Civilizing vs destructive globalization? A multi-level analysis of anti-immigrant prejudice

Abstract

This study investigates the impact of the latest wave of globalization on anti-immigrant prejudice. We discern and test two contradictory accounts of the impact of globalization on anti-immigrant prejudice from the prejudice and globalization literatures. On the one hand, there is the 'civilizing/integrative globalization' thesis, which implies that globalization should help to decrease prejudice by creating sustained and equal contact between previously alien cultures and peoples, and by spreading economic gains to everybody. On the other hand, there is the 'destructive globalization/globalization as a threat' thesis, which argues that globalization should increase anti-immigrant prejudice by intensifying competition over resources and by increasing perceived threat by native populations as a result of increasing immigrant populations. We test these two accounts using a multi-level analysis of 64 countries and nearly 150,000 individuals, derived from the World Values Surveys (waves 3-5). Our analyses reveal support for 'destructive globalization/globalization as a threat' thesis, but emphasize the multi-dimensional character of globalization. We find that citizens of countries with higher levels of trade openness have significantly more anti-immigrant sentiments. There is also some evidence that in countries where unemployment is accompanied by high levels of trade openness or the existence of large immigrant populations, citizens hold high anti-immigrant prejudice. By contrast, foreign direct investment (FDI) has a weak effect.