Comparative European Politics

, Volume 15, Issue 6, pp 848–871 | Cite as

Party governments, clientelistic reforms, and varying levels of political constraints

Original Article
First Online:

Abstract

This paper analyzes how different levels of political constraints influence the reform outcomes of ideologically different party governments. The statistical analyses show that leftist governments facing high level of political constraints privilege the core workforce by increasing the redistributive generosity of core social security programs while at the same time accommodating the right-wing opposition with higher cuts in social spending. If constraints are low, left-wing governments have a less clientelistic approach to welfare state reforms. Right-wing party governments are mostly interested in cost containment and significantly decrease social spending when political constraints are low. The findings of this paper complement the literature on the dualization of labor markets and the privileged position of labor market insiders within the workforce by showing that leftist governments, under certain circumstances, lead to an increasing difference between labor market insiders, and globalization losers. The empirical analysis is based on pooled cross section time series analysis covering 18 countries over a period of 30 years.

Keywords

party government political constraints welfare state clientelistic reforms 
This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

References

  1. Alexiadou, D. (2013) In search of successful reform: The politics of opposition and consensus in OECD Parliamentary Democracies. West European Politics 36(4): 704–725.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Amable, B., Gatti, D. and Schumacher, J. (2006) Welfare-state retrenchment: The Partisan effect revisited. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22(3): 426–444.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. Beramendi, P. and Rueda, D. (2007) Social democracy constrained: Indirect Taxation in industrialized democracies. British Journal of Political Science 37(4): 619–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Beramendi, P. and Cusack, T. (2009) Diverse disparities: The politics and economics of wage, market, and disposable income inequalities. Political Research Quarterly 62(2): 257–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bonoli, G. (2001) Political institutions, veto points, and the process of welfare state adaption. In: P. Pierson (ed.) The New Politics of the Welfare State. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 238–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bonoli, G. (2003) Two worlds of pension reform in Western Europe. Comparative Politics 35(4): 399–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Brady, D., Beckfield, J. and Seeleib-Kaiser, M. (2005) Economic globalization and the welfare state in affluent democracies, 1975–2001. American Sociological Review 70: 921–948.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Brambor, T., Clark, W.R. and Golder, M. (2006) Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analysis. Political Analysis 14(1): 63–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bräuninger, T. (2005) A partisan model of government expenditure. Public Choice 125(3–4): 409–429.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Brooks, C. and Manza, J. (2007) Why Welfare States Persist: The Importance of Public Opinion in Democracies. Chicago: Studies in Communication, Media, and Public Opinion, University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  12. Budge, I. and Farlie, D.J. (1983) Explaining and Predicting Elections. London: Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  13. Castles, F.G. (2002) Developing new measures of welfare state change and reform. European Journal of Political Research 41: 613–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Dreher, A. (2006) KOF Index of Globalization. Electronic Database. http://globalization.kof.ethz.ch/.
  15. Finseraas, H. (2009) Income inequality and demand for redistribution: A multilevel analysis of European public opinion. Scandinavian Political Studies 32(1): 94–119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 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
  17. Green-Pedersen, C. (2001) Welfare-state retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands, 1982–1998 – The role of party competition and party consensus. Comparative Political Studies 34(9): 963–985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Green-Pedersen, C. (2002) The politics of justification – Party competition and welfare state retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands from 1982–1998. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Green-Pedersen, C., van Kersbergen, K. and Hemerijck, A. (2001) Neo-liberalism, the ‘third way’ of what? Recent social democratic welfare policies in Denmark and the Netherlands. Journal of European Public Policy 8(2): 307–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Häusermann, S. (2010) The Politics of Welfare State Reform in Continental Europe: Modernization in Hard Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Häusermann, S., Picot, G., and Geering, D. (2013) Rethinking party politics and the welfare state – Recent advances in the literature. British Journal of Political Science 43(1): 221–240.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Henisz, W.J. (2006) The Political Constraint Index (POLCON) Dataset, Codebook. Electronic Database. http://www-management.wharton.upenn.edu/henisz/.
  23. Hoffmann, N. (2010) Political institutions and policy outcomes: The political constraints approach of Henisz. CESifo DICE Report 8(2): 53–59.Google Scholar
  24. Hübscher, E. (2015) The political economy of fiscal consolidation revisited. Journal of Public Policy. doi: 10.1017/S0143814X15000057.Google Scholar
  25. Immergut, E.M. (1990) Institutions, veto points, and policy results: A comparative analysis of health care. Journal of Public Policy 10(4): 391–416.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Immergut, E.M., Anderson, K.M. and Schulze, I. (eds.) (2007) The Handbook of West European Pension Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Jensen, C. and Mortensen, P.B. (2014) Government responses to fiscal austerity: The effect of institutional fragmentation and partisanship. Comparative Political Studies 47(2): 143–170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Kam, C.D. and Franzese, R.J. (2007) Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis: A Refresher and Some Practical Advice. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
  29. Keefer, P. and Stasavage, D. (2003) The limits of delegation: Veto players, central bank independence and the credibility of monetary policy. American Political Science Review 97(3): 407–423.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Keele, L. and Kelly, N.J. (2006) Dynamic models for dynamic theories: The ins and outs of lagged dependent variables. Political Analysis 14(2): 186–205.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kenworthy, L. and McCall, L. (2008) Inequality, public opinion, and redistribution. Socio- Economic Review 6(1): 35–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kim, H. and Fording, R.C. (2002) Government partisanship in western democracies, 1945–1998. European Journal of Political Research 41(2): 187–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Kitschelt, H. and Rehm, P. (2014) Occupation as a site of political preference formation. Comparative Political Studies 47(12): 1670–1706.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Klingemann, H.-D., Volkens, A., Bara, J. and Budge, I. (2006) Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  36. 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
  37. Kwon, H.Y. and Pontusson, J. (2010) Globalization, labour power and partisan politics revisited. Socio-Economic Review 8(2): 251–281.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Manow, P. and Burkhart, S. (2007) Legislative self-restraint under divided government in Germany, 1976–2002. Legislative Studies Quarterly 32(2): 167–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Mares, I. (2000) Strategic alliances and social policy reform: Unemployment insurance in comparative perspective. Politics & Society 28(2): 223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Palier, B. and Thelen, K. (2010) Institutionalizing dualism: Complementarities and change in France and Germany. Politics & Society 38(1): 119–148.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Pierson, P. (1994) Dismantling the Welfare State? Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment. Cambridge Studies in Comparative Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  43. Pierson, P. (1996) The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics 48(2): 143–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Pontusson, J. and Rueda, D. (2010) The politics of inequality: Voter mobilization and left parties in advanced industrial states. Comparative Political Studies 43(6): 675–705.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Quinn, D.P. (1997) The correlates of change in international financial regulation. American Political Science Review 91(3): 531–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Ross, F. (1997) Cutting public expenditures in advanced industrial democracies: The importance of avoiding blame. Governance 10(2): 175–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Ross, F. (2000a) ‘Beyond left and right’: The new partisan politics of welfare. Governance 13(2): 155–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Ross, F. (2000b) Framing welfare reform in affluent societies: Rendering restructuring more palatable? Journal of Public Policy 20(2): 169–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Rueda, D. (2007) Social Democracy Inside Out: Partisanship and Labor Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Scruggs, L. (2005) Comparative Welfare Entitlement Dataset. Electronic Dataset. http://sp.uconn.edu/~scruggs/wp.htm.
  51. Seeleib-Kaiser, M., van Dyk, S. and Roggenkamp, M. (2008) Party Politics and Social Welfare – Comparing Christian and Social Democracy in Austria, Germany and the Netherlands. Globalization and Welfare. Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  52. Trampusch, C. (2003) Ein Bündnis für die nachhaltige Finanzierung der Sozialversicherungssysteme: Interessenvermittlung in der bundesdeutschen Arbeitsmarkt- und Rentenpolitik. MPIfG Discussion Paper (03/1): 1–92.Google Scholar
  53. Wooldridge, J.M. (2002) Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Public PolicyCentral European UniversityBudapestHungary

Personalised recommendations