100 Chapter 5 is triggered by inequality, arguing that natives may be more supportive of redistribution only if migrants are excluded from sharing equally in those benefits. Additionally, Eick and Larsen (2022) test how the set-up of a social programme affects public attitudes towards the exclusion of migrants and find that the public are more reluctant to include migrants in cash transfer programmes than in-kind services to cover social risks. 5.2.2 Job insecurity and compensation Another competing micro-level theory is the compensation hypothesis, which argues that as an individual’s economic risk increases from exposure to economic openness and further globalisation, then they are more likely to express preferences for welfare state expansion to compensate for those increased risks and support more generous social policies at the ballot box (Marx, 2014; Paskov & Koster, 2014; Rodrik, 1998; Vlandas & Halikiopoulou, 2021; Walter, 2010, 2017). Walter (2017) builds on this and states that individuals’ perceptions of labour market risk and policy preferences are also dependent on their skill level. Analysing cross-national survey data from 16 European countries, the empirical analysis shows that exposure to globalisation affects high- and low-skilled individuals differently, with exposure decreasing risk perceptions and demands for social protection for the former group and increasing risk perceptions and demands for social protection amongst the latter. When adapted to immigration (Emmenegger, Marx, & Schraff, 2015; Fenwick, 2019; Finseraas, 2008; Gaston & Rajaguru, 2013), the compensation hypothesis supposes that job insecurity for native workers stems from increased competition in the labour market, particularly in occupations where natives may develop highly specific skills with low transferability and in the event of an economic shock (Pardos-Prado & Xena, 2019), and issues such as social dumping, i.e. when employers undermine collective agreements made with the native labour force by exploiting foreign labourers who are often willing to work longer hours for reduced wages (Brady & Finnigan, 2014). In addition, when exploring the validity of the compensation hypothesis, Finseraas (2008) argues that even those with negative sentiments toward immigration might not be less, but more, likely to support welfare redistribution out of a desire to protect themselves and/or their “own” native group. Indeed, those who are exposed to the risk of income or job loss (Cusack, Iversen, & Rehm, 2006), and those concerned about fellow (native) citizens with financial problems (Blekesaune & Quadagno, 2003) have been found to be more likely to support redistribution. Using survey data from 17 European countries, Burgoon et al. (2012) demonstrate that when an individual works in an occupation that has a relatively higher share of foreign-born workers, this can increase an individual’s perceived economic insecurity and as a result spurs greater support for government redistribution. Whereas they find that exposure to the
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw