Labor Market Dualization and Insider–Outsider Divides: Why This New Conflict Matters

Schwander, Hanna

doi:10.1177/1478929918790872

Cited by 54 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 83 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This is unfortunate because the mechanisms by which inequality suppresses participation, particularly by the poor, are not fully understood. Insights from the social psychology literature (Jahoda, 1982; Rosenstone, 1982; Adman, 2008) and the insider–outsider debate (in particular Emmenegger et al (2015), for a review see Schwander (2018)) suggest, for example, political efficacy and feelings of misrepresentation to be at the heart of this fateful compound. This is a fruitful venue for further research.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Don’t play if you can’t win’: does economic inequality undermine political equality?

Schäfer

Schwander

2019

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

In this paper, we investigate whether income inequality negatively affects voter turnout. Despite some progress, the answer to this question is still debated due to methodological disagreements and differences in the selection of countries and time periods. We contribute to this debate by triangulating data and methods. More specifically, we use three kinds of data to resolve the question: first, we use cross-sectional aggregate data of 21 OECD countries in the time period from 1980 to 2014 to study the relationship between inequality and electoral participation. Second, we zoom in on the German case and examine local data from 402 administrative districts between 1998 and 2017. Focusing on within-country variation eliminates differences that are linked to features of the political system. Finally, we combine survey data with macro-data to investigate the impact of inequality on individual voting. This final step also allows us to test whether the effect of income inequality on voter turnout differs across income groups. Taken together, we offer the most comprehensive analysis of the impact of social inequality on political inequality to date. We corroborate accounts that argue that economic inequality exacerbates participatory inequality.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

‘Don’t play if you can’t win’: does economic inequality undermine political equality?

Schäfer

Schwander

2019

Eur. Pol. Sci. Rev.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is a large political economy and welfare state literature on the determinants of welfare state and economic policy preferences (e.g. Rueda 2007, Häusermann, Picot et al 2013, Marx and Picot 2013, Clegg 2007, Schwander and Häusermann 2013, Emmenegger, Marx et al 2015, Fernandes-albertos and Manzano 2016, Häusermann, Kurer et al 2016, Schwander 2019. Most of this literature assumes individuals are at least partly self-interested and therefore that "disadvantage can increase support for redistribution" (Emmenegger et al, 2015: 189; see also Fernandez-albertos and Manzano, 2013: 368).…”

Section: The Political Economy Of Individual Support For Ubimentioning

confidence: 99%

The political economy of individual-level support for the basic income in Europe

Vlandas

2020

Journal of European Social Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

There is a long-standing debate in academic and policymaking circles about the normative merits and economic effects of a universal basic income (UBI). However, existing literature does not sufficiently address the question of which factors are associated with individual support for a UBI. While a large literature in political economy has focused on individual preferences for existing welfare state benefits, it has not analysed the case of a UBI. Using the eighth wave of the European Social Survey (ESS), this article seeks to remedy this gap by analysing individual support for a UBI in 21 European countries. The findings from logistic regression analyses with country fixed effects are partly consistent with the expectations of previous social policy and political economy literatures. Younger, low-income, left-leaning individuals and the unemployed are more likely to support a UBI. Individuals with positive views of benefit recipients and/or high trust in political institutions are also more supportive, while anti-immigration attitudes are associated with lower support. By contrast, the patterns across occupations are mixed and male respondents appear slightly more supportive. Trade union membership is not statistically significant, perhaps because of contradictory effects: unions typically support new welfare state policies but they also have a key role in many existing welfare state schemes and may worry about individuals’ attachment to the labour market. At the cross-national level, support tends to be higher where benefit activation is more pronounced and unemployment benefits less generous. These results suggest one possible reason why countries with high support for a UBI have not introduced it: the mixed support among the left means a pro-UBI coalition has to draw on right-wing voters who may support it only with lower taxes and/or extensive replacement of welfare state benefits, which in turn may further alienate parts of the left.

show abstract

“…In turn, understanding precarity in platform work in the empirical conditions of CEE then helps in developing the paper's main argument that while digitalization blurs labor market dualization between standard and precarious workers (cf. Rueda, 2006;Palier and Thelen, 2010;Schwander, 2018), it reinforces the existing institutional weaknesses in CEE labor markets (Ost, 2009;Bohle and Greskovits, 2012;Trif et al, submitted). The paper shows that in the case of on-demand platform work, precarity is especially pronounced in the dimension of autonomy at work and interest representation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Precarization via Digitalization? Work Arrangements in the On-Demand Platform Economy in Hungary and Slovakia

Kahancová¹,

Meszmann²,

Sedláková³

2020

Front. Sociol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The concept of precarity is increasingly used for an analysis of standard and non-standard (atypical) employment forms-yet among atypical employment forms, platform-driven work is rarely included. This paper aims to fill this gap and provide a refined analytical framework for an evaluation of precarity in employment arrangements applicable to on-demand platform work. The legitimacy of such an analytical framework is twofold. First, it allows identifying the dimensions of precarity in on-demand platform work. Second, it extends the understanding of how a general situation in the labor market connects to work precarity in on-demand platform work. The analytical framework is applied to evidence from two countries in Central and Eastern Europe-Hungary and Slovakia, where the rise of precarious employment went hand in hand with the rise of work via digital platforms. The central claim of the paper is that precarity in on-demand platform work is especially manifest in the dimensions of autonomy at work and of interest representation. Furthermore, digitalization enforces precarity, while at the same time, it mitigates labor market segmentation between standard and non-standard workers as distinct groups of workers.

show abstract

Labor Market Dualization and Insider–Outsider Divides: Why This New Conflict Matters

Cited by 54 publications

References 83 publications

‘Don’t play if you can’t win’: does economic inequality undermine political equality?

‘Don’t play if you can’t win’: does economic inequality undermine political equality?

The political economy of individual-level support for the basic income in Europe

Precarization via Digitalization? Work Arrangements in the On-Demand Platform Economy in Hungary and Slovakia

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About