What drives partisan conflict and consensus on welfare state issues?
| Autor: | Laurenz Ennser-Jedenastik |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2020 |
| Předmět: |
political left
Public Administration media_common.quotation_subject Politikwissenschaft party politics Sozialpolitik Management Monitoring Policy and Law Basic Research General Concepts and History of Social Policy social policy redistribution European Values Study 2017: Integrated Dataset (EVS 2017) European Social Survey Round 4 Data (2008). Data file edition 4.5. [manifestos political parties ZA7500] Wohlfahrtsstaat Political science 0502 economics and business 050602 political science & public administration politische Linke Retrenchment Österreich 050207 economics Parteipolitik politisches Programm Function (engineering) Political Process Elections Political Sociology Political Culture Social sciences sociology anthropology media_common Social policy politische Rechte politische Willensbildung politische Soziologie politische Kultur Sozialwissenschaften Soziologie political program 05 social sciences Partei Welfare state political right Redistribution (cultural anthropology) Umverteilung 0506 political science Political economy Austria Premise ddc:320 ddc:300 party Allgemeines spezielle Theorien und Schulen Methoden Entwicklung und Geschichte der Sozialpolitik welfare state |
| Zdroj: | Journal of Public Policy |
| Popis: | Left-right partisan conflict has been a key driver of welfare state expansion and retrenchment over time and across countries. Yet, we know very little about how left-right differences in party appeals vary across social policy domains. Why are some issues contentious while there is broad consensus on others? This paper starts from the simple premise that partisan conflict is a function of how popular a certain policy is. Based on this assumption, it argues that the left-right gap should be (1) larger for revenue-side issues than for expenditure-side issues, (2) larger for policies targeted at groups that are viewed as less deserving and (3) larger for more redistributive programs than less redistributive ones (e.g. means-tested versus earnings-related benefits). These expectations are tested on fine-grained policy data coded from 65 Austrian party manifestos issued between 1970 and 2017 (N = 18,219). The analysis strongly supports the revenue–expenditure hypothesis and the deservingness hypothesis, but not the redistribution hypothesis. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|