Selective Solidarity The politics of immigrants’ social rights in Western welfare states By Edward Anthony Koning A thesis submitted to the Graduate Program in Political Studies in conformity with the requirements for the Degree of Doctor of Philosophy Queen’s University Kingston, Ontario, Canada April, 2013 Copyright © Edward Anthony Koning, 2013 ABSTRACT Recent research has cast doubt on the suggestion that immigration weakens the societal foundation of a redistributive welfare state: there is little evidence of a negative relationship between immigration-induced diversity and public support for social programs. This research has largely overlooked, however, that unease about immigration is likely to have a more selective effect on solidarity. In some countries, the public has become less willing to share benefits with newcomers, and policy-makers have acted upon that sentiment, implementing limits and restrictions on immigrants’ welfare access. By combining quantitative data analysis of fourteen countries and a qualitative comparison of the Netherlands, Canada, and Sweden, this research explores when and how such expressions of selective solidarity are most likely to occur. The main findings are threefold. First, there is no evidence that actual patterns of immigrant welfare dependence are an important driver of selective solidarity or immigrant-excluding welfare reforms. Second, more important is how those patterns are politically translated. In the Netherlands, high levels of immigrant welfare dependence are commonly described as a sign that immigrants are lazy welfare cheats. In Canada and Sweden, the discourse is less accusatory and divisive, and attempts at welfare exclusion are consequently rarer. Country characteristics, in particular the political strength of anti-immigrant parties, the nature of national identity, and the structure of the welfare state, explain why the political translation differs between countries. Third, the primary constraint on immigrant-excluding welfare reforms tends not to be public opposition but legal prohibitions on differential treatment embedded in national legislation and international treaties. Sometimes politicians are forced to amend or withdraw from existing ii legislation before they can pass exclusionary reforms; in other cases the reforms are simply not possible. In sum, in some welfare states access to benefits has changed from an individual social right to a privilege for those lucky enough to be born in the country or to have lived long enough on its territory and acquired the necessary documentation. But this development is not unavoidable. Where forces of cohesion are stronger than forces of division, welfare states will likely address immigrant welfare dependence by more sanguine means than disentitlement. iii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This thesis has benefited tremendously from the advice, help, and support from a large number of individuals and institutions. As much as it might sound as an empty cliché, I sincerely mean that I could not have produced this work without them. First and foremost, I want to thank my supervisor, Keith Banting. It was my interest in his work that made me decide to leave my native Netherlands and pursue graduate studies in Canada. This was quite a leap of faith, but it turned out to have been a great decision. Keith has been a fantastic mentor and role-model. His guidance extended far beyond what any graduate student can reasonably expect: not only has his feedback on my thesis consistently been constructive and challenging, he has also gone out of his way to assist me in advancing my publication record and expanding my professional network. It has been a true pleasure and privilege working with him. Next, I would like to thank the members of my committee, Grant Amyot, Zsuzsa Csergö, Jane Jenson, and Will Kymlicka, for the many thought-provoking questions and constructive suggestions they shared during and after the dissertation defense. Zsuzsa has been a continuous source of advice and support during my time at Queen’s, and I am very thankful for all the time she has taken to help me. More generally, I have found the Department of Political Studies at Queen’s an environment conducive to good scholarship. Faculty members were very open and available for dissertation-related questions. In particular, I want to thank Elizabeth Goodyear- Grant and Oded Haklai for the stimulating conversations. Special thanks go to Scott Matthews. In addition to being generally approachable and helpful, he has made a big contribution to the quantitative analyses in this thesis by offering incisive comments on early drafts, suggesting alternative techniques, and assisting in improving the presentation of the results. I have learned much as well from the many academic and not so academic conversations with my fellow graduate students, in particular Alan Bloomfield, Andrea Collins, Jordan DeCoste, Aaron Ettinger, Megan Gaucher, Rémi Léger, Matthew Mitchell, Marcel Nelson, Steve Noakes, Sara Pavan, Dan Pfeffer, Charan Rainford, Iain Reeve, Lucia Salazar, Beesan Sarrouh, and Erin Tolley. Many more friends and peers have helped me with this project – by providing helpful feedback on presentations, assisting me in setting up interviews or accessing data, exchanging ideas related to my subject, and offering institutional support. I want to thank in particular Caroline Andrew, Anna Boucher, Cynthia Brassard-Boudreau, Jan Erk, Matthijs Groeneveld, Alison Harell, Christel Koop, Monique Kremer, Jeff Moon, Vincent Post, Tim Reeskens, Arthur Sweetman, Melanee Thomas, and Luc Turgeon. Many thanks are due to my interviewees as well. I am grateful to parliamentarians Sietse Fritsma, Eddy van Hijum, Fatma Koşer Kaya, Cora van Nieuwenhuizen, Hans Spekman, and Paul Ulenbelt (the Netherlands), Don Davies, Rick Dykstra, and Kevin Lamoureux (Canada), and Erik Almqvist, Mikael Cederbratt, Fredrick Federley, Emma Henriksson, Christina Höj Larsen, Ulf Nilsson, and Magdalena Streijffert (Sweden), who all generously reserved time in their busy schedules to answer my questions. The 22 anonymous civil servants who agreed to participate in this research have also been an enormous help, especially those who were so kind to read early drafts of the country chapters and to provide thoughtful and detailed feedback. During my field research in the Netherlands, the European Research Center On Migration and Ethnic Relations (ERCOMER) at the University of Utrecht kindly provided me with an office and access to all university services. Being part of a research institute with so many experts on my topic of study was a very enriching experience. In particular, I would like to thank Louk Hagendoorn, David Ingleby, and Marcel Lubbers for their welcoming approach and helpful comments on my research. In Sweden, I was hosted at the renowned Stockholm v University Linnaeus Center for Integration Studies. I want to thank Julia Boguslaw, Marieke Bos, Christer Gerdes, Bart Golsteyn, Markus Jäntti, Anders Stenberg, and Eskil Wadensjö for their constructive comments and for making my stay in Stockholm more enjoyable. This research has also benefited from the assistance of a number of institutions. I would like to thank the Canadian Labour Market and Skills Researcher Network, Queen’s University, and the Department of Political Studies at Queen’s for the generous financial assistance they have provided me. I am also grateful to the many statistical agencies that were willing to share their data. In particular, I would like to thank Henk van der Kolk for sharing the preliminary findings of the Dutch National Election Study of 2010 before they were publicly released and Iris Alfredsson for running calculations on the Swedish National Election Studies of 2010 on my behalf when the study was not yet publicly available. Finally, this research has benefited from the never-ending support of friends and family members. I want to thank my Dutch friends who have not forgotten me yet: Alex, Andries, Avinash, Bas, Edwin, Hans, Jan, Jimmy, Johan, and Mathijs, as well as Annerieke, Anouk, Marten, Natalia, Robbert, Rosalien, and Sebastiaan. I am extremely grateful to my family: Elly, Henk, Naomi, Hugo, Joëlle, and Vesper. Even though they sometimes wish I had never moved to Canada, they have been a great source of support and encouragement. Luckily for me, I have also been ‘adopted’ by a Canadian family. Thanks Véronique and Richard, Yvan and Josée, and Nicolas for making me feel at home. My very last thanks are, of course, for Caroline. From the very beginning until today, she has enthusiastically encouraged and supported this research, which is no small feat considering she has had to endure my numerous long monologues and academic rants at the end of a writing day, the many ups and downs that this project and its author have gone through, and my frequent research-related absences, both physical and mental. Thank you for everything. vi TABLE OF CONTENTS Abstract ii Acknowledgements iv Table of Contents vii List of Tables ix List of Figures xi List of Abbreviations xiii Chapter One. Introduction 1 Chapter Two. Theorizing the Politics of Immigrants’ Social Rights 6 2.1 Defining the welfare state and immigration 7 2.2 The progressive’s dilemma: immigration versus the welfare state? 11 2.3 When solidarity becomes selective: welfare chauvinism and exclusionary reforms 18 2.4 The origins of selective solidarity 26 2.4.1 ECONOMIC REASONS FOR CUTBACKS? 26 2.4.2 THE IMPORTANCE OF POLITICAL TRANSLATION 29 2.4.3 SHAPING TRANSLATION: THE ROLE