Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-cf9d5c678-w9nzq Total loading time: 0.29 Render date: 2021-08-05T20:22:08.396Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true, "newEcommerce": true, "newUsageEvents": true }

Does Government Support Respond to Governments’ Social Welfare Rhetoric or their Spending? An Analysis of Government Support in Britain, Spain and the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  08 November 2017

Abstract

Issue ownership theory posits that when social welfare is electorally salient, left-wing parties gain public support by rhetorically emphasizing social welfare issues. There is less research, however, on whether left-wing governing parties benefit from increasing social welfare spending. That is, it is not known whether leftist governments gain from acting on the issues they rhetorically emphasize. This article presents arguments that voters will not react to governments’ social welfare rhetoric, and reviews the conflicting arguments about how government support responds to social welfare spending. It then reports time-series, cross-sectional analyses of data on government support, governments’ social welfare rhetoric and social welfare spending from Britain, Spain and the United States, that support the prediction that government rhetoric has no effects. The article estimates, however, that increased social welfare spending sharply depresses support for both left- and right-wing governments. These findings highlight a strategic dilemma for left-wing governments, which lose public support when they act on their social welfare rhetoric by increasing welfare spending.

Type
Articles
Copyright
© Cambridge University Press 2017 

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.)

Footnotes

*

School of History, Politics and International Relations, University of Leicester (email: lb350@le.ac.uk); Department of Political Science, University of California, Davis (email: jfadams@ucdavis.edu). The research presented in this article was supported by a Starting Grant of the European Research Council (Grant No. 284277) to the ResponsiveGov Project (http://www.responsivegov.eu/). The authors are grateful for this funding. Earlier versions of this article were presented at the Elections, Public Opinion and Parties Conference in Cardiff, 11–13 September 2015 and at the meeting of the Parties, Participation and Public Opinion research cluster, Department of Politics, University of Leicester, 11 November 2015. We are thankful for the feedback received from the participants of these events, in particular Laura Morales, Francesco Visconti, Oriol Sabaté, Daniela Vintila, Angeliki Konstantinidou, Rick Whitaker and Shane Martin. We thank Will Jennings for kindly sharing the data on vote intentions in the UK and the three anonymous reviewers for positively welcoming the article and giving great comments that improved the manuscript substantively. Replication data sets are available in Harvard Dataverse at: https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/JXSIV0 and online appendices are available at https://doi.org/doi:10.1017/S0007123417000199.

References

Adams, James. 2016. On the Relationship between (Parties’ and Voters’) Issue Attention and Issue Positions: Response to Dowding, Hindmoor, and Martin. Journal of Public Policy 36 (1):2531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2011. Is Anybody Listening? Evidence That Voters Do Not Respond to European Parties’ Policy Statements During Elections. American Journal of Political Science 55 (2):370382.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep. 2014. Do Voters Respond to Party Manifestos or to a Wider Informational Environment? An Analysis of Mass-Elite Linkages on European Integration. American Journal of Political Science 58 (4):967978.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adams, James, Clark, Michael, Ezrow, Lawrence, and Glasgow, Garrett. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–98. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3):513529.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alt, James E. 1979. The Politics of Economic Decline: Economic Management and Political Behaviour in Britain since 1964. Cambridge and New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bara, Judith. 2005. A Question of Trust: Implementing Party Manifestos. Parliamentary Affairs 58:585599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barnett, Adrian, van der Pouls, Jolieke, and Dobson, Annette. 2005. Regression to the mean: what it is and how to deal with it. International Journal of Epidemiology 34 (1):215220.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bartels, Larry. 2002. Beyond the Running Tally: Partisan Bias in Political Perceptions. Political Behaviour 24 (2):117150.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, Frank, Breunig, Christian, Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, Jones, Bryan, Mortensen, Peter, Nuytemans, Michiel, and Walgrave, Stefaan. 2009. Punctuated Equilibrium in Comparative Perspective. American Journal of Political Science 53 (5):603620.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 1995. What To Do (and Not To Do) with Time-Series Cross-Section Data. The American Political Science Review 89 (3):634647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, and Katz, Jonathan N.. 2011. Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data. Annual Review of Political Science 14:331352.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bernardi, Luca, and James, Adams. 2017. “Replication Data for: Does Government Support Respond to Governments’ Social Welfare Rhetoric or their Spending? An Analysis of Government Support in Britain, Spain and the United States”, https://dx.doi.org/doi:10.7910/DVN/JXSIV0, Harvard Dataverse, V1, UNF:6:fCPuRsHG9HLG0FuU2L1aYA==.Google Scholar
Bevan, Shaun, John, Peter, and Jennings, Will. 2011. Keeping Party Programmes on Track: The Transmission of the Policy Agendas of Executive Speeches to Legislative Outputs in the United Kingdom. European Political Science Review 3 (3):395417.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bevan, Shaun, and Jennings, Will. 2014. Representation, Agendas and Institutions. European Journal of Political Research 53 (1):3756.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, Ian, and Farlie, Dennis J.. 1983. Explaining and Predicting Elections: Issue Effects and Party Strategies in Twenty-three Democracies. London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar
Budge, Ian, Klingemann, Hans-Dieter, Volkens, Andrea, Bara, Judith, and Tanenbaum, Eric. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties. Electors, and Governments, 194598 . Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Chaqués Bonafont, Laura, Palau, Anna M., and Muñoz Marquez, Luz M.. 2014. Policy Promises and Governmental Activities in Spain. In Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems. A Comparative Approach , edited by Christoffer Green-Pedersen and Stefaan Walgrave 183200. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Dalton, Russel J. 2013. Citizen Politics: Public Opinion and Political Parties in Advanced Industrial Societies. Washington, DC: CQ Press.Google Scholar
De Boef, Suzanna, and Keele, Luke. 2008. Taking Time Seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52 (1):184200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Duch, Raymond M., and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2008. The Economic Vote. How Political and Economic Institutions Condition Election Results. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Edwards, George C. IIIand Wood, B. Dan. 1999. Who Influences Whom? The President, Congress, and the Media. The American Political Science Review 93:327344.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Epp, Derek A, Lovett, John, and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2014. Partisan Priorities and Public Budgeting. Political Research Quarterly 67:864878.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Esping-Andersen, Gosta. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ezrow, Lawrence. 2005. Are Moderate Parties Rewarded in Multiparty Systems? A Pooled Analysis of Western European Elections, 1984–98. European Journal of Political Research 44 (6):881898.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2014a. And Yet It Moves: The Effect of Election Platforms on Party Policy Images. Comparative Political Studies 47 (14):19191944.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo. 2014b. Signalling Policy Positions in Election Campaigns. Typescript.Google Scholar
Fernandez-Vazquez, Pablo, and Somer-Topcu, Zeynep, Forthcoming. The Information Consequences of Party Leader Changes for Voter Perceptions of Party Positions. British Journal of Political Science.Google Scholar
Fortunato, David, and Stevenson, Randolph T.. 2013. Perceptions of Partisan Ideologies: The Effect of Coalition Participation. American Journal of Political Science 57 (2):459477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane, and Hobolt, Sara B.. 2008. Owning the Issue Agenda: Party Strategies and Vote Choices in British Elections. Electoral Studies 27:460476.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane, and Jennings, Will. 2012. Valence as Macro-Competence: An Analysis of Mood in Party Competence Evaluations in Great Britain. British Journal of Political Science 42 (2):311343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, Jane, and Jennings, Will. 2014. Explaining Costs of Governing. Paper Prepared for Presentation at the ECPR General Conference, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 3–6 September.Google Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, and Walgrave, Stefaan, eds. 2014. Agenda Setting, Policies, and Political Systems: A Comparative Approach. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green-Pedersen, Christoffer, Mortensen, Peter B., and So, Florence. 2015. Power by What? Coalition Dynamics and the Prime Minister Party’s Agenda-Setting. Typescript.Google Scholar
Hobolt, Sara B., and Klemmensen, Robert. 2008. Government Responsiveness and Political Competition in Comparative Perspective. Comparative Political Studies 41 (3):309337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hobolt, Sara, Klemmensen, Robert, and Pickup, Mark. 2009. The Dynamics of Issue Diversity in Party Rhetoric. Typescript.Google Scholar
Jennings, Will, and John, Peter. 2009. The Dynamics of Political Attention: Public Opinion and the Queen’s Speech in the United Kingdom. American Journal of Political Science 53:838854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jennings, Will, Bevan, Shaun, and John, Peter. 2011. The Agenda of British Government: The Speech from the Throne, 1911–2008. Political Studies 59 (1):7498.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jones, Bryan D., and Baumgartner, Frank R.. 2005. The Politics of Attention: How Government Prioritizes Problems. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Karreth, Johannes, Polk, Jonathan T., and Allen, Christopher S.. 2013. Catchall or Catch and Release? The Electoral Consequences of Social Democratic Parties’ March to the Middle in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 46:791822.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kernell, Samuel. 1978. Explaining Presidential Popularity. American Political Science Review 72:506522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kitschelt, Herbert. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lacy, Dean, and Paolino, Philip. 1998. Downsian Voting and the Separation of Powers. American Journal of Political Science 24 (4):11801199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paldam, Martin. 1991. How Robust is the Vote Function?: A Study of Seventeen Nations over Four Decades. In Economics and Politics: The Calculus of Support, edited by Helmut Norpoth, Michael S. Lewis-Beck and Jean-Dominique Lafay, 931. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Palmer, Harvey D., and Whitten, Guy D.. 2000. Government Competence, Economic Performance and Endogenous Election Dates. Electoral Studies 19 (2–3):413426.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3):825850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickup, Mark, and Evans, Geoffrey. 2013. Addressing the Endogeneity of Economic Evaluations in Models of Political Choice. Public Opinion Quarterly 77:735754.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, G. Bingham, and Whitten, Guy D.. 1993. A Cross-National Analysis of Economic Voting: Taking Account of the Political Context. American Journal of Political Science 37 (2):391414.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Przeworski, Adam, and Sprague, John. 1986. Paper Stones: A History of Electoral Socialism. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Rose, Richard, and Mackie, Thomas T.. 1983. Incumbency in Government: Asset or Liability? In Western European Party Systems. Continuity & Change, edited by Hans Daalder and Peter Mair, 115137. London: Sage.Google Scholar
Schumacher, Gijs, Vis, Barbara, and van Kersbergen, Kees. 2013. Political Parties’ Welfare Image, Electoral Punishment and Welfare State Retrenchment. Comparative European Politics 11 (1):121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, Lyle. 2007. The Generosity of Social Insurance, 1971–2002. Oxford Review of Economic Policy 22 (3):349364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scruggs, Lyle, Jahn, Detlef, and Kuitto, Kati. 2014. Comparative Welfare Entitlements Data Set 2, Version 2014‐03. Available from http://cwed2.org/, accessed 30 April 2016.Google Scholar
Sigelman, Lee, and Kathleen, Knight. 1983. Why Does Presidential Popularity Decline? A Test of the Expectation/Disillusion Theory. The Public Opinion Quarterly 47 (3):310324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Soroka, Stuart N., and Wlezien, Christopher. 2010. Degrees of Democracy: Politics, Public Opinion, and Policy. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shugart, Matthew, and Carey, John. 1992. Presidents and Assemblies: Constitutional Design and Electoral Dynamics. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stimson, James A. 1976. Public Support for American Presidents: A Cyclical Model. Public Opinion Quarterly 40 (1):121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Strom, Kaare. 1990. A Behavioural Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2):565598.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tufte, Richard E. 1975. Determinants of the Outcomes of Midterm Congressional Elections. American Political Science Review 69 (3):812826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van der Brug, Wouter, van der Eijk, Cees, and Franklin, Mark. 2007. The Economy and the Vote. Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, Markus, and Meyer, Thomas M.. 2014. Which Issues do Parties Emphasise? Salience Strategies and Party Organisation in Multiparty Systems. West European Politics (June): 127.Google Scholar
Wlezien, Christopher, Jennings, Will, Fisher, Stephen, Ford, Robert, and Pickup, Mark. 2013. Polls and the Vote in Britain. Political Studies 61:6691.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Bernardi and Adams supplementary material

Link
Supplementary material: PDF

Bernardi and Adams supplementary material

Bernardi and Adams supplementary material 1

Download Bernardi and Adams supplementary material(PDF)
PDF 566 KB
3
Cited by

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Does Government Support Respond to Governments’ Social Welfare Rhetoric or their Spending? An Analysis of Government Support in Britain, Spain and the United States
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Does Government Support Respond to Governments’ Social Welfare Rhetoric or their Spending? An Analysis of Government Support in Britain, Spain and the United States
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Does Government Support Respond to Governments’ Social Welfare Rhetoric or their Spending? An Analysis of Government Support in Britain, Spain and the United States
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *