Intra-EU Labour Migration and Attitudes Towards the Welfare State 99 as the anti-solidarity hypothesis suggests, that native-born residents may instead call for the ring-fencing of benefits from foreign-born residents in order to maintain generous benefits for native-born residents (Eger, 2010; Eger & Breznau, 2017; Hjorth, 2016; Larsen, 2011, 2020; Negash & van Vliet, 2024; van der Meer & Reeskens, 2021; van der Waal, de Koster, & van Oorschot, 2013). Generally, it is accepted that the public tend to have the least amount of solidarity towards migrants in comparison with the elderly, sick and disabled people, and the unemployed (van Oorschot, 2008), and as a result people often consider immigrants to be less deserving of welfare support than natives (Ford, 2015; Magni, 2021; Cabeza Martínez, 2023). This is closely linked to social psychology and theories on group membership, social identity, and how individuals in society associate themselves as members of an in-group while assigning those who are ‘different’ to themselves as part of the out-group (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). One theory is that members of the in-group (the native-born population) seek to exclude those in the outgroup (the foreign-born population) (Cappelen & Midtbø, 2016). Moreover, those who are considered ‘out’ are more likely to be viewed as a threat and as a result tend to be treated less positively (out-group animosity) than those considered to be ‘in’ (in-group favouritism) (Larsen, 2020; Magni, 2021). Using ESS data from 2008/09, Cappelen and Peters (2017) test the welfare chauvinism hypothesis and in-group/out-group theory in the context of intra-EU migration. They find evidence that countries with greater intra-EU migration have lower levels of welfare chauvinism and consequently contend that intergroup contact theory may better explain the effect that intraEU migration may have on attitudes towards the welfare state. Intergroup contact theory proposes that more frequent contact with the out-group can increase tolerance, reduce prejudice, and diminish anti-immigrant sentiments (Cappelen & Peters, 2017; Heath et al., 2020). Thus, a larger share of immigrants in a population should decrease perceived group threat and not lead to exclusionary or retrenchment preferences for social protection. Indeed, Mutz (2002) finds that the more diverse an individual’s social network, the greater their tolerance and understanding towards those who have opposing political views. On the other hand, based on data from the Netherlands, Van Der Meer and Reeskens (2021) find that diverse neighbourhoods lower support for redistribution with the out-group and not the in-group, thus arguing that immigration in this context has a considerable effect on welfare chauvinism. Crucially, these relationships are likely to be highly dependent on other national contexts, such as levels of immigration or the generosity of benefits and the welfare regime type (Burgoon & Rooduijn, 2021; Dallinger, 2010), as individuals respond to the contexts in which they find themselves. For example, using ESS survey data and a survey experiment conducted in Italy, Magni (2021) states that selective solidarity or welfare chauvinism
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw