LABOR FORCE MOBILITY, BOTH BETWEEN ECONOMIC SECTORS AND BETWEEN DIFFERENT REGIONS OF A COUNTRY IS ON OF THE MAJOR CONSEQUENCES OF INDUSTRIALIZATON AND URBANIZATION IN WESTERN SOCIETIES. THERE IS REASON TO BELIEVE THAT THE ATTITUDES TOWARD THIS DEVELOPMENT AT THE POLITICAL ELITE LEVEL HAVE CHANGED WHEN IT COMES TO THE THEORETICAL UNDERSTANDING OF WHAT BENEFITS A SOLIETY.
Welfare programmes are targeted at different beneficiaries and grounded on a variety of principles: universalism, means testing, needs testing, targeting, income supplements and income maintenance, to mention some of the most important. The first question asked is: who supports programmes targeted at the different groups? The second question concerns whether the support varies when different techniques are used regarding measuring support for welfare state programmes – those programmes that are recommendable, those people want to spend their tax money on and the programmes where increased spending is followed by acceptance of a tax increase. Basically the results are similar across different measurement techniques. But if an interest group is identifiable – such as parents with young children – there is a distinct tendency for the interested party to be more supportive when money and budget restriction are involved compared with the pure recomendability of the programme. Interested parties also tend to support programmes that they are or will soon be using, most obviously seen in support for day care centres, which are supported largely by families with children below the age of 7 years, and for schools and education, supported largely by families with children above the age of 7 years. Where no distinct interest group – beyond the actual beneficiaries – is identifiable, normative positions such as ideology are the best predictor of support for welfare state programmes.
Abstract. Voter turnout for the 1984 presidential election in the USA was 30 percent lower than the last parliamentary election in Norway (1985). Similarities among the factors which explains non‐voting in the two nations are apparent, but the factors unique to each country are important for understanding the difference in turnout level as well as patterns of non‐participation. While the Norwegian non‐voters are in a transient situation where youth and limited life‐cycle experience determine non‐voting, factors effecting American non‐voters are more permanent. In particular, if socio‐economic resources are not acquired in youth, the development of political involvement and participation will be obstructed.
Analysis of published data shows that voter turnout for the 1984 presidential election in the US was 30% lower than that for the 1985 parliamentary election in Norway. Similarities among the factors that explain nonvoting in the two nations are apparent, but the factors unique to each country are important for understanding the difference in turnout level as well as patterns of nonparticipation. While the Norwegian nonvoters tend to be in a transient situation, where youth & limited life-cycle experience determine nonvoting, factors affecting US nonvoters are more permanent. In particular, if socioeconomic resources are not acquired in youth, the development of political involvement & participation will be obstructed. 2 Tables, 1 Figure, 15 References. HA
Debating explanations of electoral behavior, American scholars have focused on three main theories: The identification model relying on underlying loyalty of voters towards specific parties; the political agreement or proximity model assuming a rational calculation of parties' ideological positions or stand on salient political issues as the yardstick for choice of party; and the investment model relying on voters' ability to calculate which government alternative will bring most utility for the individual voter. Examining these theories with the use of Norwegian data from the elections of 1965, 1969 and 1977, we find that the identification model is far the most powerful in predicting individual voting behavior. This model also has an edge in explaining support for the individual parties and the total distribution of voters. However, at the major postwar government election in 1965, the investment model certainly is of importance, and at the election in 1977 the significance of the proximity model has increased.
ABSTRACTLabor force mobility, both between economic sectors and between different regions of a country is one of the major consequences of industrialization and urbanization in Western societies. There is reason to believe that the attitudes toward this development at the political elite‐level have changed quite drastically, both when it comes to the theoretical understanding of what benefits a society would have from such a redistribution of labor and what means should be used to control or advance this development. In this paper we have described the attitude development at the Norwegian parliamentary level toward the problem mentioned above for the postwar period. We have also formalized a model which we think would make comparative research more feasible on attitudes towards labor market policies, labor market mobility, development of different economic sectors and related areas.
Although it is difficult for local governments to give support for social welfare recipients top political priority, there are huge variations in the support recipients actually receive among Norwegian municipalities. However, local governments representing different party ideologies may prefer to support different dimensions of generosity. Some municipalities could have a liberal attitude to eligibility rules but be strict on time limits and the amount of money provided. Others may be generous regarding time limits or amounts received once one is accepted as a welfare client. Data from the mid 1990s indicate the variation in support is related to different generosity dimensions for different party groups. While the total number of clients seems unrelated to politics and basically correlates with local social problems, the duration and amount of support are related to the political composition of the municipality assembly. Devoid of any large variation, both time limits and the amount of support increase in accordance with socialist leanings, and the total budget used for social welfare support also increases with the proportion of women in the municipality assembly.
Although it is difficult for local governments to give support for social welfare recipients top political priority, there are huge variations in the support recipients actually receive among Norwegian municipalities. However, local governments representing different party ideologies may prefer to support different dimensions of generosity. Some municipalities could have a liberal attitude to eligibility rules but be strict on time limits & the amount of money provided. Others may be generous regarding time limits or amounts received once one is accepted as a welfare client. Data from the mid 1990s indicate the variation in support is related to different generosity dimensions for different party groups. While the total number of clients seems unrelated to politics & basically correlates with local social problems, the duration & amount of support are related to the political composition of the municipality assembly. Devoid of any large variation, both time limits & the amount of support increase in accordance with socialist leanings, & the total budget used for social welfare support also increases with the proportion of women in the municipality assembly. 3 Tables, 2 Appendixes, 46 References. Adapted from the source document.
