A recent study conducted by the ifo Institute and LMU Munich reveals that Ukrainian refugees prioritise better job prospects over higher social benefits when choosing where to settle. Surveying more than 3,300 Ukrainian refugees across Europe, the researchers found that the promise of employment matching a refugee’s qualifications and the potential for higher wages had a far greater influence on their choice of destination than social assistance or child benefits. According to Panu Poutvaara, Director of the ifo Center for Migration and Development Economics and Professor at LMU’s Faculty of Economics, wage differences exert nearly four times the impact of variations in social benefits when refugees decide where to relocate.

In an experimental scenario, participants were asked to select between two hypothetical countries with differing economic and social characteristics. When presented with a country offering better employment opportunities, respondents were 15 percentage points more likely to choose it over the alternative. Similarly, a country with an average wage of €500 (US$570) higher attracted a preference that was nine percentage points greater. These factors were decisive even among unemployed refugees, many of whom indicated an intention to join the labour market in the future. The presence of friends or family in the destination country also influenced decisions, increasing its attractiveness by 8.5 percentage points, although this was less important than economic incentives. Interestingly, geographical proximity to Ukraine was less of a draw, particularly for those who envisioned a long-term future abroad. For these individuals, economic opportunities outweighed closeness to family and friends.

The study underscores that understanding the motivations behind refugees’ choice of destination is critical for shaping effective national and international policies. Yvonne Giesing, Deputy Director of the ifo Center for Migration and Development Economics, notes that such insights can inform debates on policy measures, such as reducing social benefits in an attempt to deter refugee arrivals. However, the findings suggest that lowering social assistance is unlikely to have a significant impact, given that job opportunities and wage levels are far more influential in attracting refugees. On the contrary, Giesing warns that cutting state aid could hinder long-term integration, as financial support during the early stages of resettlement can play a vital role in helping newcomers adapt and contribute to their host societies.

Overall, the research highlights that economic factors—particularly the availability of suitable employment and competitive wages—are central to the settlement choices of Ukrainian refugees. While social benefits may provide critical support, they are secondary to the prospects of achieving economic independence and professional fulfilment in the host country. This suggests that policies aimed at integrating refugees into the labour market, such as streamlined credential recognition, targeted language training, and job placement programmes, may be far more effective in influencing settlement patterns than adjustments to welfare systems. By aligning policies with these preferences, host nations can not only attract skilled and motivated newcomers but also foster their successful integration into society.

More information: Panu Poutvaara et al, Refugees from Ukraine value job opportunities over welfare, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. DOI: 10.1073/pnas.2502420122

Journal information: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences Provided by Ludwig-Maximilians-Universität München