Добавил:
ivanov666
Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз:
Предмет:
Файл:Управление миграционными процессами в трудовой сфере. Учебно-методическое пособие
.pdf
the latent conflict between the two groups. This social climate has resulted in
the politicization of immigration. The politicization of immigration as a
problem has been witnessed in the media, public opinion, election
campaigns, parliamentary debates and legislation. All of these factors are
currently conspiring to change trade union members’ attitudes. Some authors
(O’Rourke and Sinnott, 2006; Cards et al., 2005, among others) have found
that local workers in low-paid, insecure jobs have hostile attitudes and are
calling for policies to restrict the number of immigrants entering their
countries. Other studies (Saxton and Benson, 2003; Citrin et al., 2005), on
the other hand, conclude that material socio-economic differences are not
sufficient to explain people’s opinions and attitudes. Differences in political
and ideological leanings are more successful at explaining hostile attitudes
towards immigrants and the desire to control immigrant numbers.
O’Rourke and Sinnott wonder what institutional factors might lead to
anti-immigration attitudes among less-skilled workers. The authors conclude
that it is a country’s wealth, measured in terms of per capita GDP, inequality
(Gini coefficient) and level of pension provision, that determines attitudes
and explains differences in the degree of anti-immigrant sentiment in public
opinion, while nationality influences restrictive attitudes towards
immigration.
Methodology and approach
In order to assess the effect that the perception of socio-economic
uncertainty has upon trade union members’ attitudes towards immigration,
we used the European Social Survey (ESS). To analyse the impact of the
economic crisis, we used data from two years, one before the onset of the
economic crisis (2004) and one during the crisis (2008–09). We drew on
data for people from 16 EU countries comprising a total of 32 260 completed
questionnaires. The data relate to all people over the age of 15 living in
private households irrespective of their nationality, citizenship, mother
tongue or legal status. The quantitative analysis of the data was carried out in
three phases. First, a description of the data is provided using bivariate
relationships. Subsequently, a binomial logistic analysis is performed in
order to assess the impact of different variables on attitudes towards
immigration, based on four models that analyse a) members’ individual
attributes; b) their economic situation; c) their political views and d) a model
that compares trade union members with non-members.
111
We define ‘socio-economic uncertainty’ as doubt or insecurity
concerning the social and employment status of individuals, i.e. with regard
to their jobs and their general perceptions about their future income
prospects (Crouch, 2010). This uncertainty is based on objective or material
factors such as their contractual status in the labour market, type of
employment contract, unemployed or retired status and wage levels as well
as a variety of other variables. However, it also involves subjective
perceptions relating to risk and competition for limited numbers of jobs and
welfare resources. Two types of variables determine the manner and extent
to which these perceptions are translated into a particular attitude, be it for or
against immigration. The first relates to factors connected with welfare
policies and the social welfare regime in general. The second relates to the
individual’s ideological or political views.
As described above, the quantitative analysis undertaken in the next
section is based on four groups of independent variables: First, variables
describing trade union members’ attributes, such as gender, age and
education. Second, variables that describe members’ economic situation and
perceived degree of uncertainty, for example whether they have been
unemployed at any time in the past five years, whether they are currently
actively seeking work, whether they are retired, type of employment
contract, what sector they are currently working in, size of the business
where they work, their perception of their financial income. The third type of
variable describes trade union members’ ideological and political views.
These include where their ideological views fall on the left-right spectrum,
their political views regarding the redistribution of wealth and poverty
prevention, their opinion on the economic burden of social welfare and what
they think governments should be doing with regard to taxation and tackling
social inequalities. Finally, the fourth set of variables provides information
about the ‘country effect’, i.e. the overall context and institutional
framework where they live. These variables include unemployment and
immigration rates, the Gini coefficient, poverty risk, welfare spending and
the percentage of former wages covered by unemployment benefit.
The dependent variable describes whether people have a liberal or
restrictive attitude to ‘Allow many/some/few/none immigration from poor
countries outside Europe.’ These liberal (permissive, many and some) and
restrictive (few and none) categories have already been used in other studies
(Cards et al., 2005; Ceobanu and Escandell, 2010) because they have
112
implications with regard to immigration policy. This variable, which
side
originally had four categories, has been reduced to the two categories
mentioned above.
Individual situation and attitudes of trade union members
Restrictive attitudes towards immigration have increased notably since
2002, from 47 percent in 2002 to 53.6 percent in 2008. Trade union
members’ attitudes towards immigration differ depending on where they
come from themselves. Responses to the question ‘Would you be prepared
to allow immigrants to enter the country?’ vary depending on the country of
origin and race of the respondent. Both trade union members and nonmembers are more favourable towards immigrants of the same race and
ethnic group. Furthermore, they prefer immigrants of a different race to
immigrants from poor countries outside Europe. The latter is the group that
is most ‘socially removed’ from the local population and is therefore also the
group that is subject to the most hostile and restrictive attitudes on the part of
the local population. This finding endorses the increase in racism and
xenophobia described by Saxton and Benson (2003), Jefferys (2007) and
Erel (2007), who draw attention to the obstacles to the recognition of
immigrants’ social rights and to the rise in the number of citizens who
support repatriation of immigrants.
Table I
Attitudes towards granting of immigration permits, 2008
Poor countries out
Same race Different race
Europe
Union
members
Liberal 46.40% 44.60% 69.30%
Restrictive 53.60% 55.40% 30.70%
Non-
members
Members
Non-
members
Members
Non-
members
62.80% 51.10% 47.60%
37.20% 48.90% 52.40%
100% 100% 100,00%
Source: Table drawn up by the authors based on ESS (2008).
113
100% 100% 100%
The attitudes of trade union members with regard to the granting of
immigration permits are only marginally different to those of non-members.
Trade union members do have slightly more liberal and less hostile attitudes.
Nonetheless, the prevailing attitude towards immigration is generally hostile
and restrictive across all the countries in the study. The fact that trade union
members also have a restrictive attitude mirrors the seminal findings of
Castles and Kosack as well as the results of subsequent research (Saxton and
Benson, 2003).
As for the way that attitudes have changed over time, there was a slight
increase in restrictive attitudes towards immigrants from ‘poor countries
outside Europe’ between 2004 and 2009, a trend that is associated with the
economic crisis, unemployment and increased competition for welfare
resources.11
The extent to which the independent variables can be said to explain
how attitudes are shaped is established by using the three analytical models
featured in Table 2 (below): 1) individual attributes, 2) economic situation,
and 3) political views.
Members’ individual characteristics and attitudes
As shown by the coefficient of determination of model 1 in Table 2,
individual variables have little influence on attitudes. The individual
variables that can be said to influence attitudes to some extent are mainly
education and age. Thus, using primary school qualifications as a
benchmark, trade union members educated up to secondary level tend to
hold restrictive attitudes towards immigration, whereas members with
degree-level qualifications have less restrictive attitudes than this latter
group. This matches the findings of other studies which conclude that people
with degree-level qualifications generally have more liberal attitudes
towards immigration.
Attitudes can also be influenced by the respondent’s age. Taking the 16
to 24 age group as the benchmark, young people between the ages of 25 and
34 are 44 percent less likely to oppose immigration, while people over the
age of 54 are just 20 percent less likely. This also reflects the findings of
other studies (Saxton and Benson, 2003; Hainmueller and Hiscox, 2007)
which show that older people have more restrictive attitudes than young
people. On the other hand, there are no significant gender differences.
11
At the same time, there was a slight decrease in liberal attitudes: 48 percent in 2004 vs 46 percent in 2009. Restrictive attitudes increased
from 52 percent to 54 percent.
114
Economic situation
Individual variables become less important when they interact with the
other economic and political variables (see models 2 and 3 in Table 2). The
most influential economic variables are the sector where the respondent is
115
Dependent variable: liberal or restrictive attitudes of trade union members towards immigration from
Employed without
Hotels, restaurants, personal
poorer countries outside Europe. Binomial logistic regression. Liberal=0; Restrictive=1.
Table 2
Model 1. TU members'
individual attributes
Model 2. TU members'
economic situation
Model 3. TU members'
political views
Model 4. Comparison
non-members
B S.E. Exp(B) B S.E Exp(B) B S.E. Exp(B) B S.E. Exp(B)
Male -.019 ,029 ,981 -,136 ,067 ,873 -,127 ,075 ,881 -,115 ,069 ,891
Age 16-24
25-34 -,414*** ,102 ,661 -.279 ,287 ,756 -,401 ,360 ,670 -,540*** ,148 ,583
35-44 -,345*** ,053 ,709 -347** ,119 ,707 -,367** ,133 ,693 -,349** ,119 ,705
45-54 -,312*** ,042 ,732 -,243** ,094 ,784 -,220* ,106 ,803 -,274** ,118 ,761
Over 55 -,229*** ,036 ,796 -188* ,085 ,828 -,160 ,095 ,853 -,112 ,123 ,894
Education
Primary
Secondary 734*** .041 2,084 ,649*** ,095 1,914 ,595*** ,109 1,814 ,534*** ,096 1,706
University 525*** ,033 1,690 ,555*** ,078 1,743 ,597*** ,087 1.816 ,389*** ,086 1,475
Unemployed at any point in last 5 years
Actively seeking work
Retired
Permanent contract
,144 ,113 1,155 ,115 ,131 1,122 -,115 ,096 ,891
-.154 ,098 ,857 -,278** ,1 13 ,757 -,343* ,161 ,710
-,002 ,070 ,998 -,061 ,079 ,940 ,030 ,072 1,031
Temporary contract -037 ,133 ,963 -,131 ,155 ,878 -,263** ,103 ,769
-107 ,148 ,898 -,176 ,172 ,838 -,269** ,109 ,764
contract
Sectors: Agriculture
Industry ,652*** ,152 1,919 ,691*** ,175 1,997 ,202 ,166 1,224
Construction ,131 ,110 1,140 ,227 ,123 1,255 -,085 ,1 10 ,919
Retailing ,291* ,136 1,338 350^*
,151 1,418 ,145 ,130 1,156
,307** ,132 1,360 ,239 ,149 1,270 ,202* .116 1,224
116
Model 1. TU members'
Public administration,
Household income
Social services are a burden on the
Table
2 (con
tinued)
individual attributes
B S.E. Exp(B) B S.E Exp(B) B S.E. Exp(B) B S.E. Exp(B)
services
,198 ,135 1,219 ,133 ,153 1,143 -031 ,123 ,969
education
Health ,073 ,114 1,076 ,100 ,127 1,105 ,124 ,121 1,132
Others -,166 ,131 ,847 -,051 ,145 ,950 -,314* ,146 ,731
Company size: small
Medium-sized enterprises -,054 ,102 ,947 ,021 ,114 1,021 ,016 ,129 1,016
Large enterprises, over 500
employees
Household income comfortable
sufficient
Household income difficulties
Left-wing ideology
Centrist ideology -,647*** ,137 ,523 -,841*** ,127 ,431
Right-wing ideology -,347*** ,108 ,707 -,481*** ,093 ,618
Welfare benefits contribute to equity
Somewhere between the two -294 ,098 ,745 -,110 ,090 ,896
Welfare benefits do not contribute to equity
Social services prevent poverty
Somewhere between the two -,114 ,097 ,893 -,067 ,089 ,935
Social benefits do not prevent poverty ,102 ,103 1,107 -,036 ,095 ,964
economy
Somewhere between the two ,165* ,085 1,179 ,284*** ,077 1,329
-,012 ,117 ,988 ,073 ,131 1,076 -,204 ,151 ,815
-,594*** ,088 ,552 -,534*** ,101 ,586 -,483*** ,100 ,617
Model 2. TU members'
economic situation
-,189* ,083 ,828 -,254*** ,072 ,776
-,076 ,110 ,927 -,049 ,100 ,952
Model 3. TU members'
political views
Model 4. Comparison
non-members
117
Model 1. TU members'
Social services are not a burden on the
The government should reduce social
The government should not reduce social
es and
The government should not reduce social
Table
2.
(continued)
individual attributes
B S.E. Exp(B) B S.E Exp(B) B S.E. Exp(B) B S.E. Exp(B)
economy
inequalities
Somewhere between the two -010 ,113 ,990 ,290** ,105 1,336
inequalities.
The government should reduce tax
duties
Somewhere between the two ,017 ,110 1,017 ,327** ,101 1,387
inequalities
Constant -,125 ,034 ,883 -,034 ,232 ,966 ,498 ,308 1,645 ,896 ,288 2,451
N 22314 22314 22314 32160,000
Nagelkerke R
square ,037
-2 Log Likelihood 27627,863a 5994,544 4793,687 5569,999
*<pq=.050; **<pq=.010; ***<pq=001
Model 2. TU members'
economic situation
,080 ,088 1,083 ,160* ,083 1,174
-238 ,142 ,788 ,228 ,131 1,256
-,223 ,072 ,800
,059 ,082 1,061 ,126 ,083 1,134
0,70
Model 3. TU members'
political views
,103
Model 4. Comparison
non-members
,090
118
employed, the perception of their household income, whether they are
actively seeking work and whether they are retired.
The most restrictive attitudes towards the entry of immigrants are
found among trade union members working in industry, hotels and catering,
services and retailing, as can be seen from the weight of the coefficients in
Table 2, as well as in agriculture (61 percent) and construction (57 percent),
according to the bivariate analysis. These observations accord with the
competition hypothesis based on the fact that higher percentages of
immigrants are employed in the sectors in question. According to a study
with ‘discussion groups’ carried out by Gonza´lez (2008: 114–130), the
explanation is simple: trade union members in these sectors see immigrants
as competitors. This competition is perceived in the drop in wages, change in
working hours, failure to comply with health and safety standards, increase
in workload, increase in workplace accidents, loss of job quality and low
skills levels. Apart from this, the presence of immigrants influences the loss
of collective bargaining power at company level, given the weak position of
this category of workers, their fragile legal status, greater submissiveness to
employer demands, and lack of trade union culture, as well as the fact that
their existence represents an increase, in terms of volume, of the labour
supply.
Second, income levels also influence attitudes towards immigration.
Trade union members’ perceived uncertainty with regard to their future
income prospects has increased since the beginning of the economic crisis.
In 2004, 25 percent of members said that they had income difficulties, while
in 2009 the figure had risen to 30 percent. And those people with income
difficulties are more likely to hold restrictive attitudes towards immigration:
the lower someone’s income the more hostile they are towards immigrants.
Once again, this supports the hypothesis that one of the causes of hostility is
competition for jobs between local and migrant workers (Cards et al., 2005).
Third, trade union members who are unemployed but actively seeking
work also hold restrictive attitudes towards immigration compared with the
benchmark group of people who are in work. This group of unemployed
people is substantially more likely to have restrictive attitudes than people
who are in employment, once more demonstrating that competition for jobs
is a factor in shaping hostile attitudes towards immigration. It should be
noted that unemployed people also now feel more uncertain about their
income: in 2004, 58 percent perceived themselves as having income
difficulties, whereas by 2009 this figure had risen to 66 percent. Fourth,
- 120
-
retired people have more liberal attitudes than people who have not retired.
Finally, the employment contract type variable is not significant in the
regression analysis, despite being a key contributor to uncertainty. Similarly,
the size of the business that trade union members work for has little
influence on their attitudes.
In summary, the economic variables help to explain the competition for
jobs and hostile and restrictive attitudes towards immigration. This is not
solely due to any single variable but rather to an interaction between several
different ones. However, it is also true to say that different variables have
varying degrees of influence, with the most influential being the sector in
which an individual works. This demonstrates that attitudes are dependent on
the proportion of migrant workers in a given type of work and particular
segment of the labour market. Attitudes are also influenced by people’s
perception of their financial income, something that is related to whether
they feel a greater or lesser degree of uncertainty.
Political views
Model 3 in Table 2 analyses trade union members’ attitudes based on
their political views. There is no major increase in the coefficient of
determination compared with model 2, however it does allow us to analyse
the relative importance of the different variables. The three variables with
the greatest influence on attitudes are as follows: ideology, the role of the
state in tackling social inequalities and the role of welfare benefits in
achieving equity.
First of all, there was no significant difference in the position of trade
union members on the ideological spectrum (left to right) between 2004 and
2009 – ideological positions are known to vary very little over time. Trade
union members who rate themselves as left-wing on a scale from 0 to 10
(which we modified by reducing it to just three positions) have liberal
attitudes. Likewise, members who situate themselves in the centre of the
ideological spectrum also have more liberal attitudes than those who rate
themselves as right-wing. Conversely, people who consider themselves to be
on the right of the political spectrum are more likely to espouse restrictive
attitudes.
In general, a near majority of trade union members vote for left-wing
parties in marked contrast to non-members. Trade union members’ attitudes
towards immigration are clearly influenced by the left-wing parties that they
traditionally vote for. For example, the trade union members who manifest
Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]