The effects of welfare state universalism on migrant integration

Abstract

This paper investigates how and why welfare state universalism can shape the integration of migrants into the national community. Universalism is broadly regarded as central to the integrative and solidarity-building potential of welfare states, but we argue that the traditional approach to understanding the concept is fraught with inconsistencies. Rather than comparing welfare states using the classical universalist-selectivist dichotomy, we suggest that they should be thought of as embodying various 'packages' of universalist traits-all of which are unified by their connection to a core, self-sustaining logic of solidarity. A comparison of Canadian and Danish universalism allows us to draw out how (indiscriminate/selectivist) 'community perks' traits and (inclusive/exclusive) 'community scope' ones may interact in unexpected ways. This, in turn, helps us better understand how and why 'classically universalist' Denmark is facing threats to solidarity and migrant integration that are much more intense than those found in 'classically selectivist' Canada.

When does immigration shape support for a universal basic income? The role of education and employment status

“…Muñoz and Pardos-Prado 2019). Characterized by an indiscriminate access to benefits for all citizens or residents (see, for example, Carey and Crammond 2017), universalism helps minimize the concerns around deservingness and fraud, for example, that lend themselves well to anti-immigrant sentiment; yet generous universal schemes also risk reinforcing a focus on in-group/out-group boundaries, given that letting someone into the universal community entails granting them access to "community perks" (Kevins and van Kersbergen 2018). The spread of welfare chauvinism across Scandinavia would thus appear relatively unsurprising (e.g.…”

“…To explore these dynamics, this chapter looks at public opinion toward one social policy innovation that has been garnering increased attention in recent years: a universal basic income (see Dermont and Weisstanner 2020;Gentilini et al 2020). Though it is rare for social policy programs to take an approach to granting benefit access that is as open as that described by Friedman (see Kevins and van Kersbergen 2018;Simola and Wrede 2020), universal basic income (UBI) schemes offer the closest example of what he appears to have had in mind. At the same time, studying attitudes toward the introduction of such a program can give us a good sense of how the social solidarity that undergirds the welfare state may be shaped by immigration (see, for example, Bay and Pedersen 2006).…”

How should the government treat asylum seekers? The role of labour market vulnerability and migration in Europe

“…Tartakovsky & Walsh, 2020). Indeed, political discourse on the cost of asylum seekers to state coffers and their use of social programmes has been widespread, suggesting that concerns about reduced services and state funding may be especially important (Greussing & Boomgaarden, 2017;Kevins & van Kersbergen, 2019). At the same time, however, asylum seekers in particular often face strong barriers to labour market access and are more likely to themselves suffer from 'hyper-precarity' .…”

Strekk i laget for den ‘nordiske modellenʼ?

“…Modellen har vekket interesse i forskermiljøer, så vel som fra politisk hold for sin evne til å kombinere økonomisk utvikling med politisk stabilitet, egalitaer inntektsfordeling og lave fattigdomsnivåer (Brochmann & Hagelund, 2010a;Esping-Andersen & Korpi, 1986;Kuhnle & Pedersen, 2017). De nordiske velferdsstatene utsettes likevel for stadig endrede politiske, økonomiske og sosiale forhold, og økt innvandring trekkes ofte frem som en av dagens mest presserende utfordringer for den nordiske modellens baerekraft (Kevins & van Kersbergen, 2019;Kuhnle & Pedersen, 2017). Landene må takle ulike utfordringer i møte med økt innvandring, men det er et åpent spørsmål hvorvidt selve kjernen i den nordiske velferdsmodellen vil gå tapt eller bli gjenoppfunnet i denne prosessen (Djuve, 2016;Kuhnle & Pedersen, 2017).…”