4 Chapter 1 embedded liberalism originally intended to be applied to the openness of trade and capital, it is also generalisable to the increasing openness of migration regimes. If immigration is perceived as an economic risk by natives and those who benefit from open borders wish to maintain support for immigration, then the same deal meant for trade and capital could be struck for immigration. The current empirical evidence on these macrotheories is mixed and existing research provides reasons as to why we can expect immigration to in some ways increase and in other ways decrease the generosity of the welfare state (Gaston & Rajaguru, 2013; Lipsmeyer & Zhu, 2011; Nannestad, 2007; Soroka et al., 2006; 2016; Stichnoth & Van der Straeten, 2013; Römer, 2023). However, perhaps the prevailing view is that immigration puts a strain on tax and benefit systems, which spells bad news for welfare state generosity and thus the ability to address economic inequalities. Both macro-level theories discussed above focus on the ‘supply-side’ of social policy, they emphasise a government’s potential policy response to global changes and are perhaps less studied than the ‘demand-side’, which focuses on the way that individuals within societies demand social policy change as a result of global changes. Key theories at the micro-level are the compensation hypothesis, the anti-solidarity hypothesis, and welfare chauvinism. The compensation hypothesis theorises that in light of increasing economic insecurity from greater competition on the labour market, natives will demand greater compensation and consequently welfare state expansion (Brady & Finnigan, 2014; Fenwick, 2019; Marx, 2014; Paskov & Koster, 2014; Rodrik, 1998; Römer, 2023; Vlandas & Halikiopoulou, 2021; Walter, 2010, 2017). If immigration is (perceived) to lead to reductions in wages, increase the likelihood of becoming unemployed, or decrease the likelihood of securing a job, then this increased risk is what could lead to individuals seeking increased security through a more comprehensive social security net. The anti-solidarity hypothesis theorises that because support for the welfare state is grounded in solidarity between citizens, a desire to pool and share risk across individuals, then anything that may challenge this solidarity such as changing the ethnic, linguistic and cultural make-up of society as a result of increasing ethnic heterogeneity, can thus erode citizens’ support for the welfare state (Burgoon & Rooduijn, 2021; Heath & Richards, 2020; van Oorschot, 2008). Welfare chauvinism theorises that rather than retrenching or expanding the welfare state as a whole, native-born residents may wish to ring-fence benefits from foreign-born residents in order to maintain more generous benefits for themselves (Brady & Finnigan, 2014; Cappelen & Peters, 2017; Eger, 2010; Eger & Breznau, 2017; Eick & Larsen, 2022; Hjorth, 2016; Larsen, 2011, 2020; van der Meer & Reeskens, 2021; Negash & van Vliet, 2024; van Oorschot, 2000; van der Waal et al., 2013). This could happen because an individual may consider an immigrant as
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy MjY0ODMw