102 Chapter 5 the exclusion of a native-born US citizen. Moreover, the author found that fiscal or economic threat had a more substantial effect than cultural threat and was strongest in areas with low concentrations of Hispanic residents, which could also be evidence in favour of intergroup contact theory. In addition, the public have group-specific concerns and associate different types of migrants with different types of threats. Hellwig and Sinno (2017) use survey data from the United Kingdom (UK) and find that Muslim immigrants trigger concerns regarding cultural change and security, while Eastern Europeans prompt economic and crime related concerns. Furthermore, using survey data from Sweden, Hjorth (2016) shows that when a welfare recipient is mentioned as Bulgarian vs Dutch, an individual’s opposition to cross-border welfare rights increases by 6 percentage points. Hence, the nationality of a welfare recipient appears to play a role in conditioning public support for the welfare state (Blinder, 2015; Hellwig & Sinno, 2017; Hjorth, 2016; Jørgensen & Thomsen, 2016). The effect is conditional on the type of migration that individuals are exposed to, as each type of migration comes with its own type of risk and thus elicits a different response. On the other hand, Cappelen and Peters (2018) explore the role of intra-EU mobility and its role in shaping attitudes towards the welfare state. They state that this particular group of mobile EU citizens have been the recipient of many attacks by the media and politicians for undercutting wages and taking advantage of the welfare state. As such it would be expected that natives would wish to remove access to benefits for this particular group. However, because EU member states are unable to discriminate against resident EU nationals in the field of social security, then the consequence of that inability to discriminate is that there will instead be a negative effect on individual attitudes towards overall redistribution. In light of this, I seek to operationalise a very specific type of migration, CEE labour mobility, in order to better understand how this has influenced job insecurity and preferences for redistribution. I theorise that CEE labour migrants affect subjective job security more acutely than general indicators of migration, as this particular type of mobility is more likely to prompt economic concerns than others (Hellwig & Sinno, 2017) and expect CEE labour migrants to increase subjective job insecurity. I test this in two ways: first, with support for redistribution as the dependent variable, I interact CEE labour mobility with the unemployment rate, and second, through directly testing the effect of CEE labour mobility on a measure of subjective job insecurity. 5.2.4 Theoretical Conceptualisation and Hypotheses Figure 5.1 aims to provide a visualisation of how the theoretical concepts presented in the literature review interact with each other and ultimately provide a holistic overview of the mechanisms through which immigra-
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw