Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Multi-level Systems and the Electoral Politics of Welfare Pluralism: Exploring Third-Sector Policy in UK Westminster and Regional Elections 1945–2011

  • Original paper
  • Published:
VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Electoral politics constitute a formative, agenda-setting phase in the development of mixed-economy approaches to social welfare. This study examines issue-salience and policy framing related to the welfare role of the third sector in party manifestos in UK Westminster and regional elections 1945–2011. The findings reveal a pronounced increase in salience over recent decades. Welfare pluralism, whereby voluntary organisations complement state and market-based services, is shown to be the dominant approach at both state-wide and regional levels. Yet election data also reveal inter-party and inter-polity contrasts in policy framing. This is significant to contemporary understanding of mixed-economy approaches to welfare because it shows electoral discourse to be a driver of policy divergence in multi-level systems. The result is differing policy prescriptions for the third sector that (re-)define governance practices and underpin the rise and territorialisation of welfare pluralism. In turn this poses questions about policy co-ordination and differential welfare rights in the unitary state.

Resume

La politique électorale constitue une phase formative et programmatique déterminante dans le développement d’approches d’économie mixte à la protection sociale. Cette étude examine les problèmes principaux et la définition des politiques concernant le rôle du tiers secteur en matière de protection sociale dans les manifestes des partis politiques britanniques dans le cadre des élections à Westminster et au niveau régional de 1945 à 2011. Les résultats révèlent une mise en évidence significativement accrue au cours des dernières décennies. Le pluralisme en matière de protection sociale, c’est-à-dire le système dans lequel les organisations bénévoles jouent un rôle de complément aux services de l’État et du privé, se révèle être l’approche dominante, tant au niveau national que régional. Pourtant, les données électorales révèlent aussi des contrastes entre partis et entre organisations politiques dans la définition des politiques. Ces résultats sont importants pour la compréhension contemporaine des approches d’économie mixte à la protection sociale car ils montrent que le discours électoral peut mener à des divergences de politiques dans les systèmes à plusieurs niveaux. Il en résulte des solutions politiques différentes pour le secteur tiers qui (re-)définissent les pratiques de gouvernance et sous-tendent la montée et la territorialisation du pluralisme en matière de protection sociale. Ceci pose alors des questions quant à la coordination des politiques et les différences de droits sociaux dans l’État unitaire.

Zusammenfassung

Die Wahlpolitik ist eine prägende und den Rahmen bestimmende Phase in der Entwicklung von Denkansätzen zur Mischwirtschaft in Bezug auf die soziale Fürsorge. Diese Studie untersucht die Bedeutung der politischen Themen und die Politikgestaltung in Verbindung mit der Wohlfahrtsrolle des Dritten Sektors in den Parteiprogrammen bei den Westminster- und Regionalwahlen im Zeitraum von 1945-2011 in Großbritannien. Die Ergebnisse zeigen einen deutlichen Anstieg in der Bedeutung der politischen Themen in den letzten Jahrzehnten. Der Wohlfahrtspluralismus, bei dem gemeinnützige Organisationen die Dienstleistungen des Staates und des Marktes ergänzen, erweist sich als der dominante Denkansatz sowohl auf der staatlichen als auch der regionalen Ebene. Die Wahldaten decken aber auch Gegensätze zwischen Parteien und Gemeinwesen bei der Politikgestaltung auf. Dies ist für das heutige Verständnis der Denkansätze zur Mischwirtschaft in Bezug auf die soziale Fürsorge wichtig, da sich in mehrstufigen Systemen Wahlreden als die treibende Kraft für eine unterschiedliche Politik erweisen. Das Ergebnis sind diverse politische Vorschriften für den Dritten Sektor, die Führungspraktiken (neu) festlegen sowie die Zunahme und Territorialisierung des Wohlfahrtspluralismus unterstützen. Im Gegenzug wirft dies Fragen über die politische Koordination und die unterschiedlichen Wohlfahrtsansprüche im einheitlichen Staat auf.

Resumen

La política electoral constituye una fase formativa, de establecimiento de agenda, en el desarrollo de enfoques de economía mixta al bienestar social. El presente estudio examina la prominencia de las cuestiones y la elaboración de políticas relacionadas con el papel del bienestar del tercer sector en los manifiestos de los partidos en las elecciones regionales y de Westminster del Reino Unido de 1945-2011. Los hallazgos revelan un pronunciado aumento de la prominencia a lo largo de las últimas décadas. Se demuestra que el pluralismo del bienestar, por el que las organizaciones de voluntariado complementan los servicios estatales y basados en el mercado, es el enfoque dominante tanto a niveles regionales como estatales. Sin embargo, los datos de las elecciones revelan también contrastes inter-partidos e inter-formas de gobierno en la elaboración de políticas. Esto es significativo para la comprensión contemporánea de los enfoques de economía mixta al bienestar porque muestra que el discurso electoral es un impulsor de la divergencia política en sistemas multinivel. El resultado son prescripciones políticas divergentes para el tercer sector que (re-)definen las prácticas de la gobernanza y respaldan el auge y la territorialización del pluralismo del bienestar. A su vez, esto plantea preguntas sobre la coordinación política y los derechos diferenciales al bienestar en el estado unitario.

中文

选举政治是社会福利混合经济方法发展过程中的一种逐步形成、需要设定议程的阶段。本研究论文调查第三部门福利在1945-2011年间英国议会政党宣言,以及区域选举中扮演的角色相关的问题突出性和政策构建。研究结果表明在最近的数十年中,问题突出性明显增加。根据研究结果,福利多元主义是国家层面和区域层面最主要的方法,在福利多元主义中,志愿机构补充了政府服务和市场服务。然而选举数据还披露了政党之间和政体之间在政策构建中的差异。这对于现代人理解福利混合经济方法具有重要意义,因为它表明,选举演讲是多级体系中政策分歧的一个推动因素。论文得出了不同的第三部门政策处方,(重新)定义了治理方法,并未福利多元主义的增强和变形奠定了基础。另一方方面,这又引发了关于单一制国家中政策协同和差异化福利权益的问题。

Arabic

السياسة الانتخابية تسن تشريعات تكوينية ٬ تحديد جداول الأعمال في مرحلة وضع نهج الإقتصاد المختلط للرعاية الإجتماعية. تبحث هذه الدراسة مسائل- تسليط الضوء على وضع السياسات المتعلقة بدور الرعاية الإجتماعية من القطاع الثالث في بيانات الحزب في نظام وستمنستر(Westminster) في المملكة المتحدة والإنتخابات الإقليمية(1945-2011). النتائج تكشف عن وجود زيادة واضحة في تسليط الضوء على مدى العقود الأخيرة. تعددية الرعاية الإجتماعية، الذي به تكمل المنظمات التطوعية الخدمات القائمة على الولاية و السوق، لتكون النهج السائد على المستويين الولاية على نطاق واسع والإقليمي. حتى الآن بيانات الإنتخابات تكشف أيضا˝ عن التناقضات بين الأحزاب وبين النظام السياسي في إطار السياسات. هذا أمر مهم لفهم معاصر لإقتصاد مختلط النهج في تحقيق الرفاهية لأنه يظهر الخطاب الإنتخابي ليكون دافع لإختلاف السياسات في أنظمة متعددة المستويات. النتيجة هي صفات مختلفة لسياسة القطاع الثالث أن (إعادة) تحديد ممارسات الحكم ودعم صعود وتنظيم المنظمات كمقاطعة تعددية الرعاية الإجتماعية. هذا بدوره يطرح أسئلة حول تنسيق السياسات وحقوق الرعاية الإجتماعية التبايني في ولاية موحدة.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Excludes 1945–1972 elections to the Northern Ireland Parliament. Also on definitional matters, notwithstanding the nation status of Scotland and Wales, this study follows existing practice by using the umbrella term ‘regional’ to denote sub-unitary state nations and provinces (Cf. Danson and de Souza 2012).

  2. Discrete references to bodies such as religious organisations, political parties, trade unions and the like are not included.

  3. Whilst there is little research on third-sector policy as an electoral issue there is a considerable body of work on advocacy organisations in electoral politics. This paper is principally concerned with third-sector policy.

  4. 2007/2008.

  5. Territorial government ministries oversaw aspects of public administration in Scotland and Wales.

  6. The foregoing third-sector data need to be viewed in the context of the population of each polity: England, 53 million; Scotland 5.25 million; Wales 3.1 million; Northern Ireland 1.8 Million (Circa April 2011).

  7. However, it is only possible if, as in the present case, regional and state-wide party programmes to have broadly similar word-lengths and levels of detail. For example, in the mean word lengths of state-wide parties’ manifestos in the last Westminster and Scottish elections were 26,500 and 23,500, respectively. Moreover, regional manifestos contain examples of policy proposals on issues and debates not presently devolved to the meso-level.

  8. Defined in terms of share of the popular vote.

  9. Where necessary, hardcopy only versions of early manifestos were transcribed. The software used was Nvivo 9.

  10. 15 incidences.

  11. Derived from the Comparative Manifesto Project, https://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/.

  12. Owing to a range of factors including changing policy competency in UK elections over time (i.e. shifting policy powers between EC/EU as well as devolved governments/legislatures); and the varying propensity of parties to use ‘mini’, dedicated manifestos to set out specific policies to targeted groups or on specific issues.

  13. Whilst all post-war British manifestos are analysed (not a sample) significance tests are used in the analysis to indicate the extent of the differences in the data.

  14. χ 2 = 24.373, df = 2, P = 0.0000051.

  15. df = 2, F = 4.554919908, P = 0.016680097.

  16. χ 2 = 20.182, df = 2, P = 0.00004145.

  17. χ 2 = 10.842, df = 2, P = 0.00442272.

  18. Not significantly significant.

  19. The remaining frames attract less than 5 % of the all-party total (‘education’, 4.2 %), ‘youth services’ (4.2 %), ‘caring’ (3.9 %), urban renewal (3.9 %), equalities (3.6 %), criminal justice (3 %) and participation (2.5 %).

  20. The full range of frames used in coding is: Caring; Community development; Criminal justice; Delivery of public services (non-specific); Education; Employment; Equalities; Funding; Health; Housing; Participation; Social services; Arts, Sport, Leisure; Urban renewal—and miscellaneous.

  21. χ 2 = 24.1, df = 2, P = 0.00000584.

  22. χ 2 = 15.25, df = 2, P = 0.0004881.

  23. χ 2 = 15.368, df = 2, P = 0.00046013, N = 38.

  24. Not statistically-significant, N = 14.

  25. Not statistically-significant, N = 10.

  26. χ 2 = 96.367, df = 2, P = 0.000756.

  27. ANOVA, F = 5.721544961, P = 0.000553191.

  28. Comparison of frame-use across regional polities; χ 2 = 49.904, df = 2, P = 0.0004532.

  29. Comparison of frame-use across regional polities; χ 2 = 33.831, df = 2, P = 5e−8.

  30. Comparison of frame-use across regional polities; χ 2 = 26.873, df = 2, P = 0.00000146.

  31. Not statistically-significant.

  32. Not statistically significant, ANOVA F = 1.586249103, P = 0.234321138.

  33. N = 76 and 13, respectively.

  34. N = 180 and 12, respectively.

  35. χ 2 = 6.481, df = 2, P = 0.03914432.

  36. (and the Liberal Democrats 40.2 and 45 %, respectively).

  37. Analysis of the frames ‘delivery of public services (non-specific)’, ‘health’, ‘social services’, and ‘education’; N = 55. χ 2 = 13.236, df = 2, P = 0.0013361.

  38. χ 2 = 17.941, df = 5, P = 0.00302126.

  39. χ 2 = 12.87, df = 2, P = 0.00160441.

References

  • Beresford, P., & Croft, S. (1983). Welfare pluralism: The new face of Fabianism. Critical Social Policy, 3(9), 19–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Best, R., & Dunn, A. (2007). The voluntary sector, the state and the law. Oxford: Hart Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Birrell, D., & Williamson, A. (2001). The voluntary-community sector and political development in Northern Ireland, since 1972. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit, 12(3), 205–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boyatzis, R. (1998). Transforming qualitative information. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bratberg, Ø. (2010). Institutional resilience meets critical junctures: [Re]allocation of power in three British parties post-devolution. Publius: The Journal of Federalism, 40(1), 59–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I., & Hofferbert, R. (1990). Mandates and policy outputs: U.S. party platforms and federal expenditures. The American Political Science Review, 84(1), 111–131.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, E. (2007). Voluntary organizations in the democratic polity: Managing legitimacy, accountability and trust. Public Money & Management, 27(2), 157–160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burt, E., & Taylor, J. (2002). Scotland’s voluntary sector. In G. Hassan & C. Warhurst (Eds.), Anatomy of the New Scotland: Power, influence and change (pp. 85–93). Edinburgh: Mainstream Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Casey, J. (2004). Third sector participation in the policy process: A framework for comparative analysis. Policy & Politics, 32(2), 241–257.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaney, P. (2011). Equality and public policy. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaney, P, (2013) Electoral competition, issue-salience and public policy for older people: The case of the Westminster and regional UK elections 1945–2011. British Journal of Politics and International Relations [pre-publication early-view web version] (forthcoming). doi:10.1111/J.1467-856X.2011.00488.x.

  • Chaney, P., & Drakeford, M. (2004). The primacy of ideology: Social policy and the first term of the National Assembly for Wales. Social Policy Review, 16, 121–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chaney, P., & Fevre, R. (2001). Inclusive governance and ‘minority’ groups: The role of the third sector in Wales. Voluntas: International Journal of Third Sector Research, 12(2), 131–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chaney, P., Hall, T., & Pithouse, A. (2001). New governance—new democracy? Post devolution Wales. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chen, S. (2002). State socialism and the welfare state: A critique of two conventional paradigms. International Journal of Social Welfare, 11(3), 228–242.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cobb, R., & Ross, M. (1997). Agenda setting and the denial of agenda access: Key concepts. In R. W. Cobb & M. H. Ross (Eds.), Cultural strategies of agenda denial. Lawrence, KS: University Press of Kansas.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cohen, E. (1963). The press and foreign policy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservative Party. (1945). Mr. Churchill’s declaration of policy to the electors. London: Conservative Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservative Party. (1955). United for peace and progress: The Conservative and Unionist Party’s Policy. London: Conservative Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservative Party. (1974). Firm action for a fair Britain. London: Conservative Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Conservative Party. (2010). An invitation to join the Government of Britain. London: Conservative Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Corbett, S., & Walker, A. (2012). The big society: Back to the future. The Political Quarterly, 83(3), 487–493.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Couto, R. (2001). The third sector and civil society: The case of the “YES” campaign in Northern Ireland. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit, 12(3), 221–238.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Creed, W., Langstraat, J., & Scully, M. (2002). Picture of the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods, 5(1), 34–55.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Crowson, N. (2011). Introduction: The voluntary sector in 1980s Britain. Contemporary British History, 25(4), 491–498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cymru, Plaid. (1999). The manifesto of Plaid Cymru—the party of Wales. Cardiff: Plaid Cymru.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlberg, L. (2005). Interaction between voluntary and statutory social service provision in Sweden: A matter of welfare pluralism, substitution or complementarity? Social Policy & Administration, 39, 740–763.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Daly, S. (2011). Philanthropy, the big society and emerging philanthropic relationships in the UK. Public Management Review, 13(8), 1077–1089.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Danson, M., & de Souza, (2012). Regional development in Northern Europe: Peripherality marginality and border issues. Princeton, NJ: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Davies, J. (2012). Active citizenship: Navigating the conservative heartlands of the new labour project. Policy and Politics, 40(1), 3–19.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Deutsch, K., & Foltz, W. (Eds.). (1963). Nation-Building. New York: Atherton Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • De Vreese, C., Peter, J., & Semetko, H. (2001). Framing politics at the launch of the Euro: A cross-national comparative study of frames in the news. Political Communication, 18(2), 107–122.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnelly-Cox, G., Donoghue, F., & Hayes, T. (2001). Conceptualizing the third sector in Ireland, North and South. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 12(3), 195–211.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Doornbos, M. (2006). Global forces and state restructuring: Dynamics of state formation and collapse. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Driver, S., & Martell, L. (1998). New labour: Politics after Thatcherism. Cambridge: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elson, P. (2010). High ideals and noble intentions: Voluntary sector-government relations in Canada. Toronto: University of Toronto Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A. (1995). Part of the welfare mix: The third sector as an intermediate area. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 6(2), 159–182.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evers, A., & Laville, J.-L. (Eds.). (2004). The third sector in Europe. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fairclough, N. (2000). New labour, new language. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, D., & Schmitt-Beck, R. (Eds.). (2002). Do political campaigns matter? Campaign effects in elections and referendums. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fearon, J. (2003). Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance. In A. Przeworski, S. C. Stokes, & B. Manin (Eds.), Democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ferejohn, J. (2003). Accountability and authority: Toward a theory of political accountability. In B. Manin, B. Przeworski, & S. Stokes (Eds.), Democracy, accountability and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fischer, F., & Forester, J. (1993). The argumentative turn in policy analysis and planning. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, N. (2005). Making space for “neo-communitarianism”? The third sector, state and civil society in the UK. Antipode, 37(3), 536–557.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Fyfe, N., Timbrell, H., & Smith, F. (2006). The third sector in a devolved Scotland: From policy to evidence. Critical Social Policy, 26(3), 630–641.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamble, A. (2006). The constitutional revolution in the United Kingdom. Publius, 36(1), 19–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gamson, W. A., & Modigliani, A. (1989). Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power. American Journal of Sociology, 95(1), 1–37.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giddens, A. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. London: Polity Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halfpenny, P., & Reid, M. (2002). Research on the voluntary sector: An overview. Policy and Politics, 30(4), 533–548.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanlon, N., Rosenberg, M., & Clasby, R. (2007). Offloading social care responsibilities: Recent experiences of local voluntary organisations in a remote urban centre in British, Columbia, Canada. Health and Social Care in the Community, 15(4), 343–367.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harrison, L., & McSweeney, D. (2008). National and local party election agendas. Representation, 44(1), 1–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hartley, J. (2005). Innovation in governance and public services: Past and present. Public Money & Management, 25(1), 34–47.

    Google Scholar 

  • Haugh, H., & Kitson, M. (2007). The third way and the third sector: New Labour’s economic policy and the social economy. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 31(6), 973–994.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hudson, B. (1992). Quasi-markets in health and social care in Britain: Can the public sector respond? Policy and Politics, 20(2), 131–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Impero Wilson, P. (2000). Deficit reduction as causal story: Strategic politics and welfare state retrenchment. Social Science Journal, 37(1), 97–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Joffe, D., & Yardley, H. (2003). Content and thematic analysis. In D. Marks & H. Yardley (Eds.), Research methods for clinical and health psychology. London: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, N. (1987). The welfare state in transition: The theory and practice of welfare pluralism. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J. (2000). The mainstreaming of the third sector into public policy in England in the late 1990s: Whys and wherefores. Policy & Politics, 28(4), 541–562.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kendall, J., & Knapp, M. (1996). The voluntary sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, P., Byrne, C., & Foster, E. (2011). Theorising Cameronism. Political Studies Review, 9, 193–207.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kidd, A. (2002). Civil society or the state?: Recent approaches to the history of voluntary welfare. Journal of Historical Sociology, 3, 328–346.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Klitgaard, M. (2007). Do welfare state regimes determine public sector reforms? Choice reforms in American, Swedish and German schools. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30(4), 444–462.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Korpi, W., & Palme, J. (1998). The paradox of redistribution and strategies of equality: Welfare State Institutions, inequality, and poverty in the Western countries. American Sociological Review, 63(5), 661–687.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krippendorff, K., & Bock, M. (2008). The content analysis reader. Thousand Oaks: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labour Party. (1983). The new hope for Britain. London: Labour Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labour Party. (1987). Britain will win with Labour. London: Labour Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labour Party. (1997). Because Britain deserves better. London: Labour Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labour Party. (2001). Ambitions for Britain. London: Labour Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Labour Party. (2005). Britain forward not back. London: Labour Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Laffin, M., Shaw, E., & Taylor, G. (2007). The new sub-national politics of the British Labour Party. Party Politics, 13(1), 88–108.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laforest, R. (2007). The new federal policy agenda and the voluntary sector: On the cutting edge. Kingston, ON: School of Policy Studies, Queen’s University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levi, Y. (2005). ‘Nonprofits’ and ‘third sector’: From deferential vagueness to potentials for innovation. Journal of Co-operative Studies, 38(2), 37–43.

    Google Scholar 

  • Levitas, R. (2012). The just’s umbrella: Austerity and the big society in coalition policy and beyond. Critical Social Policy, 32, 320–342.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis, J. (2005). New Labour’s approach to the voluntary sector: Independence and the meaning of partnership. Social Policy and Society, 4(2), 121–141.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Libbrecht, L., Maddens, B., Swenden, W., & Fabre, E. (2009). Issue-salience in regional party manifestos in Spain. European Journal of Political Research, 48(1), 58–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Liberal-SDP Alliance. (1987). Britain united: The time has come. London: Liberal-SDP Alliance.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lister, R. (1998). From equality to social inclusion: New Labour and the welfare state. Critical Social Policy, 18(55), 215–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., Hooghe, L., Steenbergen, M., & Bakker, R. (2007). Crossvalidating data on party positioning on European integration. Electoral Studies, 26(1), 23–39.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meyers, M. K., Glaser, B., & Donald, K. M. (1998). On the front lines of welfare delivery: Are workers implementing policy re forms? Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 17, 1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Council of Voluntary Organisations. (2012). The UK civil society almanac 2012. London: NCVO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson, T., & Oxleya, Z. (1999). Issue framing effects on belief importance and opinion. The Journal of Politics, 61(4), 1040–1067.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Northern Ireland Council for Voluntary Action. (2009). State of the sector V—Northern Ireland voluntary and community sector almanac 2009. Belfast: NICVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Osterle, A. (2002). Evaluating equity in social policy: A framework for comparative analysis. Evaluation, 8(1), 46–57.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papacharissi, Z. (2008). News frames terrorism: A comparative analysis of frames employed in terrorism coverage in U.S. and U.K. newspapers. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 13(1), 52–74.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Perkins, N., Smith, K., Hunter, D., Barnbra, C., & Joyce, K. (2010). What counts is what works’? New Labour and partnerships in public health. Policy and Politics, 38(1), 101–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrocik, J. R. (1996). Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40(3), 825–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Popple, K., & Redmond, M. (2000). Community development and the voluntary sector in the new millennium: The implications of the Third Way in the UK. Community Development Journal, 35(4), 391–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, A., Stokes, S., & Manin, B. (Eds.). (1999). Elections and representation, chapter one in democracy, accountability, and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • RePass, D. (1971). Issue-salience and party choice. American Political Science Review, 65, 389–400.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Robertson, D. (1976). A theory of party competition. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Royed, T. (1996). Testing the mandate model in Britain and in the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras. British Journal of Political Science, 26(1), 56–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruiter, S., & De Graf, N. D. (2006). National context, religiosity, and volunteering: Results from 53 countries. American Sociological Review, 71(2), 191–210.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M. (1995). Partners in public service: Government-nonprofit relations in the modern welfare state. Baltimore, MD: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salamon, L. M., & Sokolowski, W. S. (2003). Institutional roots of volunteering. In D. Paul & L. Halman (Eds.), The values of volunteering: Cross-cultural perspectives (pp. 71–90). New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Schon, D., & Rein, M. (1994). Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies. New York: Basic Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Conservatives. (2011). Common sense for Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish Conservatives.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations. (2012). Scottish third sector key statistics. Edinburgh: SCVO.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish Liberal Democrats. (1999). Raising the standard. Edinburgh: Scottish Liberal Democrats.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish National Party. (1999). Enterprise, compassion, democracy. Edinburgh: Scottish National Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Scottish National Party. (2003). The complete case Jura better Scotland. Edinburgh: Scottish National Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sobieraj, S. (2006). Association mobilization around the 2000 presidential campaign. Sociological Inquiry, 76(1), 52–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Social Democratic Labour Party. (2007). Let’s deliver real progress. Dublin: SDLP.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stimson, J. (2003). Party government and responsiveness. In B. Manin, A. Przeworski, & S. Stokes (Eds.), Democracy, accountability and representation. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stokes, D. (1992). Valence polities. In D. Kavanagh (Ed.), Electoral politics. Oxford: Clarendon Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland, C. (2005). Nation-building through discourse theory. Nations and Nationalism, 11(2), 185–202.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., & Kendall, J. (1996). History of the voluntary sector. In J. Kendall & M. Knapp (Eds.), The voluntary sector in the UK. Manchester: Manchester University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, M., & Lansley, J. (1992). Ideology and welfare in the UK voluntary sector. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations, 3(2), 153–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Topf, R. (1994). Party manifestos. In A. Heath, R. Jovell, & J. Curtice (Eds.), Labour’s last chance: 1992 election and beyond. Aldershot: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ungerson, C., & Yeandle, S. (2007). Cash for care in developed welfare states. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viroli, M. (2000). Republican patriotism. In C. McKinnon & I. Hampsher-Monk (Eds.), The demands of citizenship (pp. 267–275). New York: Continuum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Volkens, A. (2001). Manifesto research since 1979: From reliability to validity. In M. Laver (Ed.), Estimating the policy positions of political actors. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wales Council for Voluntary Action. (2012). Basic statistics of the voluntary sector January 2012. Cardiff: WCVA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, A. (1983). Labour’s social plans: The limits of welfare statism. Critical Social Policy, 3(8), 45–65.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Walzer, M. (1992). The civil society argument. In C. Mouffe (Ed.), Dimensions of radical democracy: Pluralism, citizenship, community (pp. 89–107). London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh Liberal Democrats. (2003). Deliver the difference for Wales. Cardiff: Welsh Labour Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Welsh Liberal Democrats. (2007). A fair green future. Cardiff: Welsh Labour Party.

    Google Scholar 

  • Whelan, R. (2008). British social housing and the voluntary sector. Economic Affairs, 28(2), 5–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilding, P. (1992). The British welfare state: Thatcherisrn’s enduring legacy. Policy and Politics, 20(3), 201–212.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wilson, A. (1993). Towards an integration of content analysis and discourse analysis. Lancaster: Lancaster University Unit for Computer Research on the English Language Technical Papers No. 3.

  • Wincott, D. (2005). Reshaping public space? Devolution and policy change in British early childhood education and care. Regional & Federal Studies, 15(4), 453–470.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wyn Jones, R., & Paterson, L. (1999). Welsh devolution—the past and the future. In B. Taylor & K. Thomson (Eds.), Scotland and Wales: Nations again?. Cardiff: University of Wales Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zirnmer, A. (2003). Welfare pluralism and health care: The case of Germany. In J. Kovacs (Ed.), The politics of welfare reform—east and west between governmental policy and civic initiative. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The author would like to acknowledge the helpful and constructive comments of two anonymous referees when revising an earlier draft of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cardiff School of Social Sciences, Glamorgan Building, King Edward VII Avenue, Cathays Park, Cardiff, CF10 3WT, Wales, UK

    Paul Chaney

Authors
  1. Paul Chaney
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Paul Chaney.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Chaney, P. Multi-level Systems and the Electoral Politics of Welfare Pluralism: Exploring Third-Sector Policy in UK Westminster and Regional Elections 1945–2011. Voluntas 25, 585–611 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9354-9

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11266-013-9354-9

Keywords

Search

Navigation