Sino-NK

What can welfare attitudes in divided societies tell us about in-group dynamics and national identity? We presented our research on this question at the Korean Studies Research Seminar at the Leiden Institute for Asian Studies (LIAS), Leiden University, on April 17.¹⁾The full working paper is also available for download: Denney, Steven and Peter Ward, “The Enduring Legacy of Forced Division: Welfare Nationalism in Germany and South Korea,” Working Paper, April 30, 2024. For feedback on the research design and technical assistance, the authors thank members of the European Centre for North Korean Studies (ECNK) at the University of Vienna, including Professor Rüdiger Frank, Mr. Robin Brehm, and Ms. Tianzi Zhou.

We propose a revised conceptualization of welfare nationalism to address the gap in understanding exclusionary attitudes within divided societies that cannot be fully explained by concepts like welfare chauvinism and welfare ethnocentrism. The basis of discrimination is not ethnic diversity but rather differences perceived in national identity and status.

Welfare nationalism diverges significantly from welfare chauvinism and welfare ethnocentrism, both of which have defined discussions around welfare distribution biases. While welfare chauvinism, as a concept, is about how welfare benefits and redistributive preferences among populations are restricted to citizens, often native-born, and welfare ethnocentrism extends these exclusions to ethnic minorities within the nation, welfare nationalism brings attention to exclusions based on national or regional affiliations among ethnically similar co-nationals. These distinctions are not necessarily ethnic or racial but are deeply tied to perceptions of national identity and status within a country.

We are not the first to use the term “welfare nationalism,” but we see our use as significantly expanding the term beyond its common association with elite or popular concerns over national interests, a fair but limited conceptualization, or the more reactionary usages that see nationalism as something necessarily bad, reactive, and undesirable.

Welfare nationalism here is characterized by the belief that welfare benefits should be restricted to specific groups within a nation regardless of nativity, ethnicity, or citizenship status. ​ This form of exclusionism aims to reserve welfare benefits for those deemed part of the “authentic” or “real” nation, thereby excluding those from the perceived “other” regions within the same national borders. The implications of this are significant, as welfare nationalism reflects the dynamics of exclusion within ethnic or national groups and highlights the role of national identity and historical context in fostering discriminatory attitudes towards welfare provision.

This conceptual framework focuses on how welfare attitudes can be used to better understand national identities, particularly in contexts where historical divisions persist. By examining the cases of Germany and South Korea, we show how regional affiliations within a nation influence welfare attitudes among co-nationals sharing the same ethnicity.

The study was partly inspired by previous research where we found significant discrimination in redistribution preferences among co-ethnics in South Korea, which we described as another kind of welfare chauvinism reflective of the country’s “hierarchical nationhood.” ​We extend and expand upon that research here.

Methodology

The research employs a choice-based conjoint where respondents are asked to assume the role of state agent prioritizing multiple working-class candidates for a pilot employment support program. The profiles comprise various attributes related to the candidate’s background, most notably their origin at birth. An English-language version of the experimental design is provided below. The study’s populations include semi-representative panels from Germany and South Korea.²⁾We focus the analysis in the German sample on ethnic Germans from Western German federal states. We exclude Berlin respondents unless the respondent is considered as having come of age in West or East Berlin during division. The main quantities of interest are origins of potential national others: those from jurisdictions belonging to former East Germany and South Korean citizens of North Korean origin.³⁾As explained in the presentation and working paper, the origins shown to South Korean respondents include North Hamgyong, DPRK, Busan, Gyeonggi Province, and Hanoi, Vietnam. For Germans, the origins are Saxony, Hamburg, Bavaria, and Bucharest, Romania.

Summary of Findings

The analysis based on the conjoint data shows co-national biases in welfare attitudes. In Germany, there is enduring discrimination against individuals from Saxony (Sachsen) by those from Western regions. Similarly, in South Korea, individuals from North Hamgyong (북한, 함경북도) face discrimination from South Koreans. These internal national discriminations underscore the presence of welfare nationalism, where the national identity of individuals significantly influences their perceived deservingness of welfare benefits. We reproduce the main findings figure from the manuscript below.

Notably, the discrimination by South Koreans toward those from North Korea is considerably stronger than is the case between Western/Eastern Germans, which is not surprising. Germany has had an entire generation’s worth of time to reunify the country territorially and socially. In fact, additional analysis suggests that welfare nationalism has considerably waned among the post-unification Western German population (see Appendix C of the working paper). This finding should be both a hopeful data point for South Korean policymakers and perhaps a sobering one; division in the Korean case, should unification come about, will take decades to truly overcome.

Theoretical and Practical Implications

The study of welfare nationalism challenges existing paradigms such as welfare chauvinism and ethnocentrism by illustrating that discrimination can occur among co-nationals who are ethnically similar. This insight is crucial for policy-making and social equity efforts, particularly in societies that address deep-seated regional and national divisions. For instance, the case of divided Korea, with its stark contrasts between North and South, presents an example of how welfare nationalism can exacerbate social divides, complicating efforts toward unification and social cohesion.

In Germany, the experience of reunification provides a contrasting narrative. Despite challenges, the integration of Eastern and Western regions and the decreasing discrimination among post-unification Western Germans show the significance of political socialization and nation-building at work and the potential for overcoming welfare nationalism through comprehensive social policies and national narratives that promote national solidarity. Insofar as Germany is viewed as a potential future for a unified Korea, as unlikely as that may seem at the moment, lessons can nevertheless be learned.