When we look at the UK population, we find that immigration may have some adverse consequences for subjective well-being, but these overall effects are small. What is of most interest is that this effect in the general population masks a lot of differences across population sub-groups, based on how people self-identify in terms of their national identity. To illustrate, when comparing the two largest national identity sub-groups in the UK, namely those who feel principally English versus those who feel principally British, we find that assessments of the effect of immigration on their self-reported life satisfaction are diametrically opposed. People who feel English appear to undergo a significant and substantive loss in their life satisfaction when faced with significant inflows of migrants into their local area, but for those who identify as British, the opposite is true. We observed similar (albeit less stark) differences between our English and British identity sub-groups when looking at the General Health Questionnaire.
People who feel English appear to undergo a substantive loss in their life satisfaction when faced with significant inflows of migrants into their local area, but for those who identify as British, the opposite is true.
The question then is, what explains these differences? Two theoretical frameworks, namely social identity theory and identity economics, used in social psychology and economics, respectively, offer important insights here. The basic idea behind social identity theory is that we are all predisposed to divide ourselves into in- and out-groups, and people belonging to the in-group are less likely to trust out-group members. We know from survey research that people who identify as English are more likely to see ancestry as a key criterion for national belonging and are therefore more likely than their British-identity counterparts to perceive migrants as belonging to an out-group.
Identity economics would suggest that migrants may have negative consequences for what economists refer to as identity utility, because they may be less likely to conform to the normative behavioural ideals associated with being English—given, amongst other things, differences in culture, religion and language.
We are not saying that one national identity is better or worse than the other (and of course some people will feel strong attachments to both) or even that everyone who feels English as opposed to British will feel worse off as a result of immigration. Rather, we are saying that if we look at people who feel English as opposed to British, they are, as a group, likely to feel an overall loss in their subjective well-being when faced with inflows of migrants into their local area. On the other hand, people who identify as British are more likely to witness an increase in their well-being. In these circumstances, the sharp polarisation on immigration issues is not just understandable but perhaps inevitable, as demographic change has sharply diverging subjective well-being impacts for different cohorts of the population.
Acknowledgements: This work was supported by the Nuffield Foundation, but the views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Foundation.
The above draws on Identity, immigration, and subjective well-being: why are natives so sharply divided on immigration issues?, Oxford Economic Papers.
All articles posted on this blog give the views of the author(s), and not the position of LSE British Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics and Political Science.
Featured image credit: Summer Sky in Southsea England / Tiger500 Attribution, License 2.0 Generic (CC BY 2.0)
