Direct and Indirect Welfare Chauvinism as Party Strategies: An Analysis of the Danish People's Party

Abstract

This article develops a theoretical distinction between direct and indirect welfare chauvinism in order to analyze how electorally successful populist right‐wing parties transmit social policy preferences with significant redistributive implications for the shape of the welfare state. Direct welfare chauvinism occurs as a result of legislative changes that explicitly exclude recipients from social protection or reduce the level thereof on the basis of ethnicity. Indirect welfare chauvinism is the result of policy measures that apply to both natives and immigrants, but which deliberately negatively affect immigrants the most. Combining quantitative and qualitative analysis of labour market reforms in Denmark, where one of the most successful populist right‐wing parties in Europe – the Danish People's Party – held a pivotal position in the period 2001–11, the article traces the intentions and deliberate policy‐making strategies of the party. It shows that the distinction between direct and indirect chauvinism is a useful theoretical tool for understanding how the Danish People's Party can fulfill the expectations of both its electorate and its coalition partners, even if they point in different directions.

Welfare Chauvinism in Populist Radical Right Platforms: The Role of Redistributive Justice Principles

“…However, the PVV deploys a strategy of indirect welfare chauvinism (Careja et al . ) to arrive at a similar end. In its 2012 manifesto it argues that benefits should only be paid for the first two children (PVV : 25).…”

“…As Careja et al . () demonstrate for the case of Denmark, the Danish People's Party between 2001 and 2011 successfully pushed the government to enact welfare cuts that fell disproportionately on immigrants. These reforms were primarily conducted in the areas of (means‐tested) social assistance and (universal) family allowances, and have been instrumental in pushing the universalist Danish model towards a more multi‐tiered system in which labour market participation (and hence social insurance mechanisms) becomes more important for determining benefit levels (Kvist and Greve ).…”

“…For instance, directly excluding (certain groups of) non‐citizens from receiving benefits is coded as displaying a high level of welfare chauvinism, because of the explicit use of ‘non‐native status’ as an exclusion criterion (‘direct welfare chauvinism’ in the words of Careja et al . ).…”

“…The same logic of ‘indirect welfare chauvinism’ (Careja et al . ) applies to the PVV's proposal to pay family benefits only for the first two children. While not a nativist policy at first glance, this measure would, on average, hurt immigrant families (who tend to have higher fertility rates) more than native Dutch families.…”

“…While recent research on party policy has begun to examine welfare chauvinism more comprehensively (Lefkofridi and Michel ; Norocel ; Jungar and Jupskås ; Careja et al . ), we still lack a theoretical framework to derive expectations about the use of welfare chauvinist rhetoric by political parties. The most notable exception is Schumacher and van Kersbergen's () study which theorizes and examines the conditions under which diffusion of welfare chauvinism from populist radical right to mainstream parties takes place.…”