Search

Classic partisan theory posits that political parties translate their electorates' preferences into policies. Accordingly, the recent changes in left parties' voter base, from predominantly working-class to middle-class voters, should have resulted in changing policy positions and policy effects of left parties. We test this expectation for economic policies (i.e., subsidies, product market regulation, and privatization) in 16 European countries between 1980 and 2012. We find the expected relationships for subsidies but not for regulation and privatization. This can be explained by the fact that only with regard to subsidies, preferences substantially differ between the working- and the middle-class. Thus, economic policy preferences of voters of left parties diverge less than could be expected. Methodologically, the study suggests that empirically testing the complete causal mechanism of classic partisan theory, assessing voters' preferences and investigating more than one issue area, are promising ways to study partisan effects on public policies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We present new evidence on whether political parties still matter in economic policy-making. We investigate four policy instruments (changes in product market regulation (PMR), subsidies, business taxation, social spending) in 21 Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development countries between 1980 and 2015. We systematically consider how cabinet duration and the challenges of globalization, the European Union and economic problems (debt, unemployment, economic growth) condition partisan differences. Partisan differences only really make themselves felt after about one term in office. Moreover, with the exception of PMR, partisan differences tend to become more pronounced as globalization increases while European integration does not condition partisan effects. The conditioning effect of domestic economic problems on partisan differences depends on a policy instrument's salience. In highly salient issue areas (social expenditure, corporate taxation), we only find partisan differences when problems are low; in contrast, economic problems emphasize partisan differences in non-salient issue areas (PMR, subsidies). [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

How did electoral competition during the second grand coalition under Chancellor Angela Merkel affect policy-making? By examining opinion polls and the outcomes of Länder elections, the article shows that on the demand side party competition was (potentially) intense. On the supply side, it discusses the major opposition parties' policy positions and reviews whether the voters regarded them as credible and competent. Then it assesses the effects of this actor constellation for the two most salient policy areas, the euro crisis and the refugee crisis. It finds that the grand coalition partially revoked its initially liberal migration policy as the AfD gained strength and became a credible alternative for CDU/CSU (as well as SPD) voters. In contrast, euro rescue policy was largely unaffected by party competition because the issue was less salient and the CDU/CSU was regarded as the most credible party in this respect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Zeitschrift für Politikwissenschaft is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

According to important parts of the literature, blame avoidance opportunities, i.e. the necessity and applicability of blame avoidance strategies, may differ between countries according to the respective institutional set-ups and between governing parties according to their programmatic orientation. In countries with many veto actors, a strategy of 'Institutional Cooperation' between these actors is expected to diffuse blame sufficiently to render other blame avoidance strategies obsolete. In contrast, governments in Westminster-style democracies should resort to the more unilateral strategies of presentation, policy design and timing. At the same time, left-wing parties are expected to have an easier time implementing spending cuts while right-wing parties are less vulnerable when proposing tax increases. Evidence from the politics of budget consolidation in Britain and Germany does not corroborate these hypotheses. Instead, it seems that party competition conditions the effects institutions and the partisan complexion of governments have on the politics of blame avoidance. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article analyses the impact of the European Employment Strategy on German policies. The Luxembourg Process contains concrete, quantitative objectives as well as relatively heterogeneous proposals that allow rather antithetical national policies. Nevertheless, it marks a specific European path, emphasising state–led activation strategies. Applying clear and verifiable criteria, we analyse the impact of the guidelines, the quantified objectives and the recommendations on German employment policies and find that they selectively influenced German policies, normally catalysing existing policies (‘intensifier effects’), but sometimes also inducing a policy change (‘steering effects’). The impact varies depending on the concreteness of the guidelines and the party composition of the government. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]