Globalization, socio-economic status and welfare chauvinism: European perspectives on attitudes toward the exclusion of immigrants
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This article addresses the question of whether globalization impacts individual preferences to exclude immigrants from national welfare systems (‘welfare chauvinism’). Intergroup contact theory and arguments from the ‘new cosmopolitanism’ debate suggest that cross-border social contacts (‘social globalization’) foster a willingness to include and accept newcomers. However, group conflict theory suggests that trade openness (‘economic globalization’) can unleash feelings of insecurity and trigger welfare chauvinism. While these approaches point in different directions, we argue that the impact of globalization on welfare chauvinism differs across socio-economic status groups. Using cross-national data from the European Social Survey 2008/2009, we find scarce support for the hypothesis that social globalization reduces welfare chauvinism in general. However, there is evidence that it diminishes exclusionary attitudes among those with relatively high socio-economic statuses. Moreover, we find no general evidence for an impact of economic globalization on chauvinism, but a positive interaction of intensified engagement with global market forces and higher socio-economic status.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.010 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.005 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".