118 Chapter 5 tion hypothesis, but then I find that at high levels of CEE labour mobility and unemployment the relationship becomes negative. It may be that individuals in a more unstable economic environment are somewhat more concerned about the financial burden on the welfare state. Furthermore, CEE labour mobility shows a positive association with perceived poverty risk (as CEE labour migration increases, so does an individual’s belief that they may not be able to cover household necessities) but does not significantly affect welfare chauvinism or perceptions of social benefits as a strain on the economy. The possibility that multiple mechanisms are at work resonates with Naumann and Stoetzer (2017) who argue that the effect of immigration on attitudes towards the welfare state varies across groups within society. When the analysis breaks down the compensation hypothesis into its two component parts: (1) that increased mobility increases individual job insecurity and (2) increased job insecurity in turn increases preferences for redistribution, it finds evidence that increased mobility does increase individual job insecurity and a positive association between job insecurity and support for redistribution. This aligns with previous research (e.g., Burgoon et. al, 2012, Hellwig and Sinno, 2017), reinforcing the idea that personal economic vulnerability drives greater support for redistributive policies and that CEE labour mobility especially may prompt economic concerns for individuals. Ultimately, these findings continue to support the idea that broader economic conditions play a crucial role in shaping attitudes towards income redistribution (e.g., Burgoon and Rooduijn, 2021) and immigration may only somewhat modify some of these already well-established relationships (e.g., Walter, 2010). In addition, this analysis contributes to the broader debate on migration and redistribution by underscoring the nuanced impacts of different types of migration and economic conditions on public opinion. The results challenge simplistic views of migration’s impact on welfare state attitudes and highlight the importance of considering both direct and indirect effects. The interaction findings indicate that while migration might influence redistribution preferences, this relationship is mediated by broader economic conditions, particularly unemployment. By advancing our understanding of these dynamics, this chapter contributes valuable evidence to inform policymakers and contribute to a more nuanced public debate on immigration and social policy, highlighting the importance of considering specific migration patterns and contextual factors when addressing migration-related policy challenges. Additionally, the mixed results emphasise the need for a more refined understanding of migration’s impacts, particularly by considering both the type of migration and the broader socio-economic context.
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw