How much heterogeneity can the welfare state endure? The influence of heterogeneity on attitudes to the welfare state

Abstract

Cultural and economic heterogeneity is often seen as a major threat to modern welfare states. This article contributes to the discussion of how much heterogeneity the welfare state can endure by theoretically and empirically focusing on the relationship between different levels of national identity and the support for welfare state policies. We analyse the effect of different types of national identity on attitudes towards taxation and redistribution. We show that it is the subjective aspect of national identity, or social cohesion, that in fact matters for predicting attitudes to the welfare state. In comparison, more objective measures of heterogeneity like the inequality of income distribution, language fractionalisation or the percentage of foreign‐born individuals do not have any effect on attitudes to the welfare state.

Immigration Attitudes and Support for the Welfare State in the American Mass Public

“…Alesina, Baqir, and Easterly 1999;Gilens 2000) have considered the effects of attitudes toward African Americans on support for welfare, and other scholars have considered how racial and/or ethnic heterogeneity resulting from increases in immigration has reduced support for the welfare state, primarily in Western European countries (cf. Burgoon, Koster, and van Egmund 2010;Eger 2010;Hjerm and Schnabel 2012). Here, we focus explicitly on how individuals' evaluation of illegal immigrants, their support for expanded immigration, and a general pro-immigration scale based on a factor analysis of these two items influence individuals' attitudes toward the welfare state.…”

“…Empirical research conducted in Western developed countries-especially in Europe-shows some support for the argument that either the presence of immigrants in one's context or individuals' subjective attitudes toward immigrants can influence public support for welfare (Burgoon, Koster, and van Egmond 2010;Eger 2010;Hjerm and Schnabel 2012;Larsen 2011;Mau and Burkhardt 2009;Sumino 2013). Specifically, increased immigration has the effect of increasing the racial and ethnic heterogeneity of a given political system, and this might reduce the sense of national identity and social solidarity needed for the welfare state.…”

“…Using the American experience with race and welfare as a foundation, comparative scholars have begun to examine whether or not the increasing immigrant populations experienced by Europe during the 1990s and 2000s might lead to an erosion of support for welfare programs (Burgoon, Koster, and van Egmond 2010;Eger 2010;Hjerm and Schnabel 2012;Larsen 2011;Mau and Burkhardt 2009;Sumino 2013). According to Kymlicka and Banting (2006, 286) this position has even become dominant: "The strongly racialized dimension of US welfare politics is no longer seen as an anomaly .…”

Do shared values promote social cohesion? If so, which? Evidence from Denmark

“…Furthermore, a couple of US studies find that national identity at the individual level has no significant impact on beliefs about social justice in terms of spending on health, education, and welfare (Citrin et al, 2001;Theiss-Morse, 2009). Hjerm and Schnabel (2012) use xenophobia as a proxy for individual national identity and find that ethnically based national identities have a positive impact on support for the welfare state. And Wright and Reeskens (2013) distinguish between ethnic national identity, cultural national identity, and civic national identity, and find that (only) ethnic national identity is conducive to redistribution and that all three national conceptions induce welfare chauvinism against immigrants.…”

“…Furthermore, as we pointed out in the introduction, several other community values are by various political theorists claimed to bind community members together in ways that are conducive to social cohesion. These other sets of values have more or less been neglected in empirical studies and insofar as they have been studied, they have primarily been included in studies measuring the impact of such values at the level of policy (Crepaz, 2006;Torpe, 2012) and at the country level (Hjerm and Schnabel, 2012).…”