Skip to main content
Article thumbnail
Location of Repository

Partisanship, political constraints and employment protection reforms in an era of austerity

By Sabina Avdagic


Why do some governments adopt unpopular reforms entailing far-reaching liberalization of the labour market, while others opt only for marginal adjustments or even regulatory reforms? This paper explains the likelihood of different types of reform as an effect of different constellations of government partisanship and veto players. Combining the ‘blame avoidance’ and ‘veto players’ logics of politics, the paper argues that veto players have either a constraining or enabling effect depending on the partisan orientation of government. Correspondingly, liberalization is most likely to be adopted either by right parties facing few veto players, or by left parties in contexts with a high degree of power sharing. Regulatory reforms are most likely when left governments enjoy strong power concentration, but marginal regulation may be also adopted under external pressure by right governments facing many veto players. An analysis of employment protection reforms in 24 EU countries during 1990-2007 supports the argument that the effect of political constraints and opportunities on the choice of reforms is shaped by partisan difference

Topics: HD5701, HD7795, J, JF0020
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Year: 2013
OAI identifier:

Suggested articles


  1. (2012). Archive, Economic and Social Data Service.
  2. (2009). Barriers to entry: insider–outsider politics and the political determinants of job security regulations’,
  3. (2000). Beyond left and right: the new partisan politics of welfare’,
  4. (2011). Consistent Estimation of the Fixed Effects Ordered Logit Model.
  5. (2010). Constraining ministerial power: the impact of veto players on labor market reforms in industrial democracies, 1973–2000’,
  6. Coping with permanent austerity: welfare state restructuring in affluent democracies’,
  7. (2004). Diversification and reconfiguration of party systems in postindustrial democracies’. Europaeische Politik 03, Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
  8. (1994). Divided governments, fiscal institutions, and budget deficits: evidence from the states’,
  9. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments 1945–1998,
  10. (1996). Exploring the political economy of labor market institutions’,
  11. (2006). Generalized ordered logit/partial proportional odds models for ordinal dependent variables’,
  12. (1992). Health Politics: Interests and Institutions in Western Europe, Cambridge:
  13. (2009). ICTWSS: Database on Institutional Characteristics of Trade Unions, Wage Setting, State Intervention and Social Pacts
  14. Insider–outsider politics in industrialized democracies: the challenge to social democratic parties’,
  15. (2007). Institutional determinants of unemployment in OECD countries: does the deregulatory view hold water?’,
  16. (2010). Institutionalizing dualism: complementarities and change in France and Germany’,
  17. (1998). Internationalization and changes in tax policy in OECD countries: the importance of domestic veto players’,
  18. (2005). Labor market institutions and unemployment: a critical assessment of the cross-country evidence’,
  19. (2010). Liberalization and cartel politics in Europe: why do centreleft parties adopt market liberal reforms?’
  20. (2006). Mapping Policy Preferences II. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments
  21. (2001). Mapping Policy Preferences.
  22. (2005). Measuring job security over time: in search of a historical indicator’. Instituto de Empressa Working Paper WP-05.
  23. (2010). Modeling Ordered Choices: A Primer,
  24. (2004). Models of vetoes and veto bargaining’,
  25. (1999). Money and majorities in the federal Republic of Germany: evidence for a veto players model of government spending’,
  26. (2003). New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–95’,
  27. (2001). New tools and new tests in comparative political economy: the database of political institutions’,
  28. (2007). Parties, Governments and Legislatures Data Set,
  29. (1998). Partisan Politics in the Global Economy, Cambridge:
  30. (2003). Partisan veto players, party preferences, and the composition of government expenditures’.
  31. (2009). Penn World Table, Version 6.3,
  32. (2009). Playing the blame avoidance game? Party competition, electoral punishment and welfare state reform’.
  33. (2000). political constraints, and employment protection reforms 453 ——
  34. (2001). Political institutions, veto points, and the processes of welfare state adaptation’,
  35. (2003). Political parties, institutions, and the dynamics of social expenditure in times of austerity’,
  36. (2004). Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies’,
  37. (2011). Reforming German labor market institutions: a dual path to flexibility’,
  38. (2007). Social Democracy Inside Out: Partisanship & Labor Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies.
  39. (1993). Social democracy, Christian democracy, constitutional structure and the welfare state’,
  40. (2010). Social Reforms Database, Milan and Bonn: Fondazione Rodolfo de Benedetti and IZA (Institute for the Study of Labor).
  41. The Employment Protection Index in OECD Countries,
  42. (2005). The interaction of labor market regulation and labor market policies in welfare state reform’. Discussion Paper No. 19, Institut fu¨r Arbeitsmarkt-und Berufsforschung (IAB).
  43. (1996). The new politics of the welfare state’,
  44. (2011). The political economy of flexicurity’,
  45. (2011). Third ways and social democracy: the right way to go?’,
  46. (2002). Veto Players. How Political Institutions Work,
  47. (2006). Welfare state retrenchment: the partisan effect revisited’.
  48. (2009). Who are the outsiders and what do they want? Welfare state preferences in dualized societies’.

To submit an update or takedown request for this paper, please submit an Update/Correction/Removal Request.