Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gbm5v Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T18:07:12.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Ideas, Institutions and the Policies of Governments: a Comparative Analysis: Parts I and II

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2009

Anthony King
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

This paper is about the things governments do and why they do them. It is written in the belief that, while we know quite a lot about decision-making processes in individual countries, we do not know nearly enough about why the governments of different countries make different decisions and pursue different policies. The countries of North America and western Europe are often described as ‘welfare states’, the implication being that the governments of all of them do broadly similar things in broadly similar ways. As we shall see, however, these broad similarities conceal important, wide divergences. These divergences deserve to be explained.

Type
Articles
Information
British Journal of Political Science , Volume 3 , Issue 3 , July 1973 , pp. 291 - 313
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1973

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 A tiny private sector survives in Germany. On the running of the Bundesbahn, see Ridley, F., ‘The German Federal Railways — A State Administered System’, Parliamentary Affairs, XVII (1964), 182–94.Google Scholar

2 Both Lufthansa and Air France are mixed companies, with some participation of private capital. See Davies, R. E. G., A History of the World's Airlines (London: Oxford University Press, 1964), pp. 274–5, 293.Google Scholar

3 On the history of Canadian telephones, see the article on Telephones in the Encyclopedia Canadiana, IX, pp. 34–8.

4 On hydro-electric power in Canada, see the article on the subject in the Encyclopedia Canadiana, V, pp. 211–21.Google Scholar For a brief summary of the position in the United States, see Redford, Emmette S., American Government and the Economy (New York: Macmillan, 1965), pp. 601–3.Google Scholar

5 Some coal is, however, produced in West Germany by publicly-owned concerns. See Stolper, Gustav, The German Economy 1870 to the Present (London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson, 1967, p. 277.Google Scholar

6 The information on ERAP is drawn from a document published by the French Embassy in London, Energy in France, n.d., pp. 18–19.Google Scholar

7 See Germain-martin, Henry, ‘France’ in Beckhart, Benjamin Haggott, ed., Banking Systems (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), pp. 299Google Scholaret seq.

8 For a catalogue of the large numbers of things which are State-owned in France, see Warren Baum, C., The French Economy and the State (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1958), p. 169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

9 See also the more elaborate (and now somewhat out-of-date) table in Joyce Mitchell, M. and Mitchell, William C., Political Analysis and Public Policy (Chicago: Rand McNally, 1969), p. 63.Google Scholar

10 For a wide-ranging discussion of the role of the State in a number of modern economies, see Shonfield, Andrew, Modern Capitalism: The Changing Balance of Public and Private Power (London: Oxford University Press, 1965).Google Scholar

11 A document published by the French Embassy in London, Public Enterprise in France, n.d., says (pp. 4–5) that in the case of the banks ‘nationalization has scarcely modified the internal situation of these bodies’ and that in actual fact ‘no fundamental difference as to their management at present exists between these bodies and the banks … of the private sector’. The major insurance companies in France are also publicly owned.

12 It is extraordinarily difficult to obtain accurate, comparable information on different countries’ social services; and, even apart from the problem of information, different countries’ social services are exceedingly hard to compare since they differ so widely in their coverage, in their benefits, in the conditions attached to them, and in their administration. Unless otherwise indicated, most of the information in the following paragraphs is obtained from a survey published by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, Social Security Programs Throughout the World, 1969. See also Commission of the European Communities, Comparative Tables of the Social Security Systems in the member States of the European Communities (Situation at 1 July 1970) I-General System.

13 The quotation is from Ardagh, John, The New France: De Gaulle and After (Harmondsworth Middx.: Penguin Books, 1970), p. 438.Google Scholar For an account of the new Canadian scheme, see a document published by the Canadian Department of National Health and Welfare in 1968, Health and Welfare Services in Canada, pp. 52et seq.Google Scholar On France, see the European Communities document cited in fn. 12 and also Laroque, Pierre, ‘Social Security in France’ in Jenkins, Shirley, ed., Social Security in International Perspective (New York: Columbia University Press, 1969)Google Scholar, and Collins, Doreen, ‘The French Social Security Reform of 1967’, Public Administration, XLVII (1969), 91–111.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

14 See Smith, George Teeling, ‘Health and the Six’, New Society, 18 02 1971, pp. 272–3Google Scholar, and Safran, William, Veto-Group Politics: the Case of Health-Insurance Reform in West Germany (San Francisco: Chandler, 1967), esp. Chap. 2.Google Scholar

15 On the position in Canada, see Health and Welfare Services, pp. 7–9,14–15,19–20, 40–6.

16 On the position in the United States, see a document published by the United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare in 1966, Programs and Services, pp. 315–16, 343–5.Google Scholar

17 See also the table in Pryor, Frederic L., Public Expenditure in Communist and Capitalist Nations (London: Allen and Unwin, 1965), p. 145.Google Scholar

18 On housing in Britain, West Germany and the United States, see Wendt, Paul F., Housing Policy - The Search for Solutions (Berkeley, Calif.: University of California Press, 1962)Google Scholar, Chaps. 1–3, 5–7. See also ‘Housing in Britain, France and Western Germany’, Planning,XXXI (1965) 219–67.Google Scholar

19 On housing and government in Canada, see the article on Housing in the Encyclopedia Canadiana, V, pp. 169–72.Google Scholar

20 On housing in France, see Ardagh, New France, Chap. 8.

21 On housing in West Germany, see Wendt, Housing Policy, Chap. 5, and Stolper, , German Economy, pp. 280–2.Google Scholar

22 Only outline answers can be given, partly for reasons of space, but partly because in many cases the relevant history has not been written: political scientists seldom concern themselves with the pasts of present policies; historians often fail to ask the questions that political scientists would.

23 The very small part played by advocacy of public ownership in the history of American radicalism can be inferred from, e.g., Hofstadter, Richard, The Age of Reform: From Bryan to F.D.R. (New York: Knopf, 1955Google Scholar) and Leuchtenburg, William E., Franklin D. Roosevelt and New Deal 1932–1940 (New York: Harper and Row, 1963).Google Scholar

24 Quoted in Lubove, Roy, The Struggle for Social Security 1900–1935 (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), pp. 26–7.Google Scholar

25 Quoted in Feingold, Eugene, ed., Medicare: Policy and Politics (San Francisco: Chandler, 1966), p. 275.Google Scholar

26 Currie, A. W., Canadian Transportation Economics (Toronto: University of Toronto Press 1967), P.406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

27 On government and broadcasting in Canada, see the article on Broadcasting, Radio and Television, in the Encyclopedia Canadiana, 11, pp. 110–18.Google Scholar

28 The account in the following two paragraphs and all of the quotations are taken from Corbett, David, Politics and the Airlines (London: Allen and Unwin, 1965), pp. 106–13.Google Scholar

29 A few brief passages on the history of the social services in Canada will be found in Brebner, J. Bartlett, Canada: A Modern History (Ann Arbor, Mich.: University of Michigan Press, 1960), see esp. pp. 460–1, 540–1.Google Scholar

30 On nationalization in Britain, see esp. Barry, E. Eldon, Nationalisation in British Politics: the Historical Background (London: Jonathan Cape, 1965)Google Scholar, Robson, William A., Nationalized Industry and Public Ownership, 2nd edn. (London: Allen and Unwin, 1963)Google Scholar, esp. Chap. 2, and Pryke, Richard, Public Enterprise in Practice (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1971).Google Scholar

31 Hogg, Quintin (now Lord Hailsham), The Case for Conservatism (West Drayton, Middx.: Penguin Books, 1947), p. 294.Google Scholar

32 Cecil, Lord Hugh quoted in Hogg, Case for Conservatism, p. 44.Google Scholar

33 Butler, R. A. (now Lord Butler) at the 1947 Conservative Party conference, quoted in King, Anthony, ed., British Politics: People, Parties and Parliament (Boston: D. C. Heath, 1966), pp. 49–50.Google Scholar

34 Hogg, , Case for Conservatism, pp. 44, 113.Google Scholar

35 See esp. Gilbert, Bentley B., The Evolution of National Insurance in Great Britian (London: Michael Joseph, 1966), Chaps. 6–7Google Scholar; and Willcocks, A. J., The Creation of the National Health Service (London: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1967).Google Scholar Gilbert's is the standard work on the earlier period.

36 Quoted by Braithwaite, William J. in Lloyd George's Ambulance Wagon, edited by Bunbury, Henry N. (London: Methuen, 1957), p. 156.Google Scholar

37 Craig, F. W. S., ed., British General Election Manifestos 1918–1966 (Chichester, Sussex: Political Reference Publications, 1970), p.92.Google Scholar

38 Hoffman, J. D., The Conservative Party in Opposition 1945–51 (London: MacGibbon and Kee, 1964), pp.235–6.Google Scholar

39 This paragraph is drawn largely from Stolper, , German Economy, pp. 39–43, 101–4, 277–9.Google Scholar See also Pinson, Koppel S., Modern Germany (New York: Macmillan, 1954), pp. 328 et seq.Google Scholar

40 Stolper, , German Economy, p. 43.Google Scholar

41 Davies, , World's Airlines, p. 56.Google Scholar

42 Stolper, , Germany Economy, p. 278.Google Scholar

43 See Pinson, , Modern Germany, pp. 240–6Google Scholar, and Taylor, A. J. P., Bismarck (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1955), pp. 202–4.Google Scholar For a detailed account of the history of social security in Germany, see the pioneering work by Rimlinger, Gaston V., Welfare Policy and Industrialisation in Europe, America, and Russia (New York: John Wiley, 1971), esp. Chaps. 4–5.Google Scholar

44 Pinson, , Modern Germany, p. 241.Google Scholar

45 For an account of the German Socialists’ somewhat baffled reaction to Bismarck's initiative, see Lidtke, Vernon L., The Outlawed Party: Social Democracy in Germany, 1878–1890 (Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press, 1966), Chap. 6Google Scholar, and Rimlinger, , Welfare Policy, pp. 122–30.Google Scholar

46 Pinson, , Modern Germany, p. 245.Google Scholar

47 See Pinson, , Modern Germany, p. 248Google Scholar, and Lidtke, , Outlawed Party, p. 159.Google Scholar

48 See Stolper, , German Economy, pp. 102–3, 280–2Google Scholar, for a description of the development of German housing policy.

49 The next two paragraphs are largely based on Baum, , French Economy and the State, pp. 171–80.Google Scholar

50 Sharp, Walter Rice, The Government of the French Republic (New York: Van Nostrand, 1938), p. 213.Google Scholar

51 Pinkney, David H., ‘Nationalization of Key Industries and Credit in France after the Liberation’, Political Science Quarterly, LXII (1947), 368–80, p. 375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

52 Pinkney, , ‘Nationalization’, p. 380.Google Scholar

53 General works on French politics and French history say almost nothing about the political circumstances surrounding the introduction of the various social services in France; see, e.g., Sharp, , French Republic, pp. 267–72Google Scholar, and Brogan, D. W., The Development of Modern France 1870–1939 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1940)Google Scholar, passim.