Barbara Yoxon’s research while affiliated with The Graduate Center, CUNY and other places

Analysing data from an original cross-national survey conducted in 2015 in nine European democracies covering five different types of welfare regime and asking individuals a variety of questions on their deprivation during the crisis, this paper shows that there are important cross-national and cross-class inequalities in deprivation as reported by individuals in different social classes. Cross-nationally, deprivation patterns reflected the welfare regimes of the nine countries as well as the severity of the economic crisis. Working class individuals in countries that were not so deeply affected by the crisis were generally found to be worse off than middle class individuals in countries that were more deeply affected. Semi/unskilled manual classes were found to be the most deprived and class differentials were diminished but not accounted for in multilevel models including a series of controls linked to risk factors and socio-demographic position. At the macro-level, higher inequality as measured by the Gini coefficient was associated with higher levels of reported deprivation. However, cross-level interaction tests did not provide evidence that being in semi/unskilled manual occupations has a further heightened effect on reported deprivation in contexts of higher inequality or lower social spending.

Current literature on the economic determinants of prejudice focuses on how relative deprivation might lead to bias by focusing on group perceptions, with little or no attention given to individual-level deprivation. We address this gap in literature by examining how relative and objective individual-level hardship affects generalised prejudice and suggest that both forms of deprivation lead to increase in a wide variety of out-group biases. We test our hypotheses with data from an original cross-national survey conducted in 2015 in nine European countries (N∼18,000) by applying multilevel models. We include macro-level measures of economic context, including measures of unemployment levels and GDP growth. We make a novel contribution to the growing literature on prejudice in European societies: our results are surprising and suggest that individuals experiencing deteriorating living standards are less likely to express generalised prejudice. We suggest that these findings can be explained using political psychology literature: recent studies suggest that low self-esteem increases altruistic behaviour and reduces the level of out-group bias. These findings open new avenues of research and suggest a new way of theorising the relationship between economic deprivation and prejudice.

In many European countries, anti-immigrant sentiments seem to have spread following recent economic challenges. By drawing on relative deprivation (RD) theory, we establish a theoretical connection between economic downturns and anti-immigrant prejudice. We argue that the experience of individual-level relative deprivation (IRD) is comparable to that of social threat and social exclusion. We draw on a large body of research that suggests the experience of social threat and uncertainty leads to the perception of the world in ethnocentric terms and rejecting pluralistic belief systems. Unlike much of the literature, we focus on individual-level perceptions and distinguish between an objective and subjective relative deprivation. Given our focus on individual-level predictors, we also test for the effects of authoritarian preferences on the likelihood of anti-immigrant bias. Our study demonstrates that unlike objective deprivation, both subjective deprivation and authoritarianism have a significant impact on anti-immigrant sentiments. Furthermore, we find evidence that one component of authoritarian preferences, namely authoritarian submission, moderates the effect of relative deprivation on economic (not cultural) forms of anti-immigrant prejudice.

In this paper we analyse whether relative deprivation has divergent effects on different types of social and political action. We expect that it will depress volunteering with parties as well as different types of conventional political participation more generally while stimulating volunteering with anti-cuts organisations and engagement in various kinds of protest activism. There is little research into how relative deprivation impacts on different types of social and political action from the wide range of activities available to citizens in contemporary democracies as well as into how this relationship might vary based on the wider economic context. While many studies construct scales, we examine participation in specific activities and associations, such as parties or anti-cuts organisations, voting, contacting, demonstrating and striking to show that deprivation has divergent effects that depart from what is traditionally argued. We apply random effects models with cross-level interactions utilizing an original cross-national European dataset collected in 2015 (N = 17,667) within a collaborative funded-project. We show that a negative economic context has a mobilizing effect by both increasing the stimulating effect of relative deprivation on protest activism as well as by closing or reversing the gap between resource-poor and resource-rich groups for volunteering with parties and voting.