| Abstract: | Welfare chauvinism has become an important element in the agenda of the populist radical right. This article proposes a novel argument to explain variation in the strength of welfare chauvinist appeals across social policy programmes. It theorizes that the redistributive justice principles (equity, equality, and need) that underpin a social programme matter. Equality‐ and need‐based programmes are more likely to contradict a nativist worldview in principle or practice, whereas equity‐based schemes are less vulnerable to welfare chauvinistic appeals. As a consequence, welfare chauvinism should be targeted at social policies that provide universal or means‐tested benefits. Insurance‐based systems are more likely to be immune. This argument is tested through a qualitative content analysis of populist radical right election manifestos in four West European democracies. The results show that insurance‐based systems (pensions, unemployment) are less likely to attract welfare chauvinism, whereas universal healthcare and means‐tested social assistance programmes are more prone to draw nativist appeals. Universal family allowances, however, are less likely to attract welfare chauvinism than predicted by the theory. |
