Politics, Institutions, and Welfare Spending in Industrialized Democracies, 1960–82

1992 ◽  
Vol 86 (3) ◽  
pp. 658-674 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alexander M. Hicks ◽  
Duane H. Swank
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Social Spending ◽  
Welfare Spending ◽  
The Social ◽  
Industrialized Democracies ◽  
Time Series Analyses ◽  
State Centralization ◽  
Pooled Time Series

We examine the roles of democratic politics and political institutions in shaping social welfare spending in 18 contemporary capitalist democracies. We explore the social spending consequences of government partisanship, electoral competition and turnout, and the self-interested behaviors of politicians and bureaucrats, as well as such relatively durable facets of political institutions as neocorporatism, state centralization, and traditionalist policy legacies. Pooled time series analyses of welfare effort in 18 nations during the 1960–82 period show that electoral turnout, as well as left and center governments increase welfare effort; that the welfare efforts of governments led by particular types of parties show significant differences and vary notably with the strength of oppositional (and junior coalitional) parties; and that relatively neocorporatist, centralized, and traditionalistic polities are high on welfare effort. Overall, our findings suggest that contrary to many claims, both partisan and nonpartisan facets of democratic politics and political institutions shape contemporary social welfare effort.

Conceptualizing the Social Economy in China

2012 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
pp. 1083-1123 ◽  
Author(s):  
LI ZHAO
Keyword(s):  
Social Welfare ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Poverty Reduction ◽  
Social Economy ◽  
Welfare System ◽  
Cultural Traditions ◽  
For Profit ◽  
Social Welfare System ◽  
The Social ◽  
The Impact

AbstractThis study offers a conceptual analysis of the social economy in China within the context of institutional transition. In China, economic reform has engendered significant social changes. Accelerated economic growth, privatization of the social welfare system, and the rise of civil society explain the institutional contexts in which a range of not-for-profit initiatives, neither state-owned nor capital-driven, re-emerged. They are defined in this research as the social economy in China. This study shows that although the term itself is quite new, the social economy is no new phenomenon in China, as its various elements have a rich historical tradition. Moreover, the impact of the transition on the upsurge of the Chinese social economy is felt not only through direct means of de-nationalization and marketization and, as a consequence, the privatization of China's social welfare system, but also through various indirect means. The development of the social economy in China was greatly influenced by the framework set by political institutions and, accordingly, legal enabling environments. In addition, the link to the West, as well as local historical and cultural traditions, contribute towards explaining its re-emergence. Examining the practices in the field shows that the social economy sector in China is conducive to achieving a plural economy and an inclusive society, particularly by way of poverty reduction, social service provision, work integration, and community development. Therefore, in contemporary China, it serves as a key sector for improving welfare, encouraging participation, and consolidating solidarity.

Democratization, Political Institutions, and Ethnic Conflict

2002 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 103-129 ◽  
Author(s):  
Stephen M. Saideman ◽  
David J. Lanoue ◽  
Michael Campenni ◽  
Samuel Stanton
Keyword(s):  
Ethnic Conflict ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Future Research ◽  
Security Dilemma ◽  
Data Set ◽  
Large N ◽  
Time Series Analyses ◽  
Pooled Time Series ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Minorities At Risk

Although there has been much debate about whether democratization causes ethnic conflict, and many comparativists have argued about which kinds of political institutions are best for managing communal strife, little large- N work has addressed these issues. The authors apply a theory of ethnic conflict—the ethnic security dilemma—to derive predictions about the impact of democratization and political institutions on ethnic unrest. They then test these predictions by performing a series of pooled time-series analyses covering all ethnic groups in the Minorities at Risk data set from 1985 to 1998. The authors find that democratization, federalism, and presidentialism may not be as problematic as some argue and that proportional representation tends to reduce severe ethnic violence. They conclude by suggesting some directions for future research.

Organized Labor Strikes and Social Spending in Latin America: The Synchronizing Effect of Mass Protest

2020 ◽  
Vol 62 (2) ◽  
pp. 99-109
Author(s):  
Dongkyu Kim ◽  
Mi-son Kim ◽  
Cesar Villegas
Keyword(s):  
Latin America ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Organized Labor ◽  
Social Spending ◽  
Welfare Spending ◽  
Labor Strikes ◽  
Capital Spending ◽  
Alternative Measures ◽  
Mass Protest

ABSTRACTThe theories and evidence about relationships between democracy and social spending in Latin America are highly contested. A recent study shows that collective protest by organized labor effectively increases social security and welfare spending, whereas mass protest does not have comparable effects on human capital spending in Latin American democracies. This article reexamines the analysis and demonstrates that organized labor alone cannot sway democratic governments. Labor strikes require the synchronizing effect of mass protest to obtain government concessions. Only through concurrent episodes of mass protest can organized labor overcome the numerical disadvantage of pressing democratic government for social welfare spending. In understanding the relationship between labor protests and social welfare spending through the lens of insider-outsider dichotomy, it is critical to consider the synchronizing effect of mass protests. The findings remain robust with alternative measures of democracy and various model specifications.

Public Opinion and the Demand for Social Welfare in Britain

1981 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
pp. 453-475 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Whiteley
Keyword(s):  
Public Opinion ◽  
Social Policy ◽  
Social Welfare ◽  
Policy Making ◽  
Policy Formation ◽  
Welfare Spending ◽  
The Social ◽  
Policy Making Process

ABSTRACTThis article discusses the role of public opinion in the social policy making process. It argues that existing accounts of social policy formation are inadequate in their treatment of public opinion, and inconsistent in their estimation of its importance. It then goes on to examine detailed examples of the role of public opinion in policy making; and finally tests two hypotheses concerning the sources of the demand for social welfare spending on the part of the British electorate.

scholarly journals No Common Ground? Public Knowledge about Welfare Spending in Turkey and its Social Divisions

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Volkan Yilmaz ◽  
Anil Gurbuzturk
Keyword(s):  
Common Ground ◽  
Relative Size ◽  
Policy Research ◽  
Nationwide Survey ◽  
Social Benefit ◽  
Social Spending ◽  
Welfare Spending ◽  
Social Divisions ◽  
The Social ◽  
Turkish Society

Social policy research examining citizens’ welfare knowledge, which offers a gateway to their understanding of the policy context, has remained limited. Adapting the opportunity–motivation–ability framework borrowed from the literature on political knowledge to welfare knowledge, this article offers an analysis of new data from a nationwide survey to explore Turkish society’s knowledge of the composition of public social spending. Corroborating earlier findings in the literature, the article maintains that most people in Turkey overestimate the relative size of social assistance spending for the poor. However, different from previous findings, the majority and most pensioners are also ill-informed about the rank of public spending on old-age pensions, the most widely used social benefit absorbing the largest share of welfare spending. The article provides evidence of the social division of welfare knowledge in Turkish society based mostly on three opportunity-related variables: city of residence, gender and income.

The Priority of Democracy

2011 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jack Knight ◽  
James Johnson
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Monetary Policy ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Federal Reserve ◽  
Democratic Politics ◽  
Institutional Choice ◽  
Democratic Process ◽  
Strong Case ◽  
The Subject ◽  
The Relationship

Pragmatism and its consequences are central issues in American politics today, yet scholars rarely examine in detail the relationship between pragmatism and politics. This book systematically explores the subject and makes a strong case for adopting a pragmatist approach to democratic politics—and for giving priority to democracy in the process of selecting and reforming political institutions. What is the primary value of democracy? When should we make decisions democratically and when should we rely on markets? And when should we accept the decisions of unelected officials, such as judges or bureaucrats? This book explores how a commitment to pragmatism should affect our answers to such important questions. It concludes that democracy is a good way of determining how these kinds of decisions should be made—even if what the democratic process determines is that not all decisions should be made democratically. So, for example, the democratically elected U.S. Congress may legitimately remove monetary policy from democratic decision-making by putting it under the control of the Federal Reserve. This book argues that pragmatism offers an original and compelling justification of democracy in terms of the unique contributions democratic institutions can make to processes of institutional choice. This focus highlights the important role that democracy plays, not in achieving consensus or commonality, but rather in addressing conflicts. Indeed, the book suggest that democratic politics is perhaps best seen less as a way of reaching consensus or agreement than as a way of structuring the terms of persistent disagreement.

СОВРЕМЕННОЕ РОССИЙСКОЕ ОБЩЕСТВО КАК ПРОСТРАНСТВО КОНФЛИКТА

2018 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 92
Author(s):  
V. V. Gorshkova ◽  
A. A. Melnikova
Keyword(s):  
Middle Class ◽  
Social Structure ◽  
Political Institutions ◽  
Socioeconomic Development ◽  
Modern Society ◽  
Western Society ◽  
Russian Society ◽  
Social Conflicts ◽  
The Social ◽  
Modern Russian

The article considers the contradictions and conflicts that are characteristic of modern Russian society. The processes of social disintegration are analyzed and interpreted as a result of fundamental social and economic transformations. The problems of economic inequality are presented in the historical perspective in close connection with the previous stages of Russia's socioeconomic development. Significant polarization of the population is one of the most significant conflict factors in modern society, which leads to an increase in protest moods and may in the long term threaten social upheavals. Nevertheless, dissatisfaction with the socio-economic situation does not lead to ideas of the unification and consolidation of society, but find expression in social conflicts. The emergence and development of social conflicts is influenced by a number of factors: economic, ethnic, religious. One of the most important characteristics of society is its social structure. After the collapse of the USSR, the previous social structure was abolished, and a new social reality was formed in Russia. When considering the stratification structure of society, most attention is paid to the middle class, which is considered the backbone of a stable society. The middle class in Russia is in the stage of formation, it is hardly possible to speak of a complete analogy with the middle class of Western society. The share of middle class in society can be estimated in different ways depending on the methodological approaches used by researchers. An important consequence of the transformation of the social structure was the problem of marginalization, since the dismantling of the old social structure and the slow formation of the new one put the social status and place in the division of labor system of many individuals into question. The sharp impoverishment of representatives of prestigious professions led to a reassessment of their situation, especially for the younger generation. When analyzing the origins of social conflicts in modern Russian society, it is necessary to consider the issue of the attitude of the broad masses of the population to power and national elites. It should be noted that power in Russia historically takes shape around specific leaders and does not have an institutional character. The most significant factor shaping the attitude towards the authorities and the elite in general in Russian society are the economic results of the market reforms that have taken place. Only a small part of the population believes that they won as a result of the changes that have taken place, the natural consequence of which is the population's distrust of the authorities and, in general, political institutions.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document