The Role of Welfare in Locational Choices: Modelling Intra‐European Migration Decisions Across the Life‐Course

Abstract

In this study, we add to the literature by investigating the role of welfare states in intra‐European migration decisions between 25 countries (2003‐2008). Distinguishing between three welfare programmes (unemployment, family and old‐age benefits) we tested whether social expenditure on each of these arrangements particularly influenced locational choices of individuals within the age groups covered by the respective welfare policy. Findings from a conditional logit model showed a positive impact of spending on family benefits on the locational choices of young adults moving together with children, and of spending on old‐age benefits on the locational choices of individuals close to or above retirement age. In contrast, a negative impact of unemployment spending was found on locational choices in general, and those of working‐age adults in particular. Our results highlight the importance of further disentangling the often‐used general welfare spending measure when studying the link between welfare and migration.

Questioning the feasibility and justice of basic income accounting for migration

“…If basic income is interpreted as an increase in welfare benefits, it hence encourages immigration of net beneficiaries and emigration of net contributors. Empirical evidence from Europe strengthens this so-called welfare-magnet hypothesis in regard to lowskilled immigrants (De Jong et al, 2020;Jakubiak, 2019;Razin and Wahba, 2015). Moreover, Cebolla-Boado and Miyar-Busto (2020: 186-189) find that while highskilled individuals are attracted by high wages, they are deterred by social expenditure, albeit only in the short-term.…”

The impact of migrants' knowledge about their social rights on their subjective wellbeing

“…Knowledge about such rights which affect migrants on a more daily basis therefore provide important resources for fulfilling basic physical and social needs, and thus contribute to sound social production functions and thus to the general wellbeing. Other social rights regarding childcare and retirement pensions are very life-course dependent (de Jong and de Valk, 2018;De Jong, 2019) and might be perceived less relevant by the majority of migrants. Hence, I hypothesize that: H2: Migrants' wellbeing might be most affected by knowledge about social rights regarding their daily life such as healthcare and unemployment benefits (in contrast to pension, and childcare).…”

Immigration, spatial inequality and place attractiveness

“…Indeed, more recent research has challenged these primarily economic or deterministic perspectives of place attractiveness. We now know that places are also judged and selected based on noneconomic factors such as social welfare spending, the availability and quality of public services such as good education or healthcare, the quality of institutions, man-made and natural amenities such as culture, history, climate and natural environment, recreational areas and the general quality of life (Brettell, 2008;de Jong et al, 2020;Ferguson et al, 2007;Ferwerda & Gest, 2020;Findlay, 2011;Geis et al, 2013;Mayda, 2010;Migali, 2018;Partridge, 2010;Partridge & Rickman, 2008;Pszczółkowsk, 2015;Sandu, 2017;Tuccio, 2019;Vertovec, 2007). In this sense, while many places might provide individuals with economic opportunities, the final choice of location might eventually depend on the availability and abundance of these amenities and other noneconomic factors (Nelson & Nelson, 2011;Wright & Ellis, 2016).…”