Report on the Socio-Economic Drivers of Anti-Immigrant Sentiment and Implications for Sustainable Development Goals

Introduction

A recent study published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology investigates the psychological mechanisms linking economic hardship to anti-immigrant hostility. The findings highlight a critical interplay between economic conditions, societal cohesion, and conspiracy beliefs, with significant implications for the achievement of several Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), particularly SDG 1 (No Poverty), SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).

Key Findings from a Multi-Method Investigation

The research, conducted through a series of six studies in the United Kingdom and Ireland, establishes a clear causal pathway from economic distress to discriminatory and violent intentions. The investigation utilized a combination of surveys, quasi-experimental designs based on geographic deprivation, and experimental simulations.

The Causal Chain of Hostility

1. Economic Hardship: Both perceived and actual economic disadvantage were identified as the initial trigger. This directly relates to the challenges outlined in SDG 1 (No Poverty) and SDG 8 (Decent Work and Economic Growth).
2. Anomie (Societal Breakdown): Economic hardship was found to foster a sense of anomie—a feeling that society is fragmenting and social cohesion is eroding. This deterioration of the social fabric undermines the foundation of SDG 11 (Sustainable Cities and Communities) and SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions).
3. Conspiracy Beliefs: Anomie significantly increased receptiveness to anti-immigrant conspiracy theories, which blame non-European immigrants for societal problems. The spread of such misinformation is a direct threat to SDG 16.10 (ensure public access to information and protect fundamental freedoms).
4. Anti-Immigrant Sentiment and Action: Belief in these conspiracies was strongly linked to support for discriminatory policies, non-violent protest, and intentions to engage in violence against immigrants. This outcome fundamentally opposes the principles of SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities), specifically Target 10.2 (promote universal social, economic and political inclusion) and Target 10.7 (facilitate orderly, safe, and responsible migration), as well as SDG 16.1 (significantly reduce all forms of violence).

Experimental Evidence and SDG Implications

Simulated Hardship and Exposure to Misinformation

The experimental portion of the research provided robust evidence for these links by manipulating participants’ perceived economic status and exposing them to fabricated conspiratorial news stories.

• Participants assigned to a low-wealth condition in a simulated society reported higher levels of anomie and greater belief in anti-immigrant conspiracies.
• Direct exposure to a conspiracy narrative significantly increased negative attitudes and willingness to engage in both violent and non-violent actions against immigrants, especially among those in the low-wealth condition.
• This demonstrates how economic vulnerability, a core concern of SDG 1 and SDG 10, makes populations more susceptible to manipulation and misinformation, thereby jeopardizing the goal of building peaceful and inclusive societies under SDG 16.

Policy Recommendations Aligned with Sustainable Development

The study, co-designed with the think tank Social Justice Ireland, concludes that tackling xenophobia requires addressing its root socio-economic causes. The recommendations directly support an integrated approach to achieving the SDGs.

1. Reduce Economic Inequality (SDG 1 & SDG 10): The primary recommendation is to address poverty and economic inequality. By creating more equitable societies, policymakers can mitigate the feelings of hardship and societal breakdown (anomie) that serve as a breeding ground for hostility.
2. Strengthen Social Cohesion and Institutions (SDG 16): Efforts must be made to counter the erosion of social cohesion. This includes promoting accurate information to combat conspiracy theories and fostering positive intergroup contact and cross-group friendships, which helps build the inclusive and peaceful societies envisioned in SDG 16.
3. Promote Political Literacy and Responsible Information (SDG 16.10): The findings underscore the danger of misinformation in fueling conflict. Policy should focus on enhancing political literacy and ensuring a healthy information ecosystem to inoculate citizens against conspiracist narratives that undermine social harmony and democratic institutions.

Analysis of Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in the Article

1. Which SDGs are addressed or connected to the issues highlighted in the article?

   The article highlights several interconnected issues such as economic hardship, inequality, social fragmentation, and hostility towards immigrants, which directly relate to multiple Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The primary SDGs addressed are:

   • SDG 1: No Poverty: The article establishes a clear link between “economic hardship” and negative social outcomes. The study’s focus on participants from “economically deprived” areas underscores the role of poverty as a root cause of social tension.
   • SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities: This is a central theme. The article discusses how economic inequality fuels resentment and how this translates into “hostile attitudes toward immigrants,” “support for discriminatory policies,” and a focus on “non-European immigrants,” highlighting inequality based on both economic status and origin. The policy recommendations explicitly call for “reducing economic inequality.”
   • SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions: The article directly addresses threats to peace and social cohesion. It discusses feelings of “societal decline” (anomie), support for “discriminatory policies,” “nonviolent protest,” and even “violent intentions” and “justifying acts of violence” against immigrants. This connects to the goal of promoting peaceful and inclusive societies.

2. What specific targets under those SDGs can be identified based on the article’s content?

   Based on the specific issues discussed, the following targets can be identified:

   • Under SDG 1 (No Poverty):
     • Target 1.2: By 2030, reduce at least by half the proportion of men, women and children of all ages living in poverty in all its dimensions according to national definitions. The article’s premise is that “actual economic hardship” and being from “economically deprived” areas are key drivers of the problems identified. Addressing this target would mitigate the root cause.
   • Under SDG 10 (Reduced Inequalities):
     • Target 10.2: By 2030, empower and promote the social, economic and political inclusion of all, irrespective of age, sex, disability, race, ethnicity, origin, religion or economic or other status. The article’s focus on “hostile attitudes toward immigrants—especially non-European immigrants” and the rise of xenophobia is a direct challenge to this target of social inclusion.
     • Target 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and reduce inequalities of outcome, including by eliminating discriminatory laws, policies and practices. The study measures “support for discriminatory policies” like “reducing welfare access for refugees,” which are the exact types of practices this target aims to eliminate.
     • Target 10.7: Facilitate orderly, safe, regular and responsible migration and mobility of people… The rise of “anti-immigrant sentiment” and “violent intentions” creates an unsafe environment for migrants, directly undermining this target.
   • Under SDG 16 (Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions):
     • Target 16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence and related death rates everywhere. The study’s finding that economic hardship and conspiracy theories can “escalate into violent intentions” and that participants “were more likely to condone or express intent to engage in violence” directly relates to this target. The article also notes that “attacks on non-European immigrants were becoming more frequent.”
     • Target 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies for sustainable development. The article discusses support for discriminatory policies against immigrants, which is the antithesis of this target. The research suggests that to counter this, policymakers must address the underlying economic and social drivers.

3. Are there any indicators mentioned or implied in the article that can be used to measure progress towards the identified targets?

   The article, through the description of the research methodology and findings, mentions or implies several indicators that can be used to measure progress:

   • Indicators for Poverty and Inequality (SDG 1 & 10):
     • Perceived and actual economic hardship: The study surveyed participants about their “financial situation” and recruited them from “economically deprived and more affluent postcode areas.” These measures serve as direct indicators of economic status and inequality.
     • Levels of anomie: The feeling that “society was breaking down” (anomie) was measured and found to be higher in those experiencing economic hardship. This can serve as a social indicator of the effects of poverty and inequality.
   • Indicators for Social Inclusion and Non-Discrimination (SDG 10):
     • Prevalence of belief in anti-immigrant conspiracy theories: The study directly measured “belief in anti-immigrant conspiracy theories,” which serves as a key indicator of social fragmentation and exclusionary attitudes.
     • Support for discriminatory policies: The researchers measured “support for reducing welfare access for refugees” and “boycotting organizations that help immigrants,” which are concrete indicators of discriminatory sentiment.
   • Indicators for Peace and Violence (SDG 16):
     • Support for and intent to engage in violence: A key finding was the link between conspiracy beliefs and a willingness to “condone or express intent to engage in violence.” Measuring these attitudes is a direct indicator of progress towards a more peaceful society.
     • Frequency of attacks on immigrants: The article’s introduction mentions that “attacks on non-European immigrants were becoming more frequent,” which is a direct, quantifiable indicator of violence against a specific group.
     • Support for non-violent actions: The study also measured support for actions like “protests or boycotts, aimed at opposing immigration,” which can be an indicator of social tension and potential escalation.

4. Table of SDGs, Targets, and Indicators

   SDGs	Targets	Indicators Identified in the Article
   SDG 1: No Poverty	1.2: Reduce poverty in all its dimensions.	Measures of perceived and actual economic hardship (e.g., self-reported financial situation). Proportion of the population living in economically deprived areas.
   SDG 10: Reduced Inequalities	10.2: Promote social, economic, and political inclusion of all, irrespective of origin. 10.3: Ensure equal opportunity and eliminate discriminatory policies. 10.7: Facilitate safe migration and mobility.	Prevalence of hostile attitudes toward immigrants (especially non-European). Level of public belief in anti-immigrant conspiracy theories. Degree of public support for discriminatory policies (e.g., reducing welfare for refugees). Levels of anomie (sense of societal breakdown) as an indicator of social fragmentation.
   SDG 16: Peace, Justice and Strong Institutions	16.1: Significantly reduce all forms of violence. 16.b: Promote and enforce non-discriminatory laws and policies.	Frequency of reported attacks on immigrants. Proportion of the population that condones or expresses intent to engage in violence against immigrants. Level of support for non-violent actions (protests, boycotts) against immigration.

Source: psypost.org