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 (N=2525) among Swedish voters, randomizing 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.
AkramiNEkehammarBArayaT (2000) Classical and modern racial prejudice: A study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology30(4): 521–532.
2.
BlaubergerMSchmidtSK (2014) Welfare migration? Free movement of EU citizens and access to social benefits. Research & Politics1(3): 1–7.
3.
ChongDDruckmanJN (2007) Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science10(1): 103–126.
4.
CitrinJGreenDPMusteC (1997) Public opinion toward immigration reform: The role of economic motivations. The Journal of Politics59(03): 858–881.
5.
De GiorgiGPellizzariM (2009) Welfare migration in Europe. Labour Economics16(4): 353–363.
6.
de KosterWAchterbergPvan der WaalJ (2012) The new right and the welfare state: The electoral relevance of welfare chauvinism and welfare populism in The Netherlands. International Political Science Review34(1): 3–20.
7.
DelheyJ (2007) Do enlargements make the European Union less cohesive? An analysis of trust between EU nationalities. Journal of Common Market Studies45(2): 253–279.
8.
DicksonES (2011) Economics vs. psychology experiments: Stylization, incentives, and deception. In: DruckmanJN (eds) The Handbook of Experimental Political Science, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp. 58–69.
9.
DinesenPTKlemmensenRNørgaardA (2016) Attitudes toward immigration: The role of personal predispositions. Political Psychology. 37(1): 55–72.
10.
DominiczakP (2013) Britain and Germany demand EU cracks down on ‘benefits tourism’. The Telegraph. 24 April. Available at: http://fw.to/qxoorPT (accessed 3 August 2015).
11.
DruckmanJNKamCD (2011) Students as experimental participants. In: Cambridge Handbook of Experimental Political Science, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
12.
ESS Round 6: European Social Survey Round 6 Data (2012). Data file edition 2.1. Norwegian Social Science Data Services, Norway – Data Archive and distributor of ESS data. Available at: http://www.europeansocialsurvey.org/data/download.html?r=6 (accessed 19 July 2015).
13.
FerreraM (2005) The Boundaries of Welfare: European Integration and the New Spatial Politics of Social Solidarity, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
14.
FerreraM (2014) Social Europe and its components in the midst of the crisis: A conclusion. West European Politics37(4): 825–843.
15.
GerritsenDLubbersM (2010) Unknown is unloved? Diversity and inter-population trust in Europe. European Union Politics11(2): 267–287.
16.
HainmuellerJHangartnerD (2013) Who gets a Swiss passport? A natural experiment in immigrant discrimination. American Political Science Review107(1): 159–187.
17.
HainmuellerJHiscoxMJ (2007) Educated preferences: Explaining attitudes toward immigration in Europe. International Organization61(2): 399–442.
18.
HainmuellerJHiscoxMJ (2010) Attitudes toward highly skilled and low-skilled immigration: Evidence from a survey experiment. American Political Science Review104(1): 61–84.
19.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJ (2014) Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science17: 225–249.
20.
HainmuellerJHopkinsDJ (2015) The hidden American immigration consensus: A conjoint analysis of attitudes toward immigrants. American Journal of Political Science59(3): 529–548.
21.
HemerijckA (2013) Changing Welfare States, Oxford: Oxford University Press.
22.
HoboltSBKlemmensenR (2005) Responsive government? Public opinion and government policy preferences in Britain and Denmark. Political Studies53(2): 379–402.
23.
HoogheLMarksG (2009) A postfunctionalist theory of European integration: From permissive consensus to constraining dissensus. British Journal of Political Science39(1): 1–23.
24.
IyengarSJackmanSMessingS (2013) Do attitudes about immigration predict willingness to admit individual immigrants? A cross-national test of the person-positivity bias. Public Opinion Quarterly77(3): 641–665.
25.
KinderDRKamCD (2009) Us Against Them: Ethnocentric Foundations of American Opinion (Chicago Studies in American Politics), Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
26.
KinderDRSandersLM (1996) Divided by Color: Racial Politics and Democratic Ideals, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
27.
KinderDRSearsDO (1981) Prejudice and politics: Symbolic racism versus racial threats to the good life. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology40(3): 414–431.
28.
KitscheltH (2007) Growth and persistence of the radical right in postindustrial democracies: Advances and challenges in comparative research. West European Politics30(5): 1176–1176.
29.
KundaZSherman-WilliamsB (1993) Stereotypes and the construal of individuating information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin19(1): 90–99.
30.
LeeperTJMullinixKJ (2014) To whom, with what effect? Parallel experiments on framing. In: 2014 Annual Meeting of the Midwest Political Science Association, Chicago, IL, 3–6 April. .
31.
LubbersMJaspersE (2011) A longitudinal study of Euroscepticism in The Netherlands: 2008 versus 1990. European Union Politics12(1): 21–40.
32.
MacraeCNBodenhausenGVMilneAB (1994) Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology67(5): 808–817.
33.
MartinsenDS (2005) The Europeanization of welfare - The domestic impact of intra-European social security. Journal of Common Market Studies43(5): 1027–1054.
34.
MartinsenDS (2007) The social policy clash - EU cross-border welfare, union citizenship and national residence clauses. In: The EUSA tenth biennial international conference, Montreal, Canada, 17–19 May.
35.
MartinsenDSVollaardH (2014) Implementing social Europe in times of crises: Re-established boundaries of welfare?West European Politics37(4): 677–692.
36.
Martinsson J, Andreasson M, Markstedt E, et al. (2013) Technical report citizen panel 8. Technical report, University of Gothenburg, Gothenburg.
37.
MaydaAM (2006) Who is against immigration? A cross-country investigation of individual attitudes toward immigrants. Review of Economics and Statistics88(3): 510–530.
38.
McLarenLM (2002) Public support for the European Union: Cost/benefit analysis or perceived cultural threat?The Journal of Politics64(02): 551–566.
39.
MendelbergT (2001) The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality, Princeton: Princeton University Press.
40.
MewesJMauS (2012) Unraveling working-class welfare chauvinism. In: SvallforsS (ed.) Contested Welfare States: Welfare Attitudes in Europe and Beyond, Stanford, MA: Stanford University Press, pp. 119–157.
41.
O'RourkeK (2003) Heckscher–Ohlin Theory and Individual Attitudes Towards Globalization. Working paper no. 9872, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
42.
OscarssonHHolmbergS (2013) Nya Svenska Väljare, Norstedts JuridikStockholm.
43.
PageBIShapiroRY (1983) Effects of Public Opinion on Policy. The American Political Science Review77(1): 175–190.
44.
ReeskensTvan OorschotW (2012) Disentangling the ‘New Liberal Dilemma’: On the relation between general welfare redistribution preferences and welfare chauvinism. International Journal of Comparative Sociology53(2): 120–139.
45.
RosenbaumPR (1984) The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society. Series A (General)147(5): 656–666.
46.
RuistJ (2014) Free immigration and welfare access: The Swedish experience. Fiscal Studies35(1): 19–39.
47.
ScheveKFSlaughterMJ (2001) Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. Review of Economics and Statistics83(1): 133–145.
48.
SchneiderAIngramH (1993) Social construction of target populations: Implications for politics and policy. American Political Science Review87(2): 334–347.
49.
SearsDO (1983) The person-positivity bias. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology44(2): 233–250.
50.
SigonaN (2005) Locating ‘the Gypsy problem’. The Roma in Italy: Stereotyping, labelling and ‘Nomad Camps’. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies31(4): 741–756.
51.
SnidermanPMHagendoornLPriorM (2004) Predisposing factors and situational triggers: Exclusionary reactions to immigrant minorities. American Political Science Review98(1): 35–49.
52.
TillyC (1997) A primer on citizenship. Theory and Society26(4): 599–603.
53.
TingleyD (2013) Public finance and immigration preferences: A lost connection?Polity45(1): 4–33.
54.
TurperSIyengarSAartsK (2014) Who is less welcome? The impact of individuating cues on attitudes towards immigrants. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies41(2): 239–259.
55.
van der WaalJAchterbergPHoutmanD (2010) ‘Some are more equal than others’: Economic egalitarianism and welfare chauvinism in The Netherlands. Journal of European Social Policy20(4): 350–363.
56.
WindM (2008) Post-national citizenship in Europe: The EU as a welfare rights generator. Columbia Journal of European Law15: 239–263.
57.
ZallerJR (1992) The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion (Cambridge Studies in Public Opinion and Political Psychology), New York: Cambridge University Press.
Supplementary Material
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.
