Advertisement

Politische Vierteljahresschrift

, Volume 59, Issue 4, pp 659–680 | Cite as

Die politische Repräsentation von Frauen und der Umbau des Sozialstaats

  • Lea Elsässer
  • Armin Schäfer
Abhandlung

Zusammenfassung

In diesem Aufsatz fragen wir, ob der Übergang zum Sozialinvestitionsstaat durch die wachsende Anzahl von weiblichen Abgeordneten in 21 OECD-Staaten erklärt werden kann. Damit schließen wir an Studien an, die einen positiven Zusammenhang zwischen der Repräsentation von Frauen und den Sozialausgaben insgesamt festgestellt haben. Allerdings werden bislang meist stark aggregierte Ausgabenindikatoren oder ausschließlich soziale Dienstleistungen untersucht. Wir verwenden disaggregierte Daten und betrachten sowohl sozialinvestive als auch passive Leistungen. Das Zusammenspiel von einer besseren deskriptiven politischen Repräsentation mit einer höheren Frauenerwerbsquote hilft, den Sozialstaatsumbau der letzten Jahre zu verstehen.

Schlüsselwörter

Deskriptive Repräsentation Sozialausgaben Sozialinvestitionsstaat 

The Political Representation of Women and Welfare State Restructuring

Abstract

This article explores the relationship between the political representation of women and welfare state change in 21 OECD countries. Several authors have argued that a higher share of female parliamentarians leads to an increase in social expenditure, in particular when labor market participation of women is high. However, existing studies focus on highly aggregated social expenditure measures or on social services alone. We can show that most countries have implemented both cutbacks in traditional decommodification measures and an expansion of activating social policies. The interplay of women’s descriptive representation and rising female employment helps to understand this welfare state change in recent decades.

Keywords

Descriptive representation Women Social investment state Social expenditure 

Notes

Danksagung

Für hilfreiche Kommentare danken wir Sebastian Huhnholz, Daniel Mertens, Thomas Rixen, Laura Seelkopf sowie drei anonymen Gutachterinnen und Gutachtern der PVS.

Supplementary material

11615_2018_108_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (247 kb)
Der Online-Anhang enthält eine Tabelle mit deskriptiven Statistiken der von uns verwendeten Variablen und die jeweils dazugehörigen Quellenangaben. Darüber hinaus sind ergänzende Analysen enthalten, die als Robustheitscheck für die in Tabelle 2 und 3 aufgeführten Ergebnisse dienen.

Literatur

  1. Abrassart, Aurelien, und Giuliano Bonoli. 2015. Availability, cost or culture? Obstacles to childcare services for low-income families. Journal of Social Policy 44(04):787–806.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Achen, Christopher. 2000. Why lagged dependent variables can suppress the explanatory power of other independent variables. Los Angeles. Paper prepared for delivery at the Political Methodology Summer Meeting, 20–22.Google Scholar
  3. Armingeon, Klaus, Christian Isler, Laura Knöpfel, David Weisstanner, und Sarah Engler. 2016. Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2014. Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern.Google Scholar
  4. Beck, Nathaniel. 2001. Time-series cross-section data: what have we learned in the past few years? Annual Review of Political Science 4(1):271–293.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.4.1.271.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beck, Nathaniel, und Jonathan N. Katz. 1995. What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. American Political Science Review 89(3):634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Best, Heinrich. 2007. New challenges, new elites? Changes in the recruitment and career patterns of European representative elites. Comparative Sociology 6:85–113.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bolzendahl, Catherine. 2011. Beyond the big picture: gender influences on disaggregated and domain-specific measures of social spending, 1980–1999. Politics & Gender 7(1):35–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolzendahl, Catherine, und Clem Brooks. 2007. Women’s political representation and welfare state spending in 12 capitalist democracies. Social Forces 85(4):1509–1534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bonoli, Giuliano. 2007. Time matters: postindustrialization, new social risks, and welfare state adaptation in advanced industrial democracies. Comparative Political Studies 40(5):495–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bonoli, Giuliano. 2013. The origins of active social policy: labour market and Childcare policies in a comparative perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bovens, Mark A. P., und Anchrit Wille. 2017. Diploma democracy: the rise of political meritocracy. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  12. Bratton, Kathleen A., und Leonard P. Ray. 2002. Descriptive representation, policy outcomes, and municipal day-care coverage in Norway. American Journal of Political Science 46(2):428–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Brunsbach, Sandra. 2011. Machen Frauen den Unterschied? Parlamentarierinnen als Repräsentatinnen frauenspezifischer Interessen im Deutschen Bundestag. Zeitschrift für Parlamentsfragen 42:3–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Busemeyer, Marius R., Caroline de la Porte, Julian L. Garritzmann, und Emmanuele Pavolini. 2018. The future of the social investment state: politics, policies, and outcomes. Journal of European Public Policy 25(6):801–809.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1402944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Cantillon, Bea. 2011. The paradox of the social investment state: growth, employment and poverty in the Lisbon Era. Journal of European Social Policy 21(5):432–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Carnes, Nicholas. 2012. Does the numerical underrepresentation of the working class in congress matter? Legislative Studies Quarterly XXXVII 1/2012:5–34.  https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1939-9162.2011.00033.x.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Castles, Francis G. 2009. What welfare states do: a disaggregated expenditure approach. Journal of Social Policy 38(01):45–62.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Elsässer, Lea, Inga Rademacher, und Armin Schäfer. 2015. Cracks in the foundations. Retrenchment in advanced welfare states. economic sociology 16:4–16.Google Scholar
  19. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1990. The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  20. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 1999. New social risks in old welfare states. In Social foundations of Postindustrial societies, Hrsg. Gosta Esping-Andersen, 145–169. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  21. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 2002. Why we need a new welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Esping-Andersen, Gøsta. 2009. The incomplete revolution. Adapting the welfare state to women’s new roles. London: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  23. Evertsson, Marie, Paula England, Irma Mooi-Reci, Joan Hermsen, Jeanne De Bruijn, und David Cotter. 2009. Is gender inequality greater at lower or higher educational levels? Common patterns in the Netherlands, Sweden, and the United States. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 16(2):210–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Ferragina, Emanuele, und Martin Seeleib-Kaiser. 2015. Determinants of a silent (R)evolution: understanding the expansion of family policy in rich OECD countries. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 22(1):1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Finseraas, Henning, Niklas Jakobsson, und Andreas Kotsadam. 2012. The gender gap in political preferences: an empirical test of a political economy explanation. Social Politics 19(2):219–242.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ghysels, Joris, und Wim Van Lancker. 2011. The unequal benefits of activation: an analysis of the social distribution of family policy among families with young children. Journal of European Social Policy 21(5):472–485.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Giger, Nathalie. 2009. Towards a modern gender gap in Europe? A comparative analysis of voting behavior in 12 countries. The Social Science Journal 46:474–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gingrich, Jane, und Ben W. Ansell. 2015. The dynamics of social investment: human capital, activation, and care. In The politics of advanced capitalism, Hrsg. Pablo Beramendi, Silja Häusermann, Herbert Kitschelt, und Hanspeter Kriesi, 282–304. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Grey, Sandra. 2006. Numbers and beyond: the relevance of critical mass in gender research. Politics & Gender 2(4):492–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Huber, Evelyne, und John D. Stephens. 2000. Partisan governance, women’s employment, and the social democratic service state. American Sociological Review 65(3):323–342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Huber, Evelyne, und John D. Stephens. 2014. Income inequality and redistribution in post-industrial democracies: demographic, economic and political determinants. Socio-Economic Review 12(2):245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Inglehart, Ronald, und Pippa Norris. 2003. Rising tide: gender equality and cultural change around the world. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Iversen, Torben, und Frances Rosenbluth. 2006. The political economy of gender: explaining cross-national variation in the gender division of labor and the gender voting gap. American Journal of Political Science 50(1):1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Jenson, Jane. 2015. The fading goal of gender equality: three policy directions that underpin the resilience of gendered socio-economic inequalities. Social Politics: International Studies in Gender, State & Society 22(4):539–560.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kittel, Bernhard. 1999. Sense and sensitivity in pooled analysis of political data. European Journal of Political Research 35:225–253.Google Scholar
  36. Kittilson, Miki C. 2008. Representing women: the adoption of family leave in comparative perspective. The Journal of Politics 70(2):323–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Kuitto, Kati. 2016. From social security to social investment? Compensating and social investment welfare policies in a life-course perspective. Journal of European Social Policy 26(5):442–459.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Van Lancker, Wim. 2013. Putting the child-centered investment strategy to the test: evidence for the EU27. European Journal of Social Security 15:4–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mansbridge, Jane. 2015. Should workers represent workers? Swiss Political Science Review 21(2):261–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Menke, Katrin, und Ute Klammer. 2017. Mehr Geschlechtergerechtigkeit – weniger soziale Gerechtigkeit? Familienpolitische Reformprozesse in Deutschland aus intersektionaler Perspektive. Sozialer Fortschritt 66:213–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Meyer, Birgit. 2003. Much Ado about nothing? Political representation policies and the influence of women parliamentarians in Germany. Review of Policy Research 20(3):401–422.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Morgan, Kimberly J. 2013. Path shifting of the welfare state: electoral competition and the expansion of work-family policies in Western Europe. World Politics 65(1):73–115.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Nikolai, Rita. 2012. Towards social investment? Patterns of public policy in the OECD world. In Towards a social investment welfare state? Ideas, policies and challenges, Hrsg. Nathalie Morel, Bruno Palier, und Joakim Palme, 91–116. Bristol: The Policy Press.Google Scholar
  44. OECD. 2011. Doing better for families. Paris: OECD Publishing.Google Scholar
  45. OECD. 2016. Social expenditure: aggregated data. OECD.Stat, https://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=SOCX_AGG.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Orloff, Ann Shola. 2006. From maternalism to ‘employment for all. In The state after statism – new state activities in the age of liberalization, Hrsg. Jonah D. Levy, 230–268. Cambridge: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  47. Palier, Bruno. 2006. The re-orientation of Europe social policies towards social investment. International Journal of Politics, Culture and Society 1:105–116.Google Scholar
  48. Pavolini, Emmanuele, und Wim Van Lancker. 2018. The Matthew effect in childcare use: a matter of policies or preferences? Journal of European Public Policy 25(6):878–893.  https://doi.org/10.1080/13501763.2017.1401108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Phillips, Anne. 1995. The politics of presence. The political representation of gender, ethnicity, and race. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Pierson, Paul. 2001. Coping with permanent austerity. Welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies. In The new politics of the welfare state, Hrsg. Paul Pierson, 410–456. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Pintelon, Olivier, Bea Cantillon, Karel Van den Bosch, und Christopher T. Whelan. 2013. The social stratification of social risks: the relevance of class for social investment strategies. Journal of European Social Policy 23(1):52–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Plümper, Thomas, Vera E. Troeger, und Philip Manow. 2005. Panel data analysis in comparative politics: linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research 44:327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. Taylor-Gooby, Peter. 2004. New risks and social change. In New risks, new welfare. The transformation of the European welfare state, Hrsg. Peter Taylor-Gooby, 1–28. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Tepe, Markus, und Pieter Vanhuysse. 2010. Elderly bias, new social risks and social spending: change and timing in eight programmes across four worlds of welfare, 1980–2003. Journal of European Social Policy 20(3):217–234.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Van Kersbergen, Kees, und Anton Hemerijck. 2012. Two decades of change in Europe: the emergence of the social investment state. Journal of Social Policy 41(03):475–492.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Wängnerud, Lena. 2000. Testing the politics of presence: women’s representation in the Swedish riksdag. Scandinavian Political Studies 23(1):67–91.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Wängnerud, Lena. 2009. Women in parliaments: descriptive and substantive representation. Annual Review of Political Science 12(1):51–69.  https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.11.053106.123839.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Wiesendahl, Elmar. 2017. Parteien in gehobener Gesellschaft oder die halbierte Demokratie. In Parteien und soziale Ungleichheit, 413–439. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Wilson, Sven E., und Daniel M. Butler. 2017. A lot more to do: the sensitivity of time-series cross-section analyses to simple alternative specifications. Political Analysis 15(2):101–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Deutsche Vereinigung für Politikwissenschaft 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Universität Duisburg-EssenDuisburgDeutschland
  2. 2.Westfälische Wilhelms-UniversitätMünsterDeutschland

Personalised recommendations