CHANGES IN WORKING LIFE AND THE APPEAL OF RIGHT-WING POPULISM IN EUROPE

Transcription

1 International Conference CHANGES IN WORKING LIFE AND THE APPEAL OF RIGHT-WING POPULISM IN EUROPE June 2004, Vienna, Austria Xenophobe attitudes towards migrants and refugees in the enlarged European Union Peter Fleissner Vienna University of Technology

2 Outline Empirical results on attitudes towards migrants and refugees Based on Eurobarometer Survey 53 (2000) for EU15 Based on European Social Survey (2002/3) For 21 countries

3 Standard Eurobarometer investigates regularly attitudes of the EU population established 1973, twice a year financed by European Commission responsible Directorate General Education and Culture (now DG Press ) conducted by a private enterprise, INRA, Brussels, Belgium interviews About 1000 per Member State 1000 each in western and eastern part of Germany 1000 in the UK, 300 in Northern Ireland

4 Eurobarometer questions added to the standard questionnaire in April/May 2000 Exhaustive study by SORA, Vienna, Austria (source at

5 Clusters of attitudes (EU15, 2000) actively tolerant passivly tolerant ambivalent intolerant SE DK FI NL LU FR DE GB BE EU15 AT ES IT IR PT GR

6 Typology of EU population Actively tolerant (21%) Not disturbed, but enriched by minorities, they do not insist in assimilation, request policies in favour of minorities Passively tolerant (39%) Positive attitude, they do not insist in assimilation, but do not request policies in favour of minorities, neutral Ambivalent (25%) Not disturbed by minorities, minorities do not have positive effect on society, in favour of assimilation Intolerant (14%) strong negative attitude, are disturbed by minorities, in favour of assimilation and Repatriation, lower level of education and lower socio-economic status

7 Typology of German population by age (Germany: Old and New LänderL nder,, EUROBAROMETER 2000) intolerant passively tolerant actively tolerant ambivalent total West years years years years total East years years years years total

8 European Social Survey (ESS) is a new, academically-driven social survey designed to chart and explain the interaction between Europe's changing institutions and the attitudes, beliefs and behaviour patterns of its diverse populations. The survey of 2002/2003 covers 21 nations and employs the most rigorous methodologies. It contains more than interviews with 500 variables. It was partly funded via the European Commission's 5th Framework Programme. Supplementary funds come from the European Science Foundation, which also sponsored the preparatory steps of the survey.

9 Participating Countries 14 old member states of the European Union (84% of total EU-15 population)* Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, UK - excluding France 4 new member states (since 1 May 04) (82% of total 10 accession countries population)* Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia 3 associated countries within the 6th Framework Programme Israel, Norway, Switzerland *Eurostat: Demographic estimate 2003

10 Acknowledgments Data source: ESS round 1, integrated file, edition /2003 Bibliographic citation: R Jowell and the Central Co-ordinating Team, European Social Survey 2002/2003: Technical Report, London: Centre for Comparative Social Surveys, City University (2003)

11 Demographic/socio socio-economic and political criteria vs. EUold/EUnew EUnew by country gender age level of education/years of education branch of production profession unemployed in the past income area of residence attendance of religious services political self-placement

12 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by country) Allow none Switzerland Sweden Norway Ireland Denmark Germany Netherlands Poland Austria Spain Italy Finland Slovenia Czech Republic Belgium United Kingdom Luxembourg Hungary Portugal Greece Israel Allow a few Allow some Allow many t o come and live here

13 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by gender and EUold/new new) Allow none Allow a few Allow some EU old EU new Male Female Male Female Allow many to come and live here

14 conclusion Citizens of the new countries are consistently more reluctant to allow immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here On this level of aggregation no significant gender difference can be seen

15 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by agegroup and gender in EUold/new) Allow none Allow a few Allow some m m m m m m m 70+ f f f f f f f 70+ m m m m m m m 70+ f f f f f EU old EU new Allow many to come and live here f f 70+

16 conclusion The older they are the more reluctant people of both genders are to allow immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here For males this is true without restriction For females more detailed investigation is needed

17 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by education level and EUold/new new) 9 Allow none 7 Allow a few 5 Allow some 3 1 EU old EU new Allow many to come and live here Not compl. Primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Post secondary First stage tertiary Second stage tertiary Not compl. Primary Primary Lower secondary Upper secondary Post secondary First stage tertiary Second stage tertiary

18 conclusion EU-old: The higher the level of education the more tolerant people are Less strongly visible in the new countries

19 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by years of education and EUold/new new) 9 Allow none 7 Allow a few 5 3 EU old Allow some 1 EU new Allow many to come and live here

20 conclusion The longer the education period the more tolerant people are Less strongly visible in the new countries

21 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by branch of production and EUold/new working people only) 9 Allow none 7 Allow a few 5 Allow some Agriculture Mining Manufacture Electricity, gas, water Construction Wholesale/retail Hotels/restaurants Transport Financial Intermed Real Estate Public administration Education Health Other services Private housholds Extraterritorial org Agriculture Mining Manufacture 3 1 EU old EU new Allow many to come and live here Electricity, gas, water Construction Wholesale/retail Hotels/restaurants Transport Financial Intermed Real Estate Public administration Education Health Other services Private housholds Extraterritorial org

22 (by branch of Do you have any immigrant colleagues? of production and EUold/new working people only) EU old EU new EU old EU new No, none at all Yes, a few Yes, several Electricity, gas, water Construction Wholesale/retail Hotels/restaurants Transport Financial Intermed Real Estate Public administration Education Health Other services Private housholds Extraterritorial org Agriculture Mining Manufacture Electricity, gas, water Construction Wholesale/retail Hotels/restaurants Transport Financial Intermed Real Estate Public administration Education Health Other services Private housholds Extraterritorial org Agriculture Mining Manufacture

23 conclusion In EU new less immigrants visible in the shop floor The least tolerant branches of production are: in EU old: mining In EU new: mining, agriculture, hotels/restaurants, transport The most tolerant branches of production are in EU old: education, health, other services, exterritorial services, In EU new: financial services, real estate

24 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by occupation and EUold/new new) Allow none 9 Allow a few 7 5 Allow some SEN.OFFICIALS/MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS/ASS.PROF CLERKS SERVICE SKILLED AGRIC.WORKERS CRAFT/RELATED TRADES OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS ARMED FORCES SEN.OFFICIALS/MANAGERS PROFESSIONALS TECHNICIANS/ASS.PROF CLERKS SERVICE SKILLED AGRIC.WORKERS CRAFT/RELATED TRADES OPERATORS AND ASSEMBLERS ELEMENTARY OCCUPATIONS ARMED FORCES 3 Allow many t o come and live here 1 EU old EU new

25 conclusion Professionals show highest acceptance, senior managers/officials are less open Elementary occupations show lowest acceptance

26 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by unemployment and seeking work for a period of more than x months/years and EUold/new new) Allow none Allow a few Allow some EU old EU new Allow many to come and live here yes, >3 months no yes, >12 months no yes, >5 years no yes, >3 months no yes, >12 months no yes, >5 years no

27 conclusion In the old countries an event of unemployment is correlated with higher levels of tolerance In the new countries the effect is less evident

28 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by household's total net income in Euros and EUold/new new) Allow none Allow a few Allow some <1,8k EUR 1,8k- 3,6k 3,6k- 6k 6k- 12k 12k- 18k EU old 18k- 24k 24k- 30k 30k- 36k 36k- 60k 60k- 90k 90k- 120k >120k <1,8k EUR 1,8k- 3,6k 3,6k- 6k 6k- 12k 12k- 18k EU new 18k- 24k 24k- 30k 30k- 36k 36k- 60k 60k- 90k 90k- 120k >120k Allow many to come and live here

29 conclusion The higher the total income of the household the more tolerant people become There are some inconsistencies in the lowest and highest income groups

30 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by area of residence and EUold/new new) Allow none Allow a few EU old Allow some A big city Suburbs or outskirts of big city EU new Allow many to come and live here Town or small city Country village Farm or home in countryside A big city Suburbs or outskirts of big city Town or small city Country village Farm or home in countryside

31 conclusion The people of the new countries living in small villages or as farmers are consistently more reluctant to allow immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here than their colleagues in the new countries.

32 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by religious attendance and EUold/new new) Allow none Allow a few Allow some Every day More than once a w eek Once a w eek EU old At least once a month Only on special holy days Less often Never Every day More than once a w eek Once a week EU new At least once a month Only on special holy days Less often Never Allow many to come and live here

33 conclusion EU old: the less frequently people attend religious services the more tolerant In the new countries it seems to be the other way round exceptions for high frequencies of attendence

34 Allow many/few immigrants of an ethnic group different from majority to come and live here (by political self-placement and EUold/new new) Allow none Allow a few Allow some EU old EU new Allow many to come and live here Left Right Left Right

35 conclusion EU old: higher tolerance if linked to well established parties of the left and of the right M -shaped curve of intolerance Higher intolerance on the right margin than on the left EU new: highest levels of intolerance on the left and right margin, Less significant variations along left-right scale

36 Essential conditions for immigration as seen by majority By degree of importance: From least important to most important

37 Important side conditions for immigrants as seen by majority Least important Be white Be whealthy Most important

38 Side conditions for immigration: be white (by country) unimportant neutral important Hungary Switzerland Germany Denmark Norway United Kingdom Italy Austria Belgium Ireland Spain Israel Portugal Finland Poland Slovenia Czech Republic Greece Sweden Netherlands Luxembourg

39 Side conditions for immigration: be wealthy (by country) unimportant neutral important Portugal Netherlands Sweden Germany Ireland Austria Denmark United Kingdom Spain Finland Belgium Czech Republic Slovenia Hungary Poland Greece Israel Italy Norway Luxembourg Switzerland

40 Important side conditions for immigrants as seen by majority Least important Be white Be whealthy Christian background Close family already living here Most important

41 Side conditions for immigration: christian background (by country) unimportant neutral important Sweden Germany Belgium Switzerland Luxembourg United Kingdom Norway Ireland Czech Republic Austria Slovenia Portugal Denmark Spain Finland Italy Hungary Poland Greece Israel Netherlands

42 Italy Norway Austria Netherlands Luxembourg Ireland Germany Belgium Switze rland Denmark Spain Slovenia United Kingdom Hungary Finland Czech Republic Portugal Poland Greece Israel Sweden Side conditions for immigration: close family is living here (by country) unimportant neutral important

43 Important side conditions for immigrants as seen by majority Least important Be white Be whealthy Christian background Close family already living here Good educational qualifications Work skills needed Most important

44 Side conditions for immigration: good educational qualifications (by country) unimportant neutral important Norw ay Italy Netherlands Portugal Ireland Spain Switzerland United Kingdom Luxembourg Belgium Slovenia Denmark Czech Republic Finland Pola nd Austria Germany Hungary Israel Greece Sweden

45 Side conditions for immigration: work skills needed in country (by country) unimportant neutral important Sweden Switzerland Norway Netherland s Luxem bourg Belgium Italy Spain Denmark Ireland United Kingdom Austria Poland Germany Finland Slovenia Israel Portugal Czech Republic Hungary Greece

46 Important side conditions for immigrants as seen by majority Least important Be white Be whealthy Christian background Close family already living here Good educational qualifications Work skills needed Speak country's official language Committed to way of life in country Most important

47 Side conditions for immigration: speak country's official language (by country) unimportant neutral important Israel Italy Spain Portugal Czech Republic Switzerland Finland Ireland Norway Denmark Poland Belgium United Kingdom Slovenia Austria Hungary Netherlands Germany Greece Luxembourg Sweden

48 Side conditions for immigration: committed to way of life in country (by country) unimportant neutral important Poland Ireland Norway Portugal Austria Denmark Spain Switzerland Italy Israel United Kingdom Luxembourg Germany Sweden Slovenia Greece Netherlands Czech Republic Belgium Finland Hungary

49 On refugees (by country) 1. Most refugee applicants not in real fear of persecution in their own countries 2. Country has more than its fair share of people applying refugee status 3. Government should be generous judging applications for refugee status 4. Financial support should be given to refugee applicants while cases considered 5. Granted refugees should be entitled to bring close family member 6. Refugee applicants should not be kept in detention centers while cases considered 7. People applying refugee status should be allowed to work while cases considered Reluctant to support Supporting refugees interests

50 Side conditions for refugees: Most refugee applicants not in real fear of persecution own countries (by country) Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree strongly Poland United Kingdom Hungary Switzerland Ireland Netherlands Germany Czech Republic Slovenia Greece Israel Italy Belgium Norway Luxembourg Sweden Finland Denmark Spain Portugal Austria

51 Side conditions for refugees: Country has more than its fair share of people applying refugee status (by country) 9 Agree strongly 7 Agree 5 Neither agree nor disagree Disagree 3 1 Disagree strongly United Kingdom Ireland Greece Netherlands Slovenia Poland Hungary Spain Switzerland Czech Republic Norway Sweden Germany Denmark Italy Belgium Israel Luxembourg Portugal Austria Finland

52 Side conditions for refugees: Government should be generous judging applications for refugee status (by country) 9 Disagree strongly 7 Disagree 5 3 Neither agree nor disagree Agree 1 Agree strongly Netherlands United Kingdom Germany Slovenia Hungary Norway Switzerland Czech Republic Belgium Denmark Israel Sweden Italy Portugal Ireland Poland Spain Austria Finland Luxembourg Greece

53 Side conditions for refugees: Financial support to refugee applicants while cases considered (by country) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Agree strongly United Kingdom Slovenia Netherlands Italy Israel Ireland Hungary Germany Switzerland Portugal Belgium Norway Sweden Czech Republic Spain Poland Denmark Austria Greece Luxembourg Finland

54 Side conditions for refugees: Granted refugees should be entitled to bring close family members (by country) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Agree strongly United Kingdom Netherlands Ireland Norway Sweden Slovenia Denmark Germany Belgium Hungary Switzerland Israel Italy Poland Greece Portugal Spain Czech Republic Austria Luxembourg Finland

55 Side conditions for refugees: Refugee applicants kept in detention centres while cases considered (by country) Agree strongly Agree Neither agree nor disagree Disagree Disagree strongly Poland Slovenia Norway Czech Republic Denmark Spain United Kingdom Hungary Greece Finland Netherlands Sweden Luxembourg Germany Belgium Israel Switzerland Ireland Austria Italy Portugal

56 Side conditions for refugees: People applying refugee status are allowed to work while cases considered (by country) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree Agree strongly United Kingdom Portugal Israel Poland Norway Slovenia Hungary Germany Spain Netherlands Ireland Belgium Italy Greece Denmark Switzerland Sweden Czech Republic Luxembourg Austria Finland

57 On refugees (by country) 1. Most refugee applicants not in real fear of persecution in their own countries 2. Country has more than its fair share of people applying refugee status 3. Government should be generous judging applications for refugee status 4. Financial support should be given to refugee applicants while cases considered 5. Granted refugees should be entitled to bring close family member 6. Refugee applicants should not be kept in detention centers while cases considered 7. People applying refugee status should be allowed to work while cases considered Reluctant to support Supporting refugees interests

58 Summary On average, citizens of the new countries allow less immigrants than those of old ones, but they do not see many of them high preference for language and work skills and qualification highest preference for conformity in way of life On average, no significant difference by gender Education, income, professionals positively correlated Age, unemployment (EU15), elementary occupations negatively correlated People are in favour of better conditions for refugees

59 Thank you for your attention! Homepage:

60

61 Expected economic effects of immigration (by political self-placement placement) Average wages/salaries are brought down by immigrants Immigrants harm economic prospects of the poor more than the rich Immigrants help to fill jobs where there is shortage of workers

62 Average wages/salaries are generally brought down by immigrants (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree EU old EU new Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

63 Immigrants harm economic prospects of the poor more than the rich (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree EU old EU new Agree Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

64 Immigrants help to fill jobs where there are shortage of workers (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree EU old Agree EU new Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

65 What to do with criminal or unemployed immigrants? If immigrants commit serious crime they should be made to leave If immigrants commit any crime they should be made to leave If immigrants are long term unemployed they should be made to leave

66 If immigrants commit serious crime they should be made to leave (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree EU old Agree EU new Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

67 If immigrants commit any crime they should be made to leave (by political self placement and EUold/new new) EU old Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree EU new Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

68 If immigrants are long term unemployed they should be made to leave (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly EU old Disagree EU new Neither agree nor disagree Agree Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

69 In favour of a multi-cultural society? (by political self-placement on a left-right scale) Better for a country if a variety of different religions Better for a country if almost everyone share customs and traditions Immigrants should be given same rights as everyone else Better for a country if almost everyone speak one common language

70 Better for a country if a variety of different religions (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree Agree EU old EU new Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

71 Better for a country if almost everyone share customs and traditions ions(by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree EU new Neither agree nor disagree EU old Agree Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

72 Immigrants should be given same rights as everyone else (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree EU old Neither agree nor disagree EU new Agree Agree strongly Left Right Left Right

73 Better for a country if almost everyone speaks one common language ge (by political self placement and EUold/new new) Disagree strongly Disagree Neither agree nor disagree EU old Agree EU new Agree strongly Left Right Left Right