Conclusion 127 is to conflicts over who gets what (Beramendi & Rehm, 2016), but this needs further investigation. In line with this, there is a need for better understanding on whether certain types of programme design (e.g., means-tested versus contributory welfare programs) are more, or less, resilient to the pressures of immigration or changes in public opinion. Means-tested programmes (e.g., social assistance, housing benefits) are more directly redistributive and often more politically contested. Research suggests that increased immigration can lead to concerns about “free-riding” and discussions around “deservingness”, especially if immigrants are perceived as net beneficiaries rather than contributors. Future research could explore whether and how immigration affects the generosity of means-tested benefits across different welfare regimes or if public support for welfare declines more in countries with highly means-tested systems in response to immigration. Moreover, in response to increasing immigration it could be that welfare states shift toward more means-testing to control access and limit expenditures, or they may introduce more contributory elements to restrict immigrant access to welfare while maintaining support for natives. Contributory programmes (e.g., pensions, unemployment insurance) are based on prior contributions, which may make them vulnerable to welfare chauvinism as individuals are easier to exclude. Conservative welfare regimes that rely on contributory systems may limit immigrant access to social support, which could be of particular interest as it provides the space for welfare chauvinism mechanisms to play a role. This could be an interesting avenue for future research, although the data on the extent to which intra-EU migrants have access to welfare state programmes is limited. Even though this dissertation examines replacement rates in addition to social spending data, one limitation is that it does not focus on other institutional dimensions such as access to welfare state programmes. These questions need more empirical testing and would be interesting avenues for future research. Furthermore, several political economy and rational-choice theories suggest the importance of the skill-level of migrants for having divergent influences on welfare state effort (e.g., Magni-Berton, 2014; Razin et al., 2002; Ruhs and Martin, 2006), and steps should be taken to test this empirically in a macrolevel study. However, there are practical limitations concerning the availability of data to take into consideration in order to make such an analysis possible. In line with this, this dissertation underscores the need for better data on intra-European Union (EU) migration, in particular temporary and circular migration. While the European Union Labour Force Survey (EULFS) provides a useful dataset, it has limitations, especially in capturing short-term migration and seasonal labour flows. Addressing these data gaps would enhance future research, enable researchers to understand the effects of short-term and circular migration flows on the sustainability of
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw