Access to general social protection for immigrants in advanced democracies

Abstract

Immigration has become a central socio-political issue in most advanced democracies. While research mainly focuses on immigrant-specific policies in the area of immigration, integration and citizenship, we still know very little about the incorporation of immigrants into mainstream social policies. By analysing cross-national differences in the inclusion of immigrants into general social protection across 27 rich democracies on the basis of comparative indicators from the Migrant Integration Policy Index (MIPEX) dataset, we seek to address this gap in a quantitative study. A cross-national comparison of these indicators shows a particularly large variation in the inclusiveness of the access to social protection for immigrants across countries. By drawing on the welfare state and integration regime literature, we assess the power of two contrasting perspectives, namely, the post-national welfare state and the welfare chauvinism models, in explaining this large cross-national variation in immigrants’ access to social security and social housing. Our overall findings suggest that both the welfare chauvinist and the post-national welfare state models comprise two theoretical perspectives that turn out to be fruitful to interpret cross-national variation in immigrants’ access to social protection. According to the welfare chauvinism model, we find robust evidence that left-wing cabinets are particularly reluctant to open general social protection schemes to immigrants. By contrast and in line with expectations derived from the post-national welfare state model, countries with an overall generous welfare state and countries facing large immigration flows tend to provide immigrants with more generous access to social protection.

Industrial relations and migrant integration in European cities: A comparative perspective

“…In the post-war period, migrant workers were generally considered a necessity in European labour markets. Since the 1990s and following the multiple employment and economic crises, however, migrants and refugees have increasingly been perceived as a major threat to the sustainability of the welfare state and to social cohesion, as explained by the literature on welfare chauvinism (Schmitt and Teney, 2019).…”

The political economy of minimum income benefits: How parties, unions and migration influence benefit adequacy

“…The expectation is a strengthening of the right parties’ effects when migration increases as they frame both labour migrants and refugees as cultural threats and undeserving (Jørgensen and Thomsen, 2016; Schmitt and Teney, 2019).…”

“…Recent research sees left parties ‘reconceptualising’ solidarity – giving in to shifting public opinions or pressure from the right by using the frame of deserving national workers and undeserving immigrants: they become reluctant to open social protection schemes to immigrants as one type of outsiders (Jørgensen and Thomsen, 2016; Schmitt and Teney, 2019).…”

Generous to Workers ≠ Generous to All: Implications of European Unemployment Benefit Systems for the Social Protection of Immigrants

“…Scholars have only recently begun to address this gap in the literature with studies that investigate systematically whether and why migrants’ access to social benefits and services varies across Europe (Carmel et al, 2011; Lafleur & Vintila, 2020; Sainsbury & Morissens, 2012). Findings of systematic comparative analyses indicate that immigrants tend to have better access to social rights and a lower poverty risk if they live in a country with a comprehensive welfare state, thus suggesting a positive relationship between benefit generosity and migrants’ access to social protection (Corrigan, 2014; Eugster, 2018; Römer, 2017; Schmitt & Teney, 2018).…”