Suchergebnisse

n/a

Tobias Hinterseer (2019): Sozialpartnerschaft. Ein zentraler politischer Gestaltungsfaktor der Zweiten Republik am Ende? ; (VLID)5948458

AbstractLeft-right partisan conflict has been a key driver of welfare state expansion and retrenchment over time and across countries. Yet, we know very little about how left-right differences in party appeals vary across social policy domains. Why are some issues contentious while there is broad consensus on others? This paper starts from the simple premise that partisan conflict is a function of how popular a certain policy is. Based on this assumption, it argues that the left-right gap should be (1) larger for revenue-side issues than for expenditure-side issues, (2) larger for policies targeted at groups that are viewed as less deserving and (3) larger for more redistributive programs than less redistributive ones (e.g. means-tested versus earnings-related benefits). These expectations are tested on fine-grained policy data coded from 65 Austrian party manifestos issued between 1970 and 2017 (N = 18,219). The analysis strongly supports the revenue–expenditure hypothesis and the deservingness hypothesis, but not the redistribution hypothesis.

This paper applies recent theoretical arguments about the relationship between redistributive justice principles and welfare chauvinism to the case of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ). These arguments hold that parties vary welfare chauvinist appeals according to the redistributive principles underlying social programs. Means-tested and universal benefits that produce high levels of native-to-nonnative redistribution are thus prime targets. By contrast, social insurance individualizes benefit claims and thus undercuts the group logic inherent in nativist arguments. The analysis confirms that the FPÖ's welfare chauvinism is mostly targeted at universal and means-tested benefits. Where it is applied to social insurance programs, the purpose is typically to exclude immigrants from non-contributory elements and thus strengthen the insurance principle for non-citizens. The analysis extends beyond existing research by also examining the adoption of welfare chauvinism by the ÖVP and the implementation of such policies by the ÖVP-FPÖ coalition between 2017 and 2019.

Left-right partisan conflict has been a key driver of welfare state expansion and retrenchment over time and across countries. Yet, we know very little about how left-right differences in party appeals vary across social policy domains. Why are some issues contentious while there is broad consensus on others? This paper starts from the simple premise that partisan conflict is a function of how popular a certain policy is. Based on this assumption, it argues that the left-right gap should be (1) larger for revenue-side issues than for expenditure-side issues, (2) larger for policies targeted at groups that are viewed as less deserving and (3) larger for more redistributive programs than less redistributive ones (e.g. means-tested versus earnings-related benefits). These expectations are tested on fine-grained policy data coded from 65 Austrian party manifestos issued between 1970 and 2017 (N = 18,219). The analysis strongly supports the revenue-expenditure hypothesis and the deservingness hypothesis, but not the redistribution hypothesis.

AbstractWelfare chauvinism has become an important element in the agenda of the populist radical right. This article proposes a novel argument to explain variation in the strength of welfare chauvinist appeals across social policy programmes. It theorizes that the redistributive justice principles (equity, equality, and need) that underpin a social programme matter. Equality‐ and need‐based programmes are more likely to contradict a nativist worldview in principle or practice, whereas equity‐based schemes are less vulnerable to welfare chauvinistic appeals. As a consequence, welfare chauvinism should be targeted at social policies that provide universal or means‐tested benefits. Insurance‐based systems are more likely to be immune. This argument is tested through a qualitative content analysis of populist radical right election manifestos in four West European democracies. The results show that insurance‐based systems (pensions, unemployment) are less likely to attract welfare chauvinism, whereas universal healthcare and means‐tested social assistance programmes are more prone to draw nativist appeals. Universal family allowances, however, are less likely to attract welfare chauvinism than predicted by the theory.

Die personelle Verflechtung zwischen Parteien und sozialpartnerschaftlichen Organisationen ist einer der zentralen Gründe für die Stabilität des korporatistischen Institutionengefüges der Zweiten Republik. Dieser Beitrag liefert die bis dato umfangreichste und systematischste Analyse der personellen Verflechtungen zwischen der Bundesregierung und sozialpartnerschaftlichen Organisationen (Kammern und Gewerkschaften). Basierend auf biografischen Angaben zu allen 242 MinisterInnen und StaatssekretärInnen zwischen 1945 und 2015 zeigt sich, dass Sozialpartner-FunktionärInnen vor allem unter großen Koalitionen und Einparteienregierungen in Regierungsämter ernannt werden, und dass sie mit hoher Wahrscheinlichkeit in sozial- und wirtschaftspolitischen Ressorts tätig sind. Zwar schwankt der Verflechtungsgrad im Zeitverlauf, jedoch ist auch in jüngeren Jahrzehnten kein abnehmender Trend zu verzeichnen.

Social policy matters have long been considered women's issues. Extant research has documented a strong link between gender and the policies of the welfare state in the legislative, executive and electoral arenas. Yet what determines the strength of this association has largely been left unexplored. Drawing on tokenism theory, this article proposes gender diversity at the group level as a key explanatory factor. It hypothesizes that the gender gap in social policy diminishes as the female representation in a political party increases. To test this argument, it examines almost 8000 press releases issued by over 600 politicians during four election campaigns in Austria between 2002 and 2013. The analysis demonstrates that women talk more about social policy issues during election campaigns than men, but that this emphasis gap disappears for parties with a more equal gender balance. These results have important implications for our understanding of the politics of gender and social policy.

Social policy matters have long been considered women's issues. Extant research has documented a strong link between gender and the policies of the welfare state in the legislative, executive and electoral arenas. Yet what determines the strength of this association has largely been left unexplored. Drawing on tokenism theory, this article proposes gender diversity at the group level as a key explanatory factor. It hypothesizes that the gender gap in social policy diminishes as the female representation in a political party increases. To test this argument, it examines almost 8000 press releases issued by over 600 politicians during four election campaigns in Austria between 2002 and 2013. The analysis demonstrates that women talk more about social policy issues during election campaigns than men, but that this emphasis gap disappears for parties with a more equal gender balance. These results have important implications for our understanding of the politics of gender and social policy.

AbstractWhat explains the social policy profile of populist radical right parties (PRRPs)? Building on the argument made by Mudde (2007) that socio‐economic policies are secondary elements within the populist radical right ideology, this paper conjectures that the primary elements of that ideology (nativism, authoritarianism, and populism) structure the PRRP's attitudes in the social policy domain. Based on a discussion of the PRRP's core ideology a number of expectations are derived as to which groups should be viewed as deserving or undeserving of support. These expectations are examined through an analysis of the social policies put forward in the election manifestos of the Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) between 1983 and 2013. The analysis confirms most of the expectations and highlights an important shift in the FPÖ's social policy agenda, from welfare populist arguments and some retrenchment proposals under Jörg Haider to strong welfare chauvinism after the leadership change in 2005.