Suchergebnisse

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

Public Opinion in the EU: Factors Determining Attitudes Towards Immigration. The Cases of Sweden and Denmark Since immigration has been indicated to be one of the most important issues in the EU, the public opinion on this matter varies across the countries. Sweden and Denmark were chosen to analyse how two very similar countries in social, economic and cultural terms may have such different points of view towards immigration. Citizens in Sweden have been more supportive of the matter compared to the citizens of Denmark. The aim of this study is to examine what are the main factors contributing to such different public opinion on immigration and how such similar counties can have such opposing views. Economic, identity, contact, threat, mood and cue-taking theories try to explain the factors which influence the public opinion. Economic one argues that well-developed countries usually support the free movement of people and see it as a positive element thing for country's economics because immigrants do not burden strong economies as much as they would concern the economies of poor countries. Identity theory argues that citizens are more concerned that immigrants are a threat to local values and culture which they interfere. Contact theory explains that the more citizens are involved with immigrants, the more positive about immigration they become. Threat theory suggests that locals might become insecure about employment or welfare state. Since immigrants might be seen as a threat to take jobs or use heavily economic benefits especially when immigration flow is sudden and large-scale. Mood theory argues that citizens are usually unaware of politics and the reality of immigration therefore their opinion can be easily manipulated by others including media or an opinion by authoritative personalities, to name a few. Finally, cue-taking theory similarly suggests that opinion is formed by cues made by political parties. Other studies usually analyse and compare two or three theories while in this study it is attempted to combine all the major theories in order to have a much broader picture on the matter. Out of these theories and previous studies, ten hypotheses were established which were tested by implementing opinion polls. Surveys carried by Eurobarometer, European Social Survey and Gallup International were chosen to be thoroughly analysed to support the hypotheses. Furthermore, this study puts an emphasis on a state-level analysis rather than an individual level one since it is aimed to find the differences between the two countries but also because of available statistical data. The results show that identity, threat and contact theories explain the factors determining public opinion on immigration the best. The analysis showed that sudden and large-scale immigration increases the possibility for a more negative perception of immigration. During the migrant crisis, public opinion about immigration became obviously more pessimistic both in Denmark and Sweden. Also, if there is more contact with immigrants, the attitude towards them becomes more positive. The results in Sweden showed that citizens communicate with immigrants more often and they have more close relationships with them, compared to Denmark. Finally, in both countries, public opinion towards immigrants from countries outside the EU or of different ethnicity are way more negative, compared to the immigrants who came from the EU states or countries with similar ethnic background. Other theories suggested little or no support when applied in Sweden and Denmark. The outcome of this study allows a better understanding of what contributes to the construction of negative attitudes towards immigration. Also, why in some countries immigration might seem more of a threat, compared to other countries. It could also help to search for a solution to encourage a more positive perception of immigrants and thus their better integration in the society.

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

The article raises the question how the attitude towards religion is influenced by the changes of relation with the meaning of matters which are ascribed to religion. With reference to M. Heidegger the peculiarity of public opinion is being disclosed. The author states that secularization functions as a machinery which appropriates any meaning: the public opinion appropriates religion, reduces it to political, economical or criminal dimensions, to that of cultural heritage, so religion assumes its essence and reality in these dimensions. The author demonstrates that public interpretation functions as an unmasking machinery which strengthens that reduction and appropriation of meaning. The analysis of religion in the context of globalization shows that there is some tendency to localization of religious meaning: the religious communities tend to direct towards the radicalism and isolation.

The dynamics of the attitudes towards Lithuania's membership in the EU could be divided into three periods: decreasing number of membership supporters till the beginning of 2000 (distrust in state institutions, lack of information, economical fears), increasing support till referendum (informational campaign, beliefs in positive impact on economy) and stable support of membership after referendum & accession. The main positive changes according to public opinion are possibilities to work abroad & reduced unemployment. The main negative change is rise of prices. Rise of prices was the main reason of skeptical attitudes towards euro introduction. On the other hand, according to Eurobarometer Lithuania, is one of the most euro-optimistic countries. Public opinion polls in EU show that attitudes towards Lithuania are positive. Adapted from the source document.