Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-25T04:23:27.407Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When and why do ideas matter? The influence of framing on opinion formation and policy change

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  25 January 2013

Olli E. Kangas ,
Mikko Niemelä  and
Sampo Varjonen
Olli E. Kangas*
Affiliation:
Research Department, Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela), Helsinki, Finland
Mikko Niemelä
Affiliation:
Research Department, Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela), Helsinki, Finland
Sampo Varjonen
Affiliation:
Research Department, Social Insurance Institution of Finland (Kela), Helsinki, Finland
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A growing field of discursive institutionalism has argued for the importance of ideas and discourse in policy changes. The aim of the study is to analyse framing effects empirically by examining how, and to what extent, competing frames can shape public opinion on the implementation of a specific policy change. The case study focuses on the administration of social assistance in Finland. Results indicate that the framing of ideas shapes public opinion. Analyses show that some types of frames are more effective than others. To be successful, a politician must simplify the issue and appeal to moral sentiments rather than present too many difficult ‘factual’ viewpoints. Our study also emphasizes that even frames that succeed in shaping popular opinion may fail if powerful political actors oppose reform. Therefore, we argue that the interplay between the ‘old’ power resource approach and the ‘new’ ideational approach should be taken into account when explaining institutional changes.

Keywords

framingopinionspolicy change
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , February 2014 , pp. 73 - 92
Copyright
Copyright © European Consortium for Political Research 2013 

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.)

References

Bargain, O., Immervol, H., Viitamäki, H. (2007), ‘How tight are safety-nets in Nordic countries? Evidence from Finnish register data’. Discussion Paper No. 3004, IZA: Bonn.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. Jones, B.D. (1993), Agendas and Instability in American Politics, Chicago and London: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
Baumgartner, F.R. Mahoney, C. (2008), ‘The two faces of framing. Individual-level framing and collective issue definition in the European Union’, European Union Politics 9(3): 435–449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D. (2009), ‘Ideas, institutions, and policy change’, Journal of European Public Policy 16(5): 701–718.Google Scholar
Béland, D. Hacker, J.S. (2004), ‘Ideas, private institutions, and American welfare-state “exceptionalism”: the case of health and old-age insurance, 1915–1965’, International Journal of Social Welfare 13(1): 42–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Béland, D. Cox, R.H. (eds) (2011), Ideas and Politics in Social Science Research, New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Blyth, M. (2002), Great Transformations: Economic Ideas and Institutional Change in the Twentieth Century, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Bourdieu, P. (1991), Language & Symbolic Power, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
Campbell, J.L. (2002), ‘Ideas, politics, and public policy’, Annual Review of Sociology 28: 21–38.Google Scholar
Chong, D. Druckman, J.N. (2007), ‘Framing theory’, Annual Review of Political Science 10: 103–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Committee Report (1993), ‘Report of the Commission on delegation of functions’. Committee Report 1993: 39.Google Scholar
Cox, R.H. (2001), ‘The social construction of an imperative. Why welfare reform happened in Denmark and the Netherlands but not in Germany’, World Politics 53(April): 463–498.Google Scholar
Cox, R.H. (2004), ‘The path-dependency of an idea: why Scandinavian welfare states remain distinct’, Social Policy & Administration 38(2): 204–219.Google Scholar
Druckman, J.N. (2001), ‘On the limits of framing effects: who can frame?’, The Journal of Politics 63(4): 1041–1066.Google Scholar
Fairclough, N. (1989), Language and Power, London: Longman.Google Scholar
Festinger, L. (1957), A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance, Stanford: Stanford University Press.Google Scholar
Geertz, C. (1972), The Interpretation of Cultures, New York: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Gramsci, A. (1971), Selections from the Prison Notebook of Antonio Gramsci, New York: International Publishers.Google Scholar
Hall, P. (1993), ‘Policy paradigms, social learning, and the state: the case of economic policy making in Britain’, Comparative Politics 25(3): 275–296.Google Scholar
Hiilamo, H. Kangas, O. (2009), ‘Trap for women or freedom to choose? The struggle over cash for child care schemes in Finland and Sweden’, Journal of Social Policy 38(3): 457–475.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kangas, O.E. (1997), ‘Self-interest and the common good: the impact of norms, selfishness and context in social policy opinion’, Journal of Socio-Economics 26(5): 475–494.Google Scholar
Kangas, O., Lundberg, U. Ploug, N. (2010), ‘Three routes to pension reform’, Social Policy & Administration 44(3): 265–284.Google Scholar
Korpi, W. (1978), Working Class in Welfare Capitalism: Work, Unions and Politics in Sweden, London: Routledge & Kegan Paul.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, 1975–95’, American Political Science Review 90: 425–446.Google Scholar
Kuivalainen, S. Niemelä, M. (2010), ‘From universalism to selectivism: the ideational turn of the anti-poverty policies in Finland’, Journal of European Social Policy 20(3): 263–276.Google Scholar
Ministry of Finance (1991), ‘Report of the Flexible Services Working Group’. Working Group Memorandums 1991: 19, Ministry of Finance: Helsinki.Google Scholar
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (1996), ‘II sub-report on the social assistance experiment 1995–1996’. Working Group Memorandums 1996: 10, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Helsinki.Google Scholar
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (1997), ‘Final report on the social assistance experiment 1995–1996’. Reports 1997: 5, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Helsinki.Google Scholar
Ministry of Social Affairs and Health (2009), ‘Proposals of the SATA Committee for reforming social protection’. Reports 2009: 62, Ministry of Social Affairs and Health: Helsinki.Google Scholar
Niemelä, M. Saarinen, A. (2012), ‘The role of ideas and institutional change in Finnish public sector reform’, Policy & Politics 40(2): 171–191.Google Scholar
Pierson, P. (1994), Dismantling the Welfare State?: Reagan, Thatcher, and the Politics of Retrenchment, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Pfau-Effinger, B. (2005), ‘Culture and welfare state policies: reflections on a complex interrelation’, Journal of Social Policy 34(1): 3–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasinski, K.A. (1989), ‘The effect of question wording on public support for government spending’, Public Opinion Quarterly 53(3): 388–394.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2002), ‘Does discourse matter in the politics of welfare state adjustment?’, Comparative Political Studies 35(2): 168–193.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2008), ‘Discursive institutionalism: the explanatory power and ideas and discourse’, Annual Review of Political Science 11: 303–326.Google Scholar
Schmidt, V.A. (2010), ‘Taking ideas and discourse seriously: explaining change through discursive institutionalism as the fourth ‘new institutionalism’ ’, European Political Science Review 2(1): 1–25.Google Scholar
Smith, T.W. (1987), ‘That which we call welfare by any other name would smell sweeter: an analysis of the impact of question wording on response patterns’, Public Opinion Quarterly 51: 75–83.Google Scholar
Somers, M.R. Block, F. (2005), ‘From poverty to perversity: ideas, markets, and institutions over 200 years of welfare debate’, American Sociological Review 70(2): 260–287.Google Scholar
Steensland, B. (2006), ‘Cultural categories and the American welfare state: the case of guaranteed income policy’, American Journal of Sociology 111(5): 1273–1326.Google Scholar
Stokes, D. (1992), ‘Valence politics’, in D. Kavanagh (ed.), Electoral Politics, Oxford: Clarendon Press, pp. 141–164.Google Scholar
Surel, Y. (2000), ‘The role of cognitive and normative frames in policy-making’, Journal of European Public Policy 7(4): 495–512.Google Scholar
Tourangeau, R. Rasinski, K. (1988), ‘Cognitive processes underlying context effects in attitude measurement’, Psychological Bulletin 103(3): 299–314.Google Scholar
van Gorp, B. (2007), ‘The constructionist approach to framing: bringing culture back in’, Journal of Communication 57(1): 60–78.Google Scholar
Virtanen, A., Kiuruc, S. (2010), ‘Social assistance 2009’. Statistical Report 2010: 31, National Institute for Health and Welfare: Helsinki.Google Scholar
Weber, M. (1989) [1904–1905], The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism, London: Allen & Unwin.Google Scholar