In recent years, right-wing populist parties have experienced significant political success across nearly all Western democracies. With their increasing political establishment, xenophobic attitudes have become normalized. While previous studies have primarily examined the effects of this development on voting behaviour, little is known about the wider social consequences. A new study by the Cluster of Excellence “The Politics of Inequality” at the University of Konstanz has therefore investigated how this normalization affects administration practices in German job centres – in other words, concrete state decision-making processes on essential social benefits that are intended to ensure an adequate standard of living. The focus is on the role of negative media coverage of people with a migration background and the potentially reinforcing influence of this coverage on group-specific discrimination.
In an experiment, fictitious newspaper articles about welfare fraud by Romanian nationals were presented to 1,400 case workers from 60 German job centres. They were then asked to make decisions on authentically designed but fictitious applications for basic income. The result: After reading an article about alleged welfare fraud, Romanian citizens’ requests for social benefits were considered less credible, indicating group-specific discrimination. This effect is stronger in states where sceptical attitudes towards migration are particularly pronounced: In these regions, it was more likely that Romanian nationals were treated differently from applicants with German nationality – even though they were equally eligible for social benefits. At the same time, there was an opposite effect for foreign nationals who were not explicitly mentioned in the newspaper article: Job centre staff reacted to their applications with less scepticism and, in part, with greater willingness to help. Researchers refer to this form of unequal treatment as positive discrimination.
“Our results show that the administration is not a neutral space”, explains Gerald Schneider, professor of political science at the University of Konstanz and co-author of the study. “Where social stereotypes are strong and the media spreads negative images of migration, these attitudes can be directly reflected in the work of state authorities”. However, the phenomenon does not only occur in the parts of Germany where resentment towards people with a migration background is already widespread. Stefanie Rueß, postdoctoral researcher at Zeppelin University and corresponding author of the study, adds: “Negative headlines about migration subconsciously activate stereotypes that determine which of these groups of people are considered ‘suspicious’, ‘deserving of help’ or less ‘credible’. These subtle forms of discrimination can be harmful because they are more difficult to recognize and can impact further decisions. The media, social norms, and administrative decisions are closely intertwined”.
Jan Vogler, an associate professor of political science at Aarhus University in Denmark, emphasizes that the results could have far-reaching consequences for the relationship between the state and the specific population groups that are affected by discrimination: “If people feel that the state is discriminating against them, this can permanently shake their trust in public institutions. Subsequently, this may also negatively impact their general interactions with the state, manifesting across many different dimensions.” According to the authors, countermeasures could include targeted media literacy skills training, standardized decision-making processes as well as more balanced (regional) reporting on migration. Through such measures, the state can ensure that social benefits are allocated based on objective criteria rather than on regional sentiments.
Key facts:
Comparative Political Studies