IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/sae/eeupol/v22y2021i4p741-761.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Discrimination against mobile European Union citizens before and during the first COVID-19 lockdown: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Germany

Author

Listed:
  • Xavier Fernández-i-Marín

    (Geschwister-Scholl-Institut for Political Science, LMU Munich, Germany Department of Political Science, Universitat de Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain)

  • Carolin H Rapp

    (Department of Political Science, 4321University of Copenhagen, Denmark)

  • Christian Adam

    (Chair of Comparative Politics, Zeppelin University, Germany)

  • Oliver James

    (Department of Politics, 215734University of Exeter, UK)

  • Anita Manatschal

    (Swiss Forum for Migration and Population Studies, 30779University of Neuchâtel, Switzerland)

Abstract

One of the greatest achievements of the EU is the freedom of movement between member states offering citizens equal rights in EU member states. EU enlargement and the COVID-19 pandemic allow for a critical test of whether EU citizens are indeed treated equally in practice. We test preferential treatment of EU citizens in two hypothetical choice experiments in Germany at two different time points: in the period before and during the COVID-19 pandemic lockdown. Theories of responses to threat suggest that the COVID-19 crisis should increase discrimination against mobile EU citizens. While our findings reveal sizeable discrimination based on nationality and language proficiency of mobile EU citizens, the findings also suggest that, contrary to expectations, discrimination did not increase in the initial COVID-19 crisis period.

Suggested Citation

  • Xavier Fernández-i-Marín & Carolin H Rapp & Christian Adam & Oliver James & Anita Manatschal, 2021. "Discrimination against mobile European Union citizens before and during the first COVID-19 lockdown: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Germany," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(4), pages 741-761, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:22:y:2021:i:4:p:741-761
    DOI: 10.1177/14651165211037208
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/14651165211037208
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1177/14651165211037208?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. James C. Garand & Ping Xu & Belinda C. Davis, 2017. "Immigration Attitudes and Support for the Welfare State in the American Mass Public," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 61(1), pages 146-162, January.
    2. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara B. & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring Subgroup Preferences in Conjoint Experiments," Political Analysis, Cambridge University Press, vol. 28(2), pages 207-221, April.
    3. Aarøe, Lene & Petersen, Michael Bang & Arceneaux, Kevin, 2017. "The Behavioral Immune System Shapes Political Intuitions: Why and How Individual Differences in Disgust Sensitivity Underlie Opposition to Immigration," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 111(2), pages 277-294, May.
    4. Greg M. Allenby & Jaehwan Kim & Peter E. Rossi, 2017. "Economic Models of Choice," International Series in Operations Research & Management Science, in: Berend Wierenga & Ralf van der Lans (ed.), Handbook of Marketing Decision Models, edition 2, chapter 0, pages 199-222, Springer.
    5. Bert N. Bakker & Gijs Schumacher & Claire Gothreau & Kevin Arceneaux, 2020. "Conservatives and liberals have similar physiological responses to threats," Nature Human Behaviour, Nature, vol. 4(6), pages 613-621, June.
    6. Sharon Baute & Koen Abts & Bart Meuleman, 2019. "Public Support for European Solidarity: Between Euroscepticism and EU Agenda Preferences?," Journal of Common Market Studies, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(3), pages 533-550, May.
    7. Leeper, Thomas J. & Hobolt, Sara & Tilley, James, 2020. "Measuring subgroup preferences in conjoint experiments," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 100944, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    8. Kåre Vernby, 2013. "Inclusion and Public Policy: Evidence from Sweden’s Introduction of Noncitizen Suffrage," American Journal of Political Science, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 57(1), pages 15-29, January.
    9. Peter J. Lenk & Wayne S. DeSarbo & Paul E. Green & Martin R. Young, 1996. "Hierarchical Bayes Conjoint Analysis: Recovery of Partworth Heterogeneity from Reduced Experimental Designs," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 15(2), pages 173-191.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Yoshiaki Kubo & Isamu Okada, 2022. "COVID-19 health certification reduces outgroup bias: evidence from a conjoint experiment in Japan," Palgrave Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 9(1), pages 1-11, December.
    2. Henrik Serup Christensen & Lauri Rapeli, 2021. "Immediate rewards or delayed gratification? A conjoint survey experiment of the public’s policy preferences," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(1), pages 63-94, March.
    3. Janne Tukiainen & Sebastian Blesse & Albrecht Bohne & Leonardo M. Giuffrida & Jan Jäässkeläinen & Ari Luukinen & Antti Sieppi, 2021. "What Are the Priorities of Bureaucrats? Evidence from Conjoint Experiments with Procurement Officials," EconPol Working Paper 63, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich.
    4. Benjamin Elsner & Jeff Concannon, 2020. "Immigration and Redistribution," Working Papers 202024, School of Economics, University College Dublin.
    5. Anne-Marie Jeannet & Tobias Heidland & Martin Ruhs, 2021. "What asylum and refugee policies do Europeans want? Evidence from a cross-national conjoint experiment," European Union Politics, , vol. 22(3), pages 353-376, September.
    6. Chu, Haoran & Liu, Sixiao, 2021. "Light at the end of the tunnel: Influence of vaccine availability and vaccination intention on people’s consideration of the COVID-19 vaccine," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 286(C).
    7. KASUYA Yuko & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "Why are There More Women in the Upper House?," Discussion papers 22094, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    8. Jordan Mansell, 2020. "Causation and Behavior: The Necessity and Benefits of Incorporating Evolutionary Thinking into Political Science," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 101(5), pages 1677-1698, September.
    9. Tellez,Juan Fernando & Balcells,Laia, 2022. "Social Cohesion, Economic Security, and Forced Displacement in the Long-Run : Evidence from Rural Colombia," Policy Research Working Paper Series 10019, The World Bank.
    10. Blayac, Thierry & Dubois, Dimitri & Duchêne, Sébastien & Nguyen-Van, Phu & Ventelou, Bruno & Willinger, Marc, 2022. "What drives the acceptability of restrictive health policies: An experimental assessment of individual preferences for anti-COVID 19 strategies," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 116(C).
    11. Christensen, Henrik Serup, 2020. "How design features affect evaluations of participatory platforms," SocArXiv 4ubwh, Center for Open Science.
    12. Raman, Shyam & Kriner, Douglas & Ziebarth, Nicolas & Simon, Kosali & Kreps, Sarah, 2022. "COVID-19 booster uptake among US adults: Assessing the impact of vaccine attributes, incentives, and context in a choice-based experiment," Social Science & Medicine, Elsevier, vol. 310(C).
    13. Brian Burgoon & Theresa Kuhn & Francesco Nicoli & Frank Vandenbroucke, 2022. "Unemployment risk-sharing in the EU: How policy design influences citizen support for European unemployment policy," European Union Politics, , vol. 23(2), pages 282-308, June.
    14. Pieter Vanhuysse & Michael Jankowski & Markus Tepe, 2021. "Vaccine alliance building blocks: a conjoint experiment on popular support for international COVID-19 cooperation formats," Policy Sciences, Springer;Society of Policy Sciences, vol. 54(3), pages 493-506, September.
    15. Michael J. Frith, 2021. "Analysing conjoint experiments in Stata: the conjoint command," London Stata Conference 2021 14, Stata Users Group.
    16. Lim, Sijeong & Dolsak, Nives & Prakash, Aseem & Tanaka, Seiki, 2022. "Distributional concerns and public opinion: EV subsidies in the U.S. and Japan," Energy Policy, Elsevier, vol. 164(C).
    17. IGARASHI Akira & MIWA Hirofumi & ONO Yoshikuni, 2022. "How Do Racial Cues Affect Attitudes toward Immigrants in a Racially Homogeneous Country? Evidence from a survey experiment in Japan," Discussion papers 22091, Research Institute of Economy, Trade and Industry (RIETI).
    18. Henrik S Christensen & Marco S La Rosa & Kimmo Grönlund, 2020. "How candidate characteristics affect favorability in European Parliament elections: Evidence from a conjoint experiment in Finland," European Union Politics, , vol. 21(3), pages 519-540, September.
    19. Tukiainen, Janne & Blesse, Sebastian & Bohne, Albrecht & Giuffrida, Leonardo M. & Jääskeläinen, Jan & Luukinen, Ari & Sieppi, Antti, 2024. "What are the priorities of bureaucrats? Evidence from conjoint experiments with procurement officials," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 227(C).
    20. Liam F. Beiser-McGrath & Thomas Bernauer & Jaehyun Song & Azusa Uji, 2021. "Understanding public support for domestic contributions to global collective goods," Climatic Change, Springer, vol. 166(3), pages 1-20, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sae:eeupol:v:22:y:2021:i:4:p:741-761. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: SAGE Publications (email available below). General contact details of provider: .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.