Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-v2srd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-04-13T06:37:14.802Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Governments and unpopular social policy reform: Biting the bullet or steering clear?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2026

Barbara Vis
Barbara Vis*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, The Netherlands
*
Address for correspondence: Barbara Vis, Department of Political Science, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam, De Boelelaan, 1081 HV Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Tel.: +3120 598 6821; Fax: +3120 598 6820; E‐mail: b.vis@fsw.vu.nl
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Under which conditions and to what extent do governments pursue unpopular social policy reforms for which they might be punished in the next election? This article shows that there exists substantial cross‐cabinet variation in the degree to which governments take unpopular measures and argues that current studies cannot adequately explain this variation. Using insights from prospect theory, a psychological theory of choice under risk, this study hypothesises that governments only engage in unpopular reform if they face a deteriorating socio‐economic situation, a falling political position, or both. If not, they shy away from the risk of reform. A fuzzy‐set Qualitative Comparative Analysis (fs/QCA) of the social policy reform activities pursued by German, Dutch, Danish and British cabinets between 1979 and 2005 identifies a deteriorating socio‐economic situation as necessary for unpopular reform. It is only sufficient for triggering reform, however, if the political position is also deteriorating and/or the cabinet is of rightist composition. This study's findings further the scholarly debate on the politics of welfare state reform by offering a micro‐foundation that helps one to understand what induces political actors aspiring to be re‐elected to engage in electorally risky unpopular reform.

Information

Type
Original Articles
Information
European Journal of Political Research , Volume 48 , Issue 1 , January 2009 , pp. 31 - 57
Copyright
Copyright © 2008 The Author(s). Journal compilation © 2008 (European Consortium for Political Research)

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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Allan, J.P. & Scruggs, L.A. (2004). Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial democracies. American Journal of Political Science 48(3): 496–512. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K. & Giger, N. (2006). The Electoral Consequences of Welfare State Retrenchment in OECD Nations. Paper presented at the fifteenth international conference of the Council for European Studies, Chicago, IL, 29 March–2 April. Google Scholar
Armingeon, K. et al. (2005). Comparative political dataset, 1960–2003. Berne: Institute of Political Science, University of Berne. Available online at: http://www.ipw.unibe.ch/mitarbeiter/ru_armingeon/CPD_Set_en.asp. Google Scholar
Aust, A., Bönker, F. & Wiollmann, H. (2002). Welfare State Reform in Germany from 1982 to the Present. Report presented at the WRAMSOC conference, September. Available online at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/wramsoc. Google Scholar
Barton, A.H. (1955). The concept of property‐space in social research. In Lazarsfeld, P.F. & Rosenberg, M. (eds), The language of social research. Glencoe, IL: Free Press. Google Scholar
Becker, J. (2005). De steun voor de verzorgingsstaat in de publieke opinie, 1970–2002. Een analyse van trends in meningen (SCP‐Publicatie 2005/3). Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau. Google Scholar
Bertelsmann Foundation (various years). International reform monitor. Gütersloh: Bertelsmann Foundation. Google Scholar
Boeri, T., Börsch‐Supan, A. & Tabellini, G. (2001). Would you like to shrink the welfare state? A survey of European citizens. Economic Policy 16(32): 9–50. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boettcher, W.A. (2004). The prospects for prospect theory: An empirical evaluation of international relations applications of framing and loss aversion. Political Psychology 25(3): 331–362. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, C. & Manza, J. (2006). Why do welfare states persist? Journal of Politics 68(4): 816–827. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brooks, P. & Zank, H. (2005). Loss averse behavior. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 31(3): 301–325. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Budge, I. et al. (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors and governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, J.L. (2002). Ideas, politics and public policy. Annual Review of Sociology 28: 21–38. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cason, T.N. & Mui, V. (2005). Uncertainty in resistance to reform in laboratory participation games. European Journal of Political Economy 21(3): 708–737. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Castles, F.G. (2004). The future of the welfare state: Crisis myths and crisis realities. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cox, R.H. (2001). The social construction of an imperative: Why welfare state reform happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but not in Germany. World Politics 53(3): 463–498. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daguerre, A. & Taylor‐Gooby, P. (20012002). National report: The UK (WRAMSOC working paper). Available online at: http://www.kent.ac.uk/wramsoc/. Google Scholar
De Vries, J. (2002). Paars en de managementstaat: Het eerste kabinet‐Kok, 1994–1998. Leuven/Apeldoorn: Garant. Google Scholar
Esping‐Andersen, G. (1990). The three worlds of welfare capitalism. Cambridge: Polity Press. Google Scholar
Esping‐Andersen, G. (ed.). (1996). Welfare states in transition: National adaptations in global economies. London: Sage. Google Scholar
Esping‐Andersen, G. (1999). Social foundations of postindustrial economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green‐Pedersen, C. (2002). The politics of justification: Party competition and welfare state retrenchment in Denmark and the Netherlands from 1982 to 1998. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossRefGoogle 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. (2005). Theoretical Conceptualization and Data Problems: The Dependent Variable Problem within the Study of Welfare Reforms. Paper presented at ‘The Dynamics of Reform: The Dependent Variable Problem in Comparative Welfare State Analysis’ conference, University of Stirling, 13–14 May. Google Scholar
Green‐Pedersen, C. & Haverland, M. (2002). The new politics and scholarship of the welfare state. Journal of European Social Policy 12(1): 43–51. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grendstad, G. (2007). Causal complexity and party preference. European Journal of Political Research 46(1): 121–149. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hemerijck, A. & Schludi, M. (2000). Sequences of policy failures and effective policy responses. In Scharpf, F.W. & Schmidt, V.A. (eds), Welfare and work in the open economy: From vulnerability to competitiveness. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Huber, E. & Stephens, J.D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state: Parties and policies in global markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Social Security Association (ISSA). (2006). Social security worldwide/ISSA development and trends database. Available online at: http://www‐ssw.issa.int/sswlp2/engl/page1.htm. Google Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica 47(2): 263–291. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D. & Tversky, A. (eds). (2000). Choices, values and frames. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahneman, D., Knetsch, J.L. & Thaler, R.H. (1991). Anomalies: The endowment effect, loss aversion and status quo bias. Journal of Economic Perspectives 5(1): 193–206. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeler, J.T.S. (1993). Opening the window for reform: Mandates, crises and extraordinary policy making. Comparative Political Studies 25(4): 433–486. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kemmerling, A. & Bruttel, O. (2006). ‘New politics’ in German labour market policy? The implications of the recent Hartz reforms for the German welfare state. West European Politics 29(1): 90–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
King, G., Keohane, R.O. & Verba, S. (1994). Designing social inquiry: Scientific inference in qualitative research. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press. CrossRefGoogle 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
Korpi, W. & 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): 425–446. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kühner, S. (2007). Country‐level comparisons of welfare state change measures: Another facet of the dependent variable problem within the comparative analysis of the welfare state? Journal of European Social Policy 17(1): 5–18. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kuipers, S.L. (2006). The crisis imperative: Crisis rhetoric and welfare state reform in Belgium and the Netherlands in the early 1990s. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Larsen, C.A. (2008). The institutional logic of welfare attitudes: How welfare regimes influence public support. Comparative Political Studies 41: 145–168. Google Scholar
Leibfried, S. & Obinger, H. (2003). The state of the welfare state: German social policy between macroeconomic retrenchment and microeconomic recalibration. West European Politics 26(4): 199–218. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, J.D. (1999). Vice into virtue? Progressive politics and welfare reform in continental Europe. Politics & Society 27(2): 239–274. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Levy, J.S. (1997). Prospect theory, rational choice and international relations. International Studies Quarterly 141(1): 87–112. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Levy, J.S. (2003). Applications of prospect theory to political science. Synthese 135: 215–241. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis‐Beck, M.S. & Paldam, M. (2000). Economic voting: An introduction. Electoral Studies 19(2): 113–121. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McDermott, R. (2004). Prospect theory in political science: Gains and losses from the first decade. Political Psychology 25(2): 289–312. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mercer, J. (2005). Prospect theory and political science. Annual Review of Political Science 8: 1–21. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Myles, J. & Quadagno, J. (2002). Political theories of the welfare state. Social Service Review 76(1): 34–57. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
OECD (2005). Economic outlook 78. Paris: OECD. Google Scholar
Pennings, P. (2003). Beyond dichotomous explanations: Explaining constitutional control of the executive with fuzzy‐sets. European Journal of Political Research 42(4): 541–567. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994). Dismantling the welfare state? Reagan, Thatcher and the politics of retrenchment. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state. World Politics 48(2): 143–179. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (ed.). (2001). The new politics of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (1987). The comparative method: Moving beyond qualitative and quantitative strategies. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press. Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2000). Fuzzy‐set social science. Chicago, IL/London: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2005). From fuzzy sets to crisp truth tables (Compasss working paper 2004‐28). Available online at: http://www.compasss.org. Google Scholar
Ragin, C.C. (2006). User's guide to fuzzy‐set/qualitative comparative analysis 2.0. Tucson, AZ: DeparDepartment of Sociology, University of Arizona. Available online at: http://www.u.arizona.edu/~cragin/fsQCA/. Google Scholar
Rihoux, B. (2006). Governmental participation and the organizational adaptation of green parties: On access, slack, overload and distress. European Journal of Political Research 45(S1): S69–S98. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, F. (2000). ‘Beyond left and right’: The new partisan politics of welfare. Governance 13(2): 155–183. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Samuelson, W. &. Zeckhauser, R. (1988). Status quo bias in decision making. Journal of Risk and Uncertainty 1(1): 7–59. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharpf, F.W. & Schmidt, V.A. (eds), (2000). Welfare and work in the open economy: From vulnerability to competitiveness. New York: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Schmidt, M.G. (2005). Sozialpolitik in Deutschland: Historische Entwicklung und In‐ternationaler Vergleich, 3/e. Wiesbaden: VS Verslag für Sozialwissenschaften. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2002). Does discourse matter in the politics of welfare state adjustment? Comparative Political Studies 35(2): 168–193. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schneider, C.Q. & Wagemann, C. (2006). Reducing complexity in qualitative comparative analysis (QCA): Remote and proximate factors in the consolidation of democracy. European Journal of Political Research 45(5): 751–786. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schwartz, H. (2001). Round up the usual suspects! Globalization, domestic politics and welfare state change. In Pierson, P. (ed.), The new politics of the welfare state. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. (2004). Welfare state entitlements dataset: A comparative institutional analysis of eighteen welfare states, Version 1.1. Available online at: http://sp.uconn.edu/~scruggs/wp.htm. Google Scholar
Scruggs, L. & Allan, J.P. (2006). Welfare state decommodification in eighteen OECD countries: A replication and revision. Journal of European Social Policy 16(1): 55–72. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Starke, P. (2006). The politics of welfare state retrenchment: A literature review. Social Policy & Administration 40(1): 104–120. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stiller, S. (2007). Innovative Agents versus Immovable Objects: The Role of Ideational Leadership in German Welfare State Reforms. Doctoral dissertation, Department of Political Science, Radboud University Nijmegen. Google Scholar
Swank, D. (2002). Global capital, political institutions and policy change in developed welfare states. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1981). The framing of decision and the psychology of choice. Science 211(January): 453–458. CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. (1991). Loss aversion in riskless choice: A reference‐dependent model. Quarterly Journal of Economics 106(4): 1039–1061. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Gerven, M. (2006). The Winners and Losers of the Unemployment Insurance Restructuring in Britain, the Netherlands and Finland. Paper presented at the ESPAnet young researchers' workshop ‘Welfare State Institutions and Outcomes’, Stockholm, 5–6 May. Google Scholar
Van Kersbergen, K. (2002). The politics of welfare state reform. Swiss Political Science Review 8(2): 1–19. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Veugelers, J. & Magnan, A. (2005). Conditions of far‐right strength in contemporary Western Europe: An application of Kitschelt's theory. European Journal of Political Research 44(6): 837–860. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vis, B. (2008). Biting the Bullet or Steering Clear? Politics of (not‐) Unpopular Welfare State Reform in Advanced Capitalist Democracies. Doctoral dissertation, Faculty of Social Sciences, Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam. Google Scholar
Vis, B. & Van Kersbergen, K. (2007). Why and how do political actors pursue risky reforms? Journal of Theoretical Politics 19(2): 153–172. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Weyland, K.G. (2002). The politics of market reform in fragile democracies: Argentina, Brazil, Peru and Venezuela. Princeton, NJ/New York: Princeton University Press. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woldendorp, J., Keman, H. & Budge, I. (2000). Party government in 48 democracies, 1945–1998: Composition, duration, personnel. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zohlnhöfer, R. (2003). Partisan politics, party competition and veto players: German economic policy in the Kohl era. Journal of Public Policy 23(2): 123–156. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zohlnhöfer, R. (2004). Destination anywhere? The German Red‐Green government's inconclusive search for a third way in economic policy. German Politics 13(1): 106–131. CrossRefGoogle Scholar