Recalibrating social protection : electoral competition and the new partisan politics of the welfare state

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.First published: 15 October 2018This article investigates the new party politics of welfare states with a particular focus on electoral competition. The argument is that welfare state politics are no longer just about more or less, but involve trade-offs among ‘new’ versus ‘old’ social rights, and hence social investment versus social consumption. However, party priorities on these issues are highly dependent upon their electoral situation. As electoral competition becomes more intense, parties focus more on vote maximisation than on their traditional policy goals. For left parties, this means focusing more on social investment, which appeals to their growing constituency of progressive sociocultural professionals, and less on defending the traditional income maintenance programmes favoured by their core blue-collar voters. Centre-right parties, on the other hand, should hesitate to retrench old social rights when electoral competition intensifies because they need to prioritise their appeal to culturally conservative working-class voters over their traditional fiscally conservative policy profiles. Using a new dataset and a recently published measure of electoral competitiveness, the article shows that as electoral competition intensifies, left governments are willing to prioritise social investment by reducing pension rights generosity in order to expand programmes for new social risks, while centre-right governments by contrast avoid retrenchment of pension rights and pension expenditures. The findings demonstrate that this relationship is moderated by the presence of a credible radical right challenger, which increases the electoral risk of welfare state recalibration

Can existing theories of health care reform explain the Greek case (1983—2001)?

Greece has enacted three major health care reforms since the National Health System (NHS) was established in 1983. These reforms were designed to improve the system's ability to realize its founding principles of equity and efficiency in the delivery and financing of health services. This article presents an early report of ongoing doctoral research that aims to examine the relative influence of medical professional organizations versus other interests on these reforms. The article outlines three theoretical frameworks for understanding the health care system and the role of the medical profession within it in order to establish which best explains the nature and extent of health care reform. These frameworks are: sociological theories of professions; historical institutionalism; and structural interest theory. </jats:p