The Politics of Budget Consolidation in Britain and Germany: the Impact of Blame-Avoidance Opportunities. CES Germany & Europe Working Papers, No. 05.2, 2005

According to parts of the literature, blame avoidance opportunities, i.e. the necessity and applicability of blame avoidance strategies, may differ among countries according to the respective institutional set-ups and between governing parties according to their programmatic orientation. In countries with many veto actors, a strategy of "Institutional Cooperation" among these actors is expected to diffuse blame sufficiently to render other blame avoidance strategies obsolete. In contrast, governments in Westminster democracies should resort to the more unilateral strategies of presentation, policy design and timing. At the same time, parties of the left are expected to have an easier time implementing spending cuts while right parties are less vulnerable when proposing tax increases. Evidence from the politics of budget consolidation in Britain and Germany does not corroborate these hypotheses. Instead, it seems that party competition conditions the effects institutions and the partisan complexion of governments have on the politics of blame avoidance

Der lange Schatten der schönen Illusion: Finanzpolitik nach der deutschen Einheit, 1990 - 1998

Die deutsche Einheit stellte sich, aller marktwirtschaftlichen Rhetorik seitens der Bundesregierung im Jahr 1990 zum Trotz, im wesentlichen als eine staatliche Veranstaltung dar. Dazu waren Finanzmittel in vorher unbekanntem Ausmaß erforderlich. Anders als von der Bundesregierung 1990 erwartet, ließen sich diese Mittel nicht durch steuerliche Mehreinnahmen infolge eines schnellen ostdeutschen Wirtschaftswunders und hoher Privatisierungserlöse durch die Treuhandanstalt aufbringen. Insofern erwies sich die Finanzkonzeption der Bundesregierung schon bald als (schöne) Illusion. Notwendig wäre also die Erarbeitung eines neuen Finanzierungsmix gewesen. Dazu kam es jedoch über weite Strecken nicht. Wie ist dies zu erklären? Angesichts der notwendigen Finanzvolumina, die zu beschaffen waren, mußte eine auch am Wiederwahlziel orientierte Regierung versuchen, die dadurch für die Wähler entstehenden Belastungen so zu organisieren, daß diese ihr die Schuld für die Belastungen nicht wahlentscheidend anlasten. Ein erfolgversprechender Ansatz hierfür hätte in der Einbeziehung der Opposition bestanden, wofür auch die politische Konstellation angesichts der Mehrheitsverhältnisse im Bundesrat nicht ungünstig war. Eine solche Strategie der 'blame avoidance' scheiterte aber daran, daß die Finanzierung der deutschen Einheit seit dem Bundestagswahlkampf 1990, in dem die Regierungskoalition den Eindruck erweckt hatte, es seien keine zusätzlichen Belastungen der Wähler notwendig, im Zentrum des Parteienwettbewerbs stand. Der Bundesrat entwickelte sich daher sogar zu einem zusätzlichen Hindernis für eine finanzpolitische Kurskorrektur. Da aber auch innerhalb der Koalition umstritten war, welcher Weg zur Konsolidierung eingeschlagen werden sollte, und die Wähler massive Kürzungen oder Steuererhöhungen als Bruch eines Wahlversprechens negativ sanktionierten, blieb der Regierung über weite Strecken lediglich der Ausweg in wenig politisierte Finanzierungsinstrumente wie die Erhöhung der Staatsverschuldung, Transfers über die Sozialversicherungen, Privatisierungen, oder Haushaltssperren. Diese konzeptionslos wirkende Finanzpolitik führte letztlich zu einem Vertrauensverlust der Regierung und trug so zur Niederlage bei der Bundestagswahl 1998 mit bei. --

Selling off the family silver: the politics of privatization in the OECD 1990-2000

The 1990s have witnessed unprecedented attempts at privatizing state owned enterprises in virtually all OECD democracies. This contribution analyzes the differences in the privatization proceeds raised by EU- and OECD-countries between 1990 and 2000. It turns out that privatizations are part of a process of economic liberalization in previously highly regulated economies as well as a reaction to the fiscal policy challenges imposed by European integration and the globalization of financial markets. In addition, institutional pluralism and union militancy yield significant and negative effects on pri-vatization proceeds. Partisan differences only emerge if economic problems are moderate, while intense economic, particularly fiscal problems foreclose differing partisan strategies. --

Machen Parteiensysteme einen Unterschied? Die Struktur des Parteienwettbewerbs und die Kürzung von Sozialausgaben in Westeuropa

In der Literatur wird argumentiert, dass unterschiedlich Parteiensystemkonstellationen unterschiedliche Opportunitätsstrukturen für Kürzungspolitik schaffen. Uneinigkeit herrscht allerdings darüber, welche Charakteristika des Parteienwettbewerbs Sparpolitik erleichtern oder erschweren. Die entsprechenden Hypothesen, die vor allem von Christopher Green-Pedersen und Herbert Kitschelt entwickelt wurden, werden im vorliegenden Aufsatz mittels einer vergleichenden Fallstudie der sozialpolitischen Kürzungspolitik in Dänemark, Deutschland, Großbritannien und den Niederlanden zwischen dem Beginn der 1980er Jahre und der Finanzkrise 2007 überprüft. Dabei ergibt sich erstens, dass Pivotalsysteme wohlfahrtsstaatliche Kürzungspolitik erleichtern. Zweitens zeigt sich, dass bürgerliche Parteien Sozialkürzungen nur unter günstigen Bedingungen durchsetzen können. Linke Regierungen müssen als natürliche Verteidiger des Wohlfahrtsstaates weniger den Zorn der Wähler fürchten, was Kürzungen erleichtert. Doch diese Parteien wollen in den meisten Fällen keine Kürzungen durchsetzen. Drittens kann hoher Problemdruck Regierungen jedweder parteipolitischer Couleur zu Kürzungspolitik veranlassen.Previous research has argued that diverging configurations of electoral competition induce differing opportunity structures for welfare state retrenchment. The literature does not agree on the specific characteristics of party system constellations that facilitate or impede retrenchment, however. This paper presents results of a comparative case study of the politics of welfare state retrenchment in Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom between the early 1980s and the eve of the financial crisis to test the competing hypotheses put forward by Christopher Green-Pedersen and Herbert Kitschelt. It turns out that pivotal party systems make retrenchment easier. Furthermore, bourgeois parties only engage in retrenchment under particularly favorable circumstances while left parties as traditional supporters of the welfare state are somewhat shielded from voter discontent and can thus retrench slightly easier. Finally, pressing problems can induce all governments to retrench

Selling off the "family silver" : the politics of privatization in the OECD 1990-2000

The 1990s have witnessed unprecedented attempts at privatizing state owned enterprises in virtually all OECD democracies. This contribution analyzes the differences in the privatization proceeds raised by EU- and OECD-countries between 1990 and 2000. It turns out that privatizations are part of a process of economic liberalization in previously highly regulated economies as well as a reaction to the fiscal policy challenges imposed by European integration and the globalization of financial markets. In addition, institutional pluralism and union militancy yield significant and negative effects on privatization proceeds. Partisan differences only emerge if economic problems are moderate, while intense economic, particularly fiscal problems foreclose differing partisan strategies

"Koalition der neuen Möglichkeiten" oder Interregnum auf dem Weg zu passenden Mehrheiten? Eine Bilanz der Politik der Großen Koalition unter Angela Merkel, 2005-2009

"Der Beitrag untersucht einige der wichtigsten Reformen der Großen Koalition. Dabei fällt auf, dass zwar in einigen Bereichen durchaus weitreichende Reformen gelangen, es in anderen Feldern, insbesondere in der Sozial- und Arbeitsmarktpolitik, den Reformen aber zumindest an Kohärenz mangelte. Es zeigt sich, dass weitreichende Reformen dort zu verzeichnen sind, wo der wahrgenommene Handlungsdruck besonders groß war oder wo ein Minister ein Projekt auch gegen Widerstände durchsetzte. Dagegen wirkten die gegensätzlichen programmatischen Vorstellungen der Regierungsparteien und der Parteienwettbewerb eher reformhemmend." (Autorenreferat

Switzerland Report : Sustainable Governance in the Context of the COVID-19 Crisis

Switzerland was one of the first European countries to be affected by the coronavirus pandemic. As with other countries that were affected early, Switzerland took longer to respond than countries that were affected later (Kohler et al. 2020; Wenger et al. 2020), because there were no best practice examples to copy (Plümper and Neumayer 2020). Measured in terms of controlling the coronavirus incidence rate (average number of new infections per 100,000 inhabitants), the country’s response to the first wave of the coronavirus pandemic and its aftermath (March – April 2020) was extraordinarily successful. However, its response to the second wave, which began in late August and reached its preliminary peak in November 2020, was significantly poorer. During the first wave, Switzerland pursued a strict, time-consistent lockdown policy. However, the country’s approach to the second wave was hesitant, less strict and less time-consistent, with various temporary, light lockdowns pursued. In particular, during the first wave, efficient and pragmatic economic policies were implemented, including a light-handed lending program managed by private banks and fully guaranteed for loan defaults by the federal government, while a generous short-time work compensation program and several à fonds perdu payments (hardship cases) were introduced by cantonal and federal governments. At the end of the period under review, Switzerland’s economic growth, government deficit and unemployment rates appeared to have been relatively unaffected. This was due to very favorable conditions at the start of the coronavirus pandemic, namely Switzerland’s highly competitive economy, booming and flexible labor market, efficient infrastructure, reliable public administration, and sound public finances. In addition, the government recently enacted an ordinance regulating lockdown measures within the framework of the Swiss Epidemics Act (EpA 2012). By international standards, democracy in Switzerland has functioned well, and few restrictions have been placed on civil liberties and rights. As a federal state with a weak federal government due to sovereignty residing mainly in the cantons, policy responses to the coronavirus crisis involved complex coordination between cantons, and between cantons and the federal level. Consequently, policymaking was prone to conflict, slow and idiosyncratic, while policy actors were incentivized to avoid blame for policy failures. Policymaking has been strongly path dependent. With the exception of the emergency law period (“exceptional situation”), which increased federal government powers over the cantons, federal economic policy has been coordinated with cantonal policies and worked to a large extent by matching funds. The need for negotiations and compromise in policy formulation resulted in a sluggish process that ultimately delivered relatively inconsistent policies. Corporatist coordination between the state and economic actors continued to be highly effectively. The major achievement was the introduction of a program that entitled struggling firms to request credit from private banks, which would be guaranteed in case of default by the federal government. This program was designed and implemented within a few days by representatives of five major banks together with the Federal Ministry of Finance, and demonstrates the extent of mutual trust and familiarity between the banks and the ministry as well as the country’s pragmatic heterodox economic ideology. Beyond corporatist cooperation, economic interest groups (in particular small- and medium-sized enterprises) were highly successful in achieving their goals, provided there was no opposition from other economic elites or liberal counterparts of industry in the political systems. For example, representatives of the hospitality industry successfully lobbied to remove lockdown restrictions on hotels and restaurants earlier than planned during the first wave (Sager and Mavrot, 2020). However, their demands for a rent reduction program to support hotels and restaurants during the lockdown failed, as the proposal provoked opposition from economic-liberal politicians and other interest groups (e.g., landlords). Path dependence characterized the likelihood of interest groups’ success. While well-organized producer interests (particularly associations of employers and firm owners) could carry the day, weakly organized groups and employees were much less successful. It was only in December 2020 that short-time work compensation for low-wage employees was increased, as requested by trade unions. Meanwhile, the demands of nursing personnel for better working conditions were rejected by parliament in the fall of 2020. Finally, during the coronavirus pandemic, tensions between expert scientific advice and political decision-making became pronounced. It took several weeks following the start of the coronavirus pandemic for the Federal Council to institutionalize a scientific task force, and when it was formed it was composed mainly of life scientists and economists (with sociologists, psychologists and political scientists poorly represented). Scientific advice has been treated as one among many inputs and some politicians – in particular from the right-populist Swiss People’s Party – have made it clear that they do not appreciate scientific input into political decision-making