Ukrainian refugees prefer countries with better job opportunities to countries with higher social benefits. This is the finding of a recent study by the ifo Institute, which surveyed over 3,300 Ukrainian refugees in Europe.
“The prospect of a job that matches their qualifications and a higher wage level has a much stronger effect on refugees than social assistance or child benefits,” says Panu Poutvaara, Director of the ifo Center for Migration and Development Economics. “We see that wage differences play an almost four times greater role in the choice of destination country of Ukrainian refugees than differences in social benefits. That, of course, does not mean that social benefits play no role at all.”
[…]
Job opportunities and higher wages are decisive factors also to refugees who are currently unemployed. They apparently plan to enter the labor market in the future. In addition, friends or family in the destination country are 8.5 percentage points more important than immediate geographical proximity to Ukraine. Intentions to return also play a role. Refugees who plan to settle outside Ukraine in the long term prefer countries further away with economic advantages over countries where family and friends are located.
“Understanding why refugees choose certain countries is crucial for designing appropriate policies nationally and internationally,” says Yvonne Giesing, Deputy Director of the ifo Center for Migration and Development Economics. One example of this is the debate about cutting social benefits to make fleeing to certain countries less attractive. However, the study shows that higher wages and easier access to suitable jobs are a greater incentive for refugees than social benefits. Therefore, cuts in social benefits are likely to have little effect. “Cutting government aid could also have a negative impact on integration in the long term,” says Giesing.
By Eastern European programming in this case I’m referring to a set of politoeconomic beliefs held by a chunk of Eastern Europeans, informed by the Eastern European reality of the last few decades. The beliefs I’m referring to tend to be informed by the free market propaganda which came along with the economic shock therapy implemented in most Eastern bloc countries post 1989. For example economic individualism which entails that everyone deserves what they get in the economy. The winners worked to win, the losers are lazy moochers. Which means one should rely on themselves, and not on others and therefore not on the state and its welfare programs. It follows that jobs are much more important than welfare systems for one’s wellbeing. Since the wages made from jobs are often in opposition to welfare programs, that is better welfare means lower take-home wages via higher taxes, people who prioritize the importance of their wages tend to vote for lower taxes or welfare cuts, or both, in other words - austerity.
I don’t know where you have got this, but do yourself a favour and stay away.
This survey says that job opportunities are more important to refugees from Ukraine than social benefits, and it means that job opportunities are more important to refugees from Ukraine than social benefits. Nothing else.
I didn’t imply this survey specifically means something else. I’m saying the fact revealed by this survey doesn’t exist in vacuum and I think there are relationships between this and other parts of reality. If you’d like it to be in vacuum and believe it is and it isn’t connected to anything else - that’s alright. I personally don’t think that’s realistic and I think it speaks to other bits of anecdata (and data) I am aware of. I made a good faith attempt to briefly explain the relationships I see. It’s also totally normal to disagree with my hypothesis. No concrete evidence has been presented. At the same time absence of evidence isn’t evidence of absence.
Also it’s difficult to stay away from my experiences, friends, family and community. 😄
E: Oh in case you think I’m suggesting someone should gatekeep immigrants based on their politoeconomic beliefs, that’s not at all what I would ever advocate for, and definitey not the only possibility. Rather I would think along the lines of educating immigrants to states with welfare systems on the importance of these systems and why it’s a good idea to pay for them.