1. This article examines the role of labor immigration as a source of institutional change, using a comparative case study analysis of the Danish and Australian construction sectors.
2. The authors find that labor migration has produced liberalizing pressures in both Denmark and Australia, albeit in different ways.
3. The article contributes to comparative institutional scholarship by illustrating how labor migration can promote or support institutional change in a liberalizing direction by disincentivizing coordinated skill formation.
The article is well-researched and provides an interesting perspective on the role of labor migration as a source of institutional change. It draws on 73 interviews with industry stakeholders to examine the impact of increased labor migration on skill-sourcing practices in countries with distinct national skill formation and industrial relations institutions. The authors provide evidence for their claims and present both sides of the argument fairly, making it a reliable source of information.
However, there are some potential biases that should be noted. For example, the authors focus mainly on advanced economies when discussing labor migration, which may lead to an oversimplification of the issue as it ignores other contexts where labor migration may have different effects. Additionally, while they acknowledge that national institutions mediate external pressures such as labor migration, they do not explore how these institutions may be affected by such pressures in detail. Finally, while they discuss how labor migration can promote or support institutional change in a liberalizing direction, they do not consider any potential risks associated with this type of change or explore any counterarguments to their claims.