attitudes to immigration James Dennison MPC Summer School What do - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

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)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Immigration is good or bad for the country’s economy

(Mean: 0 bad – 10 good; ESS 2014)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 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)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Immigration enriches or undermines the country’s culture

(Mean: 0 undermines – 10 enriches; ESS 2014)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 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)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Immigration makes country a worse or better place to live

(0 worse – 10 better; ESS 2014)

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 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)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Immigrants take out or contribute to government finances

(0 take out – 10 contribute; ESS 2014)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Immigrants make crime problems better or worse

(0 worse – 10 better; ESS 2014)

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Immigrants make crime problems better or worse

(0 worse – 10 better; ESS 2014)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 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

• 1
• 0.8
• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Effect on culture: change 2002-2014

• 0.8
• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6

Effect on quality of life: 2002-2014

• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Effect on jobs: change 2002-2014

• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4 1.6

Effect on govt accounts : 2002-2014

• 1
• 0.5

0.5 1 1.5

Effect on crime: change 2002-2014

• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 1 1.2 1.4

Changes over 21st 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

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 very negative negative neither negative nor positive positive very positive 2002 2015

Effect on culture

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 very negative negative neither negative nor positive positive very positive 2002 2015

Effect on quality of life

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 very negative negative neither negative nor positive positive very positive 2002 2015

Effect on jobs

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 very negative negative neither negative nor positive positive very positive 2002 2015

Effect on government accounts

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 very negative negative neither negative nor positive positive very positive 2002 2015

Effect on crime

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 very negative negative neither negative nor positive positive very 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

• f Manchester)

Net positive feeling towards EU immigrants

• 20%
• 10%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% Luxembourg Sweden Ireland Finland Germany Lithuania Spain Poland Estonia Portugal Slovenia Croatia Netherlands Bulgaria Denmark Austria European Union Malta Greece United Kingdom Belgium Hungary Romania France Slovakia Latvia Czech Republic Italy Cyprus

Net positive feeling to non-EU immigrants

• 80%
• 60%
• 40%
• 20%

0% 20% 40% Sweden Ireland Spain United Kingdom Luxembourg Portugal Netherlands Croatia Germany 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’

85% 85% 82% 81% 80% 79% 79% 77% 74% 74% 70% 69% 67% 67% 64% 63% 61% 59% 58% 52% 47% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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

• fficial language’

82% 79% 76% 74% 72% 71% 69% 68% 67% 67% 63% 59% 57% 53% 49% 48% 47% 43% 41% 41% 30% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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’

76% 75% 74% 69% 68% 67% 66% 66% 66% 65% 61% 60% 60% 58% 55% 55% 53% 52% 52% 41% 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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’

67% 65% 63% 63% 62% 62% 61% 60% 59% 55% 54% 52% 52% 52% 49% 47% 46% 45% 38% 32% 24% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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’

64% 46% 37% 34% 34% 30% 24% 20% 20% 18% 18% 16% 16% 15% 14% 13% 11% 10% 7% 7% 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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’

39% 34% 29% 27% 19% 15% 14% 13% 12% 12% 10% 9% 8% 8% 6% 6% 5% 5% 3% 3% 2% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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

71.3 67.6 72.5 66.8 29.7 24.9 26.8 26.1 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 W Europe E Europe E Asia Muslim W Europe E Europe E Asia Muslim Good grades Bad grades

Experiment 3: impact of origin region and primary migrant time in country on views of family reunion migrants

51.8 40.2 30.4 28.9 60.5 54.7 43.7 38 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 West Europe East Europe Africans Muslims West Europe East Europe Africans Muslims Bringing family after 3 years Bringing family after 10 years

When should immigrants obtain rights to social benefits/services

8.4 8.9 38.2 36.1 8.4 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 Immediately on arrival After a year, regardless of employment After they've worked and paid taxes for a year Once they become citizens Never

% saying immigration is one of top two issues facing country (2016)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Malta Germany Italy Denmark Austria Sweden Netherlands Hungary Bulgaria Belgium European Union United Kingdom Czech Republic Luxembourg Estonia France Finland Greece Lithuania Slovenia Poland Ireland Slovakia Spain Latvia Cyprus Croatia Romania Portugal

% saying immigration is one of top two issues facing the EU (2016)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Estonia Malta Hungary Czech Republic Bulgaria Denmark Slovenia Latvia Sweden Netherlands Lithuania Slovakia Germany Poland Italy Cyprus European Union Belgium Croatia Luxembourg United Kingdom Greece Ireland Austria Finland France Romania Spain Portugal

% saying immigration is one of top two issue facing them personally (2016)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Italy Sweden Malta Denmark Germany Austria Belgium Hungary United Kingdom European Union Luxembourg Bulgaria Finland Estonia Czech Republic Poland Ireland Romania Slovakia Netherlands Slovenia France Lithuania Greece Portugal Latvia Croatia Cyprus Spain

% immigration one of the two most important issue affecting country

Salience

• Varies a lot of time
• Triggered by events and media (presumably)
• Doesn’t affect attitudes!
• No one thinks immigration affects them –

considered a danger for country or Europe

How to explain variation in attitudes to immigration?

• Key theories

Key theories

• Psychological
• Cognitive/pyschological predisposition
• Personality traits
• Moral foundation

Key theories

• Socialisation effects
• Education
• Upbringing
• Lifestyle

Key theories

• Political attitudes
• Left/right
• Libertarian/authoritarian
• Trust

Key theories

• Contextual
• Local immigration rates / perception of

immigration rates

• Contact with immigrants
• Neighbourhood safety
• Economic competition
• Media influence

Currently, findings on causes of attitudes to migration:

– Scattered by country – Treat race and immigration attitudes as interchangeable – Focus on minutia / lack big picture – Show little consensus – Endogeneity/reverse causality issues (e.g. contact) – Mono-directional focus, affinity bias – US-centric – Underestimate/ignore large differences in attitudes by type of migrant – Lack policy-focus

• How to relate to Europe’s demographic, economic, geo-political needs,

as well as on-the-ground reality of migration

Funnel of causality theoretical model

Psychological/personality model (11.6%)

Psychological/personality model (11.6%)

The marginal effects of standardized psychological traits on favourability towards immigration (0-10 scale) with 95% confidence intervals

• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 To understand different people To seek adventure and have an exciting life To do what is told and follow rules To behave properly To live in secure and safe surroundings Favorabilty to immigration (0-10)

Socialisation model (8.7%)

Socialisation model (8.7%)

• 2
• 1.5
• 1
• 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 Father university degree Born in France University degree 10 years older Decile higher household income

Political attitudes (25%)

Political attitudes (25%)

Political attitudes (25%)

• 0.8
• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8

Contextual(16.4%)

Contextual(16.4%)

• 1
• 0.5

0.5 1 1.5 2 Feel unsafe walking alone after dark 10% higher guess of foreign born in country 10% higher actual regional foreign born % Have friends of different race or ethnicity

Full model (40%)

Statistically signifiicant Not statistically signfiicant Important to understand different people Important to seek adventure and have an exciting life To behave properly To do what is told and follow rules To live in secure and safe surroundings Father university degree Born in country University degree Household income Politicians care what people think Trust politicians Interested in politics Important that people are treated equally Feel close to country Want a strong government that ensures safety Some cultures are better than others Left-right scale (0 left – 10 right) Feel unsafe walking alone after dark Guess of number of people of minority ethnicity Actual regional foreign born % Have friends of different ethnicity

Full model (40%)

• 1.2
• 1
• 0.8
• 0.6
• 0.4
• 0.2

0.2 0.4 0.6 0.8 Trust politicians Egalitarianism Have friends of different race or ethnicity Important to understand different people 10% higher actual regional foreign born % Decile higher household income 10 years older Want strong govt that ensures safety 10% higher guess of foreign born in country Important to behave properly Important to live in secure and safe surroundings Feel unsafe walking alone after dark Left-Right (0-10) Born in France

To conclude!

• Favourability towards immigration varies by country but much more by

individual.

• Across time, attitudes to immigration are highly stable and are in fact

becoming slightly more favourable.

• Salience varies by country greatly, and across time! Has risen lately
• Between individuals variation can be explain by:

– Psychological predisposition – Left-right positioning ; attitudes to equality and authority; trust – Diverse neighbourhood; nationality; friends who are minorities

• From our model, variation cannot be explained by:

– Education (!) ; parental education (!) ; nationalism (!) ; having lived abroad (!)

So what?

• Attitudes to immigration are part of a broader political outlook,

informed to a large extent by broader psychological outlook -> hard to change … when done by those of the ‘other’ side

• Polarisation and asymmetric mobilisation:

– Migration policy is usually framed in ways that attract support from migration liberals – emphasising overall economic benefits, celebrating diversity – But this is “preaching to the converted”- to boost support or change minds need to frame policies in ways which resonate with migration sceptics – Two ideas: (i) Link migration to specific concrete economic benefits – “the migration bonus investment fund” (ii) Focus debates on migration’s cultural effects on assimilation – “differences fade, we will be one nation”, not on celebrating diversity (Kaufmann, 2017)

• Characteristics and skills

– Differentiated migration policy regimes, with easier access for the skilled, are likely to be more popular, and could increase support for overall migration policy – Seek to disaggregate debates over migration wherever possible – citizens recognise the complexity of the issue, so make sure politics and policy do, too