Immigration and the Welfare State: Israel in Comparative Context

Transcription

1 Immigration and the Welfare State: Israel in Comparative Context American Political Science Association Annual Meeting, Washington D.C. Citizens, Borders and National Identities Panel, Sept 3, 2010 Submitted Aug 1, 2010 Word Count: 6,856 Jennifer Oser Public Policy and Government, Hebrew University of Jerusalem Multidisciplinary Program on Inequality and Social Policy, Harvard University Prof. John Gal The Paul Baerwald School of Social Work and Social Welfare The Hebrew University of Jerusalem Jennifer Oser gratefully acknowledges support for this research from the Hoffman Leadership and Responsibility Fellowship Program of Hebrew University, the Dean s Fellowship for Excellence, and the Ruttenberg Scholarship of the Federmann School of Public Policy and Government. 1

2 Abstract Despite the centrality of the integration of immigrants in Israeli society and the relatively high proportion of immigrants in the Israeli population, there has been little research on the nexus between immigration policy and the welfare state in the Israeli context. This paper seeks to explore this nexus by comparing the link between immigration and the welfare state in Israel to other settler nations specifically Australia, Canada and the U.S. These countries are all exceptional as welfare states in that they encourage immigration; they have a relatively high proportion of citizens who were born in other countries; and they can be characterized, by and large, as liberal welfare states. The comparative approach of this paper will be utilized to explain why poverty amongst immigrants in Israel is relatively low, both in comparison to other population groups in Israel, and in comparison to immigrants in other welfare state countries. 2

3 1. Introduction Immigrants face a variety of socio-economic challenges in their integration to welfare states, indicated most clearly by higher poverty levels in comparison to native-born citizens (e.g. Briggs, 1996; Kazemipur & Halli, 2001). Even when the market is the main source of income, an examination of diverse welfare states shows that immigrants are more likely to have a lower standard of living than comparably situated native-born citizens (Morissens & Sainsbury, 2005). However, the Israeli immigrant population does not conform to this pattern; in fact, Israeli immigrants fare almost as well or better than veteran populations on a number of economic parameters. In order to explain this puzzling outcome, this paper compares the Israeli immigration policy - welfare state nexus with that of three other leading settler nations that share a common British political historical link: Australia, Canada and the United States. These countries can all be characterized as relatively liberal welfare state regimes, meaning they privilege market-based solutions to social and individual needs, offer modest transfers, or have relatively limited social insurance plans 1 (Arts & Gelissen, 2002; Esping-Anderson, 1990). These nations also share a historical disposition of encouraging immigration (Bauer, Lofstrum, & Zimmermann, 2000; Klusmeyer, 2000) which has resulted in higher than average proportions of foreign-born citizens in comparison to other welfare states, as demonstrated in Chart 1. - Chart 1 about here - 3

4 Of these four countries, in 2005 Israel led the pack with 39.6% migrant stock as a percentage of overall population, followed by Australia (20.3%), Canada (18.9%) and the U.S. (12.9%) all exceeding the 9.5% average in developed regions and the 1.4% average for less developed regions (United Nations, 2006). In addition to high proportions of foreign born citizens, these countries generally continue to pursue proimmigration policies today, leading to comparatively high levels of annual inflows of immigrants. The following case studies use historical institutional analysis (Starke, 2006) to examine the interplay over time between two institutional levels: the right of immigrants to become citizens, and the additional conditions that determine access to social rights. This analysis therefore contributes to a new and growing body of scholarship that examines the link between immigration policy and social policy (e.g. Aleinikoff & Klusmeyer, 2002; Sainsbury, 2006). Following descriptions of the immigration-welfare state nexus in Australia, Canada and the United States, we outline the impact of social supports in these countries for lifting immigrants out of poverty. We then expand upon the Israeli case in order to analyze the immigration-welfare state nexus in Israel in comparative perspective. 2. The Immigration-Welfare State Nexus: Australia, Canada and the U.S. Australia The first British colonists arrived in Australia in 1788, and in 1901 Australia became a self-governing entity through Federation. In the 1901 Immigration Restriction Act, what 4

5 became termed the White Australia policy, formalized explicit restrictions on potential Asian immigration. Australia remained a dominion of the British Empire, following the United Kingdom s economic and foreign policy interests through the first and second world wars (Zappala & Castles, 2000). The foundations of postwar immigration policy were laid in 1945 with the establishment of what became known as a policy of populate or perish : a target of one percent annual population growth through immigration in order to both stimulate economic growth through population expansion, and to strengthen the country s defense against the threat of invasion (Ongley & Pearson, 1995). The initial goal was to recruit mainly British immigrants, but as the lack of potential British migrants became self-evident, the source counties became increasingly diverse. In 1947 a commonwealth-wide conference agreed that each country would enact its own legislation governing citizenship, but would continue to confer an additional status of British subject. The Nationality and Citizenship Act came into effect in 1949, but citizenship continued to be seen in British cultural and ethnic terms regarding rights and responsibilities. Non-European immigration remained severely restricted, but Australian immigration legislation in the 1950s and 1960s gradually decreased discriminatory policies (Ongley & Pearson, 1995). These policy changes resulted in the influx of millions of diverse immigrants. In 1947 only 2.7% of the population was foreign-born, compared to 23% in 2005 (Price, 1998; United Nations, 2006). Yet, this successful settling of the country went hand in hand with the dispossession and marginalization of 5

6 the indigenous population. In 1949 indigenous Australians became Australian citizens, but continued to be excluded from most of the rights and duties of citizenship. For example, it was not until 1962 that the Commonwealth Electoral Act gave Australian aboriginals the right to vote, but unlike other Australians, enrolling and voting were not mandatory until 1983 (Zappala & Castles, 2000). Record immigration rates and the subsequent stress on public resources eventually produced a negative public reaction. At the same time, political assimilation had succeeded in that enough immigrants had naturalized that they could constitute voting bloc. Partially due to the immigrant vote, the Australian Labour Party came to power in 1972 after 23 years of conservative government. This government discarded the White Australia policy and adopted a multicultural approach. In addition to programs targeted to migrants, almost all of Australia s relatively extensive welfare programs were made accessible to migrants immediately on arrival to Australia, including access to public health and education systems (Freeman & Birrell, 2001). However, by the end of the 1980s, the majority of voters no longer supported targeted outreach to migrants or the government s commitment to multiculturalism, leading to a reformation in Australian immigration policies in the 1990s (Betts, 2003). Overall admissions were cut substantially, and beginning in 1992 successive governments decreased access to welfare benefits. The One Nation party was founded in 1997 and gained brief popularity with an explicitly anti-immigration platform, though it collapsed by the end of the decade (Borowski, 2000). 6

7 The immigration reforms of constituted a pragmatic shift to a more stringent screening of the point of entry regarding immigrants potential for successful labor market integration. The Australian government placed increase emphasis on encouraging skills-based immigration over and above family-based immigration in a select for success approach. Immigrant admission became based on a more stringently defined point system that assessed employment potential, language skills, age, and selfsufficiency (Reitz, 1998). It has been argued that by 2000, these reforms led to several positive outcomes in the employment realm, such as halving unemployment among recently arrived new immigrants, increasing the salaries of new arrivals by two-thirds, and reducing the number of immigrants on welfare programs to a historic low level (Hawthorne, 2005). In addition to focusing on skills-based criteria for citizenship qualification, these reforms also restricted newly arrived immigrants access to welfare benefits. These policy changes led to a profound reshaping of the migration program according to terms of acceptable human capital rather than ethnic or racial considerations, and a decline in support for specialized services for immigrants in favor of fostering immigrants sense of personal responsibility (Vasta, 2004). Canada Similar to Australia s early years of racial discrimination, a White Canada policy was formalized in the Immigration Act of 1910 (Ongley & Pearson, 1995). The

8 Canadian Citizenship Act is the primary source of current citizenship law, but it did not address central issues regarding the rights and responsibilities of citizens. In 1982 the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms became entrenched as one of the main components of the Canadian Constitution. The equality provisions in this Charter protect equal access to social benefits like medical care and welfare for both citizens and permanent residents (Galloway, 2000). As in Australia, objectives of population growth and economic development were emphasized for much of the postwar period. However, Canada s more cautious program was more attuned to the economy s ability to absorb new immigrants (Hawkins, 1989). This approach led to widely fluctuating immigration levels determined by short-term labor market conditions, without the long-term population-building emphasis of Australia s policy (Ongley & Pearson, 1995). While Canada has been more cautious than Australia regarding immigration levels, it preceded Australia in advancing a nondiscriminatory selection policy on the basis of race or country of origin. Canada s discriminatory legislation was dismantled in the early 1960s due to both the desire to improve Canada s international standing and to better meet growing labor market requirements (Lewin-Epstein, Semyonov, Kogan, & Wanner, 2003). The shift to a more expansionary immigration policy in the mid-1980s was accompanied by a further liberalization of selection criteria, including a widening of the family reunion provisions (Ongley & Pearson, 1995). Hence in recent decades economic 8

9 objectives and self-interest replaced ethnic priorities that had dominated immigration policy until the 1960s. While Canadian social policy falls short of being social democratic in nature, it outlines a more ambitious social role for the state in comparison to other liberal welfare countries, with universal public health care and a more redistributive structure of income security programs. The Canadian welfare state was under substantial pressure during the 1980s and 1990s, and a long series of incremental policy changes restructured and in some cases weakened social programs introduced in the postwar era, including for immigrants. Yet, despite the restructuring of a number of welfare programs, the redistributive role of the Canadian state has not eroded as sharply as in many other OECD countries, for immigrants and citizens alike (Banting, 2005). United States The U.S. constitution and federal law did not define birthright citizenship until after the Civil War, and until that time, jus soli ( right of the soil, i.e. the right to citizenship for those born in the country) was recognized as part of the common law that was inherited from England. The U.S. first introduced major immigration restrictions with the passage of the Quota Acts in 1921 and 1925 which restricted immigration on the basis of country of origin. Aspiring immigrants of Asian and other descent continued to be excluded until a fully race-neutral naturalization law was adopted in Current U.S. immigration policy is based on a family-connections and skills-based quota system, the main elements of which were established in 1965 as an amendment to the 1952 Immigration and 9

10 Nationality Act (Xu, 2007). For those not excluded for racial reasons, the naturalization process was fairly liberal and remains so today (Aleinikoff, 2000). The U.S. has experienced two main waves of immigration in the past century: first, between 1900 and the 1920s, and second, beginning in the 1960s. The second wave has generally risen in each subsequent decade with a sharp increase in the 1990s as a result of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) of 1986 which increased regulation on illegal aliens and border enforcement while granting amnesty to illegal aliens who could establish that they had continuously resided in the U.S. since 1982 (Hanson, Scheve, Slaughter, & Spilimbergo, 2002). Illegal immigration continues to pose policy challenges, with an estimated total of 10.3 million unauthorized immigrants in the U.S. in 2004, and an estimated net of 500,000 new entries per year an amount that is about half of the number of annual green cards issued (OECD, 2006). Regarding welfare state structure, the Social Security Act of 1935 was the first federal program of social provision in the U.S., providing for two tiers which have expanded over time: means-tested assistance ( welfare ) and social insurance ( social security ). An exemplar case of the liberal welfare regime-type, the U.S. is unique in its pervasive use of means testing to determine eligibility, and the prominence of private welfare arrangements (Eardley, Bradshaw, Ditch, Gough, & Whiteford, 1996). Immigrants access to social security, like the rest of the population, has depended on their labor market participation, sector of employment, and payment of social security taxes. Historically, immigrants access to welfare benefits has been limited through the local 10

11 and state government restrictions barring aliens as recipients of poor relief and public assistance, but a 1971 Supreme Court ruling and the adoption of the Social Security Income Program in 1972 led to welfare rights for immigrants (Sainsbury, 2006). Following the 1986 IRCA policy change and the corresponding increase in naturalization, recent policy changes have tended to decrease access to social welfare programs for immigrants (Borjas, 2002). The Personal Responsibility and Work Opportunity Reconciliation Act (PRWORA) of 1996 excluded immigrants from most federal, state, and local government benefits, whereas prior to the 1996 reform immigrants were even more likely than natives to receive public assistance (Freeman & Birrell, 2001). As social insurance programs were cut back in general, immigrants were subjected to tighter eligibility rules that did not apply to the rest of the population (Sainsbury, 2006). During 1997 and 1998 many of the restrictive provisions in the 1996 legislation were eliminated, or weakened by compensatory action of the states. Based on studies that have shown the negative impact of immigration and welfare reform on low-income immigrants, refugees, immigrant women and children since the implementation of the laws in the late 1990s the federal government has restored several programs for immigrants such as nutrition programs and income support programs for the elderly and disabled (Fremstad, 2004). Yet, welfare use by immigrant households declined sharply overall, even relative to the decline experienced by native households (Xu, 2007). While the U.S. immigration and welfare reforms of 1996 have achieved their stated goal of 11

12 decreasing welfare dependency, they have also raised concerns about immigrants wellbeing. Poverty Reduction for Immigrants: Australia, Canada, and the U.S. Now that we have traced the historical development of the connection between immigration policy and the welfare state in Australia, Canada and the U.S., we turn to comparing the degree to which the welfare state reduces poverty for immigrants in these countries. Little is known regarding the quantitative comparison of welfare state transfers to immigrants and minorities, and their resulting impact upon immigrant poverty rates. Comparative research is hindered by the lack of shared standards regarding the measurement of poverty and poverty reduction, and a shared operational definition of immigrant. Yet, recent research using the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS) takes the pioneering step of tracking the differences in social transfer support and poverty for immigrant families in a select group of twelve countries (Smeeding, Wing, & Robson, 2010). Smeeding and his colleagues use a standard definition of poverty as 50% of the median income standard, and then compare market income (MI, i.e. income before taxes and transfers) with disposable cash income (DPI, i.e. after taxes and transfers). The more complicated definition is what constitutes an immigrant. The LIS data identifies immigrants as minorities, using a variety of different definitions in different countries. For example, the LIS data define immigrants in U.S. and Canada as those born outside of the survey country, while the Australia data counts all those who are non-national. In 12

13 addition, the Canada data undercounts immigrants by excluding naturalized citizens. Despite these limitations, these are the best comparative data on hand for gaining a comparative picture regarding the degree to which the welfare state supports immigrants, and this research includes Australia, Canada and the U.S. among the twelve countries under study. The main conclusion of this research, as demonstrated in Table 1, is that immigrants are more likely to be poor than natives, and by a wide margin in some nations. - Table 1 about here - This research finds that poverty rates for majority populations (i.e. non-immigrants) is 10% on average, compared with 15% for minorities and immigrants. The poverty rate in the U.S. is almost twice as high for immigrants when the naturalized, foreign-born household heads are not included in the minority definition, and remains high even when this population is included in the minority definition. Smeeding and his colleagues note that this pattern of overall minority poverty rates is reversed in some countries, including in Canada. In addition to the data definition problem noted above that the LIS Canada data undercounts immigrants, another argument is presented to explain this finding. Consistent with our case study analysis in this paper, they argue that immigrant poverty in Canada and to some extent in Australia indicates that selective skills-based immigration policies in these countries are successful in admitting immigrants likely to manage to integrate economically. This is particularly evident in Canada which has 13

14 pursued immigration policies oriented toward the labor market performance more consistently and more stringently than most countries. In addition, while this research indicates higher levels of poverty for immigrants on average, it demonstrates that the effects of social tax-benefit programs on poverty generally vary significantly more in relation to country of destination, rather than in relation to immigrant vs. non-immigrant status. For example, the reason why U.S. immigrants do not get much help is not indicative of discriminatory policy towards immigrants in particular, but rather of the fact that social support in the U.S. is generally low for all populations. This overview of the immigration-welfare state nexus in Australia, Canada and the U.S. will now allow us to analyze the Israeli case in comparative context. 3. Immigration-Welfare State Nexus in Israel One of Israel s defining characteristics since its founding in 1948 has been a high rate of immigration. Israel was established as a haven for Jews throughout the world, and has experienced a number of waves of immigration since the founding of the state, as demonstrated in the following chart of annual migration. - Chart 2 about here - 14

15 The most recent wave of immigration occurred in the early 1990s, and was comprised primarily of immigrations from the Former Soviet Union (FSU) with a smaller population approximately five percent of the total from Ethiopia (Sicron & Leshem, 1998). Over one million immigrants arrived in Israel between 1990 and 2001, comprising 16.5% of the total population of the country (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006). In addition to Jewish immigrants, there has been an influx of overseas labor migrants since the early 1990s, many of whom are undocumented (Amir, 2002). Following stringent state efforts to decrease the number of foreign workers, it is estimated that they numbered 188,000 in 2004, 51% of whom were undocumented (Barzuri, 2005). Immigration policy in Israel is based primarily on an ethnic implementation of the principle of jus sanguinis (the principle of descent), which generally restricts the granting of citizenship to members of a specific ethnic group in this case, for people of Jewish origin (Joppke & Rosenhek, 2002). Two early pieces of legislation adopted by the state formalized this policy. The 1950 Law of Return is based on the nationalist ideology of Zionism according to which Israel is a Jewish state that provides a haven and a homeland for the Jewish people. The 1952 Citizenship Law is the major piece of legislation regulating Israeli citizenship. There is essentially no naturalization process for Jewish immigrants because Israeli citizenship law views those eligible for return as already belonging to the constitutive community, and are therefore automatically granted a status equal to that of Israeli-born citizens (Klein, 1997). 15

16 Israel has developed naturalization requirements substantively similar to those of Australia, Canada and the U.S. for those who are ineligible for citizenship under the Law of Return. For example, Arabs and Jews born in the territory of Israel have the same right to acquire citizenship based on residence and birthplace. Yet, Arabs who fled during the 1948 war and did not immediately return lost their citizenship. Many tried to return in the 1950s, but found it difficult to meet citizenship eligibility requirements. The Israeli government did not fully address this problem until 1980 when the government conferred citizenship retroactively on these Arab residents, thereby granting automatic citizenship to their children. While the formal naturalization requirements are not more restrictive than those of Australia, Canada or the U.S., they have historically been more discriminating in practice, and stand in stark contrast to the automatic and immediate conferral of citizenship that is granted to Jews (Shachar, 2000). While clearly exclusionary, Israeli immigration policy is simultaneously very inclusive with regard to its definition of Jews as anyone who can successfully prove to have Jewish ancestry or to be an immediate family member of someone of Jewish ancestry. Due to cross-ethnic marriages in the Soviet Union, it is estimated that about one quarter of the immigrants from the FSU are not Jewish (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006, p. 16). In addition, the immigration policy is unconditional with regard to socio-demographic characteristics, thereby opening Israel s borders to Jewish immigrants regardless of age, income or physical condition. As a result, the immigrant population has tended to include a large proportion of elderly immigrants as well as newcomers with very limited labor market skills or sources of capital. 16

17 Poverty Reduction for Immigrants to Israel: A Categorical Welfare State The social protection system in Israel is a relatively comprehensive system that was first established in the early 1950s, and was originally based on the British Beveridge model. The system was initially intended to be based primarily on social insurance principles such that the programs would be universal. Yet, means-tested programs have also been introduced, such as Income Support, a selective social assistance program introduced in However, the main form of benefit type incorporated into the system over time has been categorical benefits. An analysis of the distribution of expenditure on social welfare programs by type in Israel reveals that categorical benefit programs comprise 51.4% in all spending, while only 37.7% is devoted to social insurance programs and 10.7% is dedicated to social assistance programs (Gal, 2008). Categorical benefits can be distinguished from universal and means-tested programs in that they require neither an assessment of individual financial need, nor a financial contribution record as conditions for eligibility. Rather, eligibility is determined primarily by the individual s belonging to a socially defined category (Gal, 1998, p. 77). While the conditions for eligibility for categorical benefits can be diverse and stringent, take-up on these benefits are relatively high because they tend to be both less stigmatizing than means-tested benefits and more accessible than employment-dependent social insurance programs. Israel s ethnic immigration policy, which offers formal integration into society to Jewish immigrants upon arrival, greatly eases their access to social rights. In principle the 17

18 conditions that determine their access to social welfare programs are identical to those of native citizens. However, because access to social insurance programs requires a contributional labor market history and access generally requires a minimal period of residence, a number of statutory changes have been introduced to these programs to ease immigrants access, particularly for Income Support and Unemployment Insurance. Yet, it is the categorical emphasis of the social welfare system in Israel that has the greatest impact on the relative ease of access to social rights for immigrants. Three levels of categorical benefits programs can be identified: immigrant-specific programs, immigrantoriented programs, and general categorical benefit programs. An example of the first level of immigrant-specific programs is an old-age benefit program created to enable elderly immigrants with no transferable pension from their country of origin to receive benefits equivalent to those offered to other citizens, regardless of contributory history. Another example is the absorption basket program adopted in the beginning of the 1990s, which provides financial assistance to support immigrant households during their initial settlement period in Israel (Gal & Leshem, 2000). This is an unconditional cash benefit paid during the approximately six month period during which the immigrant acquires basic Hebrew language skills, accompanied by a rental subsidy during this period and beyond. The second level is comprised of categorical programs developed for immigrants that became accessible to native citizens as well. For example, the maternity benefit program paid to mothers who gave birth in hospitals was initially adopted in 1954 in order to 18

19 encourage immigrant mothers living in transit camps to give birth in the safer environment of the hospital, but take-up of this benefit has since become universal. Another example is the Single Parent Family Law adopted in the early 1990s, which was advanced with the goal of meeting the needs of many single parent families among the new immigrants from the FSU and Ethiopia (Ajzenstadt & Gal, 2001). The third level of categorical benefits includes those that are particularly accessible to immigrants even though they were not specifically adopted with immigrants needs in mind, such as child benefits and work injury insurance. These benefits are neither meantested, nor dependent on long-term labor market contribution in Israel. The universal child benefit program is accessible upon arrival in the country for families with children under the age of 18 in their home. Work injury insurance is accessible to immigrants immediately upon entry into the labor market, regardless of their length of residence and prior payment into the social security fund. This overview points to the development of an immigration-welfare state nexus in Israel that places great emphasis on categorical rather than means-tested or insurance-based benefits. This nexus has given immigrants access to social rights that is unique among welfare states such that in some parameters, immigrants level of participation in the social welfare system is even slightly higher than that of native Israelis. For example, in 2004, 81.8% of post-1990 immigrant households received support from the social protection system, compared to 80.3% of native Israeli households (Gal & Barzuri, 2007). 19

20 Despite the economic downturn in Israel during the first half of this decade and the severe cuts in major social welfare programs, the combination of transfers and taxes during this period consistently lifted between 50-60% of immigrant households above the poverty line. In fact, during this period, the positive impact of transfers and taxes upon poor immigrant households has been greater than that upon the general population, as evidence in Chart 3, which shows the proportion of poor households extracted from below the poverty line (defined as 50% of the median household income). - Chart 3 about here - As a result, poverty levels among immigrants in Israel have tended to be on par with those of the general population. In fact, the proportion of immigrant households below the poverty line between 2001 and 2007 is actually somewhat lower than that of the general population, as can be seen in Chart 4. - Chart 4 about here - The relatively low poverty level among immigrants in Israel is not only the result of social welfare programs or high-take up rates of immigrants. The human capital of the immigrants, their socioeconomic characteristics, and their consequent success in integrating into the labor market are all contributing factors to these results, as is apparent when one compares the labor market participation of immigrants from the FSU and 20

21 Ethiopia. Among immigrants from the FSU, 40% had a college degree, compared with only 27% of the general population and 16% of Ethiopian immigrants (King & Wolde- Tsadick, 2006). By 2003, in comparison to the 76% labor force participation rate of the general Jewish population, immigrants from the FSU participated at an even higher rate of 79% while the participation of Ethiopian immigrants was considerably lower at 54%. In addition, the relatively small household size of FSU immigrants has clearly contributed to lower poverty levels for members of this group; while 55% of immigrant families with children have only one child, the proportion in the general population in Israel is only 35%. Yet there are also countervailing factors that have tended to increase poverty levels among Israeli immigrants. Elderly immigrants, who are often dependent on old age benefits, constitute a quarter of all of the elderly population in the country. In addition, 25% of immigrant families are single-parent families which face distinct challenges in labor market integration, in comparison to only 9.5% of native Israelis (Central Bureau of Statistics, 2006). In contrast, the social protection system is much less effective for other social groups that are not heavily supported. This is certainly the case for migrant workers who lack access to much of the social protection system and have significantly lower income levels in comparison to other population groups. The system is also less effective for Israel s Arab citizens. Even after taxes and transfers, 40-50% of Israeli Arab households were below the poverty line between 2001 and 2007, as evident in Chart 4 (National Insurance 21

22 Institute, 2007). The limited impact of the social welfare system in dealing with poverty among members of Israel s Arab minority can clearly be linked to socio-economic characteristics such as low market income, low labor market participation rates and high fertility rates. Nevertheless, research indicates that the lack of effectiveness of welfare state institutions in lifting Israeli Arabs from poverty partially reflect pro-immigrant social policy priorities in the structuring of the social welfare system (Lewin & Stier, 2002). The roots of Israel s immigration policy and the treatment of immigrants by its social welfare system can be linked to what Sammy Smooha (2002) has described as an ethnic democracy. This is a polity in which one of the state s ethnic groups has institutionalized dominance over state mechanisms. As an ethnic democracy, Israel offers formal citizenship rights to both Jews and Arabs, while members of the Jewish ethnic majority enjoy greater rewards from the state. This is particularly true for those, like immigrants, who are linked to supporting the Zionist goal of ensuring that Israel will remain a Jewish state (Shafir & Peled, 1998). This can be seen as a reflection of the institutionalized dominance of the majority ethnic group and its capacity to set policy and distribute resources in accordance with its desired goals. 4. Discussion and Conclusion: Israel s Immigration-Welfare State Nexus in Comparative Perspective This case study analysis helps to place the unique immigration-welfare state nexus in Israel in comparative perspective. The similarly pro-immigrant countries of Australia, 22

23 Canada and the U.S. all began their restrictions on immigration with an eye towards race and national origin, but over time have changed the screening criteria to focus on labor market skills and family unification. In recent years, these countries have focused on attracting more skilled immigrant workers in order to reduce welfare dependency among immigrants, whether by restricting immigration access based on labor skills, or by limiting immigrants access to public welfare benefits in comparison to the general population. While Canada and Australia have provided limited categorical support for immigrants during periods of aggressive immigrant recruitment, these countries by and large have not provided special social benefits for immigrants. The opposite has tended to be the case, particularly in recent years: immigrants must wait for specific waiting periods in order to be eligible for programs that are automatically open to the general population. Although immigrant poverty is relatively low in these countries, the reason behind this result apparently lies in stringent recruitment and eligibility policies. The Israeli case, however, demonstrates that immigrant poverty is not inevitable, even when labor-market considerations are not criteria to gain citizenship. The universalistic Beveridgean legacy of the Israeli social protection system, and the country s adherence to formal equal rights for all of its citizens have generally prevented the introduction of any overt exclusionary elements within welfare state institutions. Particularly in recent years, the few attempts to introduce such exclusionary policies have been blocked by the political or judicial systems (for a noteable exception, however, see Rosenhek, 1999). 23

24 However, grafted onto the generally universal foundations of the Israeli welfare state, decision-makers have sought to introduce programs that seek to address the specific needs of the members of certain social categories that have been identified by the state as more deserving than others. These programs do not run counter to democratic principles and the notion of a universal welfare state by precluding the granting of services to all citizens; rather, they seek to offer additional services to members of specific groups. As such, immigrants - much like military veterans, disabled soldiers, the families of fallen soldiers, and the victims of Nazi persecution are considered by Israeli policymakers to belong to a deserving social category. Since these programs are intended for individuals identified as making a positive contribution to the common good, they are generally devoid of demeaning means tests or obstacles that might decrease take-up levels. It would appear that the existence of these programs, along with efforts to ensure that the take up of additional benefits by immigrants is high have contributed to the standard of living enjoyed by members of this social group in Israel and have limited the prevalence of poverty among the immigrant population. While universalism is a defining characteristic of the Israeli social welfare system, the existence of a relatively large number of non-means tested categorical benefit programs creates what can best be described as a categorical universalism which benefits deserving social categories. An unusual immigration-welfare state nexus has thus been created in Israel, which differs from that in the other welfare states described here, due to the interface between an ethnic immigration policy and a social welfare system based strongly on categorical benefits. 24

25 It is noteworthy, however, that the price for the successful socio-economic integration of immigrants has been high for Israeli society at large. While 22% of all social protection spending is devoted to immigrants, they comprise only 19.4% of the population and contribute significantly less to social protection resources than the average citizen due to their relatively low income levels and the large proportion of non-working elderly (Gal & Barzuri, 2007). Potentially even more problematic is the impact of these policies on social gaps in Israeli society. The implications of this system are that it offers particularly good access to social rights for immigrants, while simultaneously exacerbating social gaps in Israeli society between the Jewish majority and the Arab minority. 25

26 Charts and Tables Chart 1: Immigrants in Welfare States, Percentage of Population 2000 Spain Greece Demark United Kingdom Germany Netherlands France Sweden United States Canada New Zealand Australia Switzerland Israel Source: United Nations, 2004 Chart 2: Immigration to Israel, Source: Israel Central Bureau of Statistics 26

27 Chart 3: The Impact of Taxes and Transfers (%) Source: National Insurance Institute, 2007 Chart 4: Post-Transfers and Taxes Poverty (%) Source: National Insurance Institute 27

28 Table 1: Household Poverty by Minority Status Across Countries Smeeding et al, 2010, p.34 28

29 References Ajzenstadt, M., & Gal, J. (2001). Appearances can be deceptive: Gender in the Israeli welfare state, Social Politics (Vol. 8, pp ). Aleinikoff, T. A. (2000). Between principles and politics: U.S. citizenship policy. In T. A. Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), From Migrants to Citizens (pp ). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Aleinikoff, T. A., & Klusmeyer, D. (Eds.). (2002). Citizenship policies for an age of migration. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press. Amir, S. (2002). Overseas foreign workers in Israel: Policy aims and labor market outcomes, International Migration Review (Vol. 36, pp ). Arts, W. A., & Gelissen, J. (2002). Three worlds of welfare capitalism or more?, Journal of European Social Policy (Vol. 12, pp ). Banting, K. G. (2005). The multicultural welfare state: International experience and North American narratives, Social Policy and Administration (Vol. 39, pp ). Barzuri, R. (2005). Undocumented foreign workers in Israel, Jerusalem: Ministry of Industry, Commerce and Labor. Bauer, T. K., Lofstrum, M., & Zimmermann, K. P. (2000). Immigration policy, assimilation of immigrants and natives' sentiments towards immigrants: Evidence from 12 OECD countries, Swedish Economic Policy Review (Vol. 7, pp ). Betts, K. (2003). Immigration policy under the Howard government, Australian Journal of Social Issues (Vol. 38, pp ). Borjas, G. J. (2002). Welfare reform and immigrant participation in welfare programs, The International Migration Review (Vol. 36, pp ). Borowski, A. (2000). Creating a virtuous society: Immigration and Australia's policies of multiculturalism, Journal of Social Policy (Vol. 29, pp ). Briggs, V. M. (1996). Immigration policy and the U.S. economy: An institutional perspective. Journal of Economic Issues, 30(2), Central Bureau of Statistics. (2006). Immigrants from the Former Soviet Union. Jerusalem: Central Bureau of Statistics. Eardley, T., Bradshaw, J., Ditch, J., Gough, I., & Whiteford, P. (1996). Social assistance in OECD countries (Vol. 1). London: HMSO. Esping-Anderson, G. (1990). The three political economies of the welfare state, International Journal of Sociology (Vol. 20, pp ). Freeman, G. P., & Birrell, B. (2001). Divergent paths of immigration politics in the United States and Australia, Population and Development Review (Vol. 27, pp ). Fremstad, S. (2004). Recent welfare reform research findings: Implications for TANF reauthorization and state TANF policies. Washington, D.C.: Center on Budget and Policy Priority. Gal, J. (1998). Categorical benefits in welfare states: Findings from Great Britain and Israel, International Social Security Review (Vol. 51, pp ). Gal, J. (2008). Immigration and the categorical welfare state in Israel, Social Service Review (Vol. 82, pp ). Gal, J., & Barzuri, R. (2007). Immigration and welfare in Israel. Jerusalem: Taub Center for Social Policy Studies in Israel. 29

30 Gal, J., & Leshem, E. (2000). Examining changes in settlement policies for immigrants: The Israeli case, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis (Vol. 2, pp ). Galloway, D. (2000). The dilemmas of Canadian citizenship law. In T. A. Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), From Migrants to Citizens (pp ). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Hanson, G., Scheve, K., Slaughter, M., & Spilimbergo, A. (2002). Immigration and the U.S. Economy: Labour-market impacts, illegal entry, and policy choices. In T. Boeri, G. Hanson & B. McCormick (Eds.), Immigration policy and the welfare system (pp ). Oxford: Oxford University Press. Hawkins, F. (1989). Critical years in immigration: Canada and Australia compared. Kensington, NSW: New South Wales University Press. Hawthorne, L. (2005). Picking winners: The recent transformation of Australia's skilled migration policy, The International Migration Review (Vol. 39, pp ). Joppke, C., & Rosenhek, Z. (2002). Contesting ethnic immigration: Germany and Israel compared, European Journal of Sociology (Vol. 43, pp ). Kazemipur, A., & Halli, S. S. (2001). Immigrants and "new poverty": The case of Canada. International Migration Review, 35(4), King, J., & Wolde-Tsadick, A. (2006). Patterns of integration into employment of new immigrants aged Jerusalem: Myers-JDC-Brookdale Institute for Research on Immigrant Absorption. Klein, C. (1997). The right of return in Israel law, Tel Aviv University Studies in Law (Vol. 13, pp ). Klusmeyer, D. (2000). Introduction. In T. A. Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), From Migrants to Citizens (pp. 1-24). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Lewin-Epstein, N., Semyonov, M., Kogan, I., & Wanner, R. A. (2003). Institution structure and immigration integration: A comparative study of immigrant's labor market attainment in Canada and Israel, International Migration Review (Vol. 37, pp ). Lewin, A. C., & Stier, H. (2002). Who benefits the most? The unequal allocation of transfers in the Israeli welfare state, Social Science Quarterly (Vol. 83, pp ). Mandel, H., & Semyonov, M. (2006). A welfare state paradox: State interventions and women's employment opportunities in 22 countries, American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 111, pp ). Morissens, A., & Sainsbury, D. (2005). Migrants' social rights, ethnicity and welfare regimes, Journal of Social Policy (Vol. 34, pp ). National Insurance Institute. (2007). Annual Survey, Jerusalem: National Insurance Institute. OECD. (2006). International migration outlook: Annual report: OECD Publishing. Okun, B. S., Oliver, A. L., & Khait-Marelly, O. (2007). The public sector, family structures and labor market behavior: Jewish mothers in Israel, Work and Occupations (Vol. 34, pp ). Ongley, P., & Pearson, D. (1995). Post-1945 international immigration: New Zealand, Australia and Canada compared, International Migration Review (Vol. 29, pp ). 30

31 Price, C. A. (1998). Post-war immigration, , Journal of the Australian Population Association (Vol. 15, pp ). Reitz, J. G. (1998). Warmth of the welcome: The social causes of economic success for immigrants in different nations and cities. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. Rosenhek, Z. (1999). The exclusionary logic of the welfare state: Palestinian citizens in the Israeli welfare state, International Sociology (Vol. 14, pp ). Sainsbury, D. (2006). Immigrants' social rights in comparative perspective: Welfare regimes, forms in immigration and immigration policy regimes, Journal of European Social Policy (Vol. 16, pp ). Shachar, A. (2000). Citizenship and membership in the Israeli polity. In T. A. Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), From Migrants to Citizens (pp ). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. Shafir, G., & Peled, Y. (1998). Citizenship and stratification in an ethnic democracy. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 21(3), Sicron, M., & Leshem, E. (Eds.). (1998). A portrait of immigration: Processes of absorption of immigrants from the Former Soviet Union, Jerusalem: Magnes. Smeeding, T. M., Wing, C., & Robson, K. (2010). Differences in social-transfer support and poverty for immigrant families with children: Lessons from the Luxembourg Income Study (LIS). In E. L. Grigorenko & R. Takanishi (Eds.), Immigration, diversity, and education (pp ). New York: Routledge. Smooha, S. (2002). The model of ethnic democracy: Israel as a Jewish and democratic state, Nations and Nationalism (Vol. 8, pp ). Starke, P. (2006). The politics of welfare state retrenchment: a literature review, Social Policy and Administration (Vol. 40, pp ). Stier, H., Lewin-Epstein, N., & Braun, M. (2001). Welfare regimes, family supportive policies, and women's employment along the life-course, American Journal of Sociology (Vol. 106, pp ). United Nations. (2006). World migrant stock: The 2005 revision population database [Electronic Version]. Retrieved July 16, 2008 from Vasta, E. (2004). Community, the state and the deserving citizen: Pacific Islanders in Australia, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies (Vol. 30, pp ). Xu, Q. (2007). Globalization, immigration and the welfare state: A cross-national comparison, Journal of Sociology & Social Welfare (Vol. 34, pp ). Zappala, G., & Castles, S. (2000). Citizenship and immigration in Australia. In T. A. Aleinikoff & D. Klusmeyer (Eds.), (pp ). Washington D.C.: Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. 31

32 Note 1 Australia, Canada and the U.S. are all classified by Esping-Anderson as liberal welfare-state regimes (1990). Due to welfare guarantees implemented through the labor market in the 1960s and 1970s, it has been disputed whether Australia fits this classification (Arts & Gelissen, 2002), but the economic liberalization that occurred in the 1980s and 1990s has reconfirmed Australia s classification as a liberal regime. Historically Israel has often been considered to be most similar to the social democratic model of the welfare state and is occasionally still classified as such (c.f. Mandel & Semyonov, 2006), while others have classified it as a conservative welfare state (Okun, Oliver, & Khait-Marelly, 2007; Stier, Lewin- Epstein, & Braun, 2001). While Israel can be seen as part of a loose extended family of Mediterranean welfare states, due to economic and ideological forces of the past two decades, it can be argued that its welfare state has characteristics that are similar to those of the cluster of liberal welfare state regimes (Doron, 2001). 32