Comparative European Politics

, Volume 11, Issue 1, pp 1–21 | Cite as

Political parties’ welfare image, electoral punishment and welfare state retrenchment

  • Gijs Schumacher
  • Barbara Vis
  • Kees van Kersbergen
Original Article


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.


welfare state reform electoral punishment political parties partisanship economic voting 


  1. Allan, J.P. and Scruggs, L.A. (2004) Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial democracies. American Journal of Political Science 48 (3): 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armingeon, K. and Giger, N. (2008) Conditional punishment: A comparative analysis of the electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment in OECD nations, 1980–2003. West European Politics 31 (3): 558–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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
  4. Bélanger, E. and Meguid, B. (2008) Issue salience, issue ownership, and issue-based vote choice. Electoral Studies 27 (3): 477–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Boeri, T., Börsch-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. Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2006) Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Brooks, C. and Manza, J. (2006) Why do welfare states persist? Journal of Politics 68 (4): 816–827.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Burstein, P. (2010) Public opinion, public policy, and democracy: Old expectations and new. In: K.T. Leicht and J.C. Jenkins (eds.) Handbook of Politics. New York: Springer, pp. 63–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Row.Google Scholar
  11. Duch, R.M. and Stevenson, R.T. (2008) The Economic Vote. How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Erikson, R.S., Mackuen, M.B. and Stimson, J.A. (2002) The Macro Polity. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  13. Fallend, F. (2003) Political data yearbook 2002: Austria. European Journal of Political Research 42 (7–8): 887–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Giger, N. (2010) Do voters punish the government for welfare state retrenchment? A comparative study of electoral costs associated with social policy. Comparative European Politics 8 (4): 415–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Giger, N. and Nelson, M. (2011) The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment: Blame avoidance or credit claiming in the era of permanent austerity? European Journal of Political Research 50 (1): 1–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Green-Pedersen, C. (2007) The growing importance of issue competition: The changing nature of party competition in Western Europe. Political Studies 35 (3): 607–629.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 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
  19. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (1985) Role of government. ZA No.1490,, accessed 28 January 2010.
  20. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (1990) Role of government II. ZA No. 1950,, accessed 28 January 2010.
  21. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (1996) Role of government III. ZA No. 2900,, accessed 28 January 2010.
  22. International Social Survey Programme (ISSP). (2006) Role of government IV. ZA No. 4700,, accessed 28 January 2010.
  23. Jensen, C. (2010) Issue compensation and right-wing government social spending. European Journal of Political Research 49 (2): 282–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kahneman, D. and Tversky, A. (1979) Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47 (2): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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: Oxford University Press, pp. 265–302.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (2003) New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: Welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–95. American Political Science Review 97 (3): 425–446.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 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
  28. Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Paldam, M. (2000) Economic voting: An introduction. Electoral Studies 19 (2): 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Lijphart, A. (1999) Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries. New Haven and London: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  30. McDermott, R. (2004) Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology 25 (2): 289–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. O'Connor, J.R. (1973) The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St Martins.Google Scholar
  32. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (1981) The Welfare State in Crisis. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  33. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). (2010) OECD Economic Outlook. Paris, France: OECD.Google Scholar
  34. Petrocik, J.R. (1996) Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Pierson, P. (ed.) (2001) The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Powell, G.B. and Whitten, G.D. (1993) A cross-national analysis of economic voting: Taking account of the political context. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2): 391–414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 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
  39. Scarbrough, E. (2000) West European welfare states: The old politics of retrenchment. West European Politics 38 (2): 225–259.Google Scholar
  40. Scruggs, L.A. (2004) Welfare state entitlement data set: A comparative institutional analysis of eighteen welfare states. version 1.1.,, accessed 25 June 2011.
  41. Starke, P. (2006) The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review. Social Policy & Administration 40 (1): 104–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Van der Brug, W., Van der Eijck, C. and Franklin, M. (2007) The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Van Kersbergen, K. and Manow, P. (eds.) (2009) Religion, Class Coalitions, and Welfare States. Cambridge, NY: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Van Oorschot, W. (2000) Who should get what, and why? On deservingness criteria and the conditionality of solidarity among the public. Policy & Politics 28 (1): 33–48.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
  46. Woldendorp, J., Keman, H. and Budge, I. (2000) Party Government in 48 Democracies (1945–1998), Composition, Duration, Personnel Dordrecht, the Netherlands: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Palgrave Macmillan, a division of Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  • Gijs Schumacher
    • 1
    • 2
  • Barbara Vis
    • 2
  • Kees van Kersbergen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceUniversity of Southern DenmarkOdense MDenmark
  2. 2.Department of Political ScienceVU University AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Department of Political Science and GovernmentUniversity of AarhusÅrhus CDenmark

Personalised recommendations