In recent decades Western Europe has had to face increasing migration levels resulting in a more diverse population. As a direct consequence, the question of adequate inclusion of immigrants into the welfare state has arisen. At the same time it has been asked whether the inclusion of non-nationals or migrants into the welfare state may undermine the solidaristic basis and legitimacy of welfare state redistribution. Citizens who are in general positive about the welfare state may adopt a critical view if migrants are granted equal access. Using data from the European Social Survey (2002/2003) for European OECD Countries we examine the relationship between ethnic diversity and public social expenditure, welfare state support and attitudes towards immigrants among European citizens. The results indicate only weak negative correlations between ethnic diversity and public social expenditure levels. Multilevel regression models with support for the welfare state and attitudes towards the legal inclusion of immigrants as dependent variables in fact reveal a negative influence of ethnic diversity. However, when controlling for migration in combination with other contextual factors, especially GDP, the unemployment rate and welfare regime seem to have a mediating influence.
Within the scope of the debate surrounding globalization, ever increasing attention is being directed to the growth of border-crossing social relations and the emergence of transnational social spaces on the micro-level. In particular, the question of how these border-crossing interrelations influence the attitudes and values of the people involved causes some controversy. Some assume that the increasing trans-nationalization of social relations will foster the development of cosmopolitan attitudes, while others warn that renationalization may also be a result. On the empirical level, the relationship between transnationalization and cosmopolitanism has so far only been addressed with regard to certain groups or specific circumstances. However, we assume that on the general level there is a positive relation between the two syndromes and address this question empirically on the level of the entire German population. On the basis of a representative survey of German citizens carried out in 2006, we find that people with border-crossing experiences and transnational social relations are more likely to adopt cosmopolitan attitudes with respect to foreigners and global governance. The analysis shows that this general interrelation remains stable even when controlling for relevant socio-economic variables
While visa policies are the major instrument for regulating and controlling the global flow of people, little is known about how they have changed over time. Accordingly, scholars have expressed the need for large-N datasets which cover more than one point in time. This article takes up this challenge and presents a for the first time a global overview of the changes in visa waiver policies based on a newly created database containing the visa waiver policies of over 150 countries for 1969 and 2010. We find that, on average, visa-free mobility has increased over the past 40 years. However, not everybody has benefited from these developments. In fact, visa waivers are increasingly unequally divided: While citizens of OECD countries and rich countries have gained mobility rights, mobility rights for other regions have stagnated or even diminished, in particular for citizens from African countries. Overall, we find a clear bifurcation in mobility rights, leading to a 'global mobility divide'.
The article highlights the normative underpinning of acts of social giving. The propensity to engage in a costly collective endeavour is strongly enhanced by reciprocity assumptions. People are not solely self-regarding but also care for the well-being of others and express support for the moral purposes of welfare programmes. To identify the conditions under which people tend to support or object to redistributive policies we need to shed light on the specific reciprocity norms that affect social exchanges. What people expect in return for their contribution may vary in value and kind. Specific reciprocity norms determine which type of reciprocal returns within welfare exchanges are perceived as appropriate and satisfying. A taxonomy of reciprocity norms is used to distinguish between different policies.
This article addresses the question of whether globalization impacts individual preferences to exclude immigrants from national welfare systems ('welfare chauvinism'). Intergroup contact theory and arguments from the 'new cosmopolitanism' debate suggest that cross-border social contacts ('social globalization') foster a willingness to include and accept newcomers. However, group conflict theory suggests that trade openness ('economic globalization') can unleash feelings of insecurity and trigger welfare chauvinism. While these approaches point in different directions, we argue that the impact of globalization on welfare chauvinism differs across socio-economic status groups. Using cross-national data from the European Social Survey 2008/2009, we find scarce support for the hypothesis that social globalization reduces welfare chauvinism in general. However, there is evidence that it diminishes exclusionary attitudes among those with relatively high socio-economic statuses. Moreover, we find no general evidence for an impact of economic globalization on chauvinism, but a positive interaction of intensified engagement with global market forces and higher socio-economic status.
Within the literature on European integration there is a widespread assumption that Europe is in need of intensified and more effective supranational social policy cooperation. However, on the political level it is doubtful whether such measures are welcomed by the national electorates. This article addresses this issue empirically by asking whether there is public demand for promoting greater European welfare policy cooperation and what are the determinants of such a demand. The data source used is the Eurobarometer survey 2000. A number of hypotheses dealing with socio‐structural differences, the effects of welfare regime types, the subjective evaluation of the integration process and the role of identity will be scrutinised. Overall, the results indicate that at the attitudinal ‘grass root’ level there is no unequivocal support for a European welfare responsibility and that some fundamental cleavages are present. It is the regional and cultural aspects, especially, which turn out to be having an effect and to be influencing future political conflicts. A common European welfare arrangement, therefore, cannot be regarded as a solution to the problems the European Union is facing; rather it will raise new and severe problems of finding social and political support.
The issue of social insecurity is high on the public and scientific agenda. Most research, however, looks at objective forms of insecurity like growing labour market volatilities or atypical employment. Less has been done with regard to the way people perceive these changes and the role of institutions therein. While recent studies have highlighted the relatively weak role of institutions in explaining different levels of subjective insecurity, they were limited in their understanding in the institutions-security interplay. This special issue aims to understand how institutions generate and moderate the outcomes of subjective insecurity, as well as to overcome some of the methodological limitations of previous studies. The introduction provides a state-of-the-art literature review and unfolds the research question addressed in the special issue. It concludes with some thoughts for future research in the field of social insecurity and institutions.
scite is a Brooklyn-based startup that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.