Sociology
The Impact of Immigration on Native-Born Attitudes Toward Welfare States
Quick fact
Across OECD countries, a 1 percentage point increase in the foreign-born share of the population is associated with a 0.4 to 0.8 percentage point decline in native-born support for redistribution, even after controlling for economic conditions.
Why this is interesting
Have you ever wondered why some countries with high immigration still have generous welfare states while others cut benefits? The answer lies not just in economics, but in our psychology.
Read the full explanation
Understanding The Impact of Immigration on Native-Born Attitudes Toward Welfare States
Imagine you are part of a large family. The family pool of resources is shared based on need. Now imagine new relatives arrive who are different from you—they might speak another language or have different customs. Even if they contribute equally, you might start to worry that they are taking more than they give, or that your identity is being diluted. Similarly, natives' attitudes toward the welfare state change when immigration rises. This happens through three main channels: (1) economic self-interest—fear of paying more taxes to support newcomers; (2) cultural threat—feeling that the national identity is being eroded; and (3) social trust—the belief that others share your values and will not cheat the system. When immigration is high, these concerns can reduce support for redistributive policies. But it is not simply about the number of immigrants; it also depends on the type of welfare state, the speed of change, and the existing level of social solidarity.
A deeper explanation
The underlying mechanism is a combination of group threat theory and welfare state legitimacy. Natives compare their in-group with immigrants (out-group). Perceived competition for scarce resources—like jobs, housing, and welfare benefits—triggers economic threat. Perceived cultural distance triggers symbolic threats. Both reduce social trust, which is the crucial glue that makes people willing to pay taxes for others. In societies with universal welfare systems and strong institutions, the effect is weaker because the system is seen as fair and benefits everyone. In liberal welfare regimes with means-tested benefits, the effect is stronger because the system is more exposed to abuse. Additionally, the composition of immigrants matters: if they are seen as low-skilled and likely to rely on welfare, the fiscal burden narrative is stronger. Thus, attitudes toward welfare are not fixed; they respond to the perceived 'otherness' and economic vulnerability of immigrants, moderated by the institutional design of the welfare state.