Kangas & Kolttola: Political parties, socioeconomic groups and attitudes on immigrants. Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014. Presentation at TITA Annual Research Meeting, Turku 15.-16.9.2016.

1. Political parties, socioeconomic
groups and attitudes on immigrants
Evidence from European Social Survey 2002-2014
Olli Kangas & Ilari Kolttola
Kela

2. Starting points of the study
• In Europe there are some 50 million foreign-born residents
• Economic problems, unemployment and austerity
contribute to harshening attitudes about immigration
• In many European countries support for radical right-wing /
populist parties is rising (Norris 2005; Mudde 2007;
Hainsworth 2008)
• The Nordic welfare states are prized for their universal
social policies integrating all residents under the very
same welfare programs

3. Snakes in the paradise?
• Immigrants and immigration are rising tensions also in the
Nordic hemisphere (Ervasti & Hjerm 2012).
• Is the working-class suffering from ‘a moral panic’ (Svallfors
2006)
• the immigrants are seen competitors of working-class jobs and, hence, they are regarded as threat ->
negative attitudes
• At the political and rhetorical level left-wing parties, however,
maintain to have pro-immigration attitudes.
• Question 1: is there a discrepancy between the pro-
immigration party elites and more red-necked and harsher
attitudes among the (male) working-class voters for the left.
• Question 2. Is there a gap in opinions between the white- and
blue-collar voters for different political parties, for the left-wing
parties, in particular.

4. Study
• Our aim is to analyze tensions in immigration
attitudes between white- and blue-collar voters for
the left.
• Data used are derived from pooled European Social
Survey (ESS) waves 2002-2014.
• The data allow us to statistically analyze how big the
differences in opinions on immigration and immigrants are
between various socio-economic groups voting for the left-
wing parties in Finland and in the other Nordic countries

5. EGP in Nordic*
N
I Higher-grade professionals 7,928
II Lower-grade professionals 11,545
III Routine non-manuals 10,370
IV Self-empl. and farmers 3,883
V Skilled workers and manual
supervisors
5,359
VI Unskilled workers 7,933
0 5 10 15 20 25 30
I Higher-grade professionals
II Lower-grade professionals
III Routine non-manuals
IV Self-empl. and farmers
V Skilled workers and manual
supervisors
VI Unskilled workers
%
Nordic
Denmark
Finland
Norway
Sweden

6. Nordic
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
ESS round
Denmark Finland
Norway Sweden
Immigrants good or bad for your country
(0 good - 10 bad)
5678
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
ESS round
Denmark Finland
Norway Sweden
Attitudes on allowing immigrants
(3 allow many- 12 allow few)
For Immigrants good or bad variable three variables were
combined:
Immigration bad or good for country's economy,
Country's cultural life undermined or enriched by immigrants,
Immigrants make country worse or better place to live.
For anti-immigrant attitude variable three variables were combined :
Allow many/few immigrants of same race/ethnic group as majority,
Allow many/few immigrants of different race/ethnic group from majority,
Allow many/few immigrants from poorer countries outside Europe
No major changes during 2002-2014

7. Attitudes on immigration at socioeconomic
groups in Nordic3
3.5
4
4.5
5
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
ESS round
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals
III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers
V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
Immigrants good or bad for your country
5.5
6
6.5
7
7.5
8
2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014
ESS round
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals
III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers
V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
Attitudes on allowing immigrants
.
There is a clear difference among white and blue-collar workers and
it has remained stable.

8. Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes
(immigration good or bad for your country)
02468
10
A B C F O V Ø
*excludes outside values
Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014
0= country mean (4.40 )
Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Denmark 2002-2014
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals
III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers
V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
Parties:
A Social Democrats (Socialdemokraterne)
B Social Liberal Party (Radiakale Venstre)
C Conservative People’s Party (Det Konservative Folkeparti)
F Socialist people's Party (Socialistisk Folkeparti)
O People's Party (Danks Folkeparti)
V Liberal Party (Venstre)
Ø Red-Green Alliance (Enhedslisten)
Parties:
Kok. (National Coalition Party)
RKP (Swedish People's Party)
Kesk. (Centre Party)
PS (Finns Party)
KD (Christian Democrats)
Vihr. (Green League)
SDP (Social Democratic Party)
Vas. (Left Alliance)
02468
10
Attitudesonimmigrationinsocioeconomicgroups
Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. KD Vihr. SDP Vas.
*excludes outside values
Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014
0= country mean ( 4.04)
Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Finland 2002-2014
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals
III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers
V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers

9. Political parties, EGP and immigrant attitudes
(immigration good or bad for your country)
02468
10
Attitudesonimmigrationinsocioeconomicgroups
C L KD MP M S V SD
*excludes outside values
Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014
0= country mean ( 3.70)
Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Sweden 2002-2014
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals
III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers
V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled Workers
Parties:
C Center Party (Centerpartiet)
L Liberals ( Liberalerna)
KD Christian Democrats (Kristdemokraterna)
MP Green Party (Miljöpartiet de Gröna)
M Moderate Party (Moderata samlingspartiet)
S Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska
Arbetarparty)
V Left Party (Vänsterpartiet)
SD Sweden Democrats ( Sverigedemokraterna)
Parties:
SV Socialist Left Party (Sosialistisk Venterparti)
AP Labour Party (Arbeiderpartiet)
V Liberal Party (Venstre)
KRF Christian Democratic Party (Kristelig
Folkeparti)
SP Center Party (Senterpartiet)
H Conservative Party (Høyre)
FRP Progress Party (Fremskrittspartiet)
02468
10
SV AP V KRF SP H FRP
*excludes outside values
Source: European Social Survey 2002-2014
0= country mean ( 4.45)
Attitudes on immigration in socioeconomic groups voting for different parties in Norway 2002-2014
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals
III Routine non-manuals IV Self-empl. and farmers
V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers

10. Finland
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
Coa. Swe Cent Finn. KD. Gre. SDP Left.
Finland
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals
IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
Mean Sd N
Finland 4,04 1,71 13904
Coa. 3,68 1,54 2157
Swe 3,56 1,63 433
Cent 4,22 1,65 1895
Finn. 5,01 1,8 529
KD. 3,94 1,51 291
Gre. 2,88 1,4 888
SDP 4,04 1,62 2052
Left. 3,83 1,79 562

11. Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes
and EGP
23456
1 2 3 4 5 6
EGP (6 scale)
Kok. RKP
Kesk. PS.
23456
1 2 3 4 5 6
EGP (6 scale)
KD Vihr.
SDP Vas.
Scale 0-10 ( 10 = Immigrants bad for country)
Immigrant attitudes
Estimated marginal means from robust regression: with control variables (age, feeling on households
income, unemployment, education)

12. The contrast between EGP classes
(Kok. (National Coalition Party as a reference line)

13. Kok RKP Kesk. PS KD Vihr. SDP Vas.
I Higher-grade professionals -0.733*** -1.102*** -0.439** -0.351 -0.674 -0.357 -0.401** -0.986***
(0.147) (0.313) (0.154) (0.296) (0.355) (0.198) (0.134) (0.284)
II Lower-grade professionals -0.623*** -1.014*** -0.388** -0.152 -0.430 -0.459* -0.322** -1.050***
(0.149) (0.304) (0.138) (0.297) (0.302) (0.182) (0.113) (0.222)
III Routine non-manuals -0.481** -0.774* -0.036 -0.585* -0.273 -0.008 -0.222* -0.242
(0.155) (0.317) (0.134) (0.275) (0.302) (0.181) (0.112) (0.221)
IV Self-empl. and farmers -0.333* -0.452 0.053 -0.049 -0.084 -0.086 -0.093 -0.278
(0.157) (0.309) (0.117) (0.281) (0.392) (0.260) (0.189) (0.375)
V Skilled workers and manual supervisors 0.044 -0.648 0.159 -0.245 0.181 0.153 0.010 0.067
(0.194) (0.376) (0.148) (0.240) (0.435) (0.262) (0.111) (0.214)
VI Unskilled Workers 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)
age 0.006** -0.004 0.001 -0.005 0.009 0.004 0.001 0.012*
(0.002) (0.005) (0.003) (0.006) (0.006) (0.004) (0.003) (0.005)
No economic problems (Feeling about household's income nowadays) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)
Economic problems 0.349* 0.465* 0.288* 0.571** 0.089 0.109 0.183 0.175
(0.142) (0.227) (0.116) (0.213) (0.288) (0.139) (0.111) (0.197)
Less than lower secondary education (ref.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)
Lower secondary education completed -0.352* -0.469 -0.316* -0.050 -0.658 0.011 -0.410** -0.016
(0.174) (0.349) (0.140) (0.327) (0.444) (0.400) (0.126) (0.277)
Upper secondary education completed -0.228 -0.612* -0.416*** -0.149 -0.707* -0.367 -0.461*** -0.167
(0.153) (0.305) (0.113) (0.271) (0.319) (0.366) (0.102) (0.209)
Post-secondary non-tertiary education -0.404 -1.038* -0.351 -0.196 -1.178 -0.503 -0.598** 0.058
(0.221) (0.517) (0.265) (0.400) (0.675) (0.414) (0.230) (0.461)
Tertiary education completed -0.447** -0.931** -0.721*** -0.372 -0.713* -0.599 -0.956*** -0.345
(0.154) (0.311) (0.135) (0.314) (0.337) (0.369) (0.124) (0.255)
Non-Unemployed 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)
Unemployed 0.084 1.808*** 0.182 -0.195 0.476 -0.201 0.072 -0.093
(0.191) (0.497) (0.187) (0.336) (0.417) (0.257) (0.165) (0.266)
Men (ref.) 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
(.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.) (.)
Women 0.029 0.027 -0.102 0.090 -0.227 0.069 0.077 -0.122
(0.071) (0.173) (0.081) (0.196) (0.203) (0.104) (0.079) (0.157)
_cons 4.124*** 5.068*** 4.562*** 5.428*** 4.430*** 3.316*** 4.500*** 3.605***
(0.217) (0.467) (0.209) (0.442) (0.515) (0.425) (0.198) (0.393)
R-squared 0.049 0.127 0.070 0.015 0.071 0.047 0.071 0.121
N 2099 422 1854 521 289 873 2029 558
standard error (in parentheses)
*p<0,005 **p<0.01 *p<0.05

14. Political support by socioeconomic groups
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Kok. RKP Kesk. PS. KD Vihr. SDP Vas.
Professionals
Routine non-manuals
Self-empl. and farmers
Workers

15. Finnish political parties, immigrant attitudes
and EGP
23456
1 2 3 4
EGP (4 scale)
Kok. RKP
Kesk. PS.
23456
1 2 3 4
EGP (4 scale)
KD Vihr.
SDP Vas.
Scale 0-10 ( 10 = Immigrants bad for country)
Immigrant attitudes
Estimated marginal means from robust regression: with control variables (age, feeling on households income,
unemployment, education)

16. SDP & Left Alliance

17. Sweden
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
45.00%
Cent. Lib. KD Green Mod. SDP Left Sdem
Sweden
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals
IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
Mean Sd N
Sweden 3,7 1,91 12030
Cent. 3,62 1,81 592
Lib. 3,26 1,68 936
KD 3,62 1,62 506
Green 2,6 1,53 683
Mod. 3,71 1,8 2539
SDP 3,77 1,83 3216
Left 2,82 1,88 626
Sdem 6,4 1,93 173

18. Sweden

19. Sweden (reference line center party)

20. Social Democratic Party (Socialdemokratiska Arbetarparty)
& Left Party (Vänsterpartiet)

21. Denmark
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
SDP Soc.lib Con. SOS. Peo. Lib Red-Gre
Denmark
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals
IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
Mean Sd N
Denmark 4,4 2,03 10210
SDP 4,24 1,93 2203
Soc.lib 3,06 1,59 684
Con. 4,33 1,89 623
SOS. 3,5 1,87 914
Peo. 6,31 1,91 766
Lib 4,64 1,86 2529
Red-Gre 3,04 1,88 277

22. Denmark

23. Denmark

24. Norway
0.00%
5.00%
10.00%
15.00%
20.00%
25.00%
30.00%
35.00%
40.00%
SOS Lab. Lib. KD Cen. Con. Prog.
Norway
I Higher-grade professionals II Lower-grade professionals III Routine non-manuals
IV self-empl. And farmers V Skilled workers and manual supervisors VI Unskilled workers
Mean Sd N
Norway 4,45 1,8 11451
SOS 3,46 1,52 805
Lab. 4,17 1,69 2358
Lib. 3,46 1,53 330
KD 4,69 1,57 610
Cen. 4,56 1,67 459
Con. 4,27 1,61 1606
Prog. 5,78 1,72 1149

25. Norway

26. Norway

27. Problem for the left?
• Clearly voters are separated among immigrant attitudes
• Polarization strongest on the Left Alliance.
• SDP also in troubles: many working class voters.
• Central party: battle between cities and countryside
• Left Alliance voters are changing (Grönlund & Wass
2015). Where have all the workers gone?
• Cross-cutting party preferences? (Finseraas
2012) How important issue immigrant policies
are to voters/ political parties?