Government Intervention in the Economy

Borre, Ole; Viegas, José

doi:10.1093/0198294743.003.0009

Cited by 7 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 73 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Discussion regarding the desired size of government can develop within the context of procedural democratisation, in which the principle of 'inclusion' -that all members of a given polity should have equal influence over debate (Young, 2002) -takes effect in the process of public discussion. Moreover, controversy over the ideal size of government emerged in the context of neoliberal globalisation, when people began to support the small government model (Borre and Viegas, 1995). In these contexts, then, what political-economic factors motivate an administration to advocate for a big or small government?…”

Section: Political Economy As a Determinant Of Government Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

The Revival of ‘Big Government’ Discourse in South Korea, 2017

Heo

2019

Journal of Asian and African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

After the democratisation of South Korea in 1987, political discourse on ‘big government’ nearly disappeared, largely because it recalled past authoritarianism. Authoritarian states are highly likely to employ ‘big government’ – exerting policy influence over the distribution of private resources – to sustain their political power, and Korea’s authoritarian state was no exception. Thus, newly inaugurated President Moon Jae-in’s official implication that he would pursue big government is notable, because he claimed to represent pro-democracy groups that opposed both historical authoritarianism and the former president’s undemocratic governance. In this context, this study examines external and internal political-economic factors behind the revival of big government discourse in Korea. Results show that critical factors included the lack of pressure in the global capitalist market and the dominance of governmentalists over marketists in the political-economic discourse influencing the administration’s maintenance and expansion of its political foundation.

show abstract

Section: Political Economy As a Determinant Of Government Sizementioning

confidence: 99%

The Revival of ‘Big Government’ Discourse in South Korea, 2017

Heo

2019

Journal of Asian and African Studies

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is ample empirical evidence for associations between political predispositions and attitudes towards specific policies. First and foremost, a variety of studies show that orientations towards welfare-state-related values are predictive of specific social policy attitudes (Borre & Viegas 1995;Feldman & Steenbergen 2001;Goren 2001). The most widespread example is that people who prioritise egalitarian values are more prone to supporting specific government spending programmes for the disadvantaged (e.g., Calzada et al 2014;Jacoby 2006).…”

Section: Political Predispositions: Another Look At Attitudesmentioning

confidence: 99%

The (ir)relevance of unemployment for labour market policy attitudes and welfare state attitudes

Wehl

2018

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typically, associations between being unemployed and policy attitudes are explained with reference to economic self‐interest considerations of the unemployed. Preferences for labour market policies (LMP) and egalitarian preferences are the prime example and the focus of this study. Its aim is to challenge this causal self‐interest argument: self‐interest consistent associations of unemployment with policy preferences are neither necessarily driven by self‐interest nor necessarily causal. To that end, this article first confronts the self‐interest argument with a broader perspective on attitudes. Given that predispositions (e.g., value orientations) are stable and influence more specific policy attitudes, it is at least questionable whether people change their policy attitudes simply because they get laid off. Second, the article derives a non‐causal argument behind associations between unemployment and policy attitudes, arguing that these might be spurious associations driven by individuals’ socioeconomic background. After all, the entire socioeconomic background of a person is simultaneously related to both the risk of getting unemployed (‘selection into unemployment’) and distinct political socialisation experiences from early childhood onwards. Third, this article uses methods inspired by a counterfactual account on causality to test the non‐causal claims. Analyses are carried out using the fourth wave of the European Social Survey and applying entropy balancing to control for selection bias. In only two of the 31 analysed countries do unemployment effects on egalitarian orientations remain significant after controlling for selection bias. The same holds for effects on active LMP attitudes with the exception of six countries. Attitudes towards passive LMP are to some degree an exception since effects remain in a third of the countries. Robustness checks and Bayes factor replications showing evidence for the absence of unemployment effects support the general impression from these initial analyses. After discussing this article's results and limitations, its broader implications are considered. On the one hand, the article offers a new perspective on the conceptualisation and measurement of unemployment risk. On the other hand, its theoretical argument, as well as its treatment of the resulting selection bias, can be broadly applied. Thus, this article can contribute to many other research questions regarding the (ir)relevance of individual life events for political attitudes and political behaviour.

show abstract

“…Today, the public has become more concerned about the size of the public sector. This is because when the size becomes larger, the public must pay more taxes to accommodate the higher public spending of the government (Borre & Viegas, 1995). Larger public sector size may affect the government's effectiveness in continuous improvement and nation development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Malaysian Public Sector Size: A Comparison With Other Asean Countries

Amran

Hassan

2021

JBMA

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The aim of this paper is to evaluate the size of the public sector (based on percentage of public sector expenditures to Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and percentage of public sector revenues to GDP) of Malaysia and compare it with other Associations of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) countries. This study utilised a descriptive approach to compare the size of Malaysian public sector with other ASEAN countries (Brunei, Cambodia, Indonesia, Laos, the Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam). The data were retrieved from 2000 to 2014 (15 years) that involved examination of documents from Key Indicators of Developing Asian and Pacific Countries Reports. Findings revealed that Malaysia ranks number three in terms of the size of public sector among ASEAN countries. Findings also indicated that the Malaysian percentage of public sector expenditure to GDP is around 20% to 30% which is considered as optimal size for the public sector. Malaysia also shows a deficit budget for 2000 to 2014, and similar trends were reported for other ASEAN countries. Meanwhile, the limitations of this study are that it is descriptive in nature and does not test any relationships between variables. Hence, future research may take into account other factors such as economic growth and government efficiency, and test relationships with the size of the public sector.

show abstract

Government Intervention in the Economy

Cited by 7 publications

References 73 publications

The Revival of ‘Big Government’ Discourse in South Korea, 2017

The Revival of ‘Big Government’ Discourse in South Korea, 2017

The (ir)relevance of unemployment for labour market policy attitudes and welfare state attitudes

Malaysian Public Sector Size: A Comparison With Other Asean Countries

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About