Why do some governments try to limit immigrants’ access to social benefits and entitlements while others do not? Through an in-depth study of Sweden, Canada, and the Netherlands, Immigration and the Politics of Welfare Exclusion maps the politics of immigrants’ social rights in Western democracies. To achieve this goal, Edward A. Koning analyzes policy documents, public opinion surveys, data on welfare use, parliamentary debates, and interviews with politicians and key players in the three countries. Koning’s findings are three-fold. First, the politics of immigrant welfare exclusion have little to do with economic factors and are more about general opposition to immigration and multiculturalism. Second, proposals for exclusion are particularly likely to arise in a political climate that incentivizes politicians to appear "tough" on immigration. Finally, the success of anti-immigrant politicians in bringing about exclusionary reforms depends on the response of the political mainstream, and the extent to which immigrants’ rights are protected in national and international legal frameworks. A timely investigation into an increasingly pressing subject, Immigration and the Politics of Welfare Exclusion will be essential reading for scholars and students of political science, comparative politics, and immigration studies.

"Why do some governments try to limit immigrants' access to social benefits and entitlements while others do not? Through an in-depth study of Sweden, Canada, and the Netherlands, Immigration and the Politics of Welfare Exclusion maps the politics of immigrants' social rights in Western democracies. To achieve this goal, Edward A. Koning analyzes policy documents, public opinion surveys, data on welfare use, parliamentary debates, and interviews with politicians and key players in the three countries. Koning's findings are three-fold. First, the politics of immigrant welfare exclusion have little to do with economic factors and are more about general opposition to immigration and multiculturalism. Second, proposals for exclusion are particularly likely to arise in a political climate that incentivizes politicians to appear "tough" on immigration. Finally, the success of anti-immigrant politicians in bringing about exclusionary reforms depends on the response of the political mainstream, and the extent to which immigrants' rights are protected in national and international legal frameworks. A timely investigation into an increasingly pressing subject, Immigration and the Politics of Welfare Exclusion will be essential reading for scholars and students of political science, comparative politics, and immigration studies."--

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 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.

This book brings together two traditions of thinking about social ties: sociological theory on sol idarity and anthropological theory on gift exchange. The purpose of the book is to explore how both theoretical traditions may complete and enrich each other, and how they may illuminate transformations in solidarity. The main argument, supported by empirical illustrations, is that a theory of solidarity should incorporate some of the core insights from anthropological gift theory. The book presents a theoretical model covering both positive and negative--selective and excluding--aspects and consequences of solidarity.

Social scientists have long recognized that solidarity is essential for such phenomena as social order, class, and ethnic consciousness, and the provision of collective goods. In presenting a new general theory of group solidarity, Michael Hechter here contends that it is indeed possible to build a theory of solidarity based on the action of rational individuals and in doing so he goes beyond the timeworn disciplinary boundaries separating the various social sciences.