Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-mlc7c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T01:28:06.109Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Veto Players and Welfare State Change: What Delays Social Entitlement Bills?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 October 2008

THOMAS DÄUBLER
THOMAS DÄUBLER*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Trinity College Dublin email: daublert@tcd.ie
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In contrast to the study of outcomes such as social spending, systematic comparative analysis of political processes underlying welfare state change is scarce. This study deals with the influence of government parties and second chambers as veto players in social entitlement legislation. It asks three questions regarding the duration and outcome of the legislative process at the parliamentary stage. Does the number of government parties or the ideological distance between them affect the passage of bills? Under which circumstances do second chambers have an influence? Does the ideological position of the leftmost governing party affect the speed of passage of bills in policy areas where there is pressure for retrenchment? The hypotheses are tested using an original dataset on social entitlement bills initiated in Belgium, Germany and the UK between 1987/88 and 2002/03. Event history analysis at the level of individual bills yields the following results: proposals initiated from among the government parties on the floor are delayed by a higher number of parties in government, by greater ideological distance between them, if the second chamber is controlled by the opposition and its approval is mandatory, if the left veto player is more rightwing and if the bills deal with expansionary or mixed policies. Cabinet bills, in contrast, are not affected by any of these factors. The results point to a number of further research questions and show that quantitative studies in comparative welfare state research can go beyond testing simple hypotheses with macro-level outcome data.

Type
Article
Information
Journal of Social Policy , Volume 37 , Issue 4 , October 2008 , pp. 683 - 706
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

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

Allan, J. P. and Scruggs, L. (2004), ‘Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies’, American Journal of Political Science, 48: 3, 496–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arter, D. (2006), ‘Conclusion: questioning the “Mezey question”: an interrogatory framework for the comparative study of legislatures’, Journal of Legislative Studies, 12: 3–4, 462–82.Google Scholar
Armingeon, K. and Bonoli, G. (2006), The Politics of Post-Industrial Welfare States: Adapting Post-War Social Policies to New Social Risks, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Becker, R. and Saalfeld, T. (2004), ‘The life and times of bills’, in Döring, H. and Hallerberg, M. (eds), Patterns of Parliamentary Behaviour: Passage of Legislation Across Western Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. (2000), The Politics of Pension Reform: Institutions and Policy Change in Western Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G., George, V. and Taylor-Gooby, P. (2000), European Welfare Futures: Towards a Theory of Retrenchment, Cambridge: Polity.Google Scholar
Bonoli, G. and Shinkawa, T. (2005), Ageing and Pension Reform around the World: Evidence from Eleven Countries, Cheltenham: Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
Box-Steffensmeier, J. M. and Jones, B. S. (2004), Event History Modeling: A Guide for Social Scientists, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bräuninger, T. (2005), ‘A partisan model of government expenditure’, Public Choice, 125: 3–4, 409–29.Google Scholar
Bräuninger, T., Debus, M. and Brunner, M. (2007), ‘Comparative legislation dataset’, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Brunner, M. and Debus, M. (2006), ‘Datensatzerstellung, Codierungsrichtlinien und Codebuch zum Datensatz “Vergleichende Gesetzgebung”’, manuscript, University of Konstanz.Google Scholar
Castles, F. G. (2004), The Future of the Welfare State: Crisis Myths and Crisis Realities, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Child Poverty Action Group (2003), Welfare Benefits and Tax Credit Handbook, London: Child Poverty Action Group.Google Scholar
Clasen, J. (2005), Reforming European Welfare States: Germany and the United Kingdom Compared, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Cleves, M. A., Gould, W. W. and Gutierrez, R. G. (2002), An Introduction to Survival Analysis Using Stata, College Station: Stata Press.Google Scholar
Cusack, T. R. and Engelhardt, L. (2002), ‘The PGL file collection: file structures and procedures’, Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung, Berlin.Google Scholar
de Winter, L. (1998), ‘Parliament and government in Belgium: prisoners of partitocracy’, in Norton, P. (ed.), Parliaments and Governments in Western Europe, London: Cass.Google Scholar
de Winter, L. and Dumont, P. (2006), ‘Belgium: delegation and accountability under partitocratic rule’, in Strøm, K., Müller, W. C. and Bergman, T. (eds), Delegation and Accountability in Parliamentary Democracies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Debus, M. (2008), ‘Office and policy payoffs in coalition governments’, Party Politics, 14: 5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Direction Générale Politique Sociale (2006), Aperçu de la Sécurité Sociale en Belgique, Bruxelles: Direction Générale Politique Sociale, Service Public Fédéral Sécurité Sociale.Google Scholar
Döring, H. (1995), Parliaments and Majority Rule in Western Europe, Frankfurt am Main: Campus/Westview.Google Scholar
Döring, H. and Hallerberg, M. (2004), Patterns of Parliamentary Behaviour: Passage of Legislation Across Western Europe, Aldershot: Ashgate.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1985), Politics Against Markets: The Social Democratic Road to Power, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Esping-Andersen, G. (1999), The Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franzese, R. J. and Kam, C. (2007), Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Ganghof, S. (2003), ‘Promises and pitfalls of veto player analysis’, Swiss Political Science Review, 9: 2, 1–25.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. (2004), ‘The dependent variable problem within the study of welfare state retrenchment: defining the problem and looking for solutions’, Journal of Comparative Policy Analysis, 6: 1, 3–14.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, C. and Haverland, M. (2002), ‘The new politics and scholarship of the welfare state’, Journal of European Social Policy, 12: 1, 43–51.Google Scholar
Huber, E., Ragin, C. and Stephens, J. D. (1993), ‘Social democracy, Christian democracy, institutional structure, and the welfare state’, American Journal of Sociology, 99: 3, 711–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Huber, E. and Stephens, J. D. (2001), Development and Crisis of the Welfare State: Parties and Policies in Global Markets, Chicago: Chicago University Press.Google Scholar
Immergut, E. M. (1992), Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Immergut, E. M., Anderson, K. M. and Schulze, I. (2006), The Handbook of West European Pension Politics, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. (2001), ‘Partisan competition and welfare state retrenchment: when do politicians choose unpopular policies?’, in Pierson, P. (ed.), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Kittel, B. and Obinger, H. (2003), ‘Political parties, institutions, and the dynamics of social expenditure in times of austerity’, Journal of European Public Policy, 10: 1, 20–45.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. and Palme, J. (2003), ‘New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–1995’, American Political Science Review, 97: 3, 425–46.Google Scholar
Laver, M. J. and Hunt, W. B. (1992), Policy and Party Competition, New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
Laver, M., Benoit, K. and Garry, J. (2003), ‘Extracting policy positions from political texts using words as data’, American Political Science Review, 97: 2, 311–31.Google Scholar
Levy, J. D. (1999), ‘Vice into virtue? Progressive politics and welfare reform in continental Europe’, Politics and Society, 27: 2, 239–73.Google Scholar
Lijphart, A. (1999), Patterns of Democracy: Government Forms and Performance in Thirty-Six Countries, New Haven: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Lowi, T. J. (1972), ‘Four systems of policy, politics, and choice’, Public Administration Review, 32: 4, 298–310.Google Scholar
Marsh, D. and Read, M. (1988), Private Members' Bills, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Martin, L. W. and Vanberg, G. (2004), ‘Policing the bargain: coalition government and paliamentary scrutiny’, American Journal of Political Science, 48: 1, 13–27.Google Scholar
Martin, L. W. and Vanberg, G. (2005), ‘Coalition policymaking and legislative review’, American Political Science Review, 99: 1, 93–106.Google Scholar
Meier Jæger, M. and Kvist, J. (2003), ‘Pressures on state welfare in post-industrial societies: is more or less better?’, Social Policy and Administration, 37: 6, 555–72.Google Scholar
Myles, J. and Quadagno, J. (2002), ‘Political theories of the welfare state’, Social Service Review, 76: 1, 34–57.Google Scholar
Obinger, H., Leibfried, S. and Castles, F. G. (2005), Federalism and the Welfare State: New World and European Experiences, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
OECD (2004), OECD Social Expenditure Database (SOCX), 1980–2001, Paris: OECD.Google Scholar
Palier, B. (2001), ‘Beyond retrenchment: four problems in current welfare state research and one suggestion how to overcome them’, in Clasen, J. (ed.), What Future for Social Security? Debates and Reforms in National and Cross-National Perspective, The Hague: Kluwer Law International.Google Scholar
Patzelt, W. J. (2000), ‘What can an individual MP do in German parliamentary politics?’, in Longley, L. D. and Hazan, R. Y. (eds), The Uneasy Relationship between Parliamentary Members and Leaders, London: Cass.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994), Dismantling the Welfare State: Reagan, Thatcher and the Politics of Retrenchment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996), ‘The new politics of the welfare state’, World Politics, 48: 2, 141–79.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1998), ‘Irresistible forces, immovable objects: post-industrial welfare states confront permanent austerity’, Journal of European Public Policy, 5: 4, 539–60.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001a), ‘Coping with permanent austerity: welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies’, in Pierson, P. (ed.), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001b), The New Politics of the Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Plümper, T., Troeger, V. E. and Manow, P. (2005), ‘Panel data analysis in comparative politics: linking method to theory’, European Journal of Political Research, 44: 2, 327–54.Google Scholar
Ross, F. (2000), ‘“Beyond left and right”: the new partisan politics of welfare’, Governance, 13: 2, 155–83.Google Scholar
Starke, P. (2006), ‘The politics of welfare state retrenchment: a literature review’, Social Policy and Administration, 40: 1, 104–20.Google Scholar
Steffen, J. (2006), Sozialpolitische Chronik, Bremen: Arbeitnehmerkammer Bremen.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2001), Welfare States under Pressure, London: Sage.Google Scholar
Taylor-Gooby, P. (2004), New Risks, New Welfare. The Transformation of the European Welfare State, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Tsebelis, G. (2002), Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work, New York: Sage.Google Scholar
Vis, B. and van Kersbergen, K. (2007), ‘Why and how do political actors pursue risky reforms?’, Journal of Theoretical Politics, 19: 2, 153–72.Google Scholar
Wüst, A. M. and Roth, D. (2006), ‘Schröder's last campaign: an analysis of the 2005 Bundestag election in context’, German Politics, 15: 4, 439–59.Google Scholar