup.sagepub.com
Article
Who benefits? Welfare
chauvinism and national
stereotypes
Frederik Hjorth
Department of Political Science, University of Copenhagen,
Denmark
Abstract
Cross-border welfare rights for citizens of European Union member states are intensely
contested, yet there is limited research into voter opposition to such rights, sometimes
denoted ‘welfare chauvinism’. We highlight an overlooked aspect in scholarly work: the
role of stereotypes about beneficiaries of cross-border welfare. We present results
from an original large-scale survey experiment (N¼2525) among Swedish voters, ran-
domizing exposure to cues about recipients’ country of origin and family size.
Consistent with a model emphasizing the role of stereotypes, respondents react to
cues about recipient identity. These effects are strongest among respondents high in
ethnic prejudice and economic conservatism. The findings imply that stereotypes about
who benefits from cross-border welfare rights condition public support for those rights.
Keywords
Cross-border welfare rights, experiments, public opinion, stereotypes, welfare
chauvinism
Introduction
Under current European Union (EU) law, the principle of freedom of movement
entitles EU citizens to receive welfare benefits in other member states. These so-
called cross-border welfare rights have led to concerns about so-called ‘benefit
tourism’ whereby citizens take residence in member states with relatively generous
welfare systems in order to receive benefits. In April 2013, the governments of the
United Kingdom, Germany, Austria and The Netherlands voiced such concerns in
a joint letter to the European Commission, asserting that ‘a significant number of
Corresponding author:
Frederik Hjorth, Department of Political Science, Øster Farimagsgade 5, Opgang E, 1353 Copenhagen K,
Denmark.
Email: fh@ifs.ku.dk
new immigrants draw social assistance in the host countries, frequently without a
genuine entitlement, burdening the host countries’ social welfare systems
(Dominiczak, 2013).
The governments’ joint letter likely in part reflected electoral considerations in
the face of widespread voter skepticism about cross-border welfare rights, often
referred to as ‘welfare chauvinism’ (de Koster et al., 2012; Lubbers and Jaspers,
2011; Mewes and Mau, 2012). The intensity of popular resistance stands in contrast
to the observed fiscal impact of intra-European welfare migration on recipient
countries. Empirical evidence suggests that this impact is at worst minimally nega-
tive and possibly positive (De Giorgi and Pellizzari, 2009; Ruist, 2014). Yet while a
considerable amount of literature is devoted to the origins and nature of the legal
framework of cross-border welfare rights (e.g. Blauberger and Schmidt (2014) and
Ferrera (2014)), there is little social scientific inquiry into public perceptions
thereof. Studies that do grapple with the issue tend to focus on characteristics of
voters in host countries, such as ideology or labour market self-interest, rather than
the characteristics of those eligible for benefits. Hence, our knowledge of the causes
of welfare chauvinism is incomplete. This stands in contrast to a broadly shared
understanding that welfare chauvinism constitutes a significant constraint on the
implementation of cross-border welfare rights, and in a broader sense European
integration per se (Martinsen and Vollaard, 2014).
In this article, we contribute to a clearer understanding of the dynamics of
public support for cross-border welfare rights. We do so by providing evidence
for an aspect overlooked in scholarly work on welfare chauvinism: citizens are
indeed on average strongly opposed to welfare rights for EU migrants, but this
opposition is responsive to cues about the specific types of migrants benefiting from
cross-border welfare rights. In other words, notions of ‘who benefits’ shape public
opinion on cross-border welfare rights described and beyond the basic distinction
between co-nationals and foreigners implicit to the notion of welfare chauvinism.
Moreover, we show that the effects of such cues are more pronounced among
citizens already ideologically opposed to cross-border welfare rights.
We provide this evidence using an original large-scale survey experiment among
Swedish voters. Since Swedish voters hold comparatively very lenient immigration
attitudes, the results provide plausible lower bound estimates of the effects of inter-
est. In a broader perspective, the results support the notion, largely implicitly
assumed in the literature, that the cultural and economic diversity of the EU
brought on by successive enlargements has constrained popular support for
Europeanized welfare rights. While European ‘boundaries of welfare’ may have
been redrawn legally speaking, pan-European identities do not appear to be able to
override salient mental categories of national citizenship.
Making sense of welfare chauvinism
Political resistance notwithstanding, cross-border welfare rights are an enduring,
and still more influential, feature of contemporary EU law and politics.
4European Union Politics 17(1)
To continue reading
Request your trial