Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Political parties, socioeconomic
groups and attitudes on immigrants
Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014
Olli Ka...
Starting points of the study
• In Europe there are some 50 million foreign-born residents
• Economic problems, unemploymen...
Snakes in the paradise?
• Immigrants and immigration are rising tensions also in the
Nordic hemisphere (Ervasti & Hjerm 20...
Study
• Our aim is to analyze tensions in immigration
attitudes between white- and blue-collar voters for
the left.
• Data...
EGP in Nordic*
N
I Higher-grade professionals 7,928
II Lower-grade professionals 11,545
III Routine non-manuals 10,370
IV ...
Nordic
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
ESS round
Denmark Finland
Norway Sweden
Immigrants good or bad for...
Attitudes on immigration at socioeconomic
groups in Nordic3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
ESS round
I Hig...
Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes
(immigration good or bad for your country)
02468
10
A B C F O V Ø
*excludes...
Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes
(immigration good or bad for your country)
02468
10
Attitudesonimmigrationi...
Finland
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Coa. Swe Cent Finn. KD. Gre. SDP Left.
Finland
I High...
Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes
and EGP
23456
1 2 3 4 5 6
EGP (6 scale)
Kok. RKP
Kesk. PS.
23456
1 2 3 4 5 ...
The contrast between EGP classes
(Kok. (National Coalition Party as a reference line)
Kok RKP Kesk. PS KD Vihr. SDP Vas.
I Higher-grade professionals -0.733*** -1.102*** -0.439** -0.351 -0.674 -0.357 -0.401**...
Political support by socioeconomic groups
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. KD Vihr. SDP Vas.
Professionals
Routin...
Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes
and EGP
23456
1 2 3 4
EGP (4 scale)
Kok. RKP
Kesk. PS.
23456
1 2 3 4
EGP (4...
SDP & Left Alliance
Sweden
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Cent. Lib. KD Green Mod. SDP Left Sdem
Sweden
I...
Sweden
Sweden (reference line center party)
Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska Arbetarparty)
& Left Party (Vänsterpartiet)
Denmark
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
SDP Soc.lib Con. SOS. Peo. Lib Red-Gre
Denmark
I High...
Denmark
Denmark
Norway
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
SOS Lab. Lib. KD Cen. Con. Prog.
Norway
I Higher-grade...
Norway
Norway
Problem for the left?
• Clearly voters are separated among immigrant attitudes
• Polarization strongest on the Left Allian...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

0

Share

Download to read offline

Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants. Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014

Download to read offline

Kangas & Kolttola: Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants. Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014. Presentation at TITA Annual Research Meeting, Turku 15.-16.9.2016.

  • Be the first to like this

Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants. Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014

  1. 1. Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014 Olli Kangas & Ilari Kolttola Kela
  2. 2. Starting points of the study • In Europe there are some 50 million foreign-born residents • Economic problems, unemployment and austerity contribute to harshening attitudes about immigration • In many European countries support for radical right-wing / populist parties is rising (Norris 2005; Mudde 2007; Hainsworth 2008) • The Nordic welfare states are prized for their universal social policies integrating all residents under the very same welfare programs
  3. 3. Snakes in the paradise? • Immigrants and immigration are rising tensions also in the Nordic hemisphere (Ervasti & Hjerm 2012). • Is the working-class suffering from ‘a moral panic’ (Svallfors 2006) • the immigrants are seen competitors of working-class jobs and, hence, they are regarded as threat -> negative attitudes • At the political and rhetorical level left-wing parties, however, maintain to have pro-immigration attitudes. • Question 1: is there a discrepancy between the pro- immigration party elites and more red-necked and harsher attitudes among the (male) working-class voters for the left. • Question 2. Is there a gap in opinions between the white- and blue-collar voters for different political parties, for the left-wing parties, in particular.
  4. 4. Study • Our aim is to analyze tensions in immigration attitudes between white- and blue-collar voters for the left. • Data used are derived from pooled European Social Survey (ESS) waves 2002-2014. • The data allow us to statistically analyze how big the differences in opinions on immigration and immigrants are between various socio-economic groups voting for the left- wing parties in Finland and in the other Nordic countries
  5. 5. EGP in Nordic* N I Higher-grade professionals 7,928 II Lower-grade professionals 11,545 III Routine non-manuals 10,370 IV Self-empl. and farmers 3,883 V Skilled workers and manual supervisors 5,359 VI Unskilled workers 7,933 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers % Nordic Denmark Finland Norway Sweden
  6. 6. Nordic 3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 ESS round Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Immigrants good or bad for your country (0 good - 10 bad) 5678 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 ESS round Denmark Finland Norway Sweden Attitudes on allowing immigrants (3 allow many- 12 allow few) For Immigrants good or bad variable three variables were combined: Immigration bad or good for country's economy, Country's cultural life undermined or enriched by immigrants, Immigrants make country worse or better place to live. For anti-immigrant attitude variable three variables were combined : Allow many/few immigrants of same race/ethnic group as majority, Allow many/few immigrants of different race/ethnic group from majority, Allow many/few immigrants from poorer countries outside Europe No major changes during 2002-2014
  7. 7. Attitudes on immigration at socioeconomic groups in Nordic3 3.5 4 4.5 5 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 ESS round I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers Immigrants good or bad for your country 5.5 6 6.5 7 7.5 8 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 ESS round I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers Attitudes on allowing immigrants . There is a clear difference among white and blue-collar workers and it has remained stable.
  8. 8. Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes (immigration good or bad for your country) 02468 10 A B C F O V Ø *excludes outside values Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014 0= country mean (4.40 ) Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Denmark 2002-2014 I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers Parties: A Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterne) B Social Liberal Party (Radiakale Venstre) C Conservative People’s Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti) F Socialist people's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti) O People's Party (Danks Folkeparti) V Liberal Party (Venstre) Ø Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten) Parties: Kok. (National Coalition Party) RKP (Swedish People's Party) Kesk. (Centre Party) PS (Finns Party) KD (Christian Democrats) Vihr. (Green League) SDP (Social Democratic Party) Vas. (Left Alliance) 02468 10 Attitudesonimmigrationinsocioeconomicgroups Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. KD Vihr. SDP Vas. *excludes outside values Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014 0= country mean ( 4.04) Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Finland 2002-2014 I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
  9. 9. Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes (immigration good or bad for your country) 02468 10 Attitudesonimmigrationinsocioeconomicgroups C L KD MP M S V SD *excludes outside values Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014 0= country mean ( 3.70) Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Sweden 2002-2014 I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled Workers Parties: C Center Party (Centerpartiet) L Liberals ( Liberalerna) KD Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna) MP Green Party (Miljöpartiet de Gröna) M Moderate Party (Moderata samlingspartiet) S Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska Arbetarparty) V Left Party (Vänsterpartiet) SD Sweden Democrats ( Sverigedemokraterna) Parties: SV Socialist Left Party (Sosialistisk Venterparti) AP Labour Party (Arbeiderpartiet) V Liberal Party (Venstre) KRF Christian Democratic Party (Kristelig Folkeparti) SP Center Party (Senterpartiet) H Conservative Party (Høyre) FRP Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet) 02468 10 SV AP V KRF SP H FRP *excludes outside values Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014 0= country mean ( 4.45) Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Norway 2002-2014 I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
  10. 10. Finland 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% Coa. Swe Cent Finn. KD. Gre. SDP Left. Finland I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers Mean Sd N Finland 4,04 1,71 13904 Coa. 3,68 1,54 2157 Swe 3,56 1,63 433 Cent 4,22 1,65 1895 Finn. 5,01 1,8 529 KD. 3,94 1,51 291 Gre. 2,88 1,4 888 SDP 4,04 1,62 2052 Left. 3,83 1,79 562
  11. 11. Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes and EGP 23456 1 2 3 4 5 6 EGP (6 scale) Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. 23456 1 2 3 4 5 6 EGP (6 scale) KD Vihr. SDP Vas. Scale 0-10 ( 10 = Immigrants bad for country) Immigrant attitudes Estimated marginal means from robust regression: with control variables (age, feeling on households income, unemployment, education)
  12. 12. The contrast between EGP classes (Kok. (National Coalition Party as a reference line)
  13. 13. Kok RKP Kesk. PS KD Vihr. SDP Vas. I Higher-grade professionals -0.733*** -1.102*** -0.439** -0.351 -0.674 -0.357 -0.401** -0.986*** (0.147) (0.313) (0.154) (0.296) (0.355) (0.198) (0.134) (0.284) II Lower-grade professionals -0.623*** -1.014*** -0.388** -0.152 -0.430 -0.459* -0.322** -1.050*** (0.149) (0.304) (0.138) (0.297) (0.302) (0.182) (0.113) (0.222) III Routine non-manuals -0.481** -0.774* -0.036 -0.585* -0.273 -0.008 -0.222* -0.242 (0.155) (0.317) (0.134) (0.275) (0.302) (0.181) (0.112) (0.221) IV Self-empl. and farmers -0.333* -0.452 0.053 -0.049 -0.084 -0.086 -0.093 -0.278 (0.157) (0.309) (0.117) (0.281) (0.392) (0.260) (0.189) (0.375) V Skilled workers and manual supervisors 0.044 -0.648 0.159 -0.245 0.181 0.153 0.010 0.067 (0.194) (0.376) (0.148) (0.240) (0.435) (0.262) (0.111) (0.214) VI Unskilled Workers 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) age 0.006** -0.004 0.001 -0.005 0.009 0.004 0.001 0.012* (0.002) (0.005) (0.003) (0.006) (0.006) (0.004) (0.003) (0.005) No economic problems (Feeling about household's income nowadays) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) Economic problems 0.349* 0.465* 0.288* 0.571** 0.089 0.109 0.183 0.175 (0.142) (0.227) (0.116) (0.213) (0.288) (0.139) (0.111) (0.197) Less than lower secondary education (ref.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) Lower secondary education completed -0.352* -0.469 -0.316* -0.050 -0.658 0.011 -0.410** -0.016 (0.174) (0.349) (0.140) (0.327) (0.444) (0.400) (0.126) (0.277) Upper secondary education completed -0.228 -0.612* -0.416*** -0.149 -0.707* -0.367 -0.461*** -0.167 (0.153) (0.305) (0.113) (0.271) (0.319) (0.366) (0.102) (0.209) Post-secondary non-tertiary education -0.404 -1.038* -0.351 -0.196 -1.178 -0.503 -0.598** 0.058 (0.221) (0.517) (0.265) (0.400) (0.675) (0.414) (0.230) (0.461) Tertiary education completed -0.447** -0.931** -0.721*** -0.372 -0.713* -0.599 -0.956*** -0.345 (0.154) (0.311) (0.135) (0.314) (0.337) (0.369) (0.124) (0.255) Non-Unemployed 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) Unemployed 0.084 1.808*** 0.182 -0.195 0.476 -0.201 0.072 -0.093 (0.191) (0.497) (0.187) (0.336) (0.417) (0.257) (0.165) (0.266) Men (ref.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) Women 0.029 0.027 -0.102 0.090 -0.227 0.069 0.077 -0.122 (0.071) (0.173) (0.081) (0.196) (0.203) (0.104) (0.079) (0.157) _cons 4.124*** 5.068*** 4.562*** 5.428*** 4.430*** 3.316*** 4.500*** 3.605*** (0.217) (0.467) (0.209) (0.442) (0.515) (0.425) (0.198) (0.393) R-squared 0.049 0.127 0.070 0.015 0.071 0.047 0.071 0.121 N 2099 422 1854 521 289 873 2029 558 standard error (in parentheses) *p<0,005 **p<0.01 *p<0.05
  14. 14. Political support by socioeconomic groups 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. KD Vihr. SDP Vas. Professionals Routine non-manuals Self-empl. and farmers Workers
  15. 15. Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes and EGP 23456 1 2 3 4 EGP (4 scale) Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. 23456 1 2 3 4 EGP (4 scale) KD Vihr. SDP Vas. Scale 0-10 ( 10 = Immigrants bad for country) Immigrant attitudes Estimated marginal means from robust regression: with control variables (age, feeling on households income, unemployment, education)
  16. 16. SDP & Left Alliance
  17. 17. Sweden 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% 45.00% Cent. Lib. KD Green Mod. SDP Left Sdem Sweden I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers Mean Sd N Sweden 3,7 1,91 12030 Cent. 3,62 1,81 592 Lib. 3,26 1,68 936 KD 3,62 1,62 506 Green 2,6 1,53 683 Mod. 3,71 1,8 2539 SDP 3,77 1,83 3216 Left 2,82 1,88 626 Sdem 6,4 1,93 173
  18. 18. Sweden
  19. 19. Sweden (reference line center party)
  20. 20. Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska Arbetarparty) & Left Party (Vänsterpartiet)
  21. 21. Denmark 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% SDP Soc.lib Con. SOS. Peo. Lib Red-Gre Denmark I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers Mean Sd N Denmark 4,4 2,03 10210 SDP 4,24 1,93 2203 Soc.lib 3,06 1,59 684 Con. 4,33 1,89 623 SOS. 3,5 1,87 914 Peo. 6,31 1,91 766 Lib 4,64 1,86 2529 Red-Gre 3,04 1,88 277
  22. 22. Denmark
  23. 23. Denmark
  24. 24. Norway 0.00% 5.00% 10.00% 15.00% 20.00% 25.00% 30.00% 35.00% 40.00% SOS Lab. Lib. KD Cen. Con. Prog. Norway I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers Mean Sd N Norway 4,45 1,8 11451 SOS 3,46 1,52 805 Lab. 4,17 1,69 2358 Lib. 3,46 1,53 330 KD 4,69 1,57 610 Cen. 4,56 1,67 459 Con. 4,27 1,61 1606 Prog. 5,78 1,72 1149
  25. 25. Norway
  26. 26. Norway
  27. 27. Problem for the left? • Clearly voters are separated among immigrant attitudes • Polarization strongest on the Left Alliance. • SDP also in troubles: many working class voters. • Central party: battle between cities and countryside • Left Alliance voters are changing (Grönlund & Wass 2015). Where have all the workers gone? • Cross-cutting party preferences? (Finseraas 2012) How important issue immigrant policies are to voters/ political parties?

Kangas & Kolttola: Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants. Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014. Presentation at TITA Annual Research Meeting, Turku 15.-16.9.2016.

Views

Total views

287

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

2

Actions

Downloads

3

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×