In recent years, societies across the globe have witnessed a marked rise in anti-immigration sentiment, reflecting deep-seated apprehensions about how newcomers might influence the fabric of host countries. Central to these concerns is the potential strain on welfare systems, particularly healthcare infrastructure, which many natives fear could be overwhelmed. This apprehension is significant because it directly impacts the public’s willingness to accept immigrants and endorse redistributive policies designed to foster equity. Contrary to simplistic assumptions that resistance to immigrants arises purely from xenophobia or fear of welfare exploitation, new research illustrates that economic self-interest, particularly related to immigrants’ perceived contributions to welfare programs, plays a crucial role in shaping public attitudes.
A recent pioneering study led by Associate Professor Tomoko Matsumoto of Tokyo University of Science, in collaboration with Associate Professor Daiki Kishishita from Hitotsubashi University, sheds light on the complex dynamics between the welfare state and natives’ preferences for immigrant profiles. By innovatively integrating an information-provision experiment with a conjoint survey methodology, the researchers unraveled the causal relationships underpinning these preferences, addressing key limitations seen in earlier studies. These past investigations often failed to establish causality and predominantly emphasized concerns surrounding low-income immigrants as welfare burdens, neglecting broader systemic influences.
The heart of this study lies in understanding how public awareness of immigrants’ participation in the welfare system alters preferences for immigrant attributes such as income level, age, industry, and origin. Conducted through an online survey involving approximately 2,000 Japanese respondents, the experiment was carefully structured to test three hypotheses. First, the researchers posited that respondents generally preferred younger immigrants with higher incomes, especially those engaged in caregiving sectors like nursing. They also anticipated preferential bias towards immigrants from democratic, developed nations.
The second hypothesis probed the impact of explicitly informing the public about immigrants’ contribution to the healthcare insurance system, predicting a decline in support for low-income immigrants and increased favorability towards high-income immigrants, without substantially shifting attitudes toward other attributes. The third hypothesis suggested that these preference shifts would disproportionately occur among individuals not burdened by job security concerns, implying a nuanced interplay between economic self-interest and personal employment stability.
Participants were first screened through reCAPTCHA and attention-check questions to ensure data reliability. Then, they were randomly assigned to either a control group, receiving information solely about Japan’s labor shortages and the role of foreign workers, or a treatment group, which received the same labor shortage information supplemented by explicit details about immigrants’ contributions to Japan’s healthcare system. This design enabled the researchers to isolate the effect of awareness on preference shifts.
Following the informational intervention, participants engaged in conjoint survey experiments that required them to evaluate hypothetical immigrant profiles defined by combinations of varying attributes—age, income, industry, political regime of origin, development status of home country, and geographical region. By statistically analyzing the mean preferences across the treatment and control groups, the researchers could infer the influence of welfare participation information on public attitudes.
Initial findings revealed that in the control group, only about half of the respondents correctly understood that foreign workers in Japan were covered by the national healthcare insurance system, reflecting a significant knowledge gap. Through the educational component of the treatment, awareness increased by approximately 30%, demonstrating the efficacy of the information provision in altering perceptions.
Crucially, the results validated the first hypothesis with an intriguing exception: individuals in the control group tended to prefer low-income immigrants over their high-income counterparts in the context of mitigating labor shortages. This preference underscores a baseline inclination to associate immigrant labor with economic affordability or necessity rather than potential welfare contributions.
However, exposure to information indicating immigrants’ participation in the healthcare system induced a strong preference shift aligned with the second hypothesis. Respondents in the treatment group distinctly favored high-income immigrants, perceiving them as likely net contributors to the welfare system. Notably, this shift did not appreciably affect preferences related to other immigrant attributes, indicating the specificity of the effect.
The third hypothesis also garnered support from the data, suggesting that job security anxieties intersect with welfare concerns to condition attitudes towards immigrant economic profiles. People with secure employment were more inclined to adapt their preferences based on welfare system knowledge, highlighting the interplay of socio-economic factors shaping immigration opinions.
This research challenges conventional wisdom by illustrating that welfare state institutions not only respond to immigration but actively influence public attitudes and policy preferences concerning immigrant selection. The institutional feature of immigrant inclusion in healthcare coverage emerges as a critical factor that molds natives’ assessment of immigrant desirability, moving beyond simplistic narratives focused on cultural or racial biases.
Professor Matsumoto emphasizes the importance of establishing causal evidence linking welfare system design to immigration preferences, opening fertile ground for future research. By elucidating how information and institutional awareness shape public acceptance, this study provides valuable insights for policymakers seeking to craft nuanced immigration strategies responsive to public concerns and economic realities.
In conclusion, the study significantly advances our understanding of the interdependencies between welfare policies and immigration attitudes. It reveals that enhancing public knowledge about welfare participation by immigrants can recalibrate preferences towards those perceived as more economically contributive, thereby influencing immigration policy in substantively meaningful ways. This work underscores the potential for transparent communication and informed institutional frameworks to mediate anti-immigration sentiments and support more equitable and functional immigration policies.
Subject of Research: People
Article Title: Welfare State and Natives’ Preferences for Immigrants’ Types
News Publication Date: 1 June 2026
Web References: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-026-01411-8
Image Credits: Associate Professor Tomoko Matsumoto from Tokyo University of Science, Japan
Keywords: Health care, Healthcare policy, Public opinion, Welfare state, Immigration policy, Economic self-interest, Social surveys, Political science
