User:Jschouten679321/Welfare chauvinism

= Welfare chauvinism = Welfare chauvinism or Welfare state nationalism is a term used for the political notion that welfare benefits should be restricted to certain groups, particularly to the natives of a country as opposed to immigrants. It is used as an argumentation strategy by right-wing populist parties, which describes a rhetorical connection between the problems of the welfare state and, in essence, immigration, but also other social groups such as welfare recipients and the unemployed. The focus is placed on categorizing state residents in two extremes: the "nourishing" and "debilitating" and the contradiction between them in the competition for the society's scarce resources.

Contents

 * 1Background
 * 2"Nourishing" and "debilitating"
 * 3Right-wing populists and welfare chauvinism
 * 4Political Parties and welfare chauvinism
 * 5See also
 * 6References
 * 6.1Footnotes
 * 6.2Literature list

Background[edit]
European welfare states were first established and further grown during an era of relatively high cultural and ethnic homogeneity. Large-scale immigration into Western Europe during the past decades has created greater diversity among European populations, thus putting a strain on the willingness of many voters to assent to redistributive policies. Radical right parties use welfare chauvinist policies for a selective provision of welfare benefits.

The term welfare chauvinism was first used in social science in the 1990 paper "Structural changes and new cleavages: The progress parties in Denmark and Norway" by Jørgen Goul Andersen and Tor Bjørklund. The article tries to explain whether the extreme right-wing Progress parties had become enduring members of the Scandinavian party family. The parties gained over-proportional support among the working class for over 20 years, not by direct racism or prejudice but by welfare state chauvinism. They described this as the notion that "welfare services should be restricted to our own".

"Nourishing" and "debilitating"[edit]
In the description of society and the problems of the welfare state, populists, especially right-wing populists and welfare chauvinists, use a line of argument based on two extremes in which citizens are divided into 'nourishing' and 'debilitating' groups. The nourishing group consists of those who are a part of society's welfare and the country's prosperity: community builders; "the people"; the ordinary honest working man. The second group as standing outside of "the people" are the debilitating group, believed to be promoting or utilizing welfare without adding any value to society. The debilitating group consists of bureaucrats, academics, immigrants, the unemployed, welfare recipients and others. As such, welfare is seen as a system with embedded exclusion mechanisms.

Right-wing populists and welfare chauvinism[edit]
According to welfare chauvinists, the safety net of the welfare state are for those whom they believe belong in the community. By the right-wing populist standard, affiliations with society are based in national, cultural and ethnic or racial aspects. Considered to be included in the category are those that are regarded as nourishing. The debilitating group (primarily immigrants) is considered to be outside of society and to be unjustly utilizing the welfare system. In essence, welfare chauvinists consider immigration to be a drain on societal scarce resources. They believe these resources should be used for the ethnically homogeneous native population,preferably children and the elderly.

The same principle of argument is, according to the academics Peer Scheepers, Mérove Gijsberts and Marcel Coenders, transferred to the labor market; where the competition for jobs is made out to be an ethnic conflict between immigrants and the native population. In times of high unemployment this rhetorical coupling amplifies and enhances the legitimacy of the welfare chauvinist and other xenophobic arguments.

The success of right-wing populist parties welfare chauvinist policy may force established parties to shift their traditional policy positions. According to Gijs Schumacher and Kees van Kersbergen the influence of a welfare chauvinist approach can on the one hand be regarded as positive while established parties are forced to react to public opinion. On the other hand, reacting to welfare chauvinist approaches by established parties can be seen negatively as compromising their own policy solely for electoral gain.

Political Parties and welfare chauvinism[edit]
Examples of contemporary political parties and groups that use, or used, a welfare chauvinist argumentation strategy: the Progress Party and Danish People's Party in Denmark, Front National in France, Freedom Party of Austria in Austria, The Republicans and Alternative for Germany in Germany, UK Independence Party in Britain, Sweden Democrats and New Democracy in Sweden, Golden Dawn in Greece, supporters of Donald Trump in the United States and One Nation in Australia.

See also[edit]

 * Chauvinism
 * Eliminationism
 * Ethnopluralism
 * Ingroup bias
 * Political incorrectness
 * Populism
 * Strasserism

Footnotes[edit]

 * 1) ^ Jump up to: a b c d Rydgren 2005
 * 2) ^ Jump up to: a b Mény & Surel 2002
 * 3) ^ Jump up to: a b c Rydgren & Widfeldt 2004
 * 4) ^ Linda Besner (7 February 2013): Why the Dutch Vote for Geert WildersRandomhouse.ca, retrieved 31 July 2013
 * 5) ^ Jørgen Gold Andersen and Tor Bjørklund (1990): Structural changes and new cleavages: The progress parties in Denmark and Norway Acta Sociologica, JStor, retrieved 31 July 2013
 * 6) ^ Kitschelt 1997
 * 7) ^ Lodenius 2010
 * 8) ^ Scheepers, Gijsberts & Coenders 2002
 * 9) ^ Oesch 2008
 * 10) ^
 * 11) ^ Kiiskinen & Saveljeff 2010
 * 12) ^

Literature list[edit]


Background

Explaining what reasons caused welfare chauvinist policies to emerge: multiculturalism; mass migration; welfare state built in times of homogeneity. Contribution:

''European welfare states were first established and further grown during an era of relatively high cultural and ethnic homogeneity. Large-scale immigration into Western Europe during the past decades has created greater diversity among European populations, thus putting a strain on the willingness of many voters to assent to redistributive policies. Radical right parties use welfare chauvinist policies for a selective provision of welfare benefits.''

Some more background information on the paper "Structural changes and new cleavages: The progress parties in Denmark and Norway". Explaining the main focus of the research. Contribution:

''The article tries to explain whether the extreme right-wing Progress parties had become enduring members of the Scandinavian party family. The parties gained over-proportional support among the working class for over 20 years, not by direct racism or prejudice but by welfare state chauvinism.''

Right-wing populists and welfare chauvinsim

Added the way established parties react to welfare chauvinist policies. Contribution:

''The success of right-wing populist parties welfare chauvinist policy may force established parties to shift their traditional policy positions. According to Gijs Schumacher and Kees van Kersbergen the influence of a welfare chauvinist approach can on the one hand be regarded as positive while established parties are forced to react to public opinion. On the other hand, reacting to welfare chauvinist approaches by established parties can be seen negatively as compromising their own policy solely for electoral gain.[2]''