This article discusses recent research on party politics and the welfare state that differs from traditional 'partisan politics theory'. The traditional approach states that left-wing and right-wing parties hold contrasting positions on welfare issues, depending on the interests of their respective electorates. This view has recently been challenged by three strands of research, which emphasize (1) the effects of electoral change on parties' policy positions, (2) the role of context, notably electoral institutions, party competition and the configuration of party systems, and (3) the impact of different linkages between parties and electorates (particularistic versus programmatic). The implications of these arguments for the applicability of partisan theory are presented, and theoretical and empirical issues are identified for further research.The objective of this article is to highlight and discuss new approaches regarding the relationship between party politics and the welfare state. These approaches can be qualified as new because they differ from traditional 'partisan politics theory'. The latter is a well-established theoretical strand in comparative welfare state research and, more broadly, in comparative political economy. In a nutshell, it sees parties as representatives of social constituencies, mostly defined in terms of industrial classes, and as bearers of clear ideological stances for social-democratic or conservative welfare policies. Social policy output, in this view, depends on the partisan composition of government.New ways of conceptualizing the role and impact of political parties on social and economic policies have been thriving in recent years, but the different contributions have neither been reviewed nor connected. This is what we do in this article. We identify three ways in which recent studies depart from traditional theory. First, it must be taken into account that electoral constituencies have changed and do not correspond to those of the industrial age anymore. Secondly, various contributions have shown that the institutional context, party systems and party competition matter for the kind of welfare policies individual political parties advocate. Thirdly, diverse links between parties and electorates (particularistic versus programmatic) shape the policy strategies adopted by parties.Traditional partisan politics theory assumes a linear and direct relationship between the type of party in power (e.g. social-democratic or conservative) and policy output. Each of the three strands of research that we are going to address in this article questions this linear relationship in its own way. The empirical analysis of changing socio-structural electoral constituencies alters our expectations, because it means that parties represent the anonymous reviewers for helpful comments, as well as Sarah Birch for editorial guidance. different interests from the ones that marked their ideological profiles in the early decades of welfare state growth. 1 If, in turn, we take context seriously, both in...
This is a pre-copyedited, author-produced PDF of an article accepted for publication in SocioEconomic Review following peer review. The version of Picot, Georg and Tassinari, Arianna. (2017) All of one kind? Labour market reforms under austerity in Italy and Spain. SocioEconomic Review, 15 (2). pp. 461-482.
Are party preferences of atypical workers distinct from those in stable employment? The welfare state literature debates this question, but very few empirical studies have been conducted. We examine the German case, being an example of a welfare state with strong social insurance traditions where the rise of atypical employment has been conspicuous. In particular, we test the argument that preferences of labour market outsiders may not differ because outsiders share households with insiders. We find that labour market status significantly affects party preferences. Compared with standard employees, atypical workers have stronger preferences for small left-wing parties. Living together with a labour market insider neutralizes these party preferences, but this type of household is not very common. Moreover, atypical workers differ from the unemployed by not participating less in elections than insiders. Therefore, it is expedient to distinguish between different types of labour market outsiders.
This contribution starts by presenting the three main approaches that political scientists use to analyze labor market vulnerability. We proceed to discuss various operationalizations of labor market vulnerability. We examine how they relate to the three theoretical approaches and we evaluate the consistency between theory and measurement. Finally, we recommend three measures that political scientists should deploy when analyzing the effect of labor market vulnerability on political preferences. We point out what each of these variables captures and what methodological challenges should be taken into account when using them.
Recent research has shown that new labour market divides resulting from the rise of non-standard employment (NSE) are reflected in the political preferences of the workers affected. Yet, our knowledge of the stance of political parties on the issue is extremely limited, even descriptively. Do they address NSE in the context of election campaigns—if so, which parties do? How do they frame non-standard work and what policies do they propose? The article tackles these questions by analysing party programmes in four large Continental and Southern Europe states where NSE is widespread and poorly integrated into the systems of social protection. We find that attention to and criticism of non-standard work follows a left–right distribution, but we also find differences within the left: left-libertarian parties address the issue more specifically, while more traditional left-wing parties often link it to other labour concerns.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.