Robin Stryker J. Taylor Danielson University of Arizona
The 1990s marked the movement of welfare states away from providing transfer payments and benefits-in-kind (e.g., healthcare) toward policies that equip individuals with the skills necessary to re-enter the labor market. Although these employment-focused programs successfully incorporated previously excluded groups (e.g., women) into the labor force, existing research suggests that these programs negatively impact immigrants in Europe by contributing to the development of new forms of institutionalized inequality and legitimizing the forced assimilation of immigrants into European society. To determine why these programs continue to be implemented despite their unintended consequences for immigrants and how immigration affects the structure and generosity of welfare state programs, this project examines: 1. How, and to what extent, changes in immigration rates from non-EU/Muslim countries into Europe have affected public support for welfare state programs. 2. Whether politicians have used changes in immigration to influence public support for policy reforms that cut back and restructure existing welfare state programs and shift service provision from the state onto the market. 3. How changes in immigration rates from non-EU/Muslim countries into previously ethnically homogeneous European countries have contributed to the erosion/restructuring of welfare state programs in these countries. To answer these questions, this study uses publicly available data from the European Value Survey (EVS) and the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP) to analyze changes in public attitudes toward both the welfare state and immigrants. These data will be used to determine if populations have become more or less receptive to anti-immigrant rhetoric and proposed welfare state reforms in response to changes in immigration. In addition to these quantitative analyses, parliamentary records from the United Kingdom will be examined and situated in a larger historical context to determine if anti-immigrant rhetoric was used to call for reform of labor activation programs, anti-poverty policies, and/or redistributive programs. The findings from the U.K. case will be used to assess whether or not changes in immigration may also be linked to welfare state restructuring efforts in Sweden, traditionally a more robust and redistributive welfare state.
Broader Impacts
By examining the use of immigration to justify restructuring and cutting existing welfare state policies, this study will help us understand what role group divisions play in the policymaking process; whether or not European countries are experiencing increases in anti-immigrant sentiment among their citizenry and reduced support for the welfare state; and how certain group divisions are rendered more or less salient in an attempt to generate support for welfare state reform. Should the results of this study demonstrate that European countries are experiencing increases in anti-immigrant sentiment among their citizenry; findings could potentially assist European lawmakers in identifying the potential causes of anti-immigrant sentiment and methods for addressing these issues.
