Shielding free movement? Reciprocity in welfare institutions and opposition to EU labour immigration

Abstract

Public attitudes towards the free movement of workers in the European Union vary substantially between countries and individuals. This paper adds to the small but growing research literature on this issue by analysing the role of national welfare institutions. We investigate the relationship between the degree of 'institutional reciprocity' in national systems of social protection and attitudes to EU labour immigration across 12 European countries. We do not find evidence of an effect of institutional reciprocity on opposition to EU labour immigration among the public at large. However, institutional reciprocity appears to matter for economically vulnerable groups. We identify an interaction effect indicating that higher degrees of institutional reciprocity in national social protection systems, and in unemployment insurance systems specifically, are associated with lower levels of opposition to EU labour immigration among unemployed people. Hence, reciprocity in welfare state institutions appears to shield free movement from opposition, at least among vulnerable groups.

Free to move, reluctant to share: Unequal opposition to transnational rights under the EU's free movement principle

“…Future research could also test our expectations in low salience environments, such as in Southern or Central Eastern Europe, where the perceived benefits from EU mobility are also potentially different (Blauberger et al, 2023; Vasilopoulou and Talving, 2019). We also do not know whether individuals living in member states with comparably less-developed welfare states are willing to share their welfare resources with other EU citizens (Mårtensson et al, 2023; Vasilopoulou and Talving, 2020). Furthermore, we should further disentangle whether citizens are equally supportive of transnational rights regardless of whether we refer to South European, Eastern European, or Northern European mobile EU citizens.…”

“…Despite such conditionality, EU citizens’ transnational access to welfare provisions has often been the focal point of debates on the implications of European integration. There is an inherent tension between the provision of equal treatment for EU citizens across the EU on the one hand and national welfare systems that emphasise residence-based social rights on the other (Barbulescu and Favell, 2020; Bruzelius, 2019; Geddes and Hadj-Abdou, 2016; Mårtensson et al, 2023; Schmidt et al, 2018).…”

“…The principle of free movement tends to create more opportunities for citizens with higher levels of human capital (Favell, 2008). Therefore, individuals with a more precarious economic or labour market position could perceive intra-EU mobility as a threat (Ferrera and Pellegata, 2018; Mårtensson et al, 2023).…”

“…Against this background, we address the puzzle of why the principle of freedom of movement is simultaneously widely acclaimed and strongly contested (Lutz, 2021). Existing scholarship has examined attitudes towards freedom of movement in the EU with a focus on immigration perceptions (Lutz, 2021; Lutz and Karstens, 2021), the impact of different levels of economic prosperity (Vasilopoulou and Talving, 2019), the character of national welfare institutions (Mårtensson et al, 2023), relative deprivation (Ferrera and Pellegata, 2018), European identification (Karstens, 2020a), as well as media (Meltzer et al, 2021) and framing effects (Karstens, 2020b). So far, however, this literature has focused on citizens contesting the general principle of EU freedom of movement.…”

Ideology, Information, and Social Welfare Preferences

“…Scholars have particularly noted citizens' poor understanding of the American welfare state (Kuklinski & Quirk, 2000;Soss & Schram, 2007), including "hidden" or "submerged" welfare programs that provide aid in a complex or indirect manner (Howard, 1997;Mettler, 2011). In the absence of detailed information about such programs, many people form judgments about them based on partisan cues (Cohen, 2003;Mettler et al, 2023) and symbolic considerations, such as the perceived "deservingness" of those who benefit (Gilens, 1999;Mårtensson et al, 2023;Petersen, 2012;Schneider & Ingram, 1993;Soss et al, 2011) or assumptions about their race and ethnicity (Garand et al, 2017;Gilens, 1999;Lieberman, 2011). This naturally leads to the question of whether providing Americans with factual information about these programs can shift their beliefs (Callaghan & Jacobs, 2017;Guardino & Mettler, 2020;Kuklinski & Quirk, 2000).…”