Lecture 5: Politicization and Welfare Chauvinism PDF

The Politicization of Globalization The case of Welfare Chauvinism Lecture 6 – Globalization & Social Risks  Politicization of Globalization Politicization What is politicization? Examples Cleavages structure conflict From Lipset & Rokkan...... to a new ‘globalizatio...

The Politicization of Globalization The case of Welfare Chauvinism Lecture 6 – Globalization & Social Risks  Politicization of Globalization Politicization What is politicization? Examples Cleavages structure conflict From Lipset & Rokkan...... to a new ‘globalization cleavage?’ Case: Welfare Chauvinism What is it? Who ‘deserves’ welfare state benefits? CARIN Variations in Welfare chauvinism: Van der Waal et al (2013) Politicization What is politicization? “the act of transporting an issue into the sphere of politics—making previously unpolitical matters political” (Zürn, 2019) “politicization is the accumulation of salience through contestation (Dür, Hamilton, and De Bièvre, 2023) Politicization: citizen level Politicization: citizen level Politicization: citizen level Politicization: International students Politicization: state level – September 2023 Politicization: state level – June 2024 Politicization: key events Globalization and cleavage theory  Cleavages – Lipset & Rokkan (1967) a deep and lasting division between groups based on some kind of conflict Socio-economic left-right cleavage Has 3 core elements Structural: large social groups with conflicting interests position of class, religion, education, region,... Cultural: element of collective identity Consciousness of group identities and ideological values… and willing to act on that basis Organizational: Organizational expression in form of collective action by movements/political parties; mobilization of these identities. Unions defending workers’ interests; Labour Party Parties institutionalize the conflict and articulate it (continuously) politically.  Cleavages – Lipset & Rokkan (1967) Focus on large scale historical processes Critical junctures National revolution (“nationalization”) Centre-periphery cleavage Religious cleavage Industrial revolution (“industrialization”) Urban-rural cleavage Labour-capital cleavage Global revolution (“Globalization”) ???  Cleavages – Two-dimensional political space Cultural R Socio-economic axis Socio-cultural axis Economic L Economic R Cultural L  Cleavages – Globalization as ‘critical juncture’ Economic and cultural globalization foster a new ‘integration-demarcation’ cleavage Socio-economic division between those who (do not) benefit from globalization Winners - employees in competitive sectors Losers - employees in traditionally protected sectors Cultural division of integration versus demarcation do we want an ‘open society, integrating further into global culture and economy do we want a ‘closed society’, protecting own identity, welfare, and economy  Cleavages – Globalization as ‘critical juncture’ new ‘integration-demarcation’ cleavage is embedded in two-dimensional political space Socio economic dimension: pro state vs pro market position (Left right) Degree of social redistribution and government intervention National welfare state: solidarity issues–inclusion and exclusion Which groups should get what and why? Welfare conditionality and welfare chauvinism Cultural dimension: universalism vs particularism Libertarianism vs authoritarianism (individual autonomy vs traditional order) Cosmopolitanism vs communitarianism/anti immigration (open vs closed society) Welfare Chauvinism  Welfare chauvinism – what is it? “the idea that ‘welfare should be restricted to ‘our own’” (Anderson &Björklund, 1990:212) “the welfare state is a system of social protection for those who belong to the ethnically defined community” (Kitschelt & McGann, 1995, 22) “welfare nationalism”, “welfare state restrictiveness”, exclusive/selective solidarity non-natives are excluded from, or only have limited access to, welfare provisions Conceptual & Measurement discussion (Careja & Harris, 2022) Support for exclusion of migrants vs Support for welfare state AND support for exclusion of migrants Plethora of operationalizations  Welfare chauvinism – populist RR parties Populist: mythical, homogeneous and unified common people + elite + ‘threat’ Winning formula evolution: Initially, 1990s: right on both axis: monocultural & small state Switch: left economic & right cultural: generous welfare but monocultural Examples Welfare chauvinism – example I Welfare chauvinism – example II  Welfare deservingness – who deserves it? Distributional justice: “who should get what and why?” (Van Oorschot, 2000) Deservingness criteria: CARIN Need Control Identity Reciprocity Attitude  Welfare deservingness – who deserves it? Distributional justice: “who should get what and why?” (Van Oorschot, 2000) Overall: elderly > sick & disabled> (able-bodied) unemployed> immigrants ‘the inevitable migration penalty’ Dependent on individual (egalitarian predispositions = need; more distrusting = reciprocity; more authoritarian = attitude)  Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state Three Worlds of Welfare Chauvinism? Can we distinguish three worlds of Welfare chauvinism? How can we explain this pattern? Institutional theory Political preferences & attitudes are shaped by institutions The structure of welfare regimes influences/frames how people perceive those in need Welfare regimes  welfare deservingness  welfare chauvinism Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state  Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state Welfare regimes Selectivity dimension: means tested vs universal Inequality dimension: reduction of market inequality Labor market trajectory dimension: opportunities for the low skilled Deservingness criteria Deviance/identity Control Need  Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state 1. Selectivity & Inequality  deviance/identity Selectivity = “not one of us”; “us-vs-them” because of on welfare vs not. Inequality= “not one of us”; “us-vs-them” because of different lifestyle 2. Labor market trajectory  need & control Liberal (high labour demand given low wages) and social democratic (employed in public sector) more job opportunities compared to conservative corporatist (in vs outsider), so low ‘need’ Social democratic and conservative corporatist have higher employment regulation compared to liberal regimes, so more leeway to find a job/less difficulties/more control in liberal Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state  Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state Data & operationalization ESS 2008; 10 countries, 5 socialdemocratic/3 conservative/2 liberal Country level variables (regime dimensions + controls) Individual level variables: Welfare chauvinism: “Thinking of people coming to live in [country] from other countries, when do you think they should obtain the same rights to social benefits and services as citizens already living here?” “Immediately on arrival”, (2) “After living in [country] for a year, whether or not they have worked”, (3) “Only after they have worked and paid taxes for at least a year”, (4) “Once they have become a [country] citizen”, (5) “They should never get the same rights”. Controls (age, education, gender, unemployment)  Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state Descriptive results Welfare Chauvinism 14 % of native population answering immigrants should 12 11,7 10 never get the same rights 9,3 8 6 4 3,6 2 0 liberal conservative corporatist social democratic Welfare regime  Welfare chauvinism, deservingness & the welfare state Explanatory results/conclusion Higher educated = less chauvinism Two instead of three ‘worlds’: only social-democratic less chauvinism (model2) No effect of country-level ethnic heterogeneity Countries with more selective welfare = more chauvinism H1 confirmed Countries with higher inequality = more chauvinism H2 confirmed Labour market trajectory = non significant H3 rejected  Conclusion Globalization is not an ‘inevitable progressing process’ Globalization is very much politicized and contested Through politicization globalization can in/decrease Globalization has reshaped the ‘frozen’ space of political competition Instability, unpredictability, new parties Winners and losers of globalization are pitted against each other On socio-economic & socio-cultural issues  polarization threatens solidarity Welfare state chauvinism is illustrative case of this broader dynamic & important ingredient in PRRP success.