The limits of diversity in European unity: European identification and preference for internal migration

LSEE Lecture “Democratization, European integration, and Identity”London, November 20, 2017

Dr. Aleksandra Sojkaasojka@clio.uc3m.esJuan de la Cierva Postdoctoral Fellow, Department of Social Sciences, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain

European identity and migration

• International migration challenges the self-definition of nationalcommunities

• Europe “United in diversity”– supranational level of identification, difference as its constitutive element

• But – need for demarcation of community to make it meaningful

• Free movement, Internal vs. External migrants

Current context: Refugee and migrant crisis and Brexit – politicizationof migration in Europe

Source: Eurobarometer, Nov.2016, First Results

Data: EB 82.3, 83.3, 84.3, 85.2.

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Nov.2014

May2015

Nov.2015

May2016

Nov.2016

Favorable view of internal migrants

Favorable view of external migrants

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Nov.2014

May2016

Nov.2015

May2016

Nov.2016

Same view ofinternal & external migrants

More favorable ofinternal migrants

Attitudes towards migration in Europe

Preference for internal migration in the EU?

• Preference for internal migration– a more favorable attitude to EU migrants than non-EU migrants, independent of overall migrationattitude

• Previous studies – a majority of EU citizens does not distinguishbetween the two types of migrants (McLaren 2001), hence, no European collective identity

Data: EB 82.3, 83.3, 84.3, 85.2.

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Nov.2014

May2015

Nov.2015

May2016

Nov.2016

Favorable view of internal migrants

Favorable view of external migrants

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

Nov.2014

May2016

Nov.2015

May2016

Nov.2016

Same view ofinternal & external migrants

More favorable ofinternal migrants

Attitudes towards migration in Europe

Research question

How is the growing preference for internal migration relatedto processes of EU integration in general, and more specifically, to the development of a European collectiveidentity?

Theoretical framework (I)

• Social identity theory (SIT) – establishing boundaries between the in-and the out-group central to the cognitive process of identification

• European identification as superordinate identity – contributes togreater tolerance towards diversity

Theoretical framework (II)

• European identification compatible with national identification

Configurations of European/nationalidentification:

Single

identification

Double

identification

National firstOnly national

(40%)

National & European

(53%)

European firstOnly European

(1%)

European & national

(5%)

How is the growing preference for internalmigration related to European identification?

H1. Identifying as national and European is associated with a significantly stronger preference for internal migrants, when compared to those who identify solely as nationals.

H2. Identifying as European and national or solely European is not associated with stronger preference for internal migrants, when compared to those who identify solely as nationals.

Data and methods

Data:

• Eurobarometer between November 2014 and May 2016

• Survey questions regarding migration and European identity in the 28 EU countries

Analysis:

• Descriptive analysis of changes in aggregate migration acceptance

• Explanatory analysis: multilevel modelling of preference for internalmigration

Results: Preference for internal migration& European identification

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2014

Nov.2015

Nov.2016

Favorable tointernal migrants

Favorable toexternal migrants

Only national

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2014

Nov.2015

Nov.2016

Favorable tointernal migrants

Favorable toexternal migrants

National & European

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2014

Nov.2015

Nov.2016

Favorable tointernal migrants

Favorable toexternal migrants

Only European

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2014

Nov.2015

Nov.2016

Favorable tointernal migrants

Favorable toexternal migrants

European & national

Data: EB 82.3, 83.3, 84.3, 85.2, 86.2.

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2016

Nov.2014

Nov.2016

Same view ofinternal & external migrants

More favorable tointernal migrants

Only national

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2014

Nov.2015

Nov.2016

Same view ofinternal & external migrants

More favorable tointernal migrants

National & European

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2014

Nov.2015

Nov.2016

Same view ofinternal & external migrants

More favorable tointernal migrants

Only European

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

Nov.2014

Nov.2015

Nov.2016

Same view ofinternal & external migrants

More favorable tointernal migrants

European & national

Data: EB 82.3, 83.3, 84.3, 85.2, 86.2.

Explanatory analysis

• Multilevel logistical regression models

• DV: preference for European over non-European migrants

• Controls: cues & cognitive mobilization, EU attitudes

• Contextual variables: presence of different types of migration, economic variables (EU-28) and controls for survey wave (5 waves)

Explaining preference for internal migration in the EU (I)

AgeSex (Woman)

Employment situation (Bad)

IdeologyEU political discussion

EU knowledgeEducation (Low)Education (High)

Negative EU imagePositive EU image

Free movementEU enlargement

National & EuropeanEuropean & national

Only European

Internal migration shareExternal migration share

Asylum claimsEurozone

GDPUnemployment

CEE

May 2015Nov. 2015May 2016Nov 2016

Individual level

Cues & cognitive mobilization

EU attitudes

Identity (Ref.: Only national)

Contextual

Survey

-.5 0 .5 1Data: EB 82.3, 83.3, 84.3, 85.2, 86.2.

Age

Sex (Woman)Employment situation (Bad)

Ideology

EU political discussion

EU knowledgeEducation (Low)

Education (High)

Negative EU image

Positive EU imageFree movement

EU enlargement

National & European

European & nationalOnly European

Attachment CountryAttachment EU

Attachment Europe

Individual level

Cues & cognitive mobilization

EU attitudes

Identities (Ref.: Only national)

Attachment

-.6 -.4 -.2 0 .2 .4

EU

Europe

Explaining preference for internal migration in the EU (II) – attachment to EU vs. Europe

Data: EB 82.3, 84.3, 86.2.

Explaining preference for internal migration in the EU (III) – Single-country models

Data: EB 85.2, 86.2.

National & European

-.5 0 .5 1 1.5

FRBENLDEITLUDKIRUKGRESPTFISEATCYCZESHULVLTMTPLSKSLBUROCR

Conclusions• Limitation: cross-sectional data, cannot account for change within individuals

• Caveat: who are the European/non-European migrants? But importance of general distinction

• National & European identification (but not European or European and national)associated with greater preference for internal migrants (H1 & H2 confirmed)

• Preference for internal migrants correlated with both civic (EU knowledge, support for free movement) and cultural (attachment to Europe, not the EU) factors

• Importance of national context – not a uniform relationship across EU-28

Thank you!

Aleksandra Sojka

asojka@clio.uc3m.es

Department of Social Sciences, Carlos III University of Madrid, Spain

@AleSojka

www.aleksandrasojka.eu