Political Parties’ Preferences about the Volume of Social Spending and its Distribution between Programs and Age Groupsa Comparative Study of France, Spain and the UK

  1. Ares, Cristina 1
  2. Losada, Antón 1
  1. 1 Universidade de Santiago de Compostela
    info

    Universidade de Santiago de Compostela

    Santiago de Compostela, España

    ROR https://ror.org/030eybx10

Revista:
Cuadernos de Gobierno y Administración Pública

ISSN: 2341-3808

Ano de publicación: 2020

Volume: 7

Número: 2

Páxinas: 85-98

Tipo: Artigo

DOI: 10.5209/CGAP.68179 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso aberto editor

Outras publicacións en: Cuadernos de Gobierno y Administración Pública

Resumo

The transformation of the Welfare State is not a standardized response to globalization or a by-product of European Union policies, but rather ‘what parties make of it’ (Burgoon, 2006). Different welfare regimes and welfare cultures contribute to the maintenance of diverse national responses to global and regional integration in terms of their public welfare systems, but there are also meso-level variables, such as parties’ ideologies, that may have an impact on the volume and distribution of welfare expenditure. This article presents a new scheme and procedure to code party manifesto statements in favor of social spending and retrenchment; it applies them in Britain, France and Spain in order to show the possibilities of the new data. The preliminary results indicate that ideologies are linked to parties’ preferences regarding the distribution of social spending between programs, the emphasis on different age groups as beneficiaries of welfare expenditure, and the rationale for social cuts.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Arts, W and Gelissen, J. (2010). “Models of the Welfare State”, en F. G. Castles, S. Leibfried, J. Lewis, H. Obinger and C. Pierson. The Oxford Handbook of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Pres, p.p. 569-583.
  • Beramendi, P., Häusermann, S., Kitschelt, H and Kriesi, H. (2015). “Introduction: The politics of advanced capitalism”, en P. Beramendi, S. Häusermann, H. Kitschelt and H. Kriesi. The politics of advanced capitalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-64.
  • Briggs, A. (2000). “The welfare state in historical perspective”, en C. Pierson and F. G. Castles. The Welfare State reader. Cambridge: Polity Press, pp. 18-31.
  • Bristow, J. (2015). Baby boomers and generational conflict. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  • https://doi.org/10.1057/9781137454737
  • Burgoon, B. (2006). Globalization is what parties make of it: Welfare and protectionism in party platforms. Garnet Working Paper. Coventry.
  • Castles, F. G. and Obinger, H. (2008). “Worlds, families, regimes: Country clusters in European and OECD area public policy”, Western European Politics, 31 (1/2): 321-344.
  • Costamagna, F. (2013). The European semester in action: Strengthening economic policy coordination while weakening the social dimension? LPF-WEL Working Paper.
  • Darvas, Z. and Tschekassin, O. (2015). Poor and under pressure: The social impact of europe's fiscal consolidation. Bruegel Policy Contribution. Brussels.
  • Degryse, C., Jepsen, M and Pochet, P. (2013). The Euro Crisis and its impact on national and European social policies. ETUI Working Papers. Brussels.
  • De la Porte, C. and Heins, E. (2015). “A new era of European integration? Governance of labour market and social policy since sovereign debt crisis”, Comparative European Politics, 13 (1): 8–28.
  • De la Porte, C. and Pochet, P. (2012). “Why and how (still) study the open method of coordination”, Journal of European Social Policy, 22 (3): 336-349.
  • Ebbinghaus, B. (2012). Comparing Welfare State regimes: Are typologies an ideal or realistic strategy?. Draft paper presented at European Social Policy Analysis Network (ESPAnet Conference), September 6-8, Edinburgh, UK.
  • Ebbinghaus, B. and Manow, P. (2001). Comparing welfare capitalism: Social policy and political economy in Europe, Japan and the USA. London: Routledge.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press, and Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (2002). “A child-centred social investment strategy”, in G. Esping-Andersen, D. Gallie, A. Hemerijck and J. Myles. Why we need a new Welfare State? Oxford, Oxford University Press, pp. 26-67.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (2009). The incomplete revolution. adapting to women’s new roles. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Esping-Andersen, G. (2015). “The Return of the Family”, in P. Beramendi, S. Häusermann, H. Kitschelt and H. Kriesi. The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 157-176.
  • Ferragina, E., Seeleib-Kaiser, M and Spreckelsen, T. (2015). “The four worlds of `Welfare reality´-social risks and outcomes in Europe”, Social Policy & Society, 14 (2): 287-307.
  • Ferrera, M. (1996). “The `Southern model´ of Welfare on Social Europe”, Journal of European Social Policy, 6 (1): 17-37.
  • Goerres, A. (2009). The political participation of older people in Europe. The greying of our democracies. Basingstoke: Palgrave.
  • Hall, P. A. and Soskice, D. (2001). Varieties of capitalism: The institutional foundations of comparative advantage. New York: Oxford University Press.
  • Häusermann, S. (2010). The politics of Welfare State reform in Continental Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  • Horn, A., Kevins, A., Jensen, C and Van Kersbergen, K. (2017). “Peeping at the corpus. What is really going on behind the equality and welfare items of the Manifesto Project?". Journal of European Social Policy, 27 (5): 403-416.
  • Horn, A. and van Kersbergen, K. (2015). Peeping at the Corpus. What is really going on behind the equality and welfare items of the Manifesto Project?. Paper presented at the Manifesto project user conference, 4-5 June, Berlin.
  • Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. (2015). “Postindustrial Social Policy”, in Beramendi, S. Häusermann, H. Kitschelt and H. Kriesi. The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 259-281
  • Kohli, M. (2015). “Generations in Aging Societies: Inequalities, Cleavages, Conflicts”, in C. Torp. Challenges of Aging. Pensions, Retirement and Generational Justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 265-288.
  • Leibfried, S. (1992). “Towards a European Welfare State? On Integrating Poverty Regimes into the European Community”, en Z. Ferge and J. E. Kolberg. Social Policy in a Changing Europe. Frankfurt: Campus, pp. 245-279.
  • Lynch, J. (2006). Age in the Welfare State. The origins of social spending on pensioners, workers, and children. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Lynch, J. (2015). “Age Politics and Pension Systems Development and Reform”, C. Torp. Challenges of aging. Pensions, retirement and generational justice. Basingstoke: Palgrave, pp. 49-60.
  • Merz, N., Regel, S and Lewandowski, J. (2016). “The Manifesto Corpus. A new resource for research on political parties and quantitative text analysis”. Research & Politics, 26/04, S. 1-8.
  • Moreno, L. (2016). “Post-crisis and the Bronze Age of Welfare in Europe”, in S. Segado Sánchez-Cabezudo and A. López Peláez. P The ailing Welfare State, edited by Madrid: Thomson Reuters Aranzadi, pp. 51-74.
  • Natali, D. (2009). “The open method of coordination on pensions: Does it de-politicise pensions policy?”, West European Politics, 32(4): 810-828.
  • Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005). “Culture and Welfare State Policies: Reflections on a Complex Interrelation”, Journal of Social Policy, 34(1): 3-20.
  • Vaughan-Whitehead, D. (2015). The European social model in crisis. Is europe losing its soul?. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.
  • Volkens, A., Lehmann, P., Matthieß, T., Merz, N., Regel, S and Weßels, B. (2017). The Manifesto data collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2017b, WZB Berlin Social Science Center.
Fonte de datos: Dialnet