Welfare, but Only for Us?
Randomized Survey Experiment on Welfare Chauvinism Conducted on Students in Brno
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.12797/Politeja.16.2019.63.16Słowa kluczowe:
welfare chauvinism, welfare benefits, survey experiment, Czech RepublicAbstrakt
Welfare, but Only for Us? Randomized Survey Experiment on Welfare Chauvinism Conducted on Students in Brno
The immigrants’ rights to welfare benefits have been heavily discussed in European Union member states recently. This study focuses on general opposition to those rights, welfare chauvinism, and its potential existence in the country with essentially no immigration issues – the Czech Republic. Using a survey experiment on students of Masaryk University in Brno, a change in the attitudes towards the child benefits (as one aspect of social benefits) was observed right after they were reminded that also immigrants from other countries have accessto those benefits. The effect of persuasive argument was stronger in the case of Bulgarian rather than German immigrants, which could imply Czechs perceive Germans more positively than they do Bulgarians, and they behave less chauvinistically towards them in comparison to citizens of Bulgaria.
Pobrania
Bibliografia
Alesina A., Glaeser E., Fighting Poverty in the US and Europe: A World of Difference, New York 2004.
Bay A-H., Finseraas H., Pedersen A.W., “Welfare Nationalism and Popular Support for Raising the Child Allowance: Evidence from a Norwegian Survey Experiment”, Scandinavian Political Studies, vol. 39, no. 4 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12067.
Citrin J., Green D-P., Muste C., Wong C., “Public Opinion toward Immigration Reform: The Role of Economic Motivations”, The Journal of Politics, vol. 59, no. 3 (1997), https://doi.org/10.2307/2998640.
“Cizinci v ČR 2017”, Czech statistical office, at <https://www.czso.cz/documents/11292/27914491/1712_c01t01.pdf/ff9e9fee-08d3-4bdc-a11b-d0cc1e3ac184?version=1.0>, 27 December 2019.
De Koster W., Achterberg P., Van der Waal J., “The New Right and the Welfare State: The Electoral Relevance of Welfare Chauvinism and Welfare Populism in the Netherlands”, International Political Science Review, vol. 34, no. 1 (2012), https://doi.org/10.1177/0192512112455443.
“ESS 2016”, European Social Survey. at <https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKE-wicvqzxncLgAhUIEVAKHeI7DmMQFjAAegQI-AhAC&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.europeansocialsurvey.org%2Fdocs%2Ffindings%2FESS7_toplines_issue_7_immigration.pdf&usg=AOvVaw3raDQ4iv-WofIEeSVdsfvX>, 27 December 2019.
Hjorth F., “Who Benefits? Welfare Chauvinism and National Stereotypes”, European Union Politics, vol. 17, no. 1 (2016), https://doi.org/10.1177/1465116515607371.
Kitschelt H., The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor 1997.
Kitschelt H., “Growth and Persistence of the Radical Right in Postindustrial Democracies: Advances and Challenges in Comparative Research”, West European Politics, vol. 30, no. 5 (2007), https://doi.org/10.1080/01402380701617563.
Van Oorschot W., “Making the Difference in Social Europe: Deservingness Perceptions among Citizens of European Welfare States”, Journal of European Social Policy, vol. 16, no. 1 (2006), https://doi.org/10.1177/0958928706059829.
Pobrania
Opublikowane
Numer
Dział
Licencja
Utwór dostępny jest na licencji Creative Commons Uznanie autorstwa – Użycie niekomercyjne – Bez utworów zależnych 4.0 Międzynarodowe.
