Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants. Evidence from European Social...

Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants

Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014

Olli Kangas & Ilari KolttolaKela

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

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.

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

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

5,359VI Unskilled workers 7,933

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

0 5 10 15 20 25 30

Sweden

Norway

Finland

Denmark

Nordic

%

Nordic3

3.5

44.

55

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014ESS round

Denmark FinlandNorway Sweden

Immigrants good or bad for your country(0 good - 10 bad)

56

78

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014ESS round

Denmark FinlandNorway 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

Attitudes on immigration at socioeconomic groups in Nordic

33.

54

4.5

5

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014ESS 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

66.

57

7.5

8

2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014ESS 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.

Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes (immigration good or bad for your country)

02

46

810

Attit

udes

on

imm

igra

tion

in s

ocio

econ

omic

gro

ups

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)

02

46

810

Atti

tude

s on

imm

igra

tion

in s

ocio

econ

omic

gro

ups

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

Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes (immigration good or bad for your country)

02

46

810

Attit

udes

on

imm

igra

tion

in s

ocio

econ

omic

gro

ups

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)

02

46

810

Attit

udes

on

imm

igra

tion

in s

ocio

econ

omic

gro

ups

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

Finland

Coa. Swe Cent Finn. KD. Gre. SDP Left.0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Finland

I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manualsIV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers

Mean Sd NFinland 4,04 1,71 13904Coa. 3,68 1,54 2157Swe 3,56 1,63 433Cent 4,22 1,65 1895Finn. 5,01 1,8 529KD. 3,94 1,51 291Gre. 2,88 1,4 888SDP 4,04 1,62 2052Left. 3,83 1,79 562

Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes and EGP

23

45

6E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l mea

ns

1 2 3 4 5 6EGP (6 scale)

Kok. RKPKesk. PS.

23

45

6

1 2 3 4 5 6EGP (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)

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** -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

Political support by socioeconomic groups

Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. KD Vihr. SDP Vas.0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

ProfessionalsRoutine non-manualsSelf-empl. and farmersWorkers

Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes and EGP

23

45

6E

stim

ated

mar

gina

l mea

ns

1 2 3 4EGP (4 scale)

Kok. RKPKesk. PS.

23

45

6

1 2 3 4EGP (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)

SDP & Left Alliance

Sweden

Cent. Lib. KD Green Mod. SDP Left Sdem0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

45.00%

Sweden

I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manualsIV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers

Mean Sd NSweden 3,7 1,91 12030Cent. 3,62 1,81 592Lib. 3,26 1,68 936KD 3,62 1,62 506Green 2,6 1,53 683Mod. 3,71 1,8 2539SDP 3,77 1,83 3216Left 2,82 1,88 626Sdem 6,4 1,93 173

Sweden

Sweden (reference line center party)

Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska Arbetarparty) & Left Party (Vänsterpartiet)

Denmark

SDP Soc.lib Con. SOS. Peo. Lib Red-Gre0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Denmark

I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manualsIV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers

Mean Sd NDenmark 4,4 2,03 10210SDP 4,24 1,93 2203Soc.lib 3,06 1,59 684Con. 4,33 1,89 623SOS. 3,5 1,87 914Peo. 6,31 1,91 766Lib 4,64 1,86 2529Red-Gre 3,04 1,88 277

Denmark

Denmark

Norway

SOS Lab. Lib. KD Cen. Con. Prog.0.00%

5.00%

10.00%

15.00%

20.00%

25.00%

30.00%

35.00%

40.00%

Norway

I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manualsIV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers

Mean Sd NNorway 4,45 1,8 11451SOS 3,46 1,52 805Lab. 4,17 1,69 2358Lib. 3,46 1,53 330KD 4,69 1,57 610Cen. 4,56 1,67 459Con. 4,27 1,61 1606Prog. 5,78 1,72 1149

Norway

Norway

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?