Acta Politica

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 331–352 | Cite as

Signalling a change of heart? How parties’ short-term ideological shifts explain welfare state reform

  • Gijs Schumacher
Original Article


Do Social Democrats still expand the welfare state? This article argues that a time-constant policy-oriented expectation of Social Democratic behaviour neglects parties’ aspiration for other goals such as votes and offices, and therefore cannot explain why some Social Democratic parties have introduced welfare state retrenchment measures. Social Democrats can win votes and join coalitions by shifting rightwards. In contrast, they can pursue policy objectives by shifting leftwards. To communicate these shifts, in other words, ‘changes of heart’, parties send signals to voters and other parties before elections. This study analyses the effect of these party signals on the welfare state. Party manifesto data are used to compute the positive and negative signals parties send on welfare issues in their electoral manifestos. A pooled time-series analysis of 14 parliamentary democracies between 1972 and 2002 shows that Social Democrats enact retrenchment measures after having sent a negative signal on a welfare issue in election time, especially in the case of unemployment benefits. Most importantly, this study identifies when Social Democrats choose to retrench (part of) the welfare state, namely after having signalled ‘a change of heart’.


welfare state partisanship Social Democrats retrenchment election manifesto 


  1. Adams, J., Haupt, A.B. and Stoll, H. (2009) What moves parties? The role of public opinion and global economic conditions in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 42 (5): 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Allan, J.P. and Scruggs, L. (2004) Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science 48 (3): 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beck, N. and Katz, J.N. (1995) What to do (and not to do) with time-series cross-section data. American Political Science Review 89 (3): 634–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bille, L. (1994) Political data yearbook: Denmark. European Journal of Political Research 26 (3/4): 279–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boeri, T., Boersch-Supan, A. and Tabellini, G. (2001) Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens. Economic Policy 16 (32): 9–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Boeri, T., Boersch-Supan, A. and Tabellini, G. (2002) Pensions reforms and the opinions of European citizens. The American Economic Review 92 (2): 396–401.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brady, D., Beckfield, J. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2005) Economic globalization and the welfare state in affluent democracies, 1975–2001. American Sociological Review 70 (4): 921–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Budge, I. and Farlie, D.J. (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections. London: George Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
  9. Budge, I., Klingemann, H.D., Volkens, A., Bara, J. and Tanenbaum, E. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors and Government, 1945–1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Burgoon, N. (2006) Globalization is What Parties Make of It: Welfare and Protectionism in Party Platforms. GARNET Working Paper no. 3/6.Google Scholar
  11. Castles, F.G. (1982) The Impact of Parties. Politics and Policies in Democratic Capitalist States. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  12. Clasen, J. (2005) Reforming European Welfare States: Germany and the United Kingdom Compared. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Clasen, J. and Siegel, N.A. (eds.) (2007) Investigating Welfare State Change: The ‘Dependent Variable Problem’ in Comparative Analysis. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  15. Esping-Andersen, G. (1990) The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge, UK: Polity Press.Google Scholar
  16. Ezrow, L., De Vries, C.E., Steenbergen, M. and Edwards, E.E. (2011) Mean voter representation versus partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters? Party Politics 17 (3): 275–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Garrett, G. and Mitchell, D. (2001) Globalization, government spending and taxation in the OECD. European Journal of Political Research 39 (2): 145–177.Google Scholar
  18. Green-Pedersen, C. (2002) The Politics of Justification: Party Competition and Welfare State Retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands from 1982 to 1998. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Ha, E. (2008) Globalization, veto players, and welfare spending. Comparative Political Studies 41 (6): 783–813.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Hicks, A. and Zorn, C. (2005) Economic globalization, the macro economy, and reversals of welfare: Expansion in affluent democracies, 1978–1994. International Organization 59 (3): 631–662.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Huber, E., Ragin, C. and Stephens, J.D. (1993) Social democracy, christian democracy, constitutional structure, and the welfare state. The American Journal of Sociology 99 (3): 711–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Huber, E. and Stephens, J.D. (2001) Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Iversen, T. and Cusack, T.R. (2000) The causes of welfare state expansion. Deindustrialization or globalization? World Politics 52 (3): 313–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kitschelt, H. (2001) Partisan competition and welfare state retrenchment. When do politicians choose unpopular policies? In: P. Pierson (ed.) The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  25. Kittel, B. and Obinger, H. (2003) Political parties, institutions, and the dynamics of social expenditure in times of austerity. Journal of European Public Policy 10 (1): 20–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Klitgaard, M.B. (2007) Why are they doing it? Social democracy and market-oriented welfare state reforms. West European Politics 30 (1): 172–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Korpi, W. (1989) Power, politics, and state autonomy in the development of social citizenship: Social rights during sickness in eighteen OECD countries since 1930. American Sociological Review 54 (3): 309–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (2003) New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: Welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–1995. American Political Science Review 97 (3): 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Levy, J.D. (1999) Vice into virtue? Progressive politics and welfare reform in continental Europe. Politics and Society 27 (2): 239–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Müller, W.C. and Strøm, K. (1999) Policy, Office or Votes. How Political Parties in Europe make Hard Decisions. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State: Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment in Britain and the United States. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Pierson, P. (2001) The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Plümper, T., Troeger, V.E. and Manow, P. (2005) Panel data analysis in comparative politics: Linking method to theory. European Journal of Political Research 44 (2): 327–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Quinn, D.P. and Inclan, C. (1997) The origins of financial openness: A study of current and capital account liberalization. American Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 777–831.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ross, F. (2000) ‘Beyond left and right’: The new partisan politics of welfare. Governance: An International Journal of Policy and Administration 13 (2): 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Schumacher, G. (2011) When does the Left do the Right Thing? A Study of Party Position Change on Welfare Policies, Drei Laender Tagung Conference, Basel.Google Scholar
  37. Schumacher, G., De Vries, C.E. and Vis, B. (2010) Why Political Parties Change their Position: Institutional Conditions and Environmental Incentives, MPSA General Conference, Chicago.Google Scholar
  38. Schumacher, G. and Vis, B. (2010) To Retrench or not to Retrench: A Simulation of the Strategic Situation of Social Democratic Parties and the Emergence of Welfare State Retrenchment. VU Political Science Department. Working Paper Series no. 27.Google Scholar
  39. Scruggs, L. (2006) The generosity of social insurance, 1971–2002. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22 (3): 349–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Siaroff, A. (1999) Corporatism in 24 industrial democracies: Meaning and measurement. European Journal of Political Research 36 (1): 175–205.Google Scholar
  41. Somer-Topcu, Z. (2009) Timely decisions: The effects of past national elections on party policy change. Journal of Politics 71 (1): 238–248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Stimson, J.A. (1985) Regression in time and space: A statistical essay. American Journal of Political Science 29 (4): 914–947.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Swank, D. (2005) Globalisation, domestic politics, and welfare state retrenchment in capitalist democracies. Social Policy & Society 4 (2): 183–195.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Vis, B. (2010) Politics of Risk-Taking: Welfare State Reform in Advanced Democracies. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Vis, B. and Van Kersbergen, K. (2007) Why and how do political actors pursue risky reforms? Journal of Theoretical Politics 19 (2): 153–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gijs Schumacher
    • 1
  1. 1.VU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations