Once opposed to the idea of welfare, they have over the decades transformed into defenders of the welfare state — the Far-Rights. However, their political manifestation stresses restricting welfare benefits to native citizens, exploiting Neoliberal dislocation and migration anxieties to build working-class electoral coalitions.
Key Points
- Welfare chauvinism refers to the political logic of limiting social benefits to a ‘deserving’ national community, defined along ethno-cultural or civic-exclusionary criteria.
- Far-Right parties shifted from anti-welfare free-market positions to welfare statism rhetoric since the 1990s and especially after the 2008 financial crisis.
- The 2015 migration crisis intensified welfare chauvinist narratives, framing immigrants as ‘welfare tourists’; however, empirical evidence shows the contrary.
- An emerging variant — the ‘authoritarian welfare state’ — institutionalises welfare chauvinism as a governance structure, as seen in Hungary.
Introduction
Historically, the European welfare state has symbolised a post-war social contract: a system of sharing risks together and ensuring a minimum standard of living. Far-Right parties were the most vocal critics of the welfare state, ideologically linked to market economics, deregulation and opposition to redistributive taxation for much of the twentieth century.
This position has shifted completely. Since the late 1990s and particularly the financial crisis of 2008 and the migration crisis of 2015, Far-Right and Radical-Right parties throughout Europe have reoriented themselves as the most vocal defenders of the welfare state with conditionalities. Protection, in their manifesto, applies only to those who are considered part of the national community. The term welfare chauvinism describes this ideological shift: the notion that the extent of social security should be limited to native citizens and ethnic, cultural, or civic-exclusionary criteria.
Welfare chauvinism is not a rhetorical throwaway line. It is a political-economic program that is coherent and electorally successful. Especially among the “marginalized” groups from the mainstream social democrats and market liberals. It is not only the ideology that needs attention, but also the structural economic conditions which make it a politically compelling issue.
Defining Welfare Chauvinism: Conceptual Foundations
Welfare chauvinism was coined by Jørgen Goul Andersen and Tor Bjørklund (1990) to refer to the attitude of Scandinavian progressive parties, who were anti-immigrant and pro-welfare for the ‘real’ people. This idea has since been greatly refined and discussed. Welfare chauvinism is grounded in the idea that the national community is composed of deserving people (assessed in ethno-cultural, civic or historical terms), while the undeserving others are seen as ‘users’ of the public sector but without a corresponding contribution. This logic is grounded in traditional welfare language of “deserving” and “undeserving” poor, and racializes and nationalises them. The rejection is not of the welfare state but of the solidaristic logic of the welfare state and of the redistributive goals of the welfare state.
Structural Conditions: The Neoliberal Inheritance
Welfare chauvinism is not a standalone phenomenon but can only be understood within the framework of the structural changes which have affected the European political economy since the 1980s. The effects of deindustrialisation, flexibilisation of the labour market, welfare retrenchment, and Europeanisation of markets created a class of economically vulnerable voters. Mainly in post-industrial areas, medium-sized towns and more peripheral rural areas. Whose material interests a mainstream party was no longer able to represent.
In particular, Social Democratic parties became programmatic in their approach towards the centre. They adopted labour market flexibility, fiscal discipline and pro-European-integration principles, which led to the loss of significant parts of their traditional working-class support. This created an electoral vacuum which was filled by Far-Right parties, propagating through ethno-nationalist cultural values, economic protectionism, and welfare statism rhetoric, all for native citizens.
The situation was exacerbated by the 2008 financial crisis. The austerity measures implemented in the Southern European countries, as well as the transfer of fiscal power toward EU institutions (the European Central Bank, the European Commission and the International Monetary Fund – the “Troika”). This created the impression that the fiscal authority was being transferred to technocrats, the unaccountable. It was this perception that was seized by Far-Right parties, who interpreted the welfare state not only as a national achievement that must be defended against immigration, but as a national sovereignty issue that must be taken back from Brussels.
The 2015 Migration Crisis and Its Consequences
The Far-Right had its best chance of election victory in a generation during the 2015 migration crisis. More than a million asylum seekers arrived in Europe in 2015, largely from Syria, Afghanistan and sub-Saharan nations. The crisis sparked intense debate on the linkages between immigration, welfare and national identity. It was an opportunity for Far-Right political parties in Europe to seize an electoral surge, from Germany to Sweden, France to Italy, and to Denmark.
The political-economic picture presented was astonishing. Immigration was portrayed not as a cultural or security threat (although such rhetoric also existed) but as an economic threat to the welfare state. Immigrants were portrayed as “welfare tourists” who came to Europe to avail themselves of welfare benefits, denting Europe’s fiscal sustainability and draining its resources from its own poor. This is how extreme-right-wing parties could claim to act on behalf of the working-class economic interests, against those who would “misuse” the welfare state.
The empirical evidence for this narrative, however, is weak. Research consistently shows that immigrants, particularly labour migrants, are net fiscal contributors in most European states.
The Authoritarian Welfare State
Beyond welfare chauvinism in its classic form, a distinct variant has emerged — most fully developed in Hungary and Poland — which may be characterised as the authoritarian welfare state. In this framework, social provision is linked to demographic and nationalist objectives, and welfare conditionality is deployed both to exclude immigrants and to discipline political opponents.
Hungary under Viktor Orbán offers the clearest illustration. A complex family support architecture — encompassing mortgage subsidies, tax relief for mothers of multiple children, and preferential access to public employment — has been constructed. Formally universal in legal terms, the system operates in practice as exclusionary toward Roma communities and migrants. While primarily benefiting the ethnic Magyar population. This represents the institutionalisation of welfare chauvinism: not merely a political agenda, but a governance structure.
Conclusion
Welfare chauvinism reflects a coherent and structurally grounded political-economic response to neoliberal confusion, democratic division, and migration anxiety. From the fringes, it has emerged as an organized and politically beneficial logic of Far-Right politics across the EU. Understanding its conceptual foundations and structural conditions is a prerequisite for formulating effective political and institutional responses.
* Dr. Haris Hassan is a public policy scholar, researcher and lecturer. He completed his PhD at Charles University, Prague, where he is teaching public and social policy. His expertise spans Public Governance, Development Economics, and the Political Economy of Colonial Institutions, with publications in leading international peer-reviewed journals.
References
Andersen, J. G., & Bjørklund, T. (1990). Structural changes and new cleavages: The Progress Parties in Denmark and Norway. Acta Sociologica, 33(3), 195–217.
Bohle, D., & Greskovits, B. (2019). Politicising embedded neoliberalism: Continuity and change in Hungary’s development model. West European Politics, 42(5), 1069-1093.
Careja, R., Elmelund‐Præstekær, C., Baggesen Klitgaard, M., & Larsen, E. G. (2016). Direct and indirect welfare chauvinism as party strategies: an analysis of the Danish People’s Party. Scandinavian Political Studies, 39(4), 435-457.
Dustmann, C., & Frattini, T. (2014). The fiscal effects of immigration to the UK. The Economic Journal, 124(580), F593–F643.
Eatwell, R., & Goodwin, M. (2018). National populism: The revolt against liberal democracy. Pelican.
Hochschild, A. R. (2018). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press.
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., & Frey, T. (2008). Western European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge University Press.
Mudde, C. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe (Vol. 22). Cambridge University Press.
Palier, B., & Thelen, K. (2010). Institutionalizing dualism: Complementarities and change in France and Germany. Politics & Society, 38(1), 119–148.
Rydgren, J. (2013). Class politics and the radical right. Routledge.
Van der Waal, J., de Koster, W., & van Oorschot, W. (2013). Three worlds of welfare chauvinism? How welfare regimes affect support for distributing welfare to immigrants in Europe. Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 15(2), 164–181.
Wacquant, L., & Wacquant, L. (2020). Punishing the poor: The neoliberal government of social insecurity. Duke University Press.