70 Chapter 4 Muñoz & Pardos-Prado (2017) find that targeted and means-tested social programmes exacerbate the negative association between immigration and public support for redistribution. Previous research supports this finding and argues that by defining boundaries and categories regarding who can and cannot benefit, a targeted programme becomes more vulnerable to controversy and conflict between groups than a universal one that benefits everyone (Crepaz, 2007; Afonso, 2015; Soroka et al., 2016; Jorgensen & Thomsen, 2016). Thus, a universal programme, or one with a broad base of support and buy-in across the income distribution, is less likely to face opposition and potential retrenchment. On the other hand, when looking at the difference between social compensation and social investment interventions, Bonoli et al. (2024) find that there is no difference between social programme types when it comes to whether or not natives believe that immigrants are deserving of welfare and argue that general exclusionary attitudes towards the out-group (migrants) are driven by in-group (natives) favouritism. Taken together, these findings show that the association between immigration and welfare state effort is complex, and the results underline the relevance of including various programmes in the analysis. 4.2.2 Welfare state effort and differentiating between types of mobility Another aspect which could explain the mixed results and conclusions in the existing literature is the way researchers choose to operationalise migration. Depending on the definition and data chosen to represent mobility, this can influence the results and interpretations of studies. Moreover, studies that use more general indicators such as ‘foreign-born as a percentage of the population’ or ‘net migration’ may miss some key nuances in the way immigration can reshape the boundaries of the welfare state. As such, we focus on two specific immigration indicators in this chapter – EU13 and EU15 intra-EU labour mobility – to help understand the evolution of welfare state effort within the EU in light of a very particular change in patterns of mobility within its borders. Following research on how narratives around particular categories of mobility can alter public attitudes towards those specific groups, it is thus reasonable to expect that different groups may affect the welfare state in diverse ways (Blinder, 2015; Hellwig & Sinno, 2017; Hjorth, 2016; Jørgensen & Thomsen, 2016). Based on a survey experiment conducted in Germany, Norway, and Sweden, Goerres et al. (2020) find that respondents who were primed to think about costs generated by immigration are more concerned about the affordability of the welfare state than respondents who were part of a control group. This effect is significant for both nonwestern immigration and for intra-EU labour mobility, but the effect is less strong for intra-EU labour mobility. Hjorth (2016) undertakes a study to understand solidarity across borders within the EU in order to assess
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw