Compensation or Retrenchment? The Paradox of Immigration and Public Welfare Spending in the American States

Abstract

By using American state-level data from 1999 to 2008, this article explores how the recent immigrant influx has influenced public welfare spending in the American states. By integrating the race/ethnicity and globalization compensation theory, I hypothesize that immigration will increase welfare spending in states with a bleak job market and exclusive state immigrant welfare policy; in contrast, immigration will decrease welfare spending in states with a good job market and inclusive state immigrant welfare policy. Empirical tests show evidence for both hypotheses, suggesting that the applicability of general political science theories depends on a combination of state policy and economic contexts.

From immigration over redistributive attitudes to welfare spending. The moderating role of social program design

“…However, other studies have found a positive or nonsignificant relationship between immigration and individual support for welfare (Crepaz 2008;Finseraas 2008;Mau and Burkhardt 2009;Burgoon et al 2012;Hjerm and Schnabel 2012;Brady and Finnigan 2014;Xu 2017;Auspurg et al 2019). These findings are typically explained by the compensation thesis (Walter 2010;.…”

“…There has been much speculation among US scholars interested in the relationship between race and welfare about what might have happened if the means-tested part of their welfare state had been designed more universally (Skocpol 1988;Quadagno 1994;Lieberman 1998). Also, arguments about the moderating effects of social programs' institutional designs have been put forward by studies analyzing the impact of immigration-related concerns on individual welfare support (Finseraas 2008;Crepaz and Damron 2009;Goldschmidt 2015;Muňoz andPardos-Prado 2019, Burgoon andRooduijn 2021) or welfare spending (Soroka et al 2016;Xu 2017). This literature has addressed relevant aspects of social program designs, such as the role of generous benefits (Finseraas 2008;Crepaz and Damron 2009) or the effect of contribution-based programs (Finseraas 2008;Soroka et al 2016: 176-177), but we still lack a systematic discussion of the role social program designs play for the link between immigration, welfare attitudes, and welfare policies.…”

“…Whereas the micro-level evidence for the association between immigration and support for redistribution seems to be predominantly negative (for the USA : Gilens 1995;1999;Manza 2000;Fox 2004Fox , 2012Reese 2005;Luttmer and Singhal 2011;Kearns et al 2014;Garand et al 2017; for Europe: Bay and Pedersen 2006;Finseraas 2008;Senik et al 2008;Mau and Burkhardt 2009;Eger 2010;Larsen 2011;Schmidt and Spies 2014;Harell et al 2016;Eger and Breznau 2017;Alesina et al 2018aAlesina et al , 2019, the macro-level evidence for a negative effect of ethnic diversity on welfare spending is far from conclusive. On the one hand, scholars from the US have widely accepted the view that the racial diversity of their society prohibits European-like levels of social spending (for reviews see: Soss et al 2001;Alesina and Glaeser 2004;Fellowes and Rowe 2004;Katznelson 2005;Hero and Preuhs 2007;Fox 2012;Xu 2017). On the other hand, international studies find at best limited evidence for a negative relationship between immigration and spending.…”

Immigration Attitudes and White Americans’ Responsiveness to Rising Income Inequality

“…Rather, it is due, in part, to attitudes toward immigrants, a negatively stereotyped “out-group” that has become increasingly salient since the 1970s and that is widely perceived to be a prominent target of redistributive spending. This has been largely overlooked as an explanation for the aforementioned puzzle, despite the strong link between immigration and redistribution in the United States (Filindra, 2013; Garand et al, 2017; Haselswerdt, 2020; Hawes & McCrea, 2018; Hero & Preuhs, 2007; Xu, 2017). 1…”