Who’s in favour? Same-sex union laws in parliament

Hildebrandt, Achim

doi:10.1080/13572334.2016.1202649

Cited by 17 publications

(18 citation statements)

References 23 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…For example, leftist parties tend to favour extended rights for homosexual couples (Fernández & Lutter 2013;Hildebrandt 2016) and, regarding abortion policy, they typically support the pro-choice side of the debate (Blofield 2008). Leftist parties have traditionally pursued not just securing the individual from economic insecurity and hardship, but also freeing it from socially erected boundaries hindering self-fulfillment and achievements.…”

Section: Theoretical Expectations For Individual Party Familiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The same preference for more permissive morality policies can be assumed for green parties. In particular, green parties have demonstrated a very coherent position in favour of same-sex marriage legislation, which is often associated with integrationist ideals and increasingly seen as a global norm (Hildebrandt 2016). Due to their later emergence during the observation period, changes in conflict relevance over time are less important for green parties' positioning on morality issues.…”

Section: H2mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Partisan effects in morality policy making

Budde¹,

Heichel²,

Hurka³

et al. 2017

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current comparative policy research gives no clear answer to the question of whether partisan politics in general or the partisan composition of governments in particular matter for different morality policy outputs across countries and over time. This article addresses this desideratum by employing a new encompassing dataset that captures the regulatory permissiveness in six morality policies that are homosexuality, same‐sex partnership, prostitution, pornography, abortion and euthanasia in 16 European countries over five decades from 1960 to 2010. Given the prevalent scepticism about a role for political parties for morality policies in existing research, this is a ‘hard’ test case for the ‘parties do matter’ argument. Starting from the basic theoretical assumption that different party families, if represented in national governments to varying degrees, ought to leave differing imprints on morality policy making, this research demonstrates that parties matter when accounting for the variation in morality policy outputs. This general statement needs to be qualified in three important ways. First, the nature of morality policy implies that party positions or preferences cannot be fully understood by merely focusing on one single cleavage alone. Instead, morality policy is located at the interface of different cleavages, including not only left‐right and secular‐religious dimensions, but also the conflicts between materialism and postmaterialism, green‐alternative‐libertarian and traditional‐authoritarian‐nationalist (GAL‐TAN) parties, and integration and demarcation. Second, it is argued in this article that the relevance of different cleavages for morality issues varies over time. Third, partisan effects can be found only if individual cabinets, rather than country‐years, are used as the unit of analysis in the research design. In particular, party families that tend to prioritise individual freedom over collective interests (i.e., left and liberal parties) are associated with significantly more liberal morality policies than party families that stress societal values and order (i.e., conservative/right and religious parties). While the latter are unlikely to overturn previous moves towards permissiveness, these results suggest that they might preserve the status quo at least. Curiously, no systematic effects of green parties are found, which may be because they have been represented in European governments at later periods when morality policy outputs were already quite permissive.

show abstract

Section: Theoretical Expectations For Individual Party Familiesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: H2mentioning

confidence: 99%

Partisan effects in morality policy making

Budde¹,

Heichel²,

Hurka³

et al. 2017

European J Political Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The following countries consistently have secular party systems: Australia, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, and United Kingdom. As the nature of the party system in Italy has been the subject of continuing debate among scholars (Engeli et al, 2012;Hildebrandt, 2016;, we calculate religious/secular party system differences in two ways to account for this system's indeterminate standing.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Smith & Tatalovich, 2003;Tatalovich & Daynes, 2011); now several European scholars have investigated morality policy as well (Engeli, Green-Pedersen, & Larsen, 2012;Hildebrandt, 2016;Knill et al, 2015). While some individual issues, such as the death penalty (McGann & Sandholtz, 2012), abortion (Outshoorn, 1996;Tatalovich, 1997), and more recently same sex marriage (Kollman, 2013) and stem cells (Banchoff, 2011), have been the subject of comparative study across countries, only rarely have there been examinations across multiple issues (Engeli et al, 2012;Knill et al, 2015).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Hypotheses are based on previous analyses of individual issues (Banchoff, 2011;Christoph, 1962;Cohan, 1986;Donovan et al, 2015;Halfmann, 2011;Hildebrandt, 2016;Ketting & van Praag, 1986;Kollman, 2013;McGann & Sandholtz, 2012;Mooney, 2000;Neumayer, 2008;Outshoorn, 1996;Tremblay, Paternotte, & Johnson, 2011) as well as previous aggregate findings across multiple issues (Cowley, 1998(Cowley, , 2001Engeli et al, 2012;Marsh & Read, 1988;T. A. Smith, 1969T.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Institutions and Morality Policy in Western Democracies

Studlar

Cagossi

2017

Review of Policy Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article investigates whether different political institutions such as executives, legislatures, parties, party systems, judiciaries, decentralization, constitutionalism, and referendums across 24 Western democracies are venues for debate across five individual morality policies. Using data since 1945, the article compares three theories of morality policy-(1) Policy Type leading to different institutional venues; (2) Two Worlds of religious/secular party systems; and (3) U.S./European exceptionalism. In order, the most frequently debated issues are abortion, same sex marriage, euthanasia, stem cells/assisted reproductive technology (ART), and capital punishment. There is considerable variation in the institutions and country groups that debate them although fewer differences in the Two Worlds model. Abortion, euthanasia, and same sex marriage are the most convergent issues across institutions, party systems, and country groupings while capital punishment and stem cells/ART show the most diverse patterns of deliberation. The general Policy Type model of morality policy is upheld, but varies institutionally by specific issues. The Two Worlds model is of some importance, but only on three issues. There also are regional differences between the United States, Europe, and non-European democracies. Pol ıtica de instituciones y moralidad en las democracias occidentalesEste art ıculo investiga si las diferentes instituciones pol ıticas como la rama ejecutiva, la legislativa, los partidos, los sistemas de partidos, la rama judicial, la descentralizaci on, el constitucionalismo y los refer endums en 24 democracias occidentales son escenarios para el debate en 5 diferentes pol ıticas individuales de moralidad. Utilizando datos desde 1945, el art ıculo compara tres teor ıas de la pol ıtica de la moralidad-(1) Tipo de Pol ıtica que lleva a diferentes escenarios institucionales; (2) Dos Mundos de sistemas seculares/religiosos; y (3) Excepcionalismo entre EE. UU. y Europa. En orden, los temas m as frecuentemente debatidos son el aborto, el matrimonio del mismo sexo, la eutanasia, las c elulas madre/ tecnolog ıa de reproducci on asistida (ART), y la pena de muerte. Hay una variedad considerable en las instituciones y los grupos de pa ıses que debaten estos temas, aunque hay menos diferencias en el bs_bs_banner modelo de los Dos Mundos. El aborto, la eutanasia y el matrimonio del mismo sexo son los temas m as convergentes en las diferentes instituciones, sistemas de partidos y grupos de pa ıses mientras que la pena de muerte y las c elulas madre/ART muestran los patrones m as diversos de deliberaci on. El modelo de tipo de pol ıtica general se mantiene, pero var ıa institucionalmente seg un los temas espec ıficos. El modelo de Dos Mundos tiene algo de importancia, pero solo en tres temas. Tambi en hay diferencias regionales entre los Estados Unidos, Europa y las democracias no europeas.

show abstract