Suchergebnisse

AbstractIn this article, we study attitudes towards the naturalisation of non‐European (EU) migrants in Germany, the Netherlands, Sweden and Denmark. This is done using a conjoint experiment. Respondents are presented with profiles of non‐EU‐migrants, whose attributes are varied over labour market status, education, language skills, time lived in the destination country, family relations, religious background and gender. We find a preference for granting citizenship to non‐EU migrants with education and labour market experience, thus supporting theories of economic reasoning. We also find a preference for granting citizenship to non‐EU migrants with non‐Muslim backgrounds, family attachment to natives and language skills, thus supporting theories of preferences for cultural similarity. We find these patterns to be stable across the four countries despite differences in citizenship rules and discourses. The patterns are even stable when comparing the respondents' age, gender, education, migrant status, voting patterns and general views about migration. The natives' selection of new citizens is explained by a novel theoretical argument of citizenship being a club‐good.

The article theorises how covering social risks through cash transfers and in-kind services shapes public attitudes towards including/excluding immigrants from these programmes in Western European destination countries. The argument is that public attitudes are more restrictive of granting immigrants access to benefits than to services. This hypothesis is tested across ten social protection programmes using original survey data collected in Denmark, Germany and the UK in 2019. Across the three countries, representing respectively a social democratic, conservative and liberal welfare regime context, the article finds that the public does indeed have a preference for easier access for in-kind services than for cash benefits. The article also finds these results to be stable across programmes covering the same social risks; the examples are child benefits and childcare. The results are even stable across left-wing, mainstream and radical right-wing voters; with the partial exception of radical right-wing voters in the UK. Finally, the article finds only a moderate association between individual characteristics and attitudinal variation across cash benefits and in-kind services.

It is a predominant assumption in contemporary political and academic debates that gender roles and attitudes supporting women's paid work among immigrants are deep-rooted and stable over time. However, the actual work–family orientations among immigrants are rarely studied. The purpose of this article is to study to what extent and at what pace immigrants in general adapt to the attitudes towards women's paid work that prevail in the host countries. A cross-national research strategy is applied using the European Social Survey rounds 2 (2004), 4 (2008) and 5 (2010), allowing us to compare and analyse attitudes towards women's paid work among 13,535 foreign-born individuals resident in 30 European countries. The results indicate that immigrants' attitudes towards women's paid work are highly structured by the institutional and cultural context of the host country. Both male and female immigrants, as well as immigrants with and without children, adapt to host country attitudes at a high pace.

It is a predominant assumption in contemporary political and academic debates that gender roles and attitudes supporting women's paid work among immigrants are deep-rooted and stable over time. However the actual work–family orientations among immigrants are rarely studied. The purpose of this article is to study to what extent and at what pace immigrants in general adapt to the attitudes towards women's paid work that prevail in the host countries. A cross-national research strategy is applied using the European Social Survey rounds 2 (2004), 4 (2008) and 5 (2010), allowing us to compare and analyze attitudes towards women's paid work among 13,535 foreign-born individuals resident in 30 European countries. The results indicate that immigrants' attitudes towards women's paid work are highly structured by the institutional and cultural context of the host country. Both male and female immigrants, as well as immigrants with and without children, adapt to host country attitudes at a high pace. ; It is a predominant assumption in contemporary political and academic debates that gender roles and attitudes supporting women's paid work among immigrants are deep-rooted and stable over time. However, the actual work–family orientations among immigrants are rarely studied. The purpose of this article is to study to what extent and at what pace immigrants in general adapt to the attitudes towards women's paid work that prevail in the host countries. A cross-national research strategy is applied using the European Social Survey rounds 2 (2004), 4 (2008) and 5 (2010), allowing us to compare and analyse attitudes towards women's paid work among 13,535 foreign-born individuals resident in 30 European countries. The results indicate that immigrants' attitudes towards women's paid work are highly structured by the institutional and cultural context of the host country. Both male and female immigrants, as well as immigrants with and without children, adapt to host country attitudes at a high pace.

The article investigates how the poor and welfare recipients are depicted in British, Danish and Swedish newspapers. The study was inspired by American media studies that have documented a negative stereotypic way of portraying the poor and welfare recipients, especially when they are African Americans. The article argues that there is an institutional welfare regime logic behind the way the poor and welfare recipients are depicted in the mass media. It is not only a matter of race. This argument is substantiated by showing that the poor and welfare recipients are (1) also depicted negatively in a liberal welfare regime, the UK, where most of the poor and welfare recipients are perceived to be white, and (2) depicted positively in two social-democratic welfare regimes, Sweden and Denmark, where the poor and welfare recipients have increasingly come to be perceived as non-white, especially in Denmark. The empirical analyses are based on a sample of 1750 British, 1750 Danish and 1750 Swedish newspapers covering the period from 2004 to 2009.

The article argues that new economic ideas have exerted an independent causal effect on policy change in three major areas in the Danish welfare state: unemployment insurance, early retirement, and taxation. Thereby the Danish case bears resemblance to the paradigmatic shift from Keynesianism to monetarism in the United Kingdom. However, in the Danish case this paradigmatic shift did not coincide with a political shift to a right‐wing government. This makes it possible to disentangle the intimate relationship between ideas and interests. It is argued that the Danish case provides one of the clearest examples of the independent causal effects of economic ideas because the Social Democrats pursued policies that compromised with the party's historically rooted positions and with the preferences of their electorate. Ideas and solutions did not come in one fixed package, however. But the new paradigm established some basic premises that were not up for discussion.

AbstractThis contribution describes differences between 10 migrant groups and natives in their attitudes towards government spending in three residence countries: Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands. Previous research provided evidence that "migrants" as a catch‐all category of people from different origins are in favor of more government spending on social welfare. We study to what extent support for government spending can be explained by self‐interest explanations of welfare state attitudes as well as by differences in ideological position. The contribution employs data from the Migrants' Welfare State Attitudes project, including migrant groups from similar origins in Denmark, Germany, and the Netherlands. The study moves beyond the larger migrant groups of Turks and Poles that received attention in previous research as well, and includes a greater variety of groups that differ in terms of their skill levels. The overall finding is that migrants' welfare state spending preferences are, as in the case of natives, significantly related to socio‐demographic differences and standard ideology measures of attitudes to regulation of the economy and family values. However, even with these standard variables included, spending preferences differ strongly between migrant groups, residence countries, and welfare spending domain. A comparison between country of origin and residence country provisions seems to be a promising path for further understanding migrant group differences in welfare state spending attitudes. The study challenges the idea that all migrants are supportive of extended welfare state arrangements.

The paper explains why across Europe very few job matches are facilitated by public employment services (PES), looking at the existence of a double-sided asymmetric information problem on the labour market. It is argued that although a PES potentially reduces search costs, both employers and employees have strong incentives not to use the PES. The reason is that employers try to avoid the 'worst' employees, and employees try to avoid the 'worst' employers. Therefore PES get caught in a low-end equilibrium that is almost impossible to escape. The mechanisms leading to this low-end equilibrium are illustrated by means of qualitative interviews with 40 private employers in six European countries.