Search results

A lively debate among students of parliamentary democracy concerns how coalition governments build their policy proposals. Some scholars maintain that government declarations mirror the position of the median party in parliament; others argue that these proposals better agree with the weighted mean of the coalition parties' electoral promises. This article sheds light on this puzzle by investigating the role played by several political actors in shaping government declarations on two dimensions: the ideological left–right scale and a genuinely policy-based welfare scale. The results reveal that the agenda setters on the two dimensions do not coincide. On the left–right scale, the prime minister's party plays a leading role. On the welfare scale, government declarations are affected by the party of the median legislator in parliament and by the parties of the labour and social affairs ministers. Furthermore, government declarations on the welfare dimension tend to drift rightwards with adverse economic conditions.

This volume provides a methodological toolbox for conducting policy research. Recognizing that policy research spans various academic disciplines, each of which takes a different view on causality, the volume introduces a methodologically pluralistic approach to policy studies. Each chapter clarifies the research question that each technique can answer, the research design and data treatment that each technique requires for its results to be sound, the validity domain of its results, and the actual deployment of the technique through a replicable example. Techniques covered include quasi-experimental designs, approaches to account for selection bias and observed imbalances, directed acyclic graphs and structural equation models, Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Bayesian case study and process tracing, and Agent-Based Modelling. By working through the volume, readers will understand how to learn from different techniques, apply them consciously, and triangulate them to make better sense of findings. This volume is intended for advanced academic courses, as well as scholars and practitioners in policy-related fields, such as political science, economics, sociology, and public administration. This is an open access book.

This volume provides a methodological toolbox for conducting policy research. Recognizing that policy research spans various academic disciplines, each of which takes a different view on causality, the volume introduces a methodologically pluralistic approach to policy studies. Each chapter clarifies the research question that each technique can answer, the research design and data treatment that each technique requires for its results to be sound, the validity domain of its results, and the actual deployment of the technique through a replicable example. Techniques covered include quasi-experimental designs, approaches to account for selection bias and observed imbalances, directed acyclic graphs and structural equation models, Qualitative Comparative Analysis, Bayesian case study and process tracing, and Agent-Based Modelling. By working through the volume, readers will understand how to learn from different techniques, apply them consciously, and triangulate them to make better sense of findings. This volume is intended for advanced academic courses, as well as scholars and practitioners in policy-related fields, such as political science, economics, sociology, and public administration. This is an open access book.

In post-industrial and globalized economies, socio-economic risks have become ubiquitous for workers. Two segments of the labour force seem particularly exposed: namely, outsiders (atypical workers and unemployed individuals) and globalization losers (unskilled workers in offshorable employment sectors), with relevant consequences for party competition in Europe. The coexistence of these two segments of vulnerable workers has brought conceptual ambiguity. Using the original 2019 REScEU Mass Survey on ten European countries, we firstly clarify that outsiders and globalization losers do not constitute the same socio-economic group. Secondly, we look into the micro-foundations of outsiders' and globalization losers' redistributive preferences and political behaviours by showing that outsiderness, rather than exposure to international competition, constitutes a significant driver of income and employment insecurities, and of dependency on social protection and family financial aid. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s11135-022-01414-9.

AbstractA primary challenge for researchers that make use of observational data is selection bias (i.e. the units of analysis exhibit systematic differences and dis-homogeneities due to non-random selection into treatment). This article encourages researchers in acknowledging this problem and discusses how and – more importantly – under which assumptions they may resort to statistical matching techniques to reduce the imbalance in the empirical distribution of pre-treatment observable variables between the treatment and control groups. With the aim of providing a practical guidance, the article engages with the evaluation of the effectiveness of peacekeeping missions in the case of the Bosnian civil war, a research topic in which selection bias is a structural feature of the observational data researchers have to use, and shows how to apply the Coarsened Exact Matching (CEM), the most widely used matching algorithm in the fields of Political Science and International Relations.

Do economic policy preferences distinguish populist voters from mainstream ones? We compare the preference profile of the voters of the Five Star Movement (M5S), one of the most successful southern European populist parties, with the profile of voters of other parties at both the 2013 national and the 2014 European Parliament elections by means of a conjoint analysis experiment on economic policy programs. Despite economic insecurity and recent recessions being key drivers of populist voting, we provide evidence that M5S supporters are fiscally moderate: they are happy with the current size of government and oppose more spending. Their Euroscepticism, shared with right-wing voters and representing a new domestic divide, takes the form of a lukewarm support for the euro, which they would readily ditch if it were to improve economic performance.

The election of President Mattarella is a turning point in Matteo Renzi's attempt to reform the constitution. This choice determined the loss of Forza Italia's support to the constitutional reform, thus leaving the Renzi cabinet and the Democratic Party alone on the Yes-side. Our goal is to assess the degree of Renzi's misjudgment by comparing two theoretical perspectives on voting behavior in direct-democratic settings through a nested design. Our results highlight that vote choices can be explained by both the systematic and the heuristic modes of information processing. Respondents' agreement with the content of the reform (systematic mode) and a positive evaluation of the Renzi cabinet (heuristic mode) are key predictors of Yes vote. Instead, the negative assessment of the economic situation is a crucial driver of No vote. Lastly, we build a bridge between these two perspectives by showing that partisan attachments conditioned the effect of respondents' content evaluation on voting behavior.

AbstractEurope is witnessing a 'double dualisation' process, whereby inequalities have increased both between labour market insiders and outsiders, and between core and peripheral countries. We test the double dualisation hypothesis in the context of the first wave of the COVID‐19 pandemic. Did the COVID crisis exacerbate income inequalities between insiders and outsiders? Did cross‐country territorial divides also increase? Did national governments' emergency measures contribute to containing or widening double dualisation? We deploy a multi‐method research design that combines original survey data on seven old EU member states with three case studies on Germany, Italy, and the Netherlands. Results show that, in the short term, the COVID‐19 pandemic has been a catalyst of double dualisation: outsiders bore the greatest burden, especially in southern European countries. National emergency measures largely depended on the fiscal leeway available to governments and followed pre‐existing welfare trajectories, thus worsening cross‐country inequalities, with potentially severe consequences for the European integration process.