Political parties’ welfare image, electoral punishment and welfare state retrenchment
Will voters punish the government for cutting back welfare state entitlements? The comparative literature on the welfare state suggests that the answer is yes. Unless governments are effectively employing strategies of blame avoidance, retrenchment leads to vote loss. Because a large majority of voters supports the welfare state, the usual assumption is that retrenchment backfires equally on all political parties. This study contributes to an emerging body of research that demonstrates that this assumption is incorrect. On the basis of a regression analysis of the electoral fate of the governing parties of 14 OECD countries between 1970 and 2002, we show that most parties with a positive welfare image lose after they implemented cutbacks, whereas most parties with a negative welfare image do not. In addition, we show that positive welfare image parties in opposition gain votes, at the expense of those positive welfare image parties in government that implemented welfare state retrenchment.
Keywordswelfare state reform electoral punishment political parties partisanship economic voting
- Becker, J. (2005) ‘De Steun voor de Verzorgingsstaat in de Publieke Opinie, 1970–2002: Een Analyse van Trends in Meningen’ (SCP-Publicatie No. 2005/3). Den Haag, the Netherlands: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.Google Scholar
- Budge, I., Klingemann, H.D., Volkens, A., Bara, J. and Tanenbaum, E. (2001) Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
- Erikson, R.S., Mackuen, M.B. and Stimson, J.A. (2002) The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (1985) Role of government. ZA No.1490, http://www.gesis.org/en/services/data/survey-data/issp/modules-study-overview/role-of-government/1985/, accessed 28 January 2010.
- International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (1990) Role of government II. ZA No. 1950, http://www.gesis.org/en/services/data/survey-data/issp/modules-study-overview/role-of-government/1990/, accessed 28 January 2010.
- International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (1996) Role of government III. ZA No. 2900, http://www.gesis.org/en/services/data/survey-data/issp/modules-study-overview/role-of-government1996/, accessed 28 January 2010.
- International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (2006) Role of government IV. ZA No. 4700, http://www.gesis.org/en/services/data/survey-data/issp/modules-study-overview/role-of-government/2006/, accessed 28 January 2010.
- Larsen, C.A. (2008) The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: How welfare regimes influence public support. Comparative Political Studies 41 (4): 145–168.Google Scholar
- Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
- O'Connor, J.R. (1973) The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St Martins.Google Scholar
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1981) The Welfare State in Crisis. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
- Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010) OECD Economic Outlook. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
- Scarbrough, E. (2000) West European welfare states: The old politics of retrenchment. West European Politics 38 (2): 225–259.Google Scholar
- Scruggs, L.A. (2004) Welfare state entitlement data set: A comparative institutional analysis of eighteen welfare states. version 1.1., http://sp.uconn.edu/~scruggs/wp.htm, accessed 25 June 2011.