The article theorises how covering social risks through cash transfers and in-kind services shapes public attitudes towards including/excluding immigrants from these programmes in Western European destination countries. The argument is that public attitudes are more restrictive of granting immigrants access to benefits than to services. This hypothesis is tested across ten social protection programmes using original survey data collected in Denmark, Germany and the UK in 2019. Across the three countries, representing respectively a social democratic, conservative and liberal welfare regime context, the article finds that the public does indeed have a preference for easier access for in-kind services than for cash benefits. The article also finds these results to be stable across programmes covering the same social risks; the examples are child benefits and childcare. The results are even stable across left-wing, mainstream and radical right-wing voters; with the partial exception of radical right-wing voters in the UK. Finally, the article finds only a moderate association between individual characteristics and attitudinal variation across cash benefits and in-kind services.

这篇文章从理论上阐述了如何通过现金转移和实物服务来覆盖社会风险，从而塑造了公众对在西欧目的地国家/地区纳入/排除这些计划的移民的态度。论点是，公众的态度对给予移民福利的限制比服务的要多。使用 2019 年在丹麦、德国和英国收集的原始调查数据对十个社会保护计划进行了测试。 在分别代表社会民主、保守和自由福利制度背景的三个国家中，本文发现公众确实倾向于更容易获得实物服务而不是现金福利。文章还发现这些结果在涵盖相同社会风险的项目中是稳定的；例如儿童福利和儿童保育。结果在左翼、主流和激进的右翼选民中甚至是稳定的；英国的激进右翼选民部分例外。最后，本文发现个人特征与现金福利和实物服务的态度差异之间仅存在适度关联。