ANTI-IMMIGRANT ATTITUDES IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY: TURKEY

Turkish Studies International Periodical for the Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic

Volume 10/10 Summer 2015, p. 771-792

DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8447

ISSN: 1308-2140, ANKARA-TURKEY

ANTI-IMMIGRANT ATTITUDES IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY:

TURKEY

Özgür SOLAKOĞLU**

Suheyl GURBUZ

ABSTRACT

The goal of this study is to explain what factors currently affect the anti-immigrant attitudes that prevail in Turkey. The study is the first study on anti immigrant attitudes in Turkey, considering national samples of two different years. İt provides to compare the level of anti immigrant attitudes among Turkish people. The data is drawn from the 2002 and 2008 European Social Survey. Because Turkey has been a rapidly developing country, and has increased its involvement in the global economy over the years, this study compares the Turkish respondents’ anti-immigrant attitudes across two different time periods. In addition, trust in global institutions, media variables, economic variables, religiosity, and political orientation are used as independent variables. The results of OLS regression analyses reveal that global change over the years, trust in global institutions, TV viewing hours, internet use, and satisfaction with the national economy, and political orientation have a significant effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. On the other hand, it is observed that religion has no effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. İn addition, comparing to İstanbul, Southeast region of Anatolia appeared as a significant predictor. This study also provides a framework for further studies, as this is the first study on this topic, representing the Turkish nation.

STRUCTURED ABSTRACT

The goal of this study is to explain what factors currently affect the anti-immigrant attitudes that prevail in Turkey. In this study, the European Social Survey 2002 (Turkey) (ESS-TR 2002) and the European Social Survey 2008 (Turkey) (ESS-TR 2008) were used as secondary data to examine the research questions. This study incorporates OLS regression analyses to indicate how globalization, trust in global institutions, media variables, economic variables, religiosity, and political orientation predict anti-immigrant attitudes in Turkey. The results of OLS regression analyses reveal that global

Bu makale Crosscheck sistemi tarafından taranmış ve bu sistem sonuçlarına göre orijinal bir makale olduğu

tespit edilmiştir. ** Dr. Turkish Military Academy El-mek: [email protected]

http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8447

772 Özgür SOLAKOĞLU – Suheyl GURBUZ


Volume 10/10 Summer 2015

change over the years, trust in global institutions, TV viewing hours, internet use, and satisfaction with the national economy, and political orientation have a significant effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. On the other hand, it is observed that religion has no effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. In addition, comparing to İstanbul, Southeast region of Anatolia appeared as a significant predictor.

Introduction and Purpose

Ongoing immigration process has many impacts on social life at both the national as well as the global level, on anti-immigrant attitudes. Different underlying reasons related to the negative attitudes and prejudices in this area can be observed, especially when considering the economic and cultural dimensions for this phenomenon. For instance, immigrants are a potential and sensitive target when an economy is on the decline. The basic explanation is that, native people are generally unwilling to volunteer to share their job opportunities.

The immigrant profile in Turkey consists of four different cases, which are “transit migration flows, illegal labor migration, movements of asylum seekers and refugees, and the registered migration of foreigners” (Icduygu, 2004). While there are studies on transnational immigration in the Turkish literature, research on anti-immigrant attitudes is limited. In addition, most of them focus on legal immigrants. For example, most of the legal immigrants in the Mediterranean region complain about their status in the society. That is, they are seen as tourists rather than citizens, and this is the main argument of immigrants (Sagir, 2011). Thus, the literature of globalization and its effect on social life has not reach a mature realm in Turkey. In this regard, there are limited studies related to transnational immigration in Turkey. In particular, while some studies have examined anti-immigrant attitudes and prejudice, the literature focuses largely on regional or case based examples (Cengiz, 2015; Göver & Yavuzer, 2015). A study is needed that explores a national sample and determines which factors influence anti-immigrant attitudes in Turkey.

Literature Review

There is a gap in the literature about how individual perceptions of globalization influence negative attitudes towards immigrants. Kritz, Lim and Zlotnik (1992) focused on the need for a comprehensive approach to fill the gaps in migration theory, as early theories were not sufficient for explaining current immigration topics due to the fact that globalization is a new phenomenon affecting all kinds of immigration patterns. In this respect, the authors suggested “a migration system approach” covering political, economic, social, and demographic contexts. In a recent article, Kaya and Karakoc (2012) argued and discussed the positive and negative features of globalization affecting anti-immigrant attitudes. They found the positive relationship between anti-immigrant attitudes and globalization resulted from economic variables, though different outputs might be produced via other dimensions of globalization.

Within this context, in this paper, we argue that higher individual involvement in globalization or having a positive perspective for global

Anti-Immigrant Attitudes In A Developing Country: Turkey 773



institutions leads to lower negative attitudes towards immigrants.

It is commonly acknowledged that the relationship between media and anti-immigrant attitudes can be observed universally. The study, for instance, using a sample from the Netherlands between 1990 and 2002 by Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart (2007) showed that media consumption plays a particular role in explaining anti-immigrant attitudes, when controlling for other variables such as unemployment, immigration level and leadership.

In Turkey, the branches of the media, such as TV, radio, internet and newspapers have a similar tendency in the name of xenophobia. However, in examining the relationship between media and xenophobia in Turkey, the central point dominantly discussed consists of concerns about houses and land purchased by foreigners (Sagir, 2011).

Economic reasons have become the central theme surrounding most of the transnational theories concerning anti-immigrant attitudes. As an early example of immigration theory, (Lee, 1966) described economic concerns as push-and- pull factors in his study. Under the framework of the neoclassical economic approach, Sjaastad (1962) also detailed the importance of economic motives for increasing human capital. In regards to anti-immigrant attitudes, unemployment has been found to have an important effect on negative attitudes towards immigrants (Lubbers, Gijsberts & Scheepers, 2002).

Sides and Citrin (2007) argued that demographic characteristics and economic conditions lose their significance whereas political interest and ideology become more important when trying to explain anti-immigrant attitudes. According to these authors this transition occurs because the immigration issue has become largely politicized. That is, political events and statements of politicians at the national and international level have a greater impact than people’s demographic and economic situations (Sides & Citrin, 2007).

Many researchers analyzed the relationship between the level of religiosity and the level of prejudice (Strabac & Listhaug, 2008). Generally they found a positive relationship between being religious and having more prejudice (Batson, Schoenrade, & Larry, 1993). We expect that religiosity would be a strong predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes among Turkish respondents.

There has been a growing body of literature on the effect of social factors on anti-immigrant attitudes (Card, Dustmann, & Preston, 2005; Espenshade & Hempstead, 1996; Hjerm, 2009; Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2005). Education is negatively associated with anti-immigrant views based on the “labor market competition hypothesis” (Espenshade & Hempstead, 1996). Older people have higher negative attitudes towards immigrants (Hjerm, 2009). In addition, gender differences influence xenophobia, since males are more fearful than females in terms of newcomers, since they are key rivals in the job market (Hjerm, 2009). Due to fact that geographic regions have their own culture, immigration rates, and different employment rates, it was assumed that the level of anti-immigrant attitudes would vary by location.




Methods

In this study, the European Social Survey 2002 (Turkey) (ESS-TR 2002) and the European Social Survey 2008 (Turkey) (ESS-TR 2008) were used as secondary data to examine the research questions.

OLS regression was used to analyze the models, as the dependent variable was an interval ratio level variable. Six models were created to examine the effect of the independent variables on the scale of anti-immigrant attitudes. In the first model, only socio-demographic characteristics were used as background variables. In the other models, each model was tested with background variables to better articulate the affect they would have, separately. Therefore, models of globalization, media, economy, and political orientation and religiosity were tested with control variables. In the last model, a full model was tested to determine the general picture.

Variables

The dependent variable is anti-immigrant attitudes scale had 11 categories with higher scores indicate higher xenophobia, ranging from 0 to 10 (Cronbach’s alpha=.859).

Since the data set was created by merging ESS 2008 and ESS 2002, a dummy variable was constructed for ESS 2008, which was identified as being a 1, and ESS 2002 was identified as being 0.

Trust in global institutions is another scale ranged from 0 to 10 with a sufficient Cronbach’s alpha score of .854.

Four different questions measured respondents’ media consumption, based on the total time of average weekday TV watching, radio listening, newspaper reading and internet use. Responses varied from 0, indicating “no time at all” to 7, indicating “more than 3 hours.”

The first variable was related to satisfaction with the present economy in the country as measured by a 10 point scale. Higher scores indicated higher satisfaction. Therefore, a score of 0 represented a response of “extremely dissatisfied” and a 10 represented a response of “extremely satisfied.”

The main activity of the respondents in the last 7 days was also used to help understand the effect of unemployment on anti-immigrant attitudes. In this vein, respondents who were looking for a job in the last seven days were coded as a 1 and other respondents were coded as 0.

The religiosity scale and the respondent’s political orientation were used as additional independent variables. The religiosity scale, as a variable, is an 11 point scale that measures how religious respondents are. Similarly, political orientation had an 11 point scale measuring how interested respondents were in political issues.

Age, region, education, gender and geographical regions were used for describing the respondent’s demographic characteristics. Education was assessed as an ordinary variable on a 4 point scale where: 1= less than lower secondary education, 2=lower secondary education completed, 3=upper secondary education completed, 4=tertiary




education completed. Gender was recoded as 1=male and 0=female. Turkey consists of 7 geographical regions which are culturally different from each other. These regions are Marmara, Aegean, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Central Anatolia, East Anatolia and Southeast Anatolia. In addition, Istanbul is a unique geographical area since it has a population of 14 million, which is greater than some regions. Thus, 7 dummy variables were created to compare the Istanbul region, which has the highest population in Turkey relative to others.

Results and Discussion

As a whole, and based on globalization, the variables examined supported our arguments. That is, among Turkish adults, the 2008 respondents reported lower level anti-immigrant attitudes in comparison with 2002 respondents. Our result supported the argument of (Ariely, 2012) that “individual level of explanation” should be used for explaining the impact of globalization on xenophobia. Trust in global institutions also appears as a significant variable in this study.

Considering the impact of media variables, our results are consistent with the literature indicating that there is a positive relationship between media usage and xenophobia (Hussain, 2000; Danso & McDonald, 2001; Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2007). On the other hand, internet use should be taken into account as a globalization variable since internet usage for obtaining information has been on the rise in recent decades.

The current findings add substantively to our understanding of the significant impact of economic variables on immigration patterns and attitudes. In general, while Turkish adults think that newcomers are not an issue as long as the national economy is going well; they do not see foreigners as rivals.

Considering political orientation, citizens with more conservative motives were found to have more anti-immigrant attitudes. (Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2009; Hainmueller & Hiscox 2007; McLaren 2001, 2003; Semyonov et al. 2006, 2008) . On the other hand, it appeared that religiosity has no effect on anti-immigrant attitudes among Turkish citizens.

In terms of demographic characteristics, education and age played similar roles in determining anti-immigrant attitudes, based on the common literature (Espenshade & Hempstead 1996; Hjerm 2009). On the other hand, geographical regions did not appear to be a significant variable, except for the Southeast region of Anatolia. Our assumption is that those from Southeast Anatolia have lower anti-immigrant attitudes, since the level of the domestic immigration from Southeast Anatolia to other regions is also higher than other locations. Thus, empathy might play a role in understanding the observed relationship.

Conclusion and Recommendations

This paper proposed to present a study framework that could be used for further studies, since, as mentioned previously, there is no national scale study in the literature that discusses Turkish anti-immigrant attitudes.

One source of weakness in this study which could have affected




the measurements was the merging of two data sets, belonging to different years. This might have generated sample bias. However, considering the random selection and national sample design, the best and most recent data were used in the study. For further studies, multilevel data sets and different methodologies might present more valid and detailed results. As discussed above, the current refugees of Syria would possibly change the current result in a negative way.

Key Words: Globalization, Immigration, Turkey, Xenophobia

GELİŞMEKTE OLAN BİR ÜLKE OLAN TÜRKİYE'DE YABANCI GÖÇMENLERE KARŞI NEGATİF TUTUMLAR

ÖZET

Bu çalışmanın amacı Türk toplumu arasında yabancı göçmenlere karşı takınılan negatif tutumların hangi değişkenlere bağlı olduğunu açıklamaktır. Ulusal ölçekte iki farklı yıla ait data setini analiz etmesi itibarı ile söz konusu çalışma bir ilk olma özelliği taşımaktadır. Bu özelliği ilede söz konusu çalışma iki farklı yıl karşılaştırılarak Türk toplumundaki göçmenlere karşı takınılan negatif tutum seviyesini karşılaştırma imkânı vermektedir. Avrupa Sosyal Anketi'nin 2002 ve 2008 yıllarında icra edilen versiyonları söz konusu çalışmada data seti olarak kullanılmıştır. Türkiye toplumununun küreselleşme ile yıllara sarı daha fazla etkileşim içerisinde olması nedeniyle 2002 ve 2008 yıllarındaki göçmenlere karşı takınılan tavırlar karşılaştırılmıştır. Bunun yanında global kurumlara olan güven, medya, ekonomi, din, ve politik aidiyet bağımsız değişken olarak kullanılmıştır. OLS regresyon bulguları yıllara sarı değişim, global kurumlara olan güven, televizyon izleme saati, internet kullanımı, milli ekonomiden tatmin ve politik aidiyetin göçmenlere karşı takınılan tavırlarda anlamlı bir etkiye sahip olduğunu göstermiştir. Diğer yandan din ile göçmenlere karşı takınılan negatif tutumlar arsında anlamlı bir ilişki gözlenmemiştir. Bunun yanında, coğrafi bölgeler ile ilgili olarak, İstanbul ile karşılıştırıldığında Güney Doğu Anadolu bölgesine mensup katılımcılar arasında istatiksel olarak anlamlı bir fark olmasına rağmen diğer coğrafi bölgelerde aynı anlamlılık gözlenmemiştir. Bu çalışmanın aynı zamanda konu ile ilgili ilk ulusal ölçekte bir çalışma olması nedeniyle gelecekteki çalışmalara temel oluşturacağı değerlendirilmektedir.

Anahtar Kelimeler: Küreselleşme, Göç, Türkiye, Yabancı Düşmanlığı

1. Introduction

For nearly 50 years, globalization has been emerging as a worldwide phenomenon in the

context of numerous topics that range from migration and human rights to environmental problems,

international institutions and nation states. In particular, although immigration has always existed throughout the course of world history, after the Cold War, immigration flows reached a peak in

terms of numbers of migrants (Czaika & de Haas, 2014;Yilmaz, 2014). It is safe to say that this

ongoing immigration process has many impacts on social life at both the national as well as the




global level, particularly on anti-immigrant attitudes. Although cross-national immigration has a

historical background, the literature includes limited information on how the new type of transnational immigration, which is highly correlated with globalization, influences anti-immigrant

attitudes. Different underlying reasons related to the negative attitudes and prejudices in this area

can be observed, especially when considering the economic and cultural dimensions for this phenomenon. For instance, Robinson and Barrera argued (2012) that as a response to massive

immigrant waves, the resulting capitalist crisis produces fascism. In other words, immigrants are a

potential and sensitive target when an economy is on the decline. The basic explanation is that, native people are generally unwilling to volunteer to share their job opportunities. Additionally,

Kaya and Karakoc (2012) discussed the fact that the level of globalization in a country plays a

specific role in increasing anti-immigrant prejudice, that is, a higher degree of integration with

globalization leads to a higher degree of prejudice or vice versa.

In addition, one the one hand, immigration generates a massive population increase in

developed or developing countries (OECD, 2011) that can largely be explained by economic needs.

On the other hand, these needs have the potential to create social conflicts. In other words, those who are unhappy with immigrants might have concerns, stemming not only from cultural and

national points of view, but also as a result of economic factors. That is, new immigrants mean

cheaper workers and rivalry in the job market (Wolf, 1997). To elaborate, in the global era, immigrants are one of the groups vulnerable to exploitation by job owners (Sassen, 1996). In this

regard, after World War II, Turkey became a key source of labor for European countries. However,

the original immigration flow from Turkey to Europe has had a tendency to reverse itself over the

last ten years. This is because, in last decade, Turkey increased its GNI (Gross National Income), threefold (World Development Indicators Data, 2013). Yet, despite the fact that Turkey has been

developing economically, globalization has generated social problems in the country, as in other

developing countries. The high urbanization rate, the internal immigration flows from the rural country side and social exclusions that prevail in the big cities present the same globalization

picture in Turkey as in most developing countries. For example, while the population of Istanbul

was 1 million in 1950, it became 10 million in 2005 (Keyder, 2005). With globalization,

transnational markets emerged in Istanbul(Keyder, 2005) , which was accepted as a hybrid city, in conjunction with culture as related to immigration (Pieterse, 2001). In addition to Turkish

immigrants from Europe, an increasing number of people from countries which have worse

economies than Turkey and an unstable political picture in the Middle East and Caucasia have chosen Turkey as an immigration destination (Elitok & Straubhaar, 2011) Turkey forms a unique

geographical bridge between unstable countries and European countries in terms of human

trafficking and illegal immigration (Karakus, 2008). In addition, citizens of some European countries such as Russia, Germany and Great Britain have preferred to live in the Mediterranean

coast of Turkey in past few years due to its tourism potential and acceptances of intermarriages

(Deniz & Ozgur, 2010; Sagir, 2011) . In sum, the immigrant profile in Turkey consists of four

different cases, which are “transit migration flows, illegal labor migration, movements of asylum seekers and refugees, and the registered migration of foreigners” (Icduygu, 2004). While there are

studies on transnational immigration in the Turkish literature, research on anti-immigrant attitudes

is limited. In addition, most of them focus on legal immigrants. For example, most of the legal immigrants in the Mediterranean region complain about their status in the society. That is, they are

seen as tourists rather than citizens, and this is the main argument of immigrants (Sagir, 2011).

Thus, the literature of globalization and its effect on social life has not reach a mature realm in Turkey. In this regard, there are limited studies related to transnational immigration in Turkey. In

particular, while some studies have examined anti-immigrant attitudes and prejudice, the literature

focuses largely on regional or case based examples (Cengiz, 2015; Göver & Yavuzer, 2015). A




study is needed that explores a national sample and determines which factors influence anti-

immigrant attitudes in Turkey.

2. Models of Anti-immigrant Attitudes

2.1. Globalization Model

Although there are many studies examining the relationship between globalism and transnational migration, in general, this literature is mostly related to the effect of globalization on

anti-immigrant attitudes and focuses on economic models. Thus, most of the variables used in these

studies reflect economic concerns and macro-level figures. Furthermore, there is a gap in the literature about how individual perceptions of globalization influence negative attitudes towards

immigrants. Kritz, Lim and Zlotnik (1992) examined the problems of immigration theories using

the theory of globalization. That is, the authors focused on the need for a comprehensive approach

to fill the gaps in migration theory, as early theories were not sufficient for explaining current immigration topics due to the fact that globalization is a new phenomenon affecting all kinds of

immigration patterns. In this respect, the authors suggested “a migration system approach”

covering political, economic, social, and demographic contexts. Last, but not least, globalization has many effects on immigration, and these effects should be taken into account when trying to

explain all aspects of immigration. In a recent article, Kaya and Karakoc (2012) argued and

discussed the positive and negative features of globalization affecting anti-immigrant attitudes using two conflicting hypotheses. By using the macro- level figures of 64 different countries, the

authors found the positive relationship between anti-immigrant attitudes and globalization resulted

from economic variables, though different outputs might be produced via other dimensions of

globalization. In this respect, Ariely (2012) argued that the impact of globalization on the level of xenophobia can be determined not only by the “country level of globalization,” but also by the

“individual level of explanation”. In other words, the levels of national and global identity play a

specific role in explaining the level of anti-immigrant attitudes. Within this context, in this paper, we argue that higher individual involvement in globalization or having a positive perspective for

global institutions leads to lower negative attitudes towards immigrants. That is, one of the aspects

of globalization is democracy which is highly correlated with international organizations such as

the United Nations (UN) and the European Union (EU) (Held, 2000). In Turkey, some components of society perceive these institutions as a reflection of globalization and a threat towards national

identity and the nation state (Rumford, 2003). Therefore, trust in these institutions presents a higher

involvement in globalization. In this vein, we hypothesized that higher trust in global institutions decreases anti-immigrant attitudes. In addition, Turkey has been developing very rapidly because

of global trade, resulting in higher global involvement. We thus anticipated that Turkish adults, on

average, would have fewer anti-immigrant attitudes currently, in comparison with past years.

H1: 2008 respondents who lived in a more globalized society in comparison to 2002

respondents would be more likely to have fewer anti-immigrant attitudes

H2: Trust in global institutions would be negatively associated with anti-immigrant

attitudes

2.2. Media Model

It is commonly acknowledged that the relationship between media and anti-immigrant

attitudes can be observed universally. The study, for instance, using a sample from the Netherlands between 1990 and 2002 by Boomgaarden and Vliegenthart (2007) showed that media consumption

plays a particular role in explaining anti-immigrant attitudes, when controlling for other variables

such as unemployment, immigration level and leadership. In particular, news about the negative features of transnational immigration led to a higher vote rate in favor of anti-immigrant parties.




Illustrating a negative picture related to immigrants as stereotypes such as “criminals” or “illegals”

was the main argument in explaining the relationship between media and xenophobia (Danso & McDonald, 2001). In general, there is no effective institution checking the violation of ethical

codes, belonging to media. In this respect, in the name of free media, there is a common tendency

for media to create a negative image related to foreigners (Hussain, 2000) . In Turkey, the branches of the media, such as TV, radio, internet and newspapers have a similar tendency in the name of

xenophobia. However, in examining the relationship between media and xenophobia in Turkey, the

central point dominantly discussed consists of concerns about houses and land purchased by foreigners (Sagir, 2011).

H3: Each media branch is positively associated with anti-immigrant attitudes.

2.3. Economic model

Economic reasons have become the central theme surrounding most of the transnational theories concerning anti-immigrant attitudes. As an early example of immigration theory, (Lee,

1966) described economic concerns as push-and- pull factors in his study. (Lewis, 1954) and

(Todaro, 1969) argued that the main reason for immigration stemmed from imbalances between the economic conditions of the departure and arrival point, as well as labor wages. Under the

framework of the neoclassical economic approach, Sjaastad (1962) also detailed the importance of

economic motives for increasing human capital. For the author, having better human capital opportunities was the main reason prompting transnational migration, and this factor was described

as having “monetary” and “non-monetary” dimensions. Moreover, while (Stark & Bloom, 1985)

changed the unit of analysis from an individual level to the family level, they still centered on

economic factors in their “new home economic theory”. The economist,(Piore, 1980) focused on the exclusive role of the demand for a cheap labor force in developed countries. Although

integrated theories such as structural determination theory (Portes & Rumbaut, 2014) , and

cumulative causation theory(Myrdal, 1957) cover other dimensions of immigration, these theories still favor economic factors as one of the key components for explaining immigration motivations.

In regards to anti-immigrant attitudes, unemployment has been found to have an important

effect on negative attitudes towards immigrants, and this attitude is also related to presence of right

wing parties (Lubbers, Gijsberts & Scheepers, 2002). On the other hand, the presence of low social capital, such as having limited economic opportunities and education, generates xenophobia

(Manevska & Achterberg, 2011).

H4: Satisfaction with the national economy is negatively associated with anti-immigrant attitudes

H5: Being unemployed is positively associated with anti-immigrant attitudes

2.4. Political Orientation Model

In this increasingly globalized world, political statements about immigrants produce more

significant negative public reactions than ever before. These negative reactions have been

reinforced by certain related factors including anti-globalist attitudes and fear of terrorism in recent

years (Esses, Dovidio, & Hodson, 2002). This environment makes examining the reasons, indications, and implications of anti-immigrant attitudes from a political aspect an absolute must in

the globalized world (Kivisto, 2001). Political interest and ideology are acknowledged as strong

predictors of anti-immigrant attitudes by former researchers (Ceobanu & Escandell, 2010; Semyonov, Raijman, & Gorodzeisky, 2006, 2008; Sides & Citrin, 2007). Moreover, previous

researchers suggested that the impact of politics on anti-immigrant attitudes needs more attention

(Ceobanu & Escandell, 2010).




Sides and Citrin (2007) argued that demographic characteristics and economic conditions

lose their significance whereas political interest and ideology become more important when trying to explain anti-immigrant attitudes. According to these authors this transition occurs because the

immigration issue has become largely politicized. That is, political events and statements of

politicians at the national and international level have a greater impact than people’s demographic and economic situations (Sides & Citrin, 2007).

In general, studies concerning the effects of ideological orientations utilize a left-right scale

of ideology (De Figueiredo & Elkins, 2003). Numerous researchers have found a positive relationship between being conservative and having anti-immigrant attitudes (Ceobanu &

Escandell, 2010; Gorodzeisky & Semyonov, 2009; Hainmueller & Hiscox, 2007; McLaren, 2001,

2003; Semyonov et al., 2006, 2008). In addition, Ceobanu and Escandell (2010) stated that the

effect of ideology on anti-immigrant attitudes did not change even when they controlled for several other predictors (see also Kunovich, 2009; Semyonov et al., 2006). Furthermore, political ideology

has also been used as an intervening variable between other predictors and anti-immigrant attitudes

(Jackson, Brown, Brown, & Marks, 2001).

Sides & Citrin (2007) stated that the effects of ideology should be conditioned by political

interest. (Zaller, 1992) argued that to reach more accurate conclusions, the level of political interest

should be taken into account along with the ideology. He also claimed that the difference between left and right in terms of anti-immigrant attitudes should be maximal among individuals with high

political interest.

H6: The higher the score on the scale of being conservative, the stronger the positive

association with anti-immigrant attitudes among Turkish adults

2.5. Religiosity Model

In the literature, there are two main approaches concerning the relationship between

religiosity and prejudice. First, early researchers analyzed the relationship between the level of religiosity and the level of prejudice (Strabac & Listhaug, 2008). Moreover, American studies

conducted between 1940 and 1990 about religiosity and prejudice generally found a positive

relationship between being religious and having more prejudice(Batson, Schoenrade, & Larry,

1993). Second, some researchers analyzed the relationship between religiosity and prejudice based on different dimensions of religiosity (Strabac & Listhaug, 2008). These dimensions were extrinsic

and intrinsic religious orientation (Allport & Michael, 1967), religious fundamentalism (Altemeyer

& Hunsberger, 1992), religious quest orientation (Batson & Ventis, 1982). This approach suggested that some religious orientations are associated with more prejudice, while others are not (Strabac &

Listhaug, 2008). In addition, Hunsberger and Jackson (2005) stated that individuals with

extrinsically religious orientation are likely to be more prejudiced, however, individuals with an intrinsically religious orientation are not; quest religious orientation is not related to increased

prejudice whereas religious fundamentalism is. However, these studies have been conducted in

U.S. and results in European countries are slightly different (Strabac & Listhaug, 2008). Recent

studies in Europe suggest a weaker relationship between religiosity and prejudice than in the U.S. (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; Scheepers, Gijsberts, Hello, & Gijsberts, 2002) . Our study focuses

on Turkey which is a culturally mixed country with both Western and Eastern elements.

One important point about prejudice is that individuals who are prejudiced against one group are usually prejudiced against other groups (Duckitt, 1992; Duckitt & Mphuthing, 1998; Ray

& Lovejoy, 1986). For example, individuals who are prejudiced against homosexuals are more

likely to be prejudiced against immigrants. Also, this effect tends to be more significant among religious people as their prejudice is reinforced multiple times (Burdette, Ellison, & Hill, 2005;




Olson, Cadge, & Harrison, 2006; Strabac & Listhaug, 2008). Although religiosity is frequently

associated with prejudice, there are few studies analyzing the impact of religiosity on anti-immigrant attitudes ( Brug & Fennema, 2003; Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005 )

found that religious people tend to vote for political parties with anti-immigrant policies.

Similarly, a recent study by suggests that religiosity has a significant impact on anti-immigrant attitudes.

Raijman and Semyonov (2004) utilized a cultural threat approach to explaining anti-

immigrant attitudes. Cultural threat feelings cause a fear of foreign cultures as they may damage nationality. They stated that religiosity triggers negative attitudes towards immigrants. Similar

ideas about the association between threats against culture and nationality have been expressed by

previous researchers (Baumgartl & Favell, 1995; Castles, Miller, & Ammendola, 2005; Fetzer,

2000; Schnapper, 1994). Also, some researchers asserted that anti-immigrant attitudes increase as the difference between immigrants and natives increases (Adler, 1996; Fetzer, 2000; Wimmer,

1997).

The impact of religiosity on anti-immigrant attitudes may be even greater than the impact of political interest in the countries where religion plays an important role (Karyotis & Patrikios,

2010). As previously mentioned the relationship between religiosity and anti-immigrant attitudes is

stronger in the U.S. than it is in Europe (Hunsberger & Jackson, 2005; Scheepers et al., 2002; Strabac & Listhaug, 2008). In addition, Laustsen and Waever (2000) argued that political

statements are at least rational in appearance, however religious statements demand a “leap of

faith.” Thus, we expected that religiosity would be a strong predictor of anti-immigrant attitudes

among Turkish respondents.

Finally, the impact of religiosity on anti-immigrant attitudes tends to increase with time

(Karyotis & Patrikios, 2010). Although there are only two different years in this study, we expected

the relationship between religiosity and anti-immigrant attitudes to be stronger in 2008 than it was in 2002. There were two hypotheses related to religiosity in the present study:

H7: Among Turkish adults, those reporting higher scores on the religiosity scale would

report higher score s on the scale of anti-immigrant attitudes.

2.6. Demographic Characteristic model

There has been a growing body of literature on the effect of social factors on anti-

immigrant attitudes (Card, Dustmann, & Preston, 2005; Espenshade & Hempstead, 1996; Hjerm,

2009; Vreese & Boomgaarden, 2005) . Rather than macro level variables, in general, social factors emphasize the individual features of xenophobia. In this regard, education is negatively associated

with anti-immigrant views based on the “labor market competition hypothesis” (Espenshade &

Hempstead, 1996), as higher education individuals have higher status in the society and no fear of losing a job. Although older people have higher negative attitudes towards immigrants, the

relationship cannot be explained easily, meaning that the association is complex (Hjerm, 2009). In

addition, gender differences influence xenophobia, since males are more fearful than females in

terms of newcomers, since they are key rivals in the job market (Hjerm, 2009). Due to fact that geographic regions have their own culture, immigration rates, and different employment rates, it

was assumed that the level of anti-immigrant attitudes would vary by location.

H8: Each of the demographic characteristics would have a significant impact on anti-immigrant attitudes.




3. Data and Measurements

3.1. Data

In this study, the European Social Survey 2002 (Turkey) (ESS-TR 2002) and the European

Social Survey 2008 (Turkey) (ESS-TR 2008) were used as secondary data to examine the research

questions. The European Social Survey (the ESS) is a multinational study measuring institutional and individual beliefs, behaviors and perceptions about social problems that have prevailed since

2001. The survey has been administered six times and provides information not only about Europe

as a whole, but also about each country that has participated in the studies. The ESS is conducted every two years and includes respondents from most European countries. Among the six rounds of

administration of this survey, only two rounds, 2008 and 2002, have data related to Turkey.

Therefore, the data set used in this study was obtained by merging ESS-TR 2002 and ESS-TR

2008. In this sense, the data set consisted of 4272 individuals. Considering the proportion of ESS-TR 2002 respondents to ESS-TR 2008 respondents, 43.4 percent of the individuals belonged to

ESS-TR 2002. Last, but not least, the ESS 2008 and 2002 Turkey related data were generated

from a nationally representative face to face sample survey of the Turkish population.

The ESS-TR 2008 and 2002 cross sectional studies are supported by the Turkey Scientific

and Technical Research Council (TUBITAK). The coordination of these surveys was executed by

Bahcesehir University/Istanbul. The survey was designed using random sampling. That is, it was designed by taking the 2007 and the 2001 Turkish population into account, and the survey benefits

from the Turkish Statistical Institute “blocking” system dividing the whole population into 300

households’ addresses. Therefore, blocks and then households are chosen for study using a

systematic random sampling technique. Lastly, individuals are selected by a Kish grid method in the context of households.

The main advantage of this data set is that ESS Turkey contains many variables such as;

demographic characteristics, opinions, attitudes, etc., which provide a large range of variables. ESS 2002 and 2008 Turkey also has a large sample size with 4272 individuals, which can yield

more accurate information about the questions.

3.2. Measurement

3.2.1. Dependent Variable

The dependent variable, anti-immigrant attitudes, was created as a scale constructed by

three questions measuring xenophobia. Three questions were used and these asked whether or not

“Immigration was bad or good for the country's economy,” “The country's cultural life was undermined or enriched by immigrants,” and “If immigrants make the country a worse or better

place to live.” All of the variables were interval ratio level variables assessed with a 10 point

Likert scale. Variables were reversed to measure the anti-immigrant attitudes, that is, higher scores presented higher levels of prejudice and negative attitudes towards immigrants. After creating a

scale with a sufficient Cronbach’s alpha, which was .859, the dependent variable had 11 categories,

ranging from 0 to 10.

3.2.2. Independent variables

3.2.2.1. Globalization Variables

As mentioned above, due to its high level of global attachment and trade, Turkey has

rapidly become a developing country, as her GNI per capita was $3,460 in 2002, while it became $8,440 in 2008 (World Bank). Based on my hypothesis, ESS 2008 respondents, on average,

reported lower anti-immigrant attitudes in comparison with ESS 2002 respondents. Since the data




set was created by merging ESS 2008 and ESS 2002, a dummy variable was constructed for ESS

2008, which was identified as being a 1, and ESS 2002 was identified as being 0.

Trust in global institutions was measured with two questions that focused on “trust in the

European Union (EU)” and “trust in the United Nations (UN).” The responses ranged from 0 to 10.

Thus, higher scores indicated higher trust levels in global institutions. The index constructed had a sufficient Cronbach’s alpha score of .854.

3.2.2.2. Media Variables

Four different questions measured respondents’ media consumption, based on the total time of average weekday TV watching, radio listening, newspaper reading and internet use.

Responses varied from 0, indicating “no time at all” to 7, indicating “more than 3 hours.”

3.2.2.3. Economic Variables

The first variable was related to satisfaction with the present economy in the country as measured by a 10 point scale. Higher scores indicated higher satisfaction. Therefore, a score of 0

represented a response of “extremely dissatisfied” and a 10 represented a response of “extremely

satisfied.”

The main activity of the respondents in the last 7 days was also used to help understand the

effect of unemployment on anti-immigrant attitudes. In this vein, respondents who were looking for

a job in the last seven days were coded as a 1 and other respondents were coded as 0.

3.2.2.4. Political Orientation and Religiosity Variables

The religiosity scale and the respondent’s political orientation were used as additional

independent variables. The religiosity scale, as a variable, is an 11 point scale that measures how

religious respondents are. Higher scores represent having a stronger religious orientation. Similarly, political orientation had an 11 point scale measuring how interested respondents were in political

issues. A higher score denoted higher conservative beliefs. On the other hand, the lower scores

represented more liberal attitudes.

3.2.2.5. Demographic Characteristics as Control variables

Age, region, education, gender and geographical regions were used for describing the

respondent’s demographic characteristics. Education was assessed as an ordinary variable on a 4

point scale where: 1= less than lower secondary education, 2=lower secondary education completed, 3=upper secondary education completed, 4=tertiary education completed. Gender was

recoded as 1=male and 0=female. Turkey consists of 7 geographical regions which are culturally

different from each other. These regions are Marmara, Aegean, Mediterranean, Black Sea, Central Anatolia, East Anatolia and Southeast Anatolia. In addition, Istanbul is a unique geographical area

since it has a population of 14 million, which is greater than some regions. Thus, 7 dummy

variables were created to compare the Istanbul region, which has the highest population in Turkey relative to others.

3.3. Methods

OLS regression was used to analyze the models, as the dependent variable was an interval

ratio level variable. Six models were created to examine the effect of the independent variables on the scale of anti-immigrant attitudes. In the first model, only socio-demographic characteristics

were used as background variables. In the other models, each model was tested with background

variables to better articulate the affect they would have, separately. Therefore, models of globalization, media, economy, and political orientation and religiosity were tested with control

variables. In the last model, a full model was tested to determine the general picture.




4. Results

4.1. Descriptive analysis

(Table 1 about here)

Table 1 presents the descriptive statistics for the dependent, independent, and control

variables. Among the demographic characteristics, the mean age was about 39.5 years. On average, respondents completed secondary school education. In the sample, the percentage of females

(54.3%) was higher than the percentage of males (45.7%).

On average, respondents reported 6.43 points on the scale of anti-immigrant attitudes with a standard deviation of 2.568. Regarding globalization variables, there were more ESS-2008

respondents represented in the sample size (56.5%). The average score on the index of trust in

global institutions was 3.51 with a standard deviation of 3.13. Among the media variables,

respondents, on average, watched TV between 2 and 2.5 hours a week day with a standard deviation of 2.17. Radio listening time and newspaper reading times were lower than TV watching

hours on week days. In particular, the average number of radio listening hours on a week day was

less than 0.5 hours. Similarly, the average newspaper reading hours and internet usage on week days was lower than 0.5 hours. Considering the main activity of the respondents in the sample, the

proportion of those looking for a job was 8.5%. On average, respondents reported 3.84 points on

the scale of satisfaction with the national economy with a standard deviation of 3.066. For political orientation and religiosity, the tendency of being conservatize was slightly higher than liberalism

based on the scores of respondents which was 6 on the scale ranging from 0 to 10. In addition, on

average, respondents reported 7 points on the scale of religiosity ranging from 0 to 10.

4.2. Multivariate Analysis

Table 2 presents the results of the OLS regression analysis. As mentioned above in the

methodology section, there were two models in our analysis. Control variables were introduced in

the second model. After examining the tolerance VHF scores, it is safe to say that there was no multicollinearity problem for either of the models since the highest VHF score was reported as 2.22

points, and a lower tolerance score was reported as .45 points.

(Table 2 about here)

Based on the results, comparing the last model with other models it is safe to say that the last model was the “best –fitting” model due to greater R2 score. In this regard, about 9.3 percent of

the variation in the dependent variable, the index of anti-immigrant attitudes was explained by its

linear relationship with the independent variables and control variables related to globalization, the media, the economy, political orientation and religiosity, and social factors. (R2=.093).

In this respect, based on the last model, considering globalization variables, respondents of

2008 ESS, on average, reported .241 points lower on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes in comparison with the respondents of ESS 2002, all other variables constant (b = -.241, p≤0.5). In

addition, trust in global institutions had a negatively and statistically significant effect on anti-

immigrant attitudes. That is, on average, the score on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes was

predicted to decrease by .125 points for each additional level of increase in trust in global institutions, all else being equal (b = -.125, p≤0.01). Thus, the effect of globalization variables

supported the hypothesis.

Regarding media variables, radio listening and newspaper reading hours had no significant effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. On the other hand, watching TV had a statistically significant

effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. On average, the score on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes




was predicted to increase by .067 points for each additional level of increase in hours of TV

watching in a weekly day, holding all other variables constant (b = .067, p≤0.001). In addition, internet use had a statistically and negatively impact on anti- immigrant attitudes. On average, each

unit increase in internet use led to a decrease of .079 points on the scale of anti-immigrant attitudes,

all else being equal (b = -.079, p≤0.001).

Taking economic variables into account, satisfaction with the national economy had a

significant effect on anti-immigrant attitudes. On average, with each additional level of increase in

satisfaction with national economy, the score on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes was predicted to decrease by .107 points, holding all other variables constant (b = -.107, p≤0.001). On

the other hand, being unemployed had no significant effect on anti-immigrant attitudes.

Political orientation had a significant effect on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes. Each

unit increase in being conservative led to an increase of .102 points on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes, holding other variables constant (b = .102, p≤0.001). On the other hand, religiosity had no

significant impact on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes.

Last, but not least, age and education were significantly associated with anti-immigrant attitudes, whereas gender had no effect on the dependent variable. Each additional year in age, on

average, led to an increase in the scale of anti-immigrant attitudes by .013 points, holding all other

variables constant (b = .013, p≤0.001). In addition, controlling for all other variables in the model, on average, each level increase in education was associated with a -.048 point decrease in anti-

immigrant attitudes (b = -.048, p≤0.5). Among the geographical regions, being from Southeast

Anatolia was the only significant dummy variable. Those who were from Southeast Anatolia, on

average, reported .694 points lower on the index of anti-immigrant attitudes, than others, holding all other variables constant ((b = -.694, p≤0.001).

5. Discussion and Conclusion

This paper proposed to present a study framework that could be used for further studies, since, as mentioned previously, there is no national scale study in the literature that discusses

Turkish anti-immigrant attitudes.

As a whole, and based on globalization, the variables examined supported our arguments.

That is, among Turkish adults, the 2008 respondents reported lower level anti-immigrant attitudes in comparison with 2002 respondents. Our result supported the argument of (Ariely, 2012) that

“individual level of explanation” should be used for explaining the impact of globalization on

xenophobia. In this vein, the basic explanation for this finding is that Turkey has become a more global country, and has become more involved in the global system. Trust in global institutions

also appears as a significant variable in this study. However, we would argue that the number of

foreign immigrants to Turkey is not yet very large, compared to those in Western countries. That is to say, if the foreign immigration trends proceed in the same direction and the numbers reach the

level of Western countries, the effect of global attachment on anti-immigrant attitudes might vanish

when holding immigration numbers constant. In this regard, the current data set covering recent

developments such as the related crisis and refugees of Syria, might produce a different result.

Considering the impact of media variables, TV and the internet appeared as the most

effective branches of media influence. This result also stems from a higher daily use of TV and

internet in comparison to newspaper and radio. The descriptive statistics presented showed that radio listening hours and newspaper reading hours are relatively lower than TV viewing hours and

internet usage during week days. With this respect, considering the high rate of TV usage among

Turkish citizens, our results are consistent with the literature indicating that there is a positive relationship between media usage and xenophobia (Hussain, 2000; Danso & McDonald, 2001;




Boomgaarden & Vliegenthart, 2007). On the other hand, internet use should be taken into account

as a globalization variable since internet usage for obtaining information has been on the rise in recent decades.

The current findings add substantively to our understanding of the significant impact of

economic variables on immigration patterns and attitudes. In general, while Turkish adults think that newcomers are not an issue as long as the national economy is going well; they do not see

foreigners as rivals. These findings, we argue, are also related to the level of immigration or

immigration numbers that can affect political debates, and increase the level of negative attitudes among the citizens who has low social capital (Lubbers et al. 2002; Manevska & Achterberg,

2011). Higher numbers of immigrants could change the current picture.

Considering political orientation, citizens with more conservative motives were found to

have more anti-immigrant attitudes. This result is compatible with world literature since nationalism is more compatible with conservatism than liberalism ( Gorodzeisky & Semyonov,

2009; Hainmueller & Hiscox 2007; McLaren 2001, 2003; Semyonov et al. 2006, 2008) . On the

other hand, it appeared that religiosity has no effect on anti-immigrant attitudes among Turkish citizens.

In terms of demographic characteristics, education and age played similar roles in

determining anti-immigrant attitudes, based on the common literature (Espenshade & Hempstead 1996; Hjerm 2009). On the other hand, geographical regions did not appear to be a significant

variable, except for the Southeast region of Anatolia. Our assumption is that those from Southeast

Anatolia have lower anti-immigrant attitudes, since the level of the domestic immigration from

Southeast Anatolia to other regions is also higher than other locations. Thus, empathy might play a role in understanding the observed relationship.

One source of weakness in this study which could have affected the measurements was the

merging of two data sets, belonging to different years. This might have generated sample bias. However, considering the random selection and national sample design, the best and most recent

data were used in the study. For further studies, multilevel data sets and different methodologies

might present more valid and detailed results. As discussed above, the current refugees of Syria

would possibly change the current result in a negative way.

REFERENCES

ADLER, M. A. (1996). Xenophobia and Ethnoviolence in Contemporary Germany. Critical Sociology, 22(1), 29–51. doi:10.1177/089692059602200102

ALLPORT, G. W., & MICHAEL, J. (1967). Personal religious orientation and prejudice. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 5(4), 432–443. doi:10.1037/h0021212

ALTEMEYER, B., & HUNSBERGER, B. (1992). Authoritarianism, Religious Fundamentalism,

Quest, and Prejudice. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion, 2(2), 113–133.

doi:10.1207/s15327582ijpr0202_5

ARIELY, G. (2012). Globalization, immigration and national identity: How the level of globalization affects the relations between nationalism, constructive patriotism and

attitudes toward immigrants? Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15(4), 539–557.

doi:10.1177/1368430211430518

BATSON, C. D., SCHOENRADE, P., & LARRY, W. (1993). Religion and the individual: A

social-psychological perspective (Vol. viii). New York, NY, US: Oxford University Press.




BATSON, C. D., & VENTIS, W. L. (1982). The Religious Experience: A Social-Psychological

Perspective. New York: Oxford University Press.

BAUMGARTL, B., & FAVELL, A. (1995). New Xenophobia in Europe. Martinus Nijhoff

Publishers.

BOOMGAARDEN, H. G., VLIEGENTHART, R. (2007). Explaining the rise of anti-immigrant parties: The role of news media content. Electoral Studies, 26(2), 404–417.

doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2006.10.018

BURDETTE, A. M., ELLISON, C. G., & HILL, T. D. (2005). Conservative Protestantism and Tolerance toward Homosexuals: An Examination of Potential Mechanisms*. Sociological

Inquiry, 75(2), 177–196. doi:10.1111/j.1475-682X.2005.00118.x

CARD, D., DUSTMANN, C., & PRESTON, I. (2005). Understanding attitudes to immigration:

The migration and minority module of the first European Social Survey (CReAM Discussion Paper Series No. 0503). Centre for Research and Analysis of Migration

(CReAM), Department of Economics, University College London. Retrieved from

https://ideas.repec.org/p/crm/wpaper/0503.html

CASTLES, S., MILLER, M. J., & AMMENDOLA, G. (2005). The Age of Migration: International

Population Movements in the Modern World. American Foreign Policy Interests, 27(6),

537–542. doi:10.1080/10803920500434037

CENGİZ , D. (2015) . Zorunlu göçün mekânsal etkileri ve yerel halkin algisi; Kilis örneği.

Turkish Studies International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of

Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/2 Winter 2015, p. 101-122 DOI Number:

http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7938 ISSN: 1308-2140, ANKARA-TURKEY

CEOBANU, A. M., & ESCANDELL, X. (2010). Comparative Analyses of Public Attitudes

Toward Immigrants and Immigration Using Multinational Survey Data: A Review of

Theories and Research. Annual Review of Sociology, 36(1), 309–328. doi:10.1146/annurev.soc.012809.102651

CZAIKA, M., & DE HAAS, H. (2014). The Globalization of Migration: Has the World Become

More Migratory? International Migration Review, 48(2), 283–323. doi:10.1111/imre.12095

DANSO, R., & MCDONALD, D. A. (2001). Writing Xenophobia: Immigration and the Print Media in Post-apartheid South Africa. Africa Today, 48(3), 115–137.

doi:10.1353/at.2001.0050

DE FIGUEIREDO, R. J. P., & ELKINS, Z. (2003). Are Patriots Bigots? An Inquiry into the Vices of In-Group Pride. American Journal of Political Science, 47(1), 171–188.

doi:10.1111/1540-5907.00012

DENIZ, A. & OZGUR, M. E. (2010). Transnational Migration from Russia to Turkey: Russian Migrants in Antalya. Aegean Geographical Journal, 19(1), 13–30.

DUCKITT, J. H. (1992). The social psychology of prejudice (Vol. viii). Westport, CT, US: Praeger

Publishers/Greenwood Publishing Group.

DUCKITT, J., & MPHUTHINg, T. (1998). Group identification and intergroup attitudes: A longitudinal analysis in South Africa. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(1),

80–85. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.74.1.80

ELITOK, S. P., & STRAUBHAAR, T. (2011). Turkey as a Migration Hub in the Middle East. Insight Turkey, 13(2), 107–128.




ESPENSHADE, T. J., & HEMPSTEAD, K. (1996). Contemporary American Attitudes Toward

U.S. Immigration. International Migration Review, 30(2), 535–570. doi:10.2307/2547393

ESSES, V. M., DOVIDIO, J. F., & HODSON, G. (2002). Public Attitudes Toward Immigration in

the United States and Canada in Response to the September 11, 2001 “Attack on America.”

Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 2(1), 69–85. doi:10.1111/j.1530-2415.2002.00028.x

FETZER, J. S. (2000). Public Attitudes Toward Immigration in the United States, France, and

Germany. Cambridge University Press.

GORODZEISKY, A., & SEMYONOV, M. (2009). Terms of exclusion: public views towards

admission and allocation of rights to immigrants in European countries. Ethnic and Racial

Studies, 32(3), 401–423. doi:10.1080/01419870802245851

GÖVER, I. H., YAVUZER, H. (2015). Kayseri’de öğrenim gören yabanci uyruklu öğrencilerin Kayseri, Türkiye ve Islam algisi. Turkish Studies International Periodical For The

Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or Turkic Volume 10/2 Winter 2015, p.

1025-1050 DOI Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.7988 ISSN: 1308-2140, ANKARA-TURKEY

HAINMUELLER, J., & HISCOX, M. J. (2007). Educated Preferences: Explaining Attitudes

Toward Immigration in Europe. International Organization, 61(02), 399–442. doi:10.1017/S0020818307070142

HELD, D. (2000). Regulating Globalization? The Reinvention of Politics. International Sociology,

15(2), 394–408. doi:10.1177/0268580900015002015

HJERM, M. (2009). Anti-Immigrant Attitudes and Cross-Municipal Variation in the Proportion of Immigrants. Acta Sociologica, 52(1), 47–62. doi:10.1177/0001699308100633

HUNSBERGER, B., & JACKSON, L. M. (2005). Religion, Meaning, and Prejudice. Journal of

Social Issues, 61(4), 807–826. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2005.00433.x

HUSSAIN, M. (2000). Islam, Media and Minorities in Denmark. Current Sociology, 48(4), 95–

116. doi:10.1177/0011392100048004008

ICDUYGU, A. (2004). Demographic Mobility and Turkey: Migration Experiences and

Government Responses. Mediterranean Quarterly, 15(4), 88–99.

JACKSON, J. S., BROWN, K. T., BROWN, T. N., & MARKS, B. (2001). Contemporary

Immigration Policy Orientations Among Dominant-Group Members in Western Europe.

Journal of Social Issues, 57(3), 431–456. doi:10.1111/0022-4537.00222

KARAKUS, O. (2008). A Quantitative Analysis of the Growing Business of Organized Crime:

Structural Predictors of Cross-national Distribution of Human Trafficking Markets and

Trafficking in Women in Turkey. ProQuest.

KARYOTIS, G., & PATRIKIOS, S. (2010). Religion, securitization and anti-immigration

attitudes: The case of Greece. Journal of Peace Research, 47(1), 43–57.

doi:10.1177/0022343309350021

KAYA, Y., & KARAKOC, E. (2012). Civilizing vs destructive globalization? A multi-level analysis of anti-immigrant prejudice. International Journal of Comparative Sociology,

53(1), 23–44. doi:10.1177/0020715212447615




KEYDER, C. (2005). Globalization and Social Exclusion in Istanbul. International Journal of

Urban and Regional Research, 29(1), 124–134. doi:10.1111/j.1468-2427.2005.00574.x

KIVISTO, P. (2001). Theorizing transnational immigration: a critical review of current efforts.

Ethnic and Racial Studies, 24(4), 549–577. doi:10.1080/01419870120049789

KRITZ, M. M., LIM, L. L., & ZLOTNIK, H. (1992). International migration systems: a global approach. Clarendon Press.

KUNOVICH, R. M. (2009). The Sources and Consequences of National Identification. American

Sociological Review, 74(4), 573–593. doi:10.1177/000312240907400404

LAUSTSEN, C. B., & WAEVER, O. (2000). In Defence of Religion: Sacred Referent Objects for

Securitization. Millennium - Journal of International Studies, 29(3), 705–739.

doi:10.1177/03058298000290031601

LEE, E. S. (1966). A theory of migration. Demography, 3(1), 47–57. doi:10.2307/2060063

LEWIS, W. A. (1954). Economic Development with Unlimited Supplies of Labour. The

Manchester School, 22(2), 139–191. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9957.1954.tb00021.x

LUBBERS, M., GIJSBERTS, M., & SCHEEPERS, P. (2002). Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research, 41(3), 345–378.

doi:10.1111/1475-6765.00015

MANEVSKA, K., & ACHTERBERG, P. (2011). Immigration and Perceived Ethnic Threat: Cultural Capital and Economic Explanations. European Sociological Review, jcr085.

doi:10.1093/esr/jcr085

MCLAREN, L. M. (2001). Immigration and the new politics of inclusion and exclusion in the

European Union: The effect of elites and the EU on individual-level opinions regarding European and non-European immigrants. European Journal of Political Research, 39(1),

81–108. doi:10.1023/A:1007128912618

MCLAREN, L. M. (2003). Anti-Immigrant Prejudice in Europe: Contact, Threat Perception, and Preferences for the Exclusion of Migrants. Social Forces, 81(3), 909–936.

doi:10.1353/sof.2003.0038

MYRDAL, G. (1957). Economic Theory and Under-Developed Regions (First Edition edition).

Duckworth.

OECD. (2011). International Migration Outlook: SOPEMI 2011. OECD Publishing. Retrieved

from MI 2011, OECD Publishing. http://dx.doi.org/10.1787/migr_outlook-2011-en

OLSON, L. R., CADGE, W., & HARRISON, J. T. (2006). Religion and Public Opinion about Same-Sex Marriage. Social Science Quarterly, 87(2), 340–360. doi:10.1111/j.1540-

6237.2006.00384.x

PIETERSE, J. N. (2001). Hybridity, So What? The Anti-Hybridity Backlash and the Riddles of Recognition. Theory, Culture & Society, 18(2-3), 219–245.

doi:10.1177/026327640101800211

PIORE, M. J. (1980). Birds of Passage: Migrant Labor and Industrial Societies. Cambridge; New

York: Cambridge University Press.

PORTES, A., & RUMBAUT, R. G. (2014). Immigrant America: A Portrait (Fourth Edition,

Revised, Updated, and Expanded edition). Berkeley and Los Angeles, California:

University of California Press.




RAIJMAN, R., & SEMYONOV, M. (2004). Perceived threat and exclusionary attitudes towards

foreign workers in Israel. Ethnic & Racial Studies, 27(5), 780–799. doi:10.1080/0141987042000246345

RAY, J. J., & LOVEJOY, F. H. (1986). The Generality of Racial Prejudice. The Journal of Social

Psychology, 126(4), 563–564. doi:10.1080/00224545.1986.9713627

SAGIR, A. (2011). Kültürel Bütünleşme Bağlamında Antalya’nın Finike İlçesi’ne Yerleşen

Turistlerin Sosyolojik Çözümlemesi. Anatolia, 22(1), 49–64.

SASSEN, S. (1996). Whose City Is It? Globalization and the Formation of New Claims. Public Culture, 8(2), 205–223.

SCHEEPERS, P., GIJSBERTS, M., HELLO, E., & GIJSBERTS, M. (2002). Religiosity and

Prejudice against Ethnic Minorities in Europe: Cross-National Tests on a Controversial

Relationship. Review of Religious Research, 43(3), 242. doi:10.2307/3512331

SCHNAPPER, D. (1994). The debate on immigration and the crisis of national identity. West

European Politics, 17(2), 127–139. doi:10.1080/01402389408425018

SEMYONOV, M., RAIJMAN, R., & GORODZEISKY, A. (2006). The Rise of Anti-foreigner Sentiment in European Societies, 1988-2000. American Sociological Review, 71(3), 426–

449. doi:10.1177/000312240607100304

SEMYONOV, M., RAIJMAN, R., & GORODZEISKY, A. (2008). Foreigners’ Impact on European Societies Public Views and Perceptions in a Cross-National Comparative

Perspective. International Journal of Comparative Sociology, 49(1), 5–29.

doi:10.1177/0020715207088585

SIDES, J., & CITRIN, J. (2007). European Opinion About Immigration: The Role of Identities, Interests and Information. British Journal of Political Science, 37(03), 477–504.

doi:10.1017/S0007123407000257

STARK, O., & BLOOM, D. E. (1985). The New Economics of Labor Migration. The American Economic Review, 75(2), 173–178.

STRABAC, Z., & LISTHAUG, O. (2008). Anti-Muslim prejudice in Europe: A multilevel analysis

of survey data from 30 countries. Social Science Research, 37(1), 268–286.

doi:10.1016/j.ssresearch.2007.02.004

TODARO, M. P. (1969). A Model of Labor Migration and Urban Unemployment in Less

Developed Countries. The American Economic Review, 59(1), 138–148.

VAN DER BRUG, W., & FENNEMA, M. (2003). Protest or mainstream? How the European anti-immigrant parties developed into two separate groups by 1999. European Journal of

Political Research, 42(1), 55.

VREESE, C. H. DE, & BOOMGAARDEN, H. G. (2005). Projecting EU Referendums Fear of Immigration and Support for European Integration. European Union Politics, 6(1), 59–82.

doi:10.1177/1465116505049608

WIMMER, A. (1997). Explaining xenophobia and racism: A critical review of current research

approaches. Ethnic and Racial Studies, 20(1), 17–41. doi:10.1080/01419870.1997.9993946

WOLF, MARTIN. (1997, May). Why this hatred of the market? Le Monde Diplomatique.

WORLD DEVELOPMENT INDICATORS | DATA. (2013, October 16). Retrieved December 1,

2014, from http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators




YILMAZ, A. (2014). Uluslararasi göç: çeşitleri, nedenleri ve etkileri. Turkish Studies -

International Periodical For The Languages, Literature and History of Turkish or TurkicVolume 9/2 Winter 2014, p. 1685-1704, DOI Number:

http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.6274ANKARA-TURKEY

ZALLER, J. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge University Press.

Table 1. Means, Standard Deviations (S.D.), Range of Variables Used in the Analysis, of

Turkish Adults, in the 2002 and 2008 European Social Survey (ESS), (N=2704)

Variable Mean S.D Min Max

Dependent Variable Anti-immigrant attitudes 6.34 2.568 0 10 Globalization Variables Respondents ((1=2008,

0=2002)

.565 .49574 0 1

Trust in Global Institutions (Index, 10 point scale)

3.518 3.13 0 10

Media Variables TV watching time 4.97 2.171 0 7 Radio watching time 1.36 2.198 0 7 Newspaper reading time 1.05 1.424 0 7

Total Internet Use 1.56 2.323 0 7 Economic Variables Satisfaction with Economy 3.84 3.066 0 10 Unemployed, looking for a job (1=Yes, 0=No)

.085 0 1

Politic and Religious Variables Political Orientation (Left/Right Scale)

6.04 2.887 0 10

Religiosity Scale 7.07 2.236 0 10 Demographic Characteristic

Age 39.42 16.646 15 105 Education 1.92 2.586 1 5 Male .457 .498 0 1 Regions Istanbul .15 0 1 Marmara .18 0 1

Mediterranean .13 Aegean .21 0 1 Central Anatolia .04 0 1 Black Sea .06 0 1 East Anatolia .09 0 1 East South Anatolia .14 0 1




Table 2. Estimates of OLS Regression Models Predicting Anti-immigrant attitudes of Turkish Adults, in 2002 and 2008 (N=2708)

Variables Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6

Trust in Global

Institutions

-.132(.015)*** -.125(.016)***

Respond

(1=2008)

-.116(.093) -.241(.104)***

TV Watching .053(.020)** .067(.023)**

Radio Listening -.037(.020) -.025(.022)

Newspaper

Reading

-.045(.033) -.026(.036)

Internet/e-

mail/www Use

-.077(0.21)*** -.079(.023)***

National

Economy

-.095(.014)*** -.107(.018)***

Unemployed -.135(.155) -.081(.171)

Religiosity

.064(.017)***

.037(.023)

Political

Orientation

.021(.022) .102(.019)***

Age .014(.033)*** .014(.003)*** .012(.003)*** .013(.003)***

.013(.003)***

.013(.004)***

Education -.083(.012)*** -.078(.012)*** -.056(.013)*** -.087(.012)*** -.075(013)*** -.048(.015)**

male -.058(.058) -.061(.092) -.017(.088) -.007(.941) -.032(.095) .037(.103)

Regions

(Ref.=Istanbul)

Marmara -.213(.153) -.292(.065) -.247(.150) -.165(.149) -.287(.162) -.363*(.167)

Aegean .186(.133) .147(.139) .144(.133) .214(.133) .229(.143) .081(.148)

Mediterranean .191(.150) .099(.163) .139(.151) .167(150) .016(.169) -.166 (.182)

Central Anatolia .221(.231) .047(.246) .089(.234) .366(232) .191(.246) .010(.259)

Black sea -.245(.193) -.261(.207) -.345(.195) -.111(.194) -.080(.214) -.182(.228)

East Anatolia -.442*(.178) -.291(.188) -.490(.180)** -.335(.180) -.498(.194)** -.287(.205)

East South

Anatolia -.864***(.157) -.748(.169)*** -.966(.160)*** -.766(.159)*** -

.782(.173)***

-.694(.188)***

Constant 6.543(.198)*** 7.007(.230)**

*

6.410(.230)*** 6.914(.202)*** 5.968(.271)**

*

6.28(.328)***

R2 .048 .066 .054 .058 .049 .093

***p ≤ 0.001, **p ≤ 0.01, *p ≤ 0.05 (two-tailed tests) B (SE) = unstandardized estimate of the regression coefficient (and its standard error)

Citation Information/Kaynakça Bilgisi

SOLAKOĞLU, Ö., GURBUZ, S., (2015). “Anti-Immigrant Attitudes In A Developing Country:

Turkey / Gelişmekte Olan Bir Ülke Olan Türkiye'de Yabancı Göçmenlere Karşı Negatif Tutumlar”, TURKISH STUDIES -International Periodical for the Languages, Literature

and History of Turkish or Turkic-, ISSN: 1308-2140, (Prof. Dr. Şefik Yaşar Armağanı),

Volume 10/10 Summer 2015, ANKARA/TURKEY, www.turkishstudies.net, DOI

Number: http://dx.doi.org/10.7827/TurkishStudies.8447, p. 771-792.

Date post:	12-Nov-2023
Category:	Documents
Upload:	kho-akademik
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

ANTI-IMMIGRANT ATTITUDES IN A DEVELOPING COUNTRY: TURKEY

Documents