Explaining negative attitudes among native black South Africans towards immigrants : a case study on the determinants of hostile attitudes from a marginalized community towards immigrants

(1)

Explaining Negative Attitudes among Native

black South Africans towards Immigrants

A case study on the determinants of hostile attitudes from a marginalized community

to-wards immigrants

Written by Kimberley Wolf  

Student number: 6077706 

Supervisor: dr. S. (Sijeong) .J. Lim 

Second reader: dhr. dr. G. (Gijs) Schumacher 

June 2017 

Word Count: 20975 

kimberleywolf@gmail.com  

This dissertation is submitted for the degree of  

Master of Science (Msc.) in Political Science: Political Economy 

University of Amsterdam

(2)

ABSTRACT

This paper examines the foundation of opposition by native black South Africans towards international immigrants. The specific aim of this research is to test the extend to which the cultural and economic predictors of attitudes explain negative attitudes among black South Africans towards immigrants. The predictors derive from the Ethnic Competition theory. This theory consists of two components; the Social Identity theory and the Realistic Group Conflict theory. The first emphasizes cultural and identity threat considerations and the latter emphasized economic threat considerations. The larger purpose of this study is to determine the predicting factors that contribute to hostile attitudes among one marginalized community towards another within the context of a developing country. Within the analysis, individual level and contextual level determinants of attitudes are included. The results show no signifi-cant relationship between the socio-economic characteristics of the respondents and negative attitudes towards immigrants. On the contrary, there is a significant relationship that predicts that native black South Africans tend to have more favorable attitudes towards immigrants in case they have immigrant friends. This can be explained by a decrease in the level of percei-ved cultural threat.  

(3)

Acknowledgements

At first my thanks goes out to dr. Sijeong Lim. Throughout the process of writing this thesis she has been of great support. Although this writing process has been challenging, dr. Lim always provided the necessary directions. Her contributions and devotion and to the entire class does not go unnoticed. Secondly, I would like to thank my family. Throughout this pro-cess they have been of great support and understanding and provided me with encourage-ment and academic insights and corrections when needed. Thirdly, I would like to thank all the other people with whom I discussed topic of this research and who have shown great inte-rest in this matter due to my master thesis. At last I want to pay special thanks to Joy Kitheka and Kennedy Kitheka who have been part of the motivation for and throughout this process. Thanks to a great time in South Africa at the beginning of this year, my interest in the South African context was rekindled. Their assistance and conversations contributed to the under-stating of the current economic and political context of South Africa.

(4)

List of Abbreviations

ANC Afrikaans Nationaal Congress 

BEE Black Economic Empowerment 

BBEEE Broad- Based Black Economic Empowerment 

ECT Ethnic Competition Theory

HSRC Human Sciences Research Council South Africa 

OHCHR Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights

RGC Realistic Group Conflict Theory  

SIT Social Identity Theory 

SASAS South African Social Attitudes Survey SPSS Statistical Package for the Social Sciences 

(5)

5.5 Contribution p. 41  5.6 Argument p. 42  5.7 Hypotheses p. 43    Chapter 6: Methodology p. 45 6.1 Survey Analysis p. 45  6.2 Data Sources p. 47  6.3 Operationalization p. 47  6.3.1. Dependent variable p. 48  6.3.2. Independent variables p. 49  6.3.3. Mediating variables p. 51  6.3.4. Control variables p. 52  6.4 Survey Questions p. 54  6.5 Sample Framework p. 56  6.6 Estimation strategy p. 57  6.6.1 Mediation Analysis p. 57 6.6.2. Models p. 60  Chapter 7: Results p. 61  7.1 Descriptive Statistics p. 61  7.2 Correlation results p. 61  7.3 Main Findings p. 61 Chapter 8: Discussion p. 68  Chapter 9: Conclusion p. 70  9.1 Introduction p. 70 

9.2 Answer to central research question p. 71 

9.3 Limitations p. 73 

9.4 Future research p. 74

References p. 76 

Appendix p. 84 

Tables and Figures  Coding Sheet

(7)

Chapter 1: Introduction  1.1 Background Information 

“Nigerians in South Africa ‘living in fear’ after attacks” (Al Jazeera, 2017), “35 year-old Nige-rian murdered in South Africa” (Daily Post Nigeria); these are a few examples of recent in-ternational newspaper headlines in 2017. The number of immigrants attacked by black South African citizens is increasing as more and more foreigners become victimized by brutal xenophobic violence. Xenophobic attitudes are generally described as ‘a dislike of or prejudi-ce against people from other countries.’ (Gordon, 2015) Statistics show that Nigerians, Soma-lians and Zimbabweans have been the main target of xenophobic violence carried out by na-tive black South Africans over the past ten years. (Afrobarometer, 2015; Aljazeera, 2017) Sin-ce 2008 and up until this day, violent attacks on immigrants dominate South African news headlines. However, recent statistics reveal that attacks have not only become more frequent, but that the level and type of violence carried out, has also intensified. (Ibid.:) As many black South African communities remain economically marginalized, this research will investigate how this marginalization may lead to xenophobic attitudes.

Black African immigrant communities have been the main targets of xenophobic at-tacks since the initial violent outbreak.The South African media, as well as its politicians and several government and research institutions in South Africa, identify economic backlash as the possible primary motivation for attacks on the black immigrant communities: black South Africans feel threatened by the arrival of other black Africans as they compete for the same economic opportunities. (The Guardian, 2017) Post-Apartheid dispensation has not delivered economic justice for black South Africans and is said to fuel, together with economic inequali-ty, hostile reactions towards immigrants. However, international research explains that cultu-ral factors may also contribute to the specific targeting of black African immigrant communi-ties. (Callens, 2015)

1.2. Conceptual Framework

Studying the factors that may influence a marginalized community’s hostile attitudes, towards immigrants in particular, is highly complex and relatively new to existing research base. Fur-thermore, studies on similar social manifestations among marginalized communities within the Global South are vastly insufficient, especially within the sub-Saharan context. This study aims to contribute to the existing literature on (hostile) interactions among marginalized communities within the context of a developing country, and applies existing theories on

(8)

ne-gative attitudes towards immigrants by members of the host-country as its academic founda-tion. Using the Ethnic Competition Theory (ECT), this study seeks to obtain both an econo-mic and cultural explanation for anti-immigrant attitudes. The ECT is divided into two theo-retical compartments: the Social Identity Theory (SIT) and the Realistic Group Conflict Theory (RGCT). Social Identity theory pursues a cultural understanding of hostile anti-im-migrant attitudes, while the Realistic Group Conflict theory attempts to provide an economic explanation of the matter. The Realistic Group Conflict Theory stands for “the proposition that competition over scarce resources between two social groups is considered the catalyst of antagonistic intergroup attitudes.” (Coenders, Lubbers, Scheepers 2003) The Social Identity theory stands for the protection of one’s cultural capital by the majority group, when cultural and group-identification is threatened with the arrival of newcomers. (Tajfel, 1981; Turner, 1982) This research will test these two theories on xenophobic attitudes among black South Africans by applying it to the South African context, in order to gain a full understanding of the root cause/s for the xenophobic reactions.

1.3 Central Research Question 

Both theories emphasize the importance of existing perceived economic or cultural threat as mediating variable between either the socio-economic background of native com-munity members or the social distance between population groups as a pre-determinant for the manifestation of negative attitudes. This paper will examine the relationship the socio-economic background and the social distance between, the minority and the majority group, to help explain xenophobic attitudes among native black South Africans towards immigrants. With the use of the South African Social Survey on Attitudes (SASAS) a quantitative study analysis is conducted on the attitudes towards immigrants among native black South Africans. The research question used as a guideline throughout this article is the following: 

“To what extent can negative attitudes among black South Africans towards immigrants be explained in terms  of the Ethnic Competition Theory?” 

(9)

1.4 Structure 

An overview of related social dynamics, whereafter a discussion of the South African context is provided, in order to allow for a better understanding of the environment in which this stu-dy operates. Thereafter, the subsequent chapters continue with the inclusion of literature concerning marginalized communities, as well as social in- and exclusion. This thesis addres-ses the existing literature on the outcomes of individual and country-level explanations for negative attitudes towards immigrants first, before discussing the theoretical framework. The derived hypotheses and methods used are then presented before concluding with the results.

(10)

Chapter 2: Social Dynamics

  2.1 Marginalized Communities

This research focuses on two marginalized communities within the South African con-text; the native black South African community and large number of international immi-grants. For this reason academic studies on the definition of a ‘marginalized community’ as well as an understanding of intergroup conflicts is outlined.  

Some part of the attention towards marginalized communities stems from the interest in their political and economic disadvantage. This particularly counts for those with an eco-nomic backlash. The notion of what is means to belong to the category of the ‘poor’ came into question in the 1990s. The 1990s saw the perception of being ‘poor’ face conceptual challenges, particularly after the notion of the ‘new poor’ arose. (Carson, 2005) When the ‘new poor’ was introduced, it was defined as those who had recently been integrated into mainstream society, were unemployed, culturally alienated, stripped of familial networks, or lost any sort of (legal) status. The definition of the ‘new poor’ classified all marginalized groups of a society under one umbrella. This research paper refers to the concept of the ‘new poor’ when addressing the issue of marginalized communities, as it allows a clearer under-standing of the social position of most immigrant communities around the world.

Previous studies on marginalized communities initially focused on the poor, disabled, elderly, and ethnic or religious minorities. (Carson, 2005) This focus has been expanded in the past few years to include the youth, women, indigenous people, members of the LGBTG community, and the internally displaced persons such as refugees, asylum seekers and mi-grants. The protection of these people and sometimes their entire communities, is an impor-tant and recurrent subject on the international political agenda. (OHCHR, 2014) The inclu-sion of the latter required a larger scope of the definition of a marginalized community. This definition nowadays refers to “a small collection of people that is intentionally and systemati-cally separated from the political, economic, social, cultural and moral spheres of the state they live in by the ruling institutions of other larger group within the population because of their race, identity, age, gender, sexuality, religion, ethnicity or political opinion.” (CSD Con-ference, 2016) Altogether, this broad definition stand for social exclusion of any sort. 

(11)

2.2 Social Inclusion and Exclusion  

The notion of social inclusion is founded on the premise of a ‘society for all’, where all the groups within a society are equally represented in all societal spheres. (Carson, 2005) In all scenario’s where there are indications of substantial differences in wealth and income, social and political inequalities and isolations, are continuously challenged by forces that empower societies to change. It is important to counteract the position of all those who are marginali-zed in the broadest sense, in order to form an inclusive society, for example: democracies in Western Europe have active political and civil societies and institutions that fight for the inclu-sion of all marginalized communities. 

The World Bank defines social inclusion as ‘the process of improving the terms and conditions on which individuals and groups take part in society. This includes the ability, op-portunity, and dignity of those who are disadvantaged by their identity.’ (World Bank 2016) According to the National Democratic Institute (NDI) this definition also entails the political exclusion of marginalized groups. Social inclusion can therefore be considered the umbrella term for all efforts aimed at decreasing marginalization within a society. (Coenders et. all. 2003: 1)  

According to Lome and Sherraden (2008), slavery, racism, sexism and capitalist sys-tems stand at the constitutional foundation of most modern nations. They argue that social, political and economic exclusion still greatly weaken and undermine these modern societies on a global scale. (Lome & Sherraden 2008) They assert that in spite of contextual and, there-fore country-level differences, social exclusivity exists in various forms, and will also contain similar pragmatic obstacles. Although social inclusion is, subsequently, achieved in various ways, contextualized strategies must be considered for change to occur in any society that is host to a marginalized group.

Multiple studies have been conducted on the topic of social exclusion, for example: theories on specialization, insider-outsider and citizenship. (Ibid.:) The importance of social inclusion cannot be stressed enough within discussions that focus on fundamental human rights. The purpose of social inclusion aims at addressing issues regarding development at large, such as political and economic equality. Direct public interventions such as institutional constructs, and indirect interventions, such as the investment into human capital and asset building, illustrate the potential of policy implementation to contribute to a ‘society for all’. (Lome & Sherraden 2008) 

(12)

disadvan-taged based on their ethnicity, religion, age, disability, gender or sexual orientation, should enjoy increased political support to counteract social exclusion. (NDI: 2016) The issue of un-heard or misrepresented voices must be turned around. This process towards political and economic equality through political participation and inclusion is an effective way to address the social and economic inequalities which are tightly associated with marginalization. (Ibid.:) Because immigrant communities are usually, if not always, marginalized, they do need increased political support. The relation between majority and minority groups within society falls under the similar scope of improving social inclusion. The essence of social inclusion and the deliberate separate distinction of marginalized communities, exhibits comparable features to one another. Immigrants often face restrictive immigration regimes and are often faced with resistance from the members of the host-country. (Messina, 2007) 

2.3 Violent Interethnic Conflict

Unfortunately, the marginalized position of immigrant communities is not the end of the problematic chain that these communities are faced with. Aside from the general soci-oeconomic position, with the occasional individual exceptions, the additional status of immi-grants as a minority group fuels other societal reactions. The occurrence of violence towards minority groups, is an example of how immigrants are faced with more than an outward so-cial position. 

Underlying structural factors for violence are said to be partly related to low income, large minority populations and operating within a mutual socioeconomic terrain. (Goodwin, 2001) This predominantly goes for horizontal inequality, or inequality on a group-level. The term, ‘horizontal inequality’, opposes the term ‘vertical inequality’, which represents a micro comparison between individuals and households. Grievance among the horizontally disad-vantaged group, is said to be the source for intergroup comparisons. Unsatisfying self-depri-ved conclusions and outcomes of intergroup comparisons are then causally influencing inter-group conflict. (Ibid.:) ’Framing and blaming’ are ways in which ethnic inter-groups are negatively targeted. The scale of ethnic framing is occurring at a group versus group level. According to Goodwin, grievance is the prior step to violence and plays a central role in triggering inter-group conflict.

Aside from the grievance - conflict argument, another cause for conflict seems to in-fluence the decision of a majority group to either include or exclude an ethnic group within society. Horowitz and Gur were the first to introduce ethnicity as a cause to of civil wars.

(13)

(Roessler, 2011) More specifically, they were the first to suggest that “ethnopolitical configura-tions of power are linked to civil war within postcolonial states.” (Ibid.:) Aside from the under-lying structural factors to ethnic clashes, Horowitz and Gur’s cross-country study pointed out a correlation between the outbreak of a civil war and the opposition towards population groups based on their ethnic background. In more recent studies the obtaining of power among ethnic groups is added to the list of causes for violence and conflict. (Ibid.:) An increa-sed risk for social unrest is thus directly related to the exclusion of population groups within society.  

According to Gordon (2016) the relationship between attitudes and behavior is not always linear, but is instead circumstantial. The attaining of certain environmental conditions are required for attitudes to evolve into behavior. Because attitudes are not always linearly connected to behavior, there are many scenario’s in which individuals with xenophobic attitu-des are not engaging in violence towards migrants. For the latter to happen, according to Gordon (2016), there are very specific circumstances in which these violent behaviors develop. (Ibid.:) If one brings this theoretical stance forward under the light of interethnic conflicts, such as the conflict between black natives and African immigrants, one must think of compa-rable fundamental circumstances. Horowitz argues that “fairly strong held affiliation that is reflected in a variety of attitudinal behavioral measures of group difference, an affiliation that can, under certain structural circumstances, give rise to serious conflict.” (Horowitz 2001) Po-litical and economic inequality between groups can for that reason be considered as the main cause for conflict among different ethnic groups. (Cederman & Wucherpfennig, 2017) 

As attitudes are premature to behavior, this study will focus on the nature and causes of attitudes to explore the root of intergroup conflict. The following chapter elaborates on the South African context in which these attitudes are examined.

(14)

Chapter 3: Majority and Minority Group

 

3.1 Majority Group: Native black South Africans

The main focus of this study, will be to pay specific attention to the marginalized nati-ve black South African communities on one hand, and the large number of marginalized immigrant communities on the other hand. The former comprises the majority group, and the latter the minority group.  

South Africa knows a racially demographic division where the White, Coloured, In-dian/Asian and black South Africans make up the population. (Gibson, 2015) Black South Africans comprise the largest racial demographic in the country, representing more than 80% of the entire population, with native black South Africans constituting the larger amount of this percentage. (Ibid.:) The native black South African community is part of the first majority group within the South African context. The population group is made up of ethnically and linguistically different black descendants of the original inhabitants of the region. (Ibid.:) For this reason, the native black South African community can, based on the size of their popula-tion group, be considered a majority group. 

Aside from the black community being a majority group as a result of their population size, black South Africans may also be considered a marginalized community. During the Apartheid regime that lasted from 1948 until 1994, all black people and therefore all the dif-ferent ethnic black communities were clustered into one group and were forced to comply with lawfully mandated physical segregation. Black communities were forced to live in separa-te areas, called Bantustans. (Ibid.:) By moving blacks towards these outlandish separa-territories, blacks were all collectively deprived from all important political and civil rights. In addition, the black community was excluded also from any meaningful participation within the econo-my. (Hiam e.a., 2017) During this time, blacks deprived of any ownership of industrial firms and they were collectively denied high positions within both the private as the public sector. (Ibid.:) That only 1% of the total values of the Johannesburg Stock Exchange belonged to black enterprise owners in 1995, illustrates the low level of economic participation by the black community.  

After the collapse of the Apartheid Regime in 1994, Nelson Mandela became presi-dent. During his presidency the first act in favor of black South African’s political and eco-nomic position was introduced; initially named the Black Ecoeco-nomic Empowerment Act (BEE), and later in 2001 redefined as the Broad-Based Black Economic Empowerment Act

(15)

(BBBEE). (Acemoglu et. al., 2007) The BEE was introduced to stimulate black enterprise ow-nership by offering black investors equity stakes at a substantial discount. (Hiam e.a., 2017) Acemoglue (2007) e.a. are some of the many scholar that dispute the impact of the BBBEE on firm investment, labor productivity or profitability. Hiam e.a. (2017) more recent study not only dispute the impact of the act, they also argue with regard to the benefits as a result of the BBBEE installment, these are nog widely or fairly distributed. The impact or failure of the BBBEE goes hand in hand with the current stagnation or at least not drastically altering the political and economic empowerment of the entire black community. (Ibid.:)  

After Nelson Mandela’s departure as South Africa’s president, the delivery of the promises and aims of the BBBEE are disputed. (Butler, 2002; Hiam, 2017) One of Mandela’s main legacies is the political domination of the political party ‘Afrikaans National

Congres’ (ANC). This phenomenon is also referred to as the one party dominance of the ANC. With regard to political representation this party consists of and largely represents the majority of the members of South Africa’s black communities. A development in the political position of native black South African’s is for this reason not the main focus of the political debates. The focus lies more on the ‘everlasting’ economic engagement of the black commu-nities, given the still existing income inequality.  

Figure 1. gives an estimate of the differences between South Africa’s population groups and their position on the labor market in 2011. The graph shows that compared with an African/black non-migrant, a Colored non-migrant is 1.15 times more likely and a white non-migrant 1.58 times more likely to be employed.  

(16)

Figure 1. Population groups and employment 2011 

Source: Migration and employment in South Africa: An econometric analysis of domestic and international migrants (2012)

"

3.2 Minority Group; South Africa’s International Immigrants 

The second marginalized community consists of international immigrants living in South Africa. (Messina, 2007; Carson, 2005) Shyrock et al. (1976) describes migration as “a form of geographic or spatial movement involving a change of residence between clearly de-fined geographic units which involves a change in social functions of the migrants

concerned.” According to Lehohla (2015), “international migration particularly stands for the movement from one country to another and it involves the crossing of national borders.” These movements can be divided into immigration and emigration. International immigrants are the specific focus of this research. Throughout this study, international immigrants will be solely referred to as ‘immigrants’.  

More than twenty years into democracy and annual numbers and overwhelming knowledge of these geographic and spatial movements by migrants towards South Africa, remains limited due to a lack of data. (Statistics South African, 2015) Since data is not suffi-cient and the governmental statistical reports up until this date present different numbers and differ in statistical focus, some statistics are only available data of the years 2011 and 2013. The latter are used for this study. The immigration numbers are shown in Table 1. 

(17)

Table 1. Immigrant Population estimates and percentages per province.

Source: 

1. Statistics South Africa Mid-year population estimates 2013 from: https://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/ P0302/P03022013.pdf

2. Migration Dynamics in South Africa census 2011 http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Report-03-01-79/ Report-03-01-792011.pdf

Province Population estimate by province (2013) 1.

% of total

populati-on South Africa Total number of international immi-grants in each province (2011) 2.

Eastern Cape 6620100 12,5 74364 Free State 2753200 5,2 67608 Gauteng 12728400 24,0 1124861 Kwazulu-Natal 10456900 19,7 167048 Limpopo 5518000 10,4 162578 Mpumalanga 4128000 7,8 150799 Northern Cape 1162900 2,2 19219 North West 3597600 6,8 150474 Western Cape 6016900 11,4 256459 Total 52982000 100 2173410

(18)

Figure 2. Distribution of international migrant households in South Africa (2011)

"

Source: Migration Dynamics in South Africa Census 2011 from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Re-port-03-01-79/Report-03-01-792011.pdf

Figure 2. is a complementary illustration that shows how the ways in which migrant house-holds are divided among the nine provinces within South Africa. The picture shows that the largest numbers of migrant households are to be found around the two largest cities in South Africa; Johannesburg (Gauteng and North West) and Cape Town (Western Cape).  

When it comes to the ethnical division of the international immigrants in South ca, Table 2. reports that 78,6 % of the total number of international migrants are of Afri-can/black descent, 16,9% is white, 3,19% is Indian/Asian and 1,21% is Coloured.

(19)

Table 2. Percentage of each Population groups of Migration within and towards South Afri-ca 2011

Source Migration and Employment Report in South Africa: An Econometric Analysis of Domestic and Interna-tional Migrants. (2012)

Table 3. additionally reports the average and percentages of the educational level of interna-tional migrants. What the table shows is that internainterna-tional migrants on the average finished primary school, but did not finish secondary school. Secondly, the table shows that internatio-nal migrants tend to be more educated given the larger numbers among those who finished secondary school and tertiary education.

Table 3. Average and percentages of the education level of the migration moving within and towards South Africa 2011

"

Source: Migration and Employment Report in South Africa: An Econometric Analysis of Domestic and Inter-national Migrants. (2012) 

1. No schooling 

2. Less than primary schooling  3. Primary schooling completed

(20)

4. Secondary schooling not completed  5. Secondary schooling completed  6. Tertiary educations

Table 4. Age structure South Africa (2011)

Source: Migration and Employment Report in South Africa: An Econometric Analysis of Domestic and Inter-national Migrants. (2012)

3.3. Black South African’s attitudes towards International Immigrants 

Estimates show that South Africa moved from the 8th position to the 6th with the hig-hest migration number between 1990 - 2000 and 2000 - 2010. (Migration Dynamics, 2011) A study among Southern African countries shows that South Africans are, compared to their more immigrant friendly neighbors, a bit more cautious when it comes to welcoming newco-mers. (Ibid.:) The people from Swaziland, Zimbabwe and Mozambique are said to have a more open attitude towards immigrants. (Ngomane, 2008) Among the 33 African countries, South Africa ranks very close to the top with regard to their intolerance towards foreigners. (Afrobarometer, 2016)  

The relative South African opposition towards foreigners is consistent with key fin-dings in the 2015 Afrobarometer survey (2016). The report insinuates that South Africans in general, are evenly divided when it comes to the question whether “foreigners should be bar-red from staying in South Africa on grounds that they outcompete nationals for jobs and be-nefits.” Of all South Africans, 32% percent states to dislike the idea of a foreigner as a neigh-bor. (Ibid.:)

Within South Africa, it is argued that this more cautious attitude is another legacy of the Apartheid regime. A higher level of ethnic prejudice and mistrust exists specifically among the black South African community, more so compared to other races. This is said to

(21)

be the result of the horrors the black community endured by other races during the Apart-heid. (Gibson, 2015) Previous studies point out that black South Africans in particular harbor more prejudice towards other population groups in general, compared to other South Afri-cans, especially when it comes to politically related subjects. (Ibid.:) Aside from intergroup prejudice towards members of other groups, black South Africans also seem to scientifically hold more prejudice towards their fellow South Africans (Ibid.:) The well propagated and highly structured institutionalized superiority of all the other races during Apartheid, contri-buted to the currently living idea that the former suppressors, and other previously prioritized races, are not considered the most trustworthy people. (Ibid.:) 

International immigrants are one of other groups to which native black South Afri-cans refer to in a negative manner. International immigrants and especially those coming from other African countries are derogatorily referred to as either barbarians or ‘kwerekwere’, which referees to the sounds of the foreign-language spoken by the African immigrants. (Gor-don, 2016) Figure 3. shows the national background of international immigrants and what is evident is that the close to 75% of the migrants come from either a SADC country or ano-ther African country. Given this large number of African migrants living in South Africa, one can state that native black South Africans are most likely confronted with migrants of African descent. With regard to their attitudes, it is therefore very likely that either preference or dislike is related to this specific group of immigrants. 

(22)

Figure 3. Migrants’s distribution by region of birth (2011)

"

Source: Migration Dynamics in South Africa Census 2011 from: http://www.statssa.gov.za/publications/Re-port-03-01-79/Report-03-01-792011.pdf

Regarding the income levels of natives Fachinni et.al. (2013 ) examined the effect of immigration on employment rates and income in South Africa. South African employment rates are indeed affected by the arrival of immigrants, the opposite is true for wages. They findings additionally show that skilled South Africans are the education group which is the most negatively effected by immigration. (Ibid.:) In addition they find that white South Afri-cans are “more adversely affected than their black counterparts.” (Ibid.: 22) Their findings add to the controversy regarding it being predominantly black South African’s opposition to-wards immigrants. 

This research aims at providing a more detailed insight into the motives for these hos-tile attitudes. Within the broader global academic context, attitudes towards immigrants have been studied from multiple cultural and economic perspectives. This study will incorporate a broad range of studies to help determine more specific motives, ranging from cultural to eco-nomic perspectives at both an individual as the contextual level.

(23)

Chapter 4: Literature Review

4.1 Introduction 

The question of attitudes towards immigrants falls within the framework of general immigration studies. Within this field, the impact of international immigration on economic and social development is considered and used in the analysis of various other disciplines that also deal with migration. (Shyrock et. al., 1976) Mainstream immigration research distinguis-hes between immigration within and towards developed countries. (World Bank, 2010) This form of migration is known as South-North immigration. South-South migration stands at the opposite of South-North migration and is defined as migration within and towards devel-oping countries. This research falls under the scope of South-South migration, as it explores attitudes towards immigrants within South Africa. Within the entire scope of studies on atti-tudes towards immigrants, this study will mainly focus on literature that focuses on cultural and economic explanations.

In order to develop explanations within the context of South-South migration, this study will include research conducted within the European and North- American context. Research concerning attitudes towards immigrants within the Global South is relatively new and therefore limited. (Gordon, 2016) Additional use is made of studies conducted within South Africa. Migration research based in the developed world can be applied to South Afri-ca as the generalizability of these scientific studies does not limit use within the context of a developing country. Considering the semi-underdeveloped South African economic context, South Africa is home to Africa’s second largest economy and is considered a middle-income country. (World Bank, 2017)

I will focus on the relationship between the socio-economic position of black South Africans, and the apparent xenophobic attitudes towards immigrants. I will investigate the explanations for the violent attacks, and will take into account the extent to which social and economic marginalization plays a role. For this reason this study will cover literature that fo-cuses on economic, cultural and social explanations for negative attitudes towards immi-grants.

This chapter includes the discussion of various celebrated and well cited examples within the existing literature on explanations for negative attitudes towards immigrants. This chapter starts with a general introduction to this academic field, before discussing a variation

(24)

of attitudinal predictors on an individual and contextual level.   4.2 The Rise of Studies on Attitudes towards Immigrants 

Aside from social inclusion, the subject of interethnic relations and the reactions of majority groups towards minorities has gained increased social and academic relevance. (Coenders, 2001) Research on anti-immigrant attitudes falls within the same interest field, alt-hough it focuses more on the reactions of the majority group towards the minority group. With the rise of the academic relevance of this subject, multiple studies focus on the question of how certain (mostly negative) reactions, towards immigrants can be explained.

Studying the existing literature on anti-immigrant sentiments, it becomes more evi-dent that there are multiple, and sometimes compatible reasons for explaining these attitudes. Because of the increasing relevance of the subject within societal spheres, not all aspects of negative attitudes and its determinants have been academically covered. The following chap-ters will provide an outline of the existing literature and, if necessary, some of its missing parts.

The roots of all of current studies on anti-immigrant attitudes are based on the inte-rest in individuals interacting with and within society. Alport (1954) and Blumer (1958) are the founders of the interests in individual and societal processes, and for this reason, they influen-ce the foundation of current studies on anti-immigrant sentiments. Current studies on attitu-des towards migrants were traditionally categorized according to academic research based on either intergroup beliefs, attitudes and prejudice towards minority groups; or studies that fo-cus on racial policy opinions. (Ceobanu & Escandell 2010) This study falls under the first ca-tegory. Within this academic field, concepts such as group threat, social identity and group contact, are at the center of discussions on the determinants of anti-immigrant reactions. (Ibid.:)

The origin of anti-immigrant attitudes and interethnic relations is part of an acade-mic tradition which started decades ago. The origin of studies on specifically negative attitu-des towards immigrants stems from one of the first studies on this subject by Quillian (1995) who studied anti-immigrant and racial prejudice. Additionally, Esses, Dovidio, Jackson and Armstrong (2001), were one of the first to study interethnic relations in combination with anti-immigrant attitudes. Their research aimed at analyzing the role of ‘perceived competiti-on’ with immigrants within the Canadian and American context. As a parameter for this per-ceived level of competition they used the respondent’s opinions on unequal social outcomes

(25)

and their stance on social hierarchies. (Ibid.:) Their results were groundbreaking and for the first time in history they found empirical evidence for what they would later call the ‘immigra-tion dilemma’. Both immigrants who are considered a burden on the social welfare system, as well as immigrants who are economically successful, were perceived negatively by the mem-bers of the host-country. Reactions on immigrants by the memmem-bers of the host-country diver-ted from being massively positive to extremely hostile. This interaction between acceptance and rejection of immigrants is nowadays still an ongoing social struggle.

Although the studies conducted within the North-American context have been the first and a major contribution to the existing literature on anti-immigrant attitudes, the studies lack complete and sufficient generalizability in other countries. (Zick, Pettigrew & Wagner, 2008). Therefore similar phenomena that occur within other countries all around the world, require contextualized research that focuses on the specific context of this country. With time predominately Europe, the Middle East and Africa, slowly followed up the trend in studying their own contextualized determinants of negative attitudes towards immigrants.

Zick, Pettigrew and Wagner (2008) emphasize differences between he North American and European regions. Differences in colonial background, religious foundation, immigrant streams, governmental structure and social elevations add to the differences in a country’s le-vel of inter ethnic interaction. Thus, these conditions contribute in a different manner to ne-gative attitudes. Studies such as the latter are traditionally and mostly conducted within highly advanced economies. Zick, Pettigrew and Wagner (2008) argue this as self-evident, given the unchanged immigration streams to Northern America and Europe. Within the African, and especially the sub-Saharan context, most studies on the attitudes of migrants have been con-ducted in South Africa, as it has the highest rate of South-South immigration on the conti-nent. (Gordon, 2016) As for Europe, the explanation for the African context can not solely rely on the theoretical outcomes that result from research conducted in North America or Eu-rope.

(26)

4.3 Individual and Contextual Determinants of Attitudes

Although there is a difference in how negative attitudes towards immigrants rise and resign-ate in a country, it is safe to say that all forms of attitudes have three main sources. (Semyonov, Raijman & Gorodzeisky, 2008) The characteristics of; each individual, the characteristics of the host-country, and the characteristics of the immigrant group. Here one can think of characteristics such as the size of the group, the economic situation of a country or the res-pondent’s socio-economic background. The characteristics of the host-country are mainly used for cross-country studies. During times of increasing migration streams, these characte-ristics appear to matter even more. Single country studies are constructed in a way where it is more the individual level characteristics that are analyzed. The distinction between micro and macro predictors remains relevant, because it helps with organizing the nature of the possible causes. 

What became clear at quite an early stage throughout the academic timeline of this research topic, is that theoretical propositions on anti-immigrant attitudes are a reflection and a combination of individual characteristics and predispositions as well as the larger socio-poli-tical and historical context. (Quillian 1995, Ceobanu & Escandell 2010) For this reason the interaction between individuals and society and the resulting attitudes towards immigrants, is studied from both a micro and macro level. Studying the interaction on a macro level, with specific attention to the structural conditions, makes it possible for researchers to include the embedded nature of the socio-economic contact, while controlling for and including, the in-dividual-level attributes. (Ceobanu & Escandell 2010) Studying the determinants of attitudes towards immigrants thus requires a study based on both individual-level as well as contextual level attributes.  

Where the first distinction between micro and macro is made, a second distinction between the entire body of literature on determinants of attitudes separates economic from cultural determinants. The research on the determinants of attitudes towards immigrants is partly based on popular and early contemporary works. Hainmueller and Hopkins (2014) in-creased the historical distinction between cultural and political to a distinction between ‘poli-tical economy’ and ‘poli‘poli-tical psychology,’. The latter, poli‘poli-tical psychology’ usually relates to culture. (Hainmueller & Hopkins 2014) Insights from both the economic sphere, as well as the cultural sphere on both a micro and macro level, are included in order to outline some of the most frequently cited and used studies.

(27)

4.4 Economic Determinants of Attitudes 4.4.1. Individual Predictors 

The economic determinants of attitudes enjoy widespread scholarly support, and have been studied within the field of political economy, primarily. Material self-interest stands at the cen-ter of these studies, and takes form in the labor and tax market. (Hainmueller & Hopkins 2014) Individual socio-economic data is in most of these academic scenarios the source for multiple theoretical outcomes, which are in turn the result of qualitative studies on the attitu-des related to material self-interest.

Semyonov, Raijnman and Gorodzeisky (2008) conducted a cross-country research on attitudes towards foreigners among Europeans. They concluded that anti-immigrant attitudes were mostly proven to exist among Europeans who are socio-economically vulnerable. If the output of this study is taken as the general starting point, the following studies will help to un-derstand how this vulnerability can be better understood.

The first discussed vulnerability is the skill set of the native individual and their positi-on within the labor market as a predictor for negative attitudes. Regarding positi-one’s skill level, Mayda (2006) argues that those individuals with an occupation involving a higher number of immigrants compared to natives, are more likely to oppose immigrants. Also, economic com-petition theories propose that opposition towards migrants is the result of native workers fee-ling threatened by newcomers with a similar skill set. (Blinder 2011) This notion is supported by one major finding: the confirmation of the borrowed theory postulated by Peri and Spar-ber (2009), who found that native workers position themselves differently and more strategi-cally after the arrival of immigrants by using their comparative advantage in communication-intensive tasks. Ortega and Polavieja include further results indicating that if these native workers were to change occupations, usually to an occupation that is less exposed to immi-grants, these natives then have a more positive opinion on immigrants. O’Rourke and Sin-nott’s (2006) study finds a similar, but opposing finding; highly skilled individuals tend to hold more tolerant views towards immigrants compared to low-skilled natives. This especially ap-plies to natives living in a rich (or more ‘equal’) country, as opposed to natives living in a poor (‘unequal’) country. Ortega & Polavieja’s (2009) research on the influence of one’s position in the labor market shows comparable results. They find that “individuals employed in jobs that are less exposed to competition from immigrants are relatively more

(28)

The second vulnerability is closely related to the individual’s skill set and incorporates the level of educational attainment as a predictor for negative attitudes. Hainmueller and Hiscox (2010) argue on the contrary that both low-skilled and highly skilled natives have a strong preference for immigrants who are highly skilled. This preference is not different among natives with a different, low or high, skill set or educational background. The skill set of the native is measured with use of their level of educational attainment. Although Hain-mueller and Hiscox argument is closely related to the perceived economic contribution of immigrants, they find no supporting arguments for the expected difference in reaction among natives with differing educational attainment. The preference for certain type of immigrants is thus, according to their findings, not highly related to the educational background of the native.  

According to Hainmueller & Hopkins (2014), it appears that people who enjoyed hig-her education seem to have less restrictive views regarding immigrants. The authors argue that this effect appears to be stronger when education is measured by a combination of cate-gorical indications. In their study one predominant indicator is the division in the total num-ber of years of formal schooling. This results in a bias to stating that natives have a less favo-rable attitude towards migrants if one does not belong to a higher educated group or one with a relatively more advanced set of skills. Malhotra et. al. (2013) noteworthy state that in practice this measurement is useful, but to some extend insufficient. Stating that people within a similar education category automatically have a similar skill set, is simply false. In addition people with a different skill set, are due to their position on the labor market, differently affec-ted by immigration. Competition as a result of one’s skill set, consisting of the number of ye-ars of higher and better education and level of human capital, is nevertheless still consistent among low-skilled natives. (Hainmueller & Hopkins 2014) One explanation for this pheno-menon seems to be related to the liberating effect of education in combination with the idea that education adds to “an overall broader set of knowledge, increased flexibility, a more criti-cal stance, greater personal and familial security, substantial exposure of foreign cultures, hig-her acceptance of diversity, or the generation of cosmopolitan social networks among the young adults living in urban settings” (Ceobanu & Escandell 2010) Education might be a par-tially biased variable to use in order to predict or determine one’s position in the labor market or a person’s noneconomic challenges that come with skill or one’s sense of economic threat. Nevertheless, using education as a variable can still be useful in case of lack of data. (Malho-tra et. al, 2013) Additionally, Hainmueller and Hiscox (2013) state that although the variable

(29)

is sensitive to bias, a negative outcome showing no correlation can cross out any other related theoretical options.

The third economic vulnerability represents the level of income of the native to de-termine whether of not they hold negative or positive attitudes towards immigrants. Regar-ding income, O’Rourke and Sinnott (2006) find that people belonging to higher income groups are generally more tolerant towards immigrants. Interestingly, this tolerance is not re-lated to one's employment status. Being employed or unemployed seems to be unimportant. What seems to be of greater relevance is the income group one belongs to, or previous em-ployment membership for those who are currently unemployed. Labor market status shows an insignificant correlation with the relationship to the level of tolerance towards migrants. Hainmueller and Hiscox (2010) find that in comparison to O’Rourke and Sinnot’s study, their research does not appears to support the thought that poor natives tend to have less favorable attitudes towards immigrants. Their study shows that poor and rich natives tend to be less fa-vorable towards low-skilled immigration in general. Hainmueller and Hiscox (2010) conclude, based on their findings, that absolute economic self-interest does not explain negative attitu-des towards immigrants.

In sum, skill set, education level and income remain important factors in explaining one’s reaction towards immigrants. Although the economic arguments for negative attitudes towards migrants are relatively significant in some cases, different scholars found that hostility and negative attitudes on an individual level can also be influenced by economic factors on country level. A distinction between impact of circumstantial economic factors on an indivi-dual must therefore be separated from the findings on the circumstances affecting the entire country. (Hainmueller & Hopkins 2014) The following paragraph discusses influential scho-lars and their findings of predictors on a contextual level

4.4.2 Contextual Predictors 

The underlying notion of dominating studies suggests that negative perceptions and attitudes towards migrants stem from the competition for comparable social goods. Here one must think of inexpensive housing, well-paid jobs, welfare benefits (Phillipis 2009), and the availabi-lity and accessibiavailabi-lity of public services such as hospitals and schools. (Blinder 2011)

This stance comparably counts for wealthier natives who act on the sense that the na-tional financial burden increases when migrants enter the country. (Ibid.:) In relation to this, Citrin (1997) researched a decade earlier that economic hardships can be of possible

(30)

influen-ce on stereotypical attitudes towards migrants. Citrin does add a demeanor disclaimer, by sta-ting that the formation of stereotypes is highly related to the native’s perception on the impact migrants have on the nation. (Ibid.:) Here one must consider the discrepancy between the perceived economic impact and the absolute economic impact. Aside from the native’s per-spective, a difference in between the two must be taken into account.

The fiscal impact on the welfare state can be another economic determinant on the contextual level. Given that some immigrants automatically belong to the bottom of the fiscal hierarchy, means that the financial burden on society is often absorbed by the wealthy, which significantly decreases their contribution to the welfare system. (Mayda, 2006) According to Mayda this “makes them probable beneficiaries of costly welfare programs.” This idea of mi-grants being a threat to a social security system is closely linked to the findings of how opini-ons on immigrants are closely connected to the level of individual skills within countries with a high capita per GDP. The contrary is true for countries with a low capita GDP. (Ibid.:) Con-textual level determinants play a partial role in single country studies and a more dominant role within cross-country studies. Although the national economic framework is shaping the framework in which individual level perceptions of ‘the other’ arise, within this study a focus on the direct individual level attributes is placed.  

4.5 Cultural Determinants of Attitudes 4.5.1 Individual Predictors 

Non-economic determinants of attitudes towards immigrants enjoy significant attention within general academic discourses on this topic. Cultural and ethnic homogeneity often stand at the center of these discussions, with the most emphasis placed on the economic fac-tors that influence attitudes towards immigrants. What must be considered, however, is the more consequential motivation of cultural and symbolic factors. As much as the Realistic Group Conflict theory advocates economic determinants of attitudes, a strong argument can be made for non-economic factors, which will be discussed in the next chapter. (Ceobanu & Escandell, 2014)

Facchini et. al.’s (2014) study of both the economic and non-economic determinants shows that the non-economic aspects and particularly those that work through the labor mar-ket do not necessarily clarify the difference in individual preferences concerning immigration. On the contrary, in many cases, ethnic and religious background or affiliation with the

(31)

religi-on of the respreligi-ondents determines their outlook religi-on and preference towards immigratireligi-on. (Fac-chini e.a. 2014)

McDaniel, Nooruddin and Shortle (2011) find that religious conservatism is said to create more negative attitudes and beliefs towards migrants. Interestingly enough, this finding is closely tied to the scare of the culturally different “other”. This finds its roots in understan-ding the United States’ origins as a Christian nation. (Ibid.:) Here one can argue that religion and cultural beliefs are going hand in hand since they are of mutual importance in shaping one’s idea’s regarding the acceptance of newcomers. If religion is said to be of great signifi-cance in one’s life, this religion can have an indispensable connection to one’s view regarding anything social. O’Rourke and Sinnott (2006) find that people who have worked abroad also seem to have a more positive opinion of migrants. Contact with people belonging to other cultural groups remains highly important in creating friendly attitudes towards “the other”. (Ibid.:)

Contemporary times and the fluctuation of the labor market, create various differen-ces in the non-economic dimensions which are of influence on a person’s level of negative attitudes towards immigrants. According to these authors, education is correlated with ‘cultu-ral tolerance and cosmopolitan attitudes’. (Malhotra e.a., 2010)

4.5.2. Contextual Predictors

On a contextual level cultural predictors are influencing attitudes towards migrants in a comparable manner. Schlueter and Scheepers (2009) state that the existence of a construc-ted out-group can result in a sincere group threat among natives. Their findings show that having more immigrants on the municipality level can decrease the experienced threat as a result of more intergroup contact. Schlueter and Scheepers (2009) propose the idea that “ a larger out-group size provides opportunities for positive intergroup contact, which in turn ameliorates anti minority group attitudes. (Ibid.:) Here, both the absolute and experienced size of the out-group is of influence on the creation of negative attitudes. The larger the size of the out-group the higher the level of negative attitudes. Most important here is that lack of contact between the opposing groups can contribute to negative attitudes on the side of the natives. This form of contact can develop in numerous ways, such as neighbors, friends or colleagues. The level of social distance plays a very important role in the development of ne-gative attitudes towards immigrants. Those with a larger distance between themselves and

(32)

people belonging to ethnic minorities in every aspect of their life, seem to have less favorable attitudes towards immigrants. (Verberk, Scheepers and Felling 2002)

Hainmueller and Hopkins’ (2014) study on the determinants of attitudes also include empirical support for the idea of ethnicity being an important predictor. Ethnicity, as well as prejudice, ethnocentrism and stereotypes show an adverse correlation with attitudes towards migrants. Gordon (2016), on the contrary did not find comparable outcomes when he studies the effect of race as a predictor of negative attitudes. Categorizing immigrants as the so-call-ed “out-group” stimulates and thereby creating a social distinction adds to negative attitudes towards migrants.

4.6 Perceived Threat

The individual and contextual characteristics are related, and are used to measure the effect within cross country and single country studies. What remains unclear is the mecha-nism that explains how the two intertwine in reality. Savelkoul etc. (2010) provide a suggestion by stating that some level of perceived threat can function as the mediating variable between individual and country-level characteristics and the level of the respondent’s negative attitu-des. A sense of perceived threat thus functions as the explanation for the relationship between determinate of attitudes on both an individual level as the contextual level and negative atti-tudes towards immigrants. Schlueter, Schmidt and Wagner (2008) confirm the interconnecti-vity of the two concepts. Their findings reveal that ‘perceived threat’ is indeed, ‘chronologi-cally and causally’ precedent to negative attitudes towards migrants; thus, negative attitudes towards migrants will increase if the presence of the foreigners ignites feelings of threat.   Bobo (1988) is the founding scholar of the theoretical separation between perceived competition and perceived threat. He states that among ethnic groups, perceived competition can be a strong predictor of perceived threat. According to Bobo (1988), perceived threat is the most influential predictor of negative attitudes towards ethnic minorities. (Savelkoul 2011) For this reason, studying the level of ethnic competition remains an important starting point to explaining negative attitudes between two ethnic groups. If one is can identify a significant level of competition between two ethnic groups, one can to continue, and research a conse-quential level of threat. 

Immigrant related threat perceptions are said to arise when some sense of intergroup competition for the same, and in most cases, scarce resources is sensed. Perceptions of threat also arise the moment individuals, from a sense of self-interest, feel threatened by the arrival

(33)

of newcomers. (Blalock 1967, Bobo 1999, Callens e.a. 2015) As a result of this sense of thre-at, negative attitudes are created. Bobo (1999) strengthens this notion that this sense of per-ceived threat does not have to be a reflection of reality. When the position of the majority group within society is threatened, the individuals belonging to that group tend to develop negative attitudes towards the other group. (Bobo 1999, Schlueter 2009, Scheepers 2010)   Scheepers (Scheepers, Gijsberts and Coenders, 2002) continued the research on this relationship between individual and contextual characteristics by using the mediated variable the perceived threat, by making a distinction between cultural and economic threat. The eco-nomic threat is also referred to as the ‘realistic threat’ and represents the threat towards ‘the existence of the majority group, to their political and economic power and to their well being, both psychologically and materially’. (Callens e.a. 2015, p. 5-6) The symbolic threat repre-sents a second sense of threat with regard to other non-materialistic factors. This threat con-cerns morals, values, beliefs and attitudes. (Ibid.:) Other understudied, but related senses of threat look at stereotypes and intergroup anxiety. Although all forms are relevant and accor-ding to Riek et al. (2006) interrelated, most contemporary literature focuses on cultural and economic threat.  

Within Savelkoul, Scheepers and Tolsma’s research a focus is put on the size of the immigrant population at the contextual level that is influencing negative attitudes towards mi-grants. (Quillian, 1995; Schlueter & Schepeers, 2010, Semyonov e.a., 2006) In addition, their study includes individual level characteristics such as income and educational attainment, which in turn were again mediated by the level of perceived threat. Their study initially focu-sed on the level of perceived ethnic threat. The word ‘ethnic’ is in later studies removed or replaced, since ‘ethnic’ remained a difficult, broad and undefined form of threat to test prag-matically.  

Sniderman et. al (2004) study on the economic and cultural predictors of any opposi-tion towards immigrant minorities, equally to this research, emphasizes the importance of considering both factors. The authors study intergroup conflict by using the Intergroup Con-tact theory and the Social Identity theory. Their findings show that oversimplifying the ‘other’ and negative images of this ‘other’ contribute to intergroup conflict. The Dutch context in which their study is conducted, shows a strong support for their hypothesized perception of cultural threat as the predictor of negative attitudes towards Muslim immigrants. The Dutch perceive Muslim immigrants as a threat to their national identity and this directly reflects their perceived cultural threat. (Ibid.:) A comparable sense of threat is sensed with regard to

(34)

outcomes after the calculation of the economic advantages. The outcome of these calculati-ons are the basis of specific reacticalculati-ons towards immigrants.  

Sniderman, Hagendoorn, and Prior (2014) noteworthy argue that studying the level of perceived threat as a result of immigrant is sensitive to bias. People who for instance have an opposing opinion towards immigrants for cultural reasons, are more likely to respond in a negative way to any non-cultural question about immigrants.  

The roles of perceived economic and cultural threat are not mutually exclusive and the question that is asked does not seem to study which of the two impacts negative attitudes more than the other. (Malhotra et. al. 2013) The separate impact of both is of great impor-tance and stands at the center of the studied relationships.

This study will follow their example and will make use of both perceived cultural and economic threat to determine the mechanism and relation between mainly individual charac-teristics and negative attitudes towards migrants. Since this study only focuses on South Africa and is therefore a single country study, a small number of contextual characteristics is incor-porated. In summary, the formation of public attitudes as a response to perceived economic and cultural threat can be helpful in outlining and studying the overall opinions regarding immigrants with the use of a combination of the previously presented studies.

4.7 Attitudinal Studies conducted in South Africa

As mentioned in the previous chapter, research conducted within the European or American context is of great use, but research conducted within the specific context or region might be of greater use.  

Facchini e.a.’s (2014) study on the economic drivers within the South African context shows, a nonsignificant correlation between one’s position on the labor market and negative attitudes toward migrants. Skill set and employment status are central keys to this study. Im-migrants in South Africa are generally more skilled than the natives. According to the predo-minant existing literature conducted in the West, this would either had to lead to correlation or it would have to be of no influence on native’s their attitudes towards immigrants. (Hain-mueller and Hiscox, 2010) South Africans who possess higher skills did not have opposing views to their lesser-skilled immigrated counterparts. 

Gordon’s (2015) study emphasizes the linkage between one’s individual level of of life satisfaction and negative sentiments towards immigrants. This study was conducted among

(35)

black South Africans only. Gordon’s analysis shows that there is no significant relationship between the level of life satisfaction and anti-immigrant sentiments within this framework. Improving the level of life satisfaction among black South Africans will have little to no im-pact on their sentiments towards international immigrants. On the contrary, this study also shows that pro-immigrant sentiment is positively correlated to overall positive attitudes to-wards racial minorities. (Ibid.:) The actual determinant of either positive or negative attitudes towards migrants seems to stem from personal factors such as general attitudes towards multi-culturalism.

Gordon’s (2016) studied nationalism and racial devision and their effect on attitudes towards immigrants within South Africa. Differences and racial grounds for the determinants of attitudes among all four categorized races within South Africans results in an existing cor-relation between the race and the perception that immigrants have a duty to contribute to the development of the nation. Gordon also found that concerning newcomers and racial identi-ty, a sense of threat to the race group “could provoke a desire to guard the boundaries of au-thentic racial identity.” (Ibid.) This notion increasingly specifically counts in case the newco-mers show comparable physical characteristics.  

The results of the previous studies are taken into consideration with this research. The following chapter discusses the theoretical framework of this study and will finish with the contribution of this research.

(36)

Chapter 5: Theoretical Framework

 

5.1 Introduction

 

The previous chapter outlined various perceptions on what are considered the explanations for hostile or negative attitudes towards immigrants. Within this chapter, the theoretical scope of this study combines studies on both an individual as on a country-level. The essence of the Ethnic Competition theory (ECT), the theoretical framework of this research, includes theo-retical explanations from both an individual as contextual approach. Dividing the explanati-ons in cultural and an economic categories. Numerous studies from both the micro and the macro perspective contribute to the understanding and implementation of the ECT. In order to empirically examine the extent to which negative attitudes towards immi-grants among black South Africans can be explained in terms of ethnic competition, this pa-per will closely analyze the characteristics of the theory. The ECT aims at explaining the foundations of the economic and cultural factors that determine native attitudes towards im-migrants, and is comprised of the Realistic Group Conflict theory, as well as the Social Identi-ty theory (SIT).

Figure 4. Theoretical Framework (a) 

Explaining negative attitudes among native black South Africans towards immigrants : a case study on the determinants of hostile attitudes from a marginalized community towards immigrants