,
12 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
This is becoming a nice discussion of migration and welfare, one of my favourite topics. A couple of replies
1. I'm sympathetic to the arg that rising ethnic diversity could cause issues for welfare states, but I'm not convinced by the Alesina evidence which looks only at aggregate relationships and is driven in part by v diverse poorer nations w/small welfare states
2. There's much less evidence that rising diversity has produced an aggregate decline in overall support for welfare in wealthy countries where strong welfare states were established pre-mass migration
3. That said, there is growing evidence that many white majority voters are less willing to support welfare policies if they perceive this as benefitting migrant origin minorities
4. So I agree that rising diversity creates a mechanism which can be used to undermine support for welfare. But two key things about this: the lever doesn't work on everyone and is subject to the same legitimacy issues I've previously discussed
5. It is ethnocentric whites who can be activated against welfare by racialising it. That's the group in LT decline. Thus, the power of this mechanism is itself in LT decline because the group it influences is shrinking
6. Conversely, the section of the electorate that is itself migrant origin, and the section of the white electorate with strong anti-racism norms who are offended by such strategies, is rising.
7. In addition, the assumption that migration makes societies more fragmented relies on the belief that ingroups and outgroups within societies are exogenously fixed. They aren't.
8. Many US white ethnic groups were seen as threatening outgroups when they first arrived but are now seen as part of the ingroup. Similarly, in the UK share of white pop that links race and national identity has collapsed.
9. So I don't disagree that diversity poses problems for welfare state politics - it does, a lot! - but I think the case David makes goes a long way beyond what the evidence supports, story is a lot more complicated
10. Also, I'd note that David doesn't engage the importance of parties as agents influencing public perceptions and treats a lot of elements in public as fixed which really aren't. Eg Parties change what voters see as legitimate. And ingroup/outgroup conflicts change over time
11. To me that's a central part of this debate - it is not just a matter of parties reacting to a fixed environment. Its a matter of how parties' choices shape the tradeoffs within that environment. Parties are actors in the public opinion environment, not just passive observers.
