106 Chapter 5 economy, subjective poverty risk, and whether the respondent would be more likely to vote to leave the EU following the example of additional checks set by Burgoon, Koster, and van Egmond (2012). These variables are closely linked to our hypotheses and may help us identify the underlying causal mechanisms. They are defined using the relevant questions in the ESS. For welfare chauvinism the question “Thinking of people coming to live in [country] from other countries, when do you think they should obtain the same rights to social benefits and services as citizens already living here?” (ESS, 2016) is used, with the responses being 1 = immediately on arrival; 2 = after a year, whether or not have worked; 3 = after worked and paid taxes at least a year; 4 = once they have become a citizen; and 5 = they should never get the same rights. For social benefits are considered a strain on the economy, the question “Please tell me to what extent you agree or disagree that social benefits and services in [country] place too great a strain on the economy?” (ESS, 2016) is used, with the responses being 1 = strongly disagree; 2 = somewhat disagree; 3 = neither agree nor disagree; 4 = somewhat agree; 5 = strongly agree. For subjective poverty risk, the question “During the next 12 months how likely is it that there will be some periods when you don’t have enough money to cover your household necessities?” (ESS, 2016) is used, with the responses being 1= not at all likely; 2 = not very likely; 3 = likely; 4 = very likely. For vote to leave the EU, the question “Imagine there were a referendum in [country] tomorrow about membership of the European Union. Would you vote for [country] to remain a member of the European Union or to leave the European Union?” (ESS, 2016) is used, with the responses being 1 = Remain a member of the European Union; 2 = Leave the European Union. 5.4.2 Explanatory Variables In the following section, I discuss the two different indicators for mobility and elaborate on the operationalisation of our indicator for CEE labour migration and the challenges faced during its creation. First, I use a traditional indicator for general level of immigration, foreign-born as a percentage of the population (Burgoon, 2014; Burgoon et al., 2012; Gaston & Rajaguru, 2013; Mau & Burkhardt, 2009; Soroka et al., 2016; Soroka, Johnston, & Banting, 2006). This allows us to make reasonable comparisons to previous literature using different survey rounds of the ESS but similar data and methods. Second, the key novelty of this paper is the use of an innovative indicator for one aspect of intra-EU mobility, labour migration from the post-2004 EU member states, to look at the influence of post-2004 intra-EU labour migration and build further on the arguments of previous researchers. I created this indicator for CEE labour migration in order to provide a more nuanced view of migration and social protection. Although the two explanatory variables are measured slightly differently, one as a percentage of the population and the other as a percentage of the labour force, both are at the country level and identify migrants or mobile citizens as those who are foreign-born.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw