Explaining variation in attitudes to immigration James Dennison MPC Summer School
What do we mean by attitudes to immigration? • Abstract ‘pro’ or ‘anti’ sentiment? • Practical effects of immigration are positive or negative • Which potential immigrants should be admitted • Egocentric v sociotropic attitudes
Attitudes to the effects of immigration • What effects of immigration are Europeans concerned about? What are they positive and negative about?
Attitudes to effects of immigration • Economic – GDP; GDP per capita; median living standards; fiscal contribution/deduction; labour market diversification/saturation; de-unionisation; strain on/contribution to public services; (in)equality; employment • Cultural – Contribute to/undermine national culture; accommodation of difference; Western civilization; tolerance; dominant value system; language; religion • Quality of life – “ Leefbaarheid ” ; neighbourhood a nice place to live; • Safety and security – Rule of law; law and order; terrorism; petty crime; organised crime; governability • Role of nation (community or principles) – Undermining allegiance; norms; national solidarity; realising duty; identity; mission • Demographic • Effects on sending countries • Distribution of effects of immigration • Personal priorities (who cares about the effects on X when Y is so much more important!) • What it comes down to? Diversity/similarity makes me feel good!
Types of immigrants • How do Europeans distinguish between would-be immigrants when deciding who should and who shouldn’t be permitted entry?
Types of immigrants • Refugee status • Reason for coming (e.g. family reunification) • Personal wealth / self-sufficiency • Education and skills • Race • Religion • Language • Way of life • European
What do Europeans think about immigration? • General pro and anti sentiment • Attitudes on effects • Attitudes of types of immigrants • Importance
Immigration is good or bad for the country’s economy (Mean: 0 bad – 10 good; ESS 2014) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Immigration is good or bad for the country’s economy (Mean: 0 bad – 10 good; ESS 2014) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sweden Hungary Great Britain Portugal Finland Poland France Lithuania
Immigration enriches or undermines the country’s culture (Mean: 0 undermines – 10 enriches; ESS 2014) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Immigration enriches or undermines the country’s culture (Mean: 0 undermines – 10 enriches; ESS 2014) 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sweden Hungary Great Britain Portugal Finland Poland France Lithuania
Immigration makes country a worse or better place to live (Mean: 0 worse – 10 better; ESS 2014) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Immigration makes country a worse or better place to live (0 worse – 10 better; ESS 2014) 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sweden Hungary Great Britain Portugal Finland Poland France Lithuania
Immigrants take away or create jobs (0 take away – 10 create; ESS 2014) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Immigrants take out or contribute to government finances (0 take out – 10 contribute; ESS 2014) 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Immigrants make crime problems better or worse 10 (0 worse – 10 better; ESS 2014) 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0
Immigrants make crime problems better or worse (0 worse – 10 better; ESS 2014) 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Sweden Hungary Great Britain Portugal Finland Poland France Lithuania
Attitudes of Europeans to effects of immigration: key points • Net positive: cultural enrichment • Net neutral: economics; quality of life • Net negative: employment; govt finances; crime(!) • More variation between individuals than countries • Besides outliers (SE; CZ; HU) country doesn’t explain that much • Trends and distributions similar by country • Usually even splits • Most individuals pick a side (5 usually < 30%) • However, few extremists (people want to give nuance)
Effect on economy: change 2002-2014 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8 -1
Effect on culture: change 2002-2014 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6 -0.8
Effect on quality of life: 2002-2014 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6
Effect on jobs: change 2002-2014 1.6 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4 -0.6
Effect on govt accounts : 2002-2014 1.5 1 0.5 0 -0.5 -1
Effect on crime: change 2002-2014 1.4 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 -0.2 -0.4
Changes over 21 st century • Change is small • Generally becoming more positive! • No tide of anti-immigration sentiment • Positive: jobs, govt accounts, crime, QoL (small) • Neutral: economy • Negative: culture! • Some polarisation by country • Harmonisation by type – becoming uni- dimensional? • Big movers: DE; CZ; AT
Effect on economy 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very negative negative neither negative positive very positive nor positive 2002 2015
Effect on culture 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very negative negative neither negative nor positive very positive positive 2002 2015
Effect on quality of life 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very negative negative neither negative positive very positive nor positive 2002 2015
Effect on jobs 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very negative negative neither negative positive very positive nor positive 2002 2015
Effect on government accounts 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very negative negative neither negative nor positive very positive positive 2002 2015
Effect on crime 50 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 very negative negative neither negative positive very positive nor positive 2002 2015
Impact of demographic and attitudinal factors on British views about the economic impact of immigration, 2002 and 2014 (by Prof Rob Ford, Uni of Manchester)
-20% -10% 60% 20% 30% 40% 50% 80% 10% 70% 0% Luxembourg Net positive feeling towards EU Sweden Ireland Finland Germany Lithuania Spain Poland Estonia immigrants Portugal Slovenia Croatia Netherlands Bulgaria Denmark Austria European Union Malta Greece United Kingdom Belgium Hungary Romania France Slovakia Latvia Czech Republic Italy Cyprus
-80% -60% -40% -20% 20% 40% 0% Sweden Ireland Net positive feeling to non-EU Spain United Kingdom Luxembourg Portugal Netherlands Croatia Germany immigrants European Union Belgium Austria Finland France Romania Denmark Poland Slovenia Greece Italy Lithuania Malta Cyprus Bulgaria Slovakia Hungary Czech Republic Estonia Latvia
Attitudes towards different sorts of migrants (across ESS countries)
Attitudes towards professionals and unskilled labourers coming from EU and non EU
Immigration criteria
‘important that immigrants are committed to the way of life in the country’ 100% 90% 85% 85% 82% 81% 80% 79% 79% 77% 74% 74% 80% 70% 69% 67% 67% 64% 63% 61% 59% 58% 70% 60% 52% 47% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% HU BE CZ FI GB NL EE DE SI CH ES LT AT FR SE IL PT PL IE DK NO
‘important that immigrants speak the official language’ 100% 90% 82% 79% 76% 74% 72% 71% 69% 68% 67% 67% 80% 70% 63% 59% 57% 60% 53% 49% 48% 47% 50% 43% 41% 41% 40% 30% 30% 20% 10% 0% GB AT BE FR NL IE SI DE LT CH HU CZ PL PT EE ES NO IL DK FI SE
‘ important that immigrants have work skills needed in the country’ 100% 90% 80% 76% 75% 74% 69% 68% 67% 66% 66% 66% 65% 70% 61% 60% 60% 58% 55% 55% 53% 52% 52% 60% 50% 41% 40% 30% 25% 20% 10% 0% EE GB LT HU IE AT IL SI PT CZ BE CH ES PL DE FI FR NL DK NO SE
‘ important that immigrants have good educational qualifications’ 100% 90% 80% 67% 65% 63% 63% 62% 62% 61% 60% 59% 70% 60% 55% 54% 52% 52% 52% 49% 47% 46% 45% 50% 38% 40% 32% 30% 24% 20% 10% 0% AT GB LT EE IE DE IL BE CH FR DK ES PT CZ PL FI NL SI HU NO SE
‘ important that immigrants are Christian’ 100% 90% 80% 70% 64% 60% 50% 46% 37% 34% 34% 40% 30% 30% 24% 20% 20% 18% 18% 16% 16% 15% 14% 13% 11% 10% 7% 7% 6% 20% 10% 0% IL LT PL CZ HU EE PT AT ES IE SI FI GB DK CH FR BE NO DE SE NL
‘ important that immigrants are white’ 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 39% 40% 34% 29% 27% 30% 19% 20% 15% 14% 13% 12% 12% 10% 9% 8% 8% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 10% 0% LT HU CZ EE PL IL SI PT AT IE ES BE FI GB DK FR NO CH DE NL SE
Impact of grades and origin region on views of student migrants 80 72.5 71.3 67.6 70 66.8 60 50 40 29.7 30 26.8 26.1 24.9 20 10 0 W Europe E Europe E Asia Muslim W Europe E Europe E Asia Muslim Good grades Bad grades
Recommend
More recommend
