Eick’s research on welfare chauvinism focuses in the interplay between the recipients of welfare state policies, the type of policies that the welfare state covers, and government policies, and the government level responsible for their administration and financing. Eick argued that from a historical perspective the welfare state has been growing particularly in Western states and democracies, but there is a rising opposition against. She uses ‘welfare policy opposition’ as an umbrella term covering different forms of protest against existing or future welfare policies provided by different governance levels and social partners.
Eick posited that welfare chauvinism is at the heart of current political conflicts. She defines welfare chauvinism as opposition to worker access or worker rights to migrants, refugees, and newcomers in general. The argument from welfare chauvinists is that foreigners come to their countries to benefit from what they see as being benefits for ‘us’ and not for ‘them’. Eick argued that European right-wing parties are capitalising on these sentiments. She discusses the public statements by the German Christian Democratic Union (CDU) president who had claimed Ukrainian refugees want to come to Germany to take advantage of the benefits the country offers; the targeting of foreign-sounding names in the Dutch benefit fraud scandal; and the galvanisation of British voters by welfare chauvinism leading to voting for Brexit.Eick’s analysis integrates and country-level with and individual-level analysis. She explores the relationship between education and welfare chauvinism across different national economic and cultural contexts. She also critically examines the prevailing argument in the literature on the topic that level of education influence attitudes towards welfare chauvinism, and argues that national cultural and economic factors need to also be taken into account.
Drawing on data from the European Social Survey, she argued that there is broadly an East-West divide on welfare chauvinism, whereby Eastern European countries – and the Netherlands – tend to have a higher rate of respondents who say that foreigners need to work at least a year and pay taxes before they are able to receive social benefits. The historical data from the European Social Survey between 2007/2008 to 2016/2017 suggests on average a decrease in welfare chauvinism of about 3-4 percent (in the UK about 12 percent), but in the Netherlands there is an increase of about 2-3 percent. With regard to welfare chauvinism for specific policies, the results of the Welfare State Attitude of 2019 indicate a rate of about 35 percent for social housing, social assistance, and unemployment benefit, but more than 70 percent for EU-wide child benefit. Eick further argued that despite some differences depending on party affiliation, the broader trends of welfare chauvinism for specific policies do not change significantly despite the differences in party affiliation.
On the role of education, Eick argued that the picture was mixed. Although on average those who are more educated are less likely to be welfare chauvinists, that does not mean that it is a given. Rather, the education effect can disappear in countries with precarious economies and right-wing cultures, according to Eick.
To address welfare chauvinism, Eick suggested to shift the focus towards institutions and that governments need to invest in social services that are accessible and inclusive not only for foreigners but also for citizens of lower socioeconomic groups.
Allen commented on the merits of the research – the integration the two levels of analysis, the interplay between government policies and the drivers at the individual level, and the focus on comparative data analysis. The key points that he raised to Eick were related to (1) whether the story of welfare policymaking should be framed as continuity or change, (2) the potential cultural interventions to address welfare chauvinism, and (3) how Eick thought that the leaders in the UK or in the EU ought to think of and use welfare in the political discourse.
According to Eick, crises are motivators to think about the structure of the welfare state and for whom. Responses to crises have led to policy changes and greater investments. But the key issue for her is not just the amount of investment; it is the policy design, i.e. the outcomes and the beneficiaries of the policy. She further underscored that it is difficult to ascertain that welfare chauvinism is a response to the migration crisis because according to the available data the migration crisis did not cause an immediate welfare chauvinism. Concerning the potential cultural interventions, Eick focused on education, but understood rather broadly by including also the role of the media in providing accurate information and quality reporting, so that the public is enabled to make informed decisions. Additionally, she argued that it would be in the interest of any governing party not to rely on welfare chauvinism but to create cohesive societies. According to Eick, reliance on welfare chauvinism may bring short-term political benefits, but as soon as the public realises that anti-immigrant policies do not bring tangible benefits, they may withdraw their support.
The discussion during the questions and answers session focused on the influence of taxation on welfare chauvinism, differences between Eastern and Western Europe, the relationship between populism and welfare chauvinism, and further discussion of data in the presentation.
by Alban Dafa (ESC Research Assistant)
No comments:
Post a Comment