Public support for more government spending in unemployment benefits, 1985-2006 Public support for more government spending in health services, 1985-2006 Public support for more government spending in education, 1985-2006 Attitudes towards immigration Struggles over immigration from elsewhere in Europe and beyond have been increasingly significant across Europe, particularly in countries where immigration is high (or is perceived to be high), such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Greece and Slovenia. One outcome is a shift towards welfare chauvinism (or welfare dualism), often on the part of lower-income groups previously keen to support universal provision. Welfare chauvinism argues for the restriction of access to welfare state provisions to the native population. At the political level, such policy response is often advocated by right-to-populist-right political parties. Percentage of foreign-born population, 2001-2012 (Source: OECD 2015) Two forms of chauvinism can be distinguished. Some political parties have adopted a ‘hard’ chauvinism, which requires the exclusion of would-be immigrants. Others have pursued a softer approach, calling for temporary restrictions on access to welfare provision for immigrants. The European Social Survey conducted in 2008 reflects on such distinction. When should immigrants obtain rights to social benefits/services? (Source: European Social Survey 2008, Question D38) The survey demonstrates high levels of ‘soft’ chauvinism across Europe, with respondents tending to favour migrants’ access to welfare provisions after they worked and paid taxes for at least a year. Such provision is particularly popular in the United Kingdom (48.5 per cent), France (46.8 per cent) and Germany (42.6 per cent). In Slovenia, the majority of respondents link social benefits and services to citizenship (51.4 per cent); as such, Slovenia favour more restrictions than the rest of Europe. Comparatively speaking, Swedish attitudes are less chauvinistic than in the rest of Europe, with 19.5 per cent of respondents believing that immigrants should be entitled to receive
Public support for more government spending in unemployment benefits, 1985-2006 Public support for more government spending in health services, 1985-2006 Public support for more government spending in education, 1985-2006 Attitudes towards immigration Struggles over immigration from elsewhere in Europe and beyond have been increasingly significant across Europe, particularly in countries where immigration is high (or is perceived to be high), such as Germany, the United Kingdom, Greece and Slovenia. One outcome is a shift towards welfare chauvinism (or welfare dualism), often on the part of lower-income groups previously keen to support universal provision. Welfare chauvinism argues for the restriction of access to welfare state provisions to the native population. At the political level, such policy response is often advocated by right-to-populist-right political parties. Percentage of foreign-born population, 2001-2012 (Source: OECD 2015) Two forms of chauvinism can be distinguished. Some political parties have adopted a ‘hard’ chauvinism, which requires the exclusion of would-be immigrants. Others have pursued a softer approach, calling for temporary restrictions on access to welfare provision for immigrants. The European Social Survey conducted in 2008 reflects on such distinction. When should immigrants obtain rights to social benefits/services? (Source: European Social Survey 2008, Question D38) The survey demonstrates high levels of ‘soft’ chauvinism across Europe, with respondents tending to favour migrants’ access to welfare provisions after they worked and paid taxes for at least a year. Such provision is particularly popular in the United Kingdom (48.5 per cent), France (46.8 per cent) and Germany (42.6 per cent). In Slovenia, the majority of respondents link social benefits and services to citizenship (51.4 per cent); as such, Slovenia favour more restrictions than the rest of Europe. Comparatively speaking, Swedish attitudes are less chauvinistic than in the rest of Europe, with 19.5 per cent of respondents believing that immigrants should be entitled to receive
WelfSOC-Comparative-Background-Paper.docx