Protected against all odds? A mixed‐methods study on the risk of welfare sanctions for immigrants in Germany

Abstract

Sanctions are payment cuts that case managers implement in order to discipline welfare recipients. Previous research suggests that immigrants face a particularly high risk to receive such reductions, primarily due to the prevalence of stereotyping in street‐level bureaucracy. The study contributes to this literature with help of a triangulation between in‐depth interviews, survey data and administrative records for the case of the German social assistance system. Our findings indicate that immigrants tend to be sanctioned at a lower rate than other benefit recipients in this context, especially if they arrived at the country only recently on grounds of international protection. This finding can be explained by the importance of reciprocity and control in the country's ‘Bismarckian’ welfare state. Our qualitative data shows that case managers exert a considerable level of agency over the implementation process. This discretion is, on the one hand, used to discipline benefit recipients who are perceived as having contributed little to the welfare system as a whole through taxes and social insurance contributions. Those who are considered to have limited control over their labour market position, on the other hand, are given a certain degree of leeway. We therefore conclude, against the background of the current street‐level bureaucracy literature, that immigration can also act as a deservingness cue in means‐tested social assistance, given that the benefit system is embedded into a welfare regime in which labour market participation, work‐testing and social insurance contributions are the dominating principles of eligibility.

A multi‐country systematic review of research on sanctions and equity in social welfare programs

“…Articles that examined the experiences of immigrants presented differing findings. Gschwind et al (2022) found that immigrants were less likely to experience sanctions in Germany, but that the risk of sanction increased with length of time in the country. Sanction rates also differed by ethnicity with those from the Middle East less likely to be sanctioned than immigrants from Eastern European countries.…”

“…Nguyen (2020) found that workers made judgements as to whether clients were deserving or exploiting the system, and made decisions based on that judgement. Gschwind et al (2022) found that caseworkers were more likely to discipline those they perceived as having contributed less to the system through taxes or social insurance contributions, though they found that those perceived as having little control over their employment situation were provided more leniency.…”

“…The characteristic itself, however, is not consistent across countries. This systematic review shows that program experience may depend on where you live (e.g., Chang et al, 2020), where you were born (e.g., Gschwind et al, 2022), what language you speak (Guma, 2020), and other individual, political, and geographic characteristics (e.g., Fording et al, 2011; Keiser et al, 2004). In the US, the primary characteristic compared is race, particularly the experience of Black recipients compared to white recipients.…”

“…The study argues that the denials and cancellations faced by this group highlight the restrictions of EU citizens' rights well before Brexit. Gschwind et al (2022) state that it is because of the welfare states' prioritisation of labor market participation and work-testing that immigration can act as a deservingness cue. Because those who immigrate into a country are less likely to be able to meet benefit conditions, they are excluded from a right of social citizenship by the design of the system itself before they ever get to a caseworker (Reeves & Loopstra, 2017).…”

Us and Ours

“…Those ethnic minority immigrants who are allowed access to common resources like welfare benefits are more likely to be punished for various infractions than are members of the host majority (Monnat, 2010; Pedersen et al, 2018; cf. Gschwind et al, 2022). This trend seems to persist although pertinent research very clearly points to the fact that immigration is an asset for contemporary industrial societies, not a drain on their resources (e.g., Boubtane & Dumont, 2013; Dustmann & Frattini, 2014; Huber & Oberdabering, 2016).…”