Immigrants to EU countries less likely to live on benefits
Immigrants to the European Union are, for the most part, less likely to live on welfare than the native population, according to academic research due to be published which challenges the idea that benefits are a "pull factor" for migration.
The study, Unemployment Benefits and Immigration: Evidence from the EU, says there is no correlation between levels of unemployment benefit and immigration. It is based on figures from 18 EU countries plus Switzerland and is due to be published in the International Journal of Manpower. It covers the years between 1999 and 2007.
All three main British party leaders have accepted the need to control migrants' access to public services, including benefits, arguing that generous benefits in the UK act as a draw for some migrants.
But the study finds rates of people receiving benefits are statistically higher for non-EU migrants in just seven countries and in none of them if only unemployment benefit is taken into account. The findings suggest that the causal effect between social welfare spending and immigration is statistically insignificant; in other words, there is no evidence of a "welfare magnet".
Denmark, Finland, Germany and Sweden are the only countries in which there are higher (and statistically significant) rates of benefits receipt among migrants.
The British government has been accused of pandering to prejudice and failing to find coherent evidence to back its justifications for narrowing migrant access to hospitals, social housing and unemployment benefit.
Almost no evidence has been produced to show that in international terms UK benefits are more generous than other EU countries and therefore act as a draw for EU and non-EU migrants seeking a more generous way of life.
The study, led by Dr Martin Kahanec, associate professor in public policy at the Central European University, also looked at whether changes in countries' unemployment benefit spending (UBS) affect immigration. The paper, drawing on OECD numbers, argues that the UK's level of UBS as a percentage of GDP was the third lowest out of all 19 countries. With 1.13% of GDP spent on UBS, the UK ranked higher than only Italy and Slovakia.
The figures show Denmark has the highest UBS spending, at 6.83% of GDP, followed by Belgium and Finland. Those who subscribe to the "more benefits equals more immigrants" theory should expect these countries to be the top migrant recipients but this was not the case. Spain received the highest inflow of new non-EU immigrants, followed by Austria, Germany, then Luxembourg and Switzerland, which tied for third. Luxembourg, Switzerland and Ireland had the highest inflows from within the EU, with the UK placing in the middle of the pack.
The paper also looks at the levels of and changes to the eligibility criteria for unemployment benefits, expressed by the months of employment contributions necessary to qualify for unemployment benefits. The authors wanted to see if countries with high immigration levels are more prone to reform eligibility requirements.
Kahanec said that while a slight correlation between welfare generosity and non-EU migration was found, this correlation was not a causal relationship, meaning other factors aside from welfare generosity explain the link. The data indicated that "countries which received more immigrants in the past tended to become more welfare generous".
Even though Britain is far from being the most generous welfare state in the EU, many believe Romanians and Bulgarians will come to the UK by the thousands to claim benefits when migration restrictions are lifted in 2014. The communities secretary, Eric Pickles, stated last week that the government should look at pull factors, such as benefits, that may encourage people to come to Britain.
Kahanec said that language and skills fits tended to be a bigger draw that benefits.
x ääretön
