Social science research has produced evidence of chauvinistic attitudes concerning who should have access to the welfare state's benefits. Citizens generally consider individuals of immigrant-origin less deserving of welfare support than comparable native-born citizens. This study expands on existing research by investigating whether and for whom the presence of welfare chauvinistic elements in a proposal to reform a social benefit translates into support for the proposal. A forced-choice survey experiment was conducted to estimatethe causal impact of welfare chauvinistic elements on preferences for fictional proposals to reform social assistance in Denmark. The experiment randomly varied two welfare chauvinistic elements: open welfare chauvinism, which explicitly reduces benefits for non-citizens, and concealed welfare chauvinism, which introduces a minimum length-of-residence requirement for eligibility. The results show that proposing to lower the social assistance rate for non-citizens positively affected support for the reform, whereas a minimum length-of-residence eligibility requirement had no significant effect on preferences. Further analysis illuminates that preference for open welfare chauvinism is greater among right-leaning voters. These findings indicate that a public opinion favoring welfare chauvinism may undermine the social legitimacy of immigrant inclusive means-tested benefits.
AbascalMHuangTJTranVC (2021) Intervening in anti-immigrant sentiments: The causal effects of factual information on attitudes toward immigration. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science697(1): 174–191.
2.
Abou-ChadiTKrauseW (2020) The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: A regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science50(3): 829–847.
3.
AbtsKDalle MulleEvan KesselS, et al. (2021) The welfare agenda of the populist radical right in Western Europe: Combining welfare chauvinism, producerism and populism*. Swiss Political Science Review27(1): 21–40.
4.
AndersenJ (2006) Immigration and the Legitimacy of the Scandinavian Welfare State: Some Preliminary Danish Findings. AMID Working Paper Series 53/2006. Aalborg University, Denmark.
5.
AndersenJGBjørklundT (1990) Structural changes and new cleavages: The progress parties in Denmark and Norway. Acta Sociologica33(3): 195–217.
6.
BansakKHainmuellerJHopkinsDJ, et al. (2021) Beyond the breaking point? Survey satisficing in conjoint experiments. Political Science Research and Methods9(1): 53–71.
BayA-HFinseraasHPedersenAW (2016) Welfare nationalism and popular support for raising the child allowance: Evidence from a Norwegian survey experiment. Scandinavian Political Studies39(4): 482–494.
9.
BayA-HPedersenAW (2006) The limits of social solidarity. Acta Sociologica49(4): 419–436.
10.
BellDAValentaMStrabacZ (2022) Nordic welfare chauvinism: A comparative study of welfare chauvinism in Sweden, Norway and Finland. International Social Work66: 1786–1802.
11.
BussC (2019) Public opinion towards targeted labour market policies: A vignette study on the perceived deservingness of the unemployed. Journal of European Social Policy29(2): 228–240.
12.
CarejaRElmelund-PræstekærCKlitgaardMB, et al. (2016) Direct and indirect welfare chauvinism as party strategies: An analysis of the Danish People’s Party. Scandinavian Political Studies39(4): 435–457.
13.
CarejaRHarrisE (2022) Thirty years of welfare chauvinism research: Findings and challenges. Journal of European Social Policy32(2): 212–224.
14.
CarneyTBoucherA (2009) Social security and immigration: An agenda for future research. Zeitschrift Fur Austlandisches Und Internationales Arbeits- Und Sozialrecht23: 331–340.
15.
CaswellDBendix LauritzenHBlume JensenK (2008) Familieforsørgede indvandrerkvinders muligheder og barrierer i forhold til beskæftigelse og uddannelse. Danmark: AKF, Anvendt KommunalForskning. København.
16.
CavailleCFerwerdaJ (2017) How Distributional Conflict over Public Spending Drives Support for Anti-Immigrant Parties. In CAGE Online Working Paper Series (328; CAGE Online Working Paper Series, Issue 328). Competitive Advantage in the Global Economy (CAGE). https://ideas.repec.org/p/cge/wacage/328.html.
17.
CavailléCVan Der StraetenK (2023) Immigration and support for redistribution: Lessons from Europe. Journal of Economic Literature61(3): 958–976.
EickGM (2024) Welfare Chauvinism in Europe: How Education, Economy and Culture Shape Public Attitudes. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing.
20.
Ennser-JedenastikL (2018) Welfare chauvinism in populist radical right platforms: The role of redistributive justice principles: Welfare chauvinism in populist radical right platforms: The role of redistributive justice principles. Social Policy & Administration52(1): 293–314.
21.
FinseraasH (2008) Immigration and preferences for redistribution: An empirical analysis of European survey data. Comparative European Politics6(4): 407–431.
22.
FordR (2016) Who should we help? An experimental test of discrimination in the British welfare state. Political Studies64(3): 630–650.
23.
FossatiF (2018) Who wants demanding active labour market policies? Public attitudes towards policies that put pressure on the unemployed. Journal of Social Policy47(1): 77–97.
24.
GrigorieffARothCUbfalD (2020) Does information change attitudes toward immigrants?Demography57(3): 1117–1143.
25.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJYamamotoT (2014) Causal inference in conjoint analysis: Understanding multidimensional choices via stated preference experiments. Political Analysis22(1): 1–30.
26.
HäusermannSKurerTTraberD (2019) The politics of trade-offs: Studying the dynamics of welfare state reform with conjoint experiments. Comparative Political Studies52(7): 1059–1095.
27.
HelblingMMaxwellRMunzertS, et al. (2022) The importance of citizenship for deserving COVID-19 treatment. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9(1): Article 1.
28.
HooijerG (2021) They take our houses’: Benefit competition and the erosion of support for immigrants’ social rights. British Journal of Political Science51(4): 1381–1401.
29.
IshwaranHLuM (2019) Standard errors and confidence intervals for variable importance in random forest regression, classification, and survival. Statistics in Medicine38(4): 558–582.
30.
JenkeLBansakKHainmuellerJ, et al. (2021) Using eye-tracking to understand decision-making in conjoint experiments. Political Analysis29(1): 75–101.
31.
JørgensenMBThomsenTL (2016) Deservingness in the Danish context: Welfare chauvinism in times of crisis. Critical Social Policy36(3): 330–351.
32.
Juhl JørgensenF (2020) How to Develop Policies that Foster Refugee Integration and are Supported by Voters. Aarhus, Denmark: Forlaget Politica.
33.
JungarA-C (2022) The Sweden Democrats Path from Isolation to Government. Stockholm, Sweden: Friedrich-Ebert-Stiftung, Nordic Countries.
34.
KnotzCMGandenbergerMKFossatiF, et al. (2021a) A recast framework for welfare deservingness perceptions. Social Indicators Research159: 927–943.
35.
KnotzCMGandenbergerMKFossatiF, et al. (2021b) Popular attitudes toward the distribution of vaccines against COVID-19: The Swiss case. Swiss Political Science Review27(2): 297–310.
36.
KönigsS (2015) Micro-level dynamics of social assistance receipt. Evidence from 4 European countries (Working Paper 797). Discussion Papers. https://www.econstor.eu/handle/10419/192779.
37.
KoningEA (2022) The Exclusion of Immigrants from Welfare Programs: Cross-National Analysis and Contemporary Developments.. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto Press.
38.
KootstraA (2016) Deserving and undeserving welfare claimants in Britain and The Netherlands: Examining the role of ethnicity and migration status using a vignette experiment. European Sociological Review32(3): 325–338.
39.
Kosiara-PedersenKKurrild-KlitgaardP (2019) Change and stability in the Danish party system. In: LisiM (ed) Party System Change, the European Crisis and the State of Democracy. London, NY: Routledge, Taylor & Francis Group, 16.
40.
KrosMCoendersM (2019) Explaining differences in welfare chauvinism between and within individuals over time: The role of subjective and objective economic risk, economic egalitarianism, and ethnic threat. European Sociological Review35(6): 860–873.
41.
LaenenTRossettiFvan OorschotW (2019) Why deservingness theory needs qualitative research: Comparing focus group discussions on social welfare in three welfare regimes. International Journal of Comparative Sociology60(3): 190–216.
42.
LarsenMHSchaefferM (2020) Healthcare chauvinism during the COVID-19 pandemic. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies47(7): 1–19.
43.
LeruthBTaylor-GoobyPGyőryA (2024) Categorizing discourses of welfare chauvinism: Temporal, selective, functional and cultural dimensions. Journal of European Social Policy34: 128–141.
44.
LubbersMSeibelV (2022) Welfare chauvinism: Are immigrants granted access to welfare state benefits? In: YerkesMABalM (eds) Solidarity and Social Justice in Contemporary Societies: An Interdisciplinary Approach to Understanding Inequalities. London: Palgrave Macmillan, 147–155.
45.
MagniG (2022) Boundaries of solidarity: Immigrants, economic contributions, and welfare attitudes. American Journal of Political Science68: 72–92.
46.
MuñozJPardos-PradoS (2019) Immigration and support for social policy: An experimental comparison of universal and means-tested programs. Political Science Research and Methods7(4): 717–735.
47.
MunzertSRamirez-RuizSÇalıB, et al. (2022) Prioritization preferences for COVID-19 vaccination are consistent across five countries. Humanities and Social Sciences Communications9(1): 39.
48.
NielsenMHFrederiksenMLarsenCA (2020) Deservingness put into practice: Constructing the (un)deservingness of migrants in four European countries. The British Journal of Sociology71(1): 112–126.
OorschotWV (2008) Solidarity towards immigrants in European welfare states. International Journal of Social Welfare17(1): 3–14.
51.
OorschotWvRoosmaFMeulemanBetal, eds. (2017) The Social Legitimacy of Targeted Welfare: Attitudes to Welfare Deservingness. Cheltenham, UK; Northampton, MA, USA: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
52.
ReeskensTvan der MeerT (2019) The inevitable deservingness gap: A study into the insurmountable immigrant penalty in perceived welfare deservingness. Journal of European Social Policy29(2): 166–181.
53.
ReeskensTVan Der MeerT (2021) Chapter 25. Welfare Chauvinism across the Political Spectrum.
54.
RobinsonTDuchR (2023) How to detect heterogeneity in conjoint experiments. The Journal of Politics86: 412–427.
55.
SchaefferMHaderup LarsenM (2022) Who should get vaccinated first? Limits of solidarity during the first week of the Danish vaccination programme. European Sociological Review39: 1–13.
56.
ScheveKFSlaughterMJ (2001) Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics83(1): 133–145.
57.
SchuesslerJFreitagM (2020) Power analysis for conjoint experiments [Preprint]. SocArXiv.
58.
SchumacherGvan KersbergenK (2016) Do mainstream parties adapt to the welfare chauvinism of populist parties?Party Politics22(3): 300–312.
van der WaalJAchterbergPHoutmanD, et al. (2010) Some are more equal than others’: Economic egalitarianism and welfare chauvinism in The Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy20(4): 350–363.
65.
Van Der WaalJDe KosterWVan OorschotW (2013) Three worlds of welfare chauvinism? How welfare regimes affect support for distributing welfare to immigrants in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis: Research and Practice15(2): 164–181.
66.
van OorschotW (2000) Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics28: 33–48.
67.
van OorschotW (2006) Making the difference in social Europe: Deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states. Journal of European Social Policy16(1): 23–42.
68.
van OorschotWUunkW (2007) Welfare spending and the public’s concern for immigrants: Multilevel evidence for eighteen European countries. Comparative Politics40(1): 63–82.
69.
VoelkelJGMalikMRedekoppC, et al. (2022) Changing Americans’ attitudes about immigration: Using moral framing to bolster factual arguments. The ANNALS of the American Academy of Political and Social Science700(1): 73–85.
70.
WiggenM (2022) The normalisation of welfare chauvinism. IPPR Progressive Review29(2): 101–108.
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
