One-Sided Perspectives on the Welfare State and Migration? The Current State of the “Paradigm Shift” in Migration Policy

On November 7, 2024, a panel discussion on the topic “One-Sided Perspectives on the Welfare State and Migration?” took place at DeZIM as part of the series “The State of the ‘Paradigm Shift’ in Migration Policy.”

To kick off the discussion, Dr. Friederike Römer, co-director of the Consensus and Conflict Department at the DeZIM Institute, examined three prominent theses at the intersection of migration and the welfare state to assess their empirical validity.

Following this, Dr. Friederike Römer engaged in a discussion with Dr. Des. Dominic Afscharian, a research associate at the Center for New Social Policy; Dr. Markus Reichel (CDU), a member of the Bundestag and a member of the Committee on Labor and Social Affairs; and Dr. Marcus Engler, a research associate in the Migration Department. The discussion was moderated by Dr. Niklas Harder, co-director of the Integration Division.

In her opening remarks, Dr. Römer refuted the claim that social benefits are available to everyone. Instead, comparative data show that social benefits for migrants are restricted in various ways, either partially or entirely. Debates on this topic also often overlook the negative consequences that benefit cuts have for the people affected, society, and the labor market.  To examine the “welfare state as a magnet” thesis—that is, the assumption that social benefits act as a pull factor for migrants—Friederike Römer systematically reviewed the literature.
The majority of studies find no evidence to support the “welfare magnet” thesis. And even studies that identify a positive correlation show that social benefits are not the decisive factor. Instead, migration flows are driven primarily by access to the labor market, as well as by social networks. Refugee migration is triggered by wars and crises.
Most recently, the claim that social benefits prevent immigrants from participating in the labor market was evaluated. Empirical evidence for this is scarce. Instead, there are indications that benefits function as an empowerment tool rather than a disincentive.

In the subsequent panel discussion, it was noted that the notion of the “welfare state as a magnet” is widespread among the general public and, from one panelist’s perspective, represents an important issue in election campaigns. Not least because politicians repeatedly promote this empirically unsound notion. The question of why scientifically refuted theories are propagated in politics was a recurring theme throughout the event. However, the most heated debate centered on the extent to which social benefits generally prevent people from participating in the labor market. In addition, the connection between the dismantling of the welfare state and the rise of right-wing parties was discussed. It was noted that welfare state restrictions on refugees and migrants are particularly problematic because people without German citizenship are not allowed to vote, leading to a double exclusion. Welfare state instruments that explicitly promote labor market participation, such as childcare, were also discussed. The so-called “migrant pay gap” was also addressed. Wage disparities between people with and without German citizenship make it clear that equity in benefits is limited. In conclusion, some panelists called for taking the negative consequences of the dismantling of the welfare state for migrants seriously and making the opportunities offered by the welfare state accessible to everyone.