Gerda Hooijer and Georg Picot. 2015. ‘European Welfare States and Migrant Poverty. The Institutional Determinants of Disadvantage’. Comparative Political Studies, 48(14), 1879-1904. [PDF] [Supplement] [Publisher link]
In almost all European welfare states, immigrants face a higher risk of poverty than natives, but the gap between the two groups varies. In examining this variation, our article contributes to the nascent literature on the impact of welfare states on immigrants. We hypothesize that whether immigrants benefit from welfare generosity depends on three intervening factors: immigration policy, labor market regulation, and welfare eligibility rules. We use fuzzy-set analysis to examine the interplay of these determinants in 16 West-European states. The findings show that in most countries a high migrant disadvantage results from the combination of a large share of humanitarian and family immigrants and generous social policies. The underlying mechanism is that ‘unwanted’ immigrants are institutionally impeded from full access to generous welfare states.
‘“They Take Our Houses”: Benefit Competition and the Erosion of Support for Immigrants’ Social Rights’. Revise and Resubmit
Why do some individuals support immigrants’ social rights more than others? While scholars in political economy expect that benefit competition reduces support among the poor, the evidence is limited. This seems largely due to the reliance on highly aggregated analyses and the neglect of the institutional context in which individuals form their preferences. I argue that the poor are more likely to reduce their support due to competition when benefit eligibility depends on income. Using individual-level panel data from the Netherlands and a novel measure of social housing competition, I show that low- and middle-income households become less supportive of immigrants’ social rights when more social housing in their municipality is allocated to refugees. By contrast, competition does not change support among the rich or the very poor. The findings suggest that benefit competition can erode support for immigrants’ social rights, and that it can influence electoral politics.
‘Labor Market Competition and Demands for Social Protection: Longitudinal Evidence from the United Kingdom’.
Does labor market competition with immigrants spur demands for social protection? While scholars have consistently shown that economic insecurity increases support for redistribution, the findings related to labor market competition are more contested. To isolate the effect of labor market competition, I leverage the 2004 enlargement of the European Union (EU) which led to a rapid but uneven influx of EU immigrants across occupations in the United Kingdom. From labor force surveys, I measure the share of immigrants in each occupation before and after the accession. Using panel data, I show that British individuals became more supportive of redistribution when they experienced a large increase in the share of EU immigrants in their occupation after the enlargement. The findings suggest that when labor market competition occurs, individuals respond to the increased economic insecurity by demanding more social protection from the government.
‘The Critics of Welfare: From Neoliberalism to Populism’ (with Desmond King).
Work in Progress
‘Culturally Dissimilar Immigration and Attitudes towards Redistribution and Eligibility’.
‘Insuring Against Hunger? Long-Term Political Consequences of Exposure to the Dutch Famine’ (with Raluca Pahontu and David Rueda).