Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-lnqnp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-29T09:33:07.688Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Left Government, Policy, and Corporatism: Explaining the Influence of Partisanship on Inequality

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  13 June 2011

David Rueda
David Rueda
Affiliation:
Oxford University, [email protected].
Get access

Abstract

The author argues that to understand the relationship between partisan government and equality two fundamental things need to be done: separate the effects of partisanship on policy and of policy on the economy; and assess the influence of government partisanship once the mediating role of corporatism is accounted for. The main goal of this article is to explore the relationship between government partisanship, policy, and inequality at the lower half of the wage distribution. The analysis is motivated by a puzzling finding in previous work: the absence of government partisanship effects on earnings inequality. The author focuses on the role of three different policies: government employment, the generosity of the welfare state, and minimum wages. The results show that government employment is a most significant determinant of inequality (although it is affected by left government only when corporatism is low). They also demonstrate that welfare state generosity does not affect inequality and, in turn, is not associated with left government. Finally, they reveal that the effect of government partisanship on minimum wages and of minimum wages on inequality is completely conditional on the levels of corporatism (these effects are only present when corporatism is low). The author explains why specific policies do or do not affect earnings inequality and also why corporatism mitigates or magnifies the influence of government partisanship. By explicitly exploring the determinants of policy and earnings inequality, the article represents an important contribution to our understanding of how governments can promote redistribution.

Type
Research Article
Information
World Politics , Volume 60 , Issue 3 , April 2008 , pp. 349 - 389
Copyright
Copyright © Trustees of Princeton University 2008

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

1 Paul Krugman, “The Spiral of Inequality,” Mother Jones (November-December 1996).

2 Verba, Sidney, Nie, Norman, and Kim, Jae-On, Participación and Political Equality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Rosenstone, Steven and Hansen, John Mark, Mobilization, Participación and Democracy in America (New York: Macmillan, 1993)Google Scholar.

3 Betz, Hans-Georg, Radical Right- Wing Populism in Western Europe (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

4 For a review, see Lichbach, Mark I., “An Evaluation of Does Economic Inequality Breed Political Conflict?' Studies,” World Politics 41 (July 1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

5 Freeman, Richard and Katz, Lawrence, eds., Differences and Changes in Wage Structures (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Blau, Francine and Kahn, Lawrence, “International Differences in Male Wage Inequality,” Journal of Political Economy 104, no. 4 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Gottschalk, Peter and Smeeding, Timothy, “Cross-national Comparisons of Earnings and Income Inequality,” Journal of Economic Literature 35, no. 2 (1997)Google Scholar.

6 Commonly cited examples are Hibbs, Douglas, “Political Parties and Macroeconomic Theory,” American Political Science Review 71, no. 4 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, The Political Economy of Industrial Democracies (Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 1987)Google Scholar; Alt, James, “Political Parties, World Demand, and Unemployment,” American Political Science Review 79, no. 4 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

7 See, for example, Steinmo, Sven, Thelen, Kathleen, and Longstreth, Frank, Structuring Politics: Historical Institutionalism in Comparative Analysis (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

8 See, for example, Bradley, David, Huber, Evelyne, Moller, Stephanie, Nielsen, François, and Stephens, John D., “Distribution and Redistribution in Postindustrial Democracies,” World Politics 55 (January 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Kenworthy, Lane and Pontusson, Jonas, “Rising Inequality and the Politics of Redistribution in Affluent Countries,” Perspectives on Politics 3 (September 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Pontusson, Jonas, Rueda, David, and Way, Christopher, “Comparative Political Economy of Wage Distribution,” British Journal of Political Science 32, no. 2 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Rueda, David and Pontusson, Jonas, “Wage Inequality and Varieties of Capitalism,” World Politics 52 (April 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wallerstein, Michael, “Wage-Setting Institutions and Pay Inequality in Advanced Industrial Societies,” American Journal of Political Science 43, no. 3 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

9 Although disposable income inequality is an outcome whose connection to policy would also be interesting to analyze, this article presents the analysis of a topic (wage inequality) that has been the focus of an extensive literature in comparative political economy (see, for example, fn. 8). It is also the case that the availability of disposable income data is more limited than the wage inequality variable used in this article, which reduces the range of claims that can be tested with these data.

10 OECD, Income Distribution in OECD Countries: Evidence from the Luxembourg Income Study (Paris: OECD, 1995)Google Scholar; Gottschalk and Smeeding (fn. 5); Wallerstein (fn. 8).

11 Pontusson, Rueda, and Way (fn. 8)

12 See Thomas Cusack, “Partisan Politics and Public Finance,” Public Choice 91, no. 3/4 (1997). Higher values of Cusack's index signify more conservative government.

13 I use a similar methodological setup and the same control variables as those used by Pontusson, Rueda, and Way (fn. 8).

14 I ran the regressions without a constant.

15 The periods are 1973–79, 1980–84, 1985–89, and 1991–95. The excluded reference year is 1990.

16 The average level of earnings replacement provided by public unemployment insurance during the first year of unemployment. For more details, see OECD, “Unemployment and Related Benefits,” in The OECD Jobs Study: Evidence and Explanations (Paris: OECD, 1994)Google Scholar, pt. 2, chap. 8.

17 The prerequisites for unemployment benefits differ substantially in OECD nations. As a consequence, there is great variation in terms of the percentage of unemployed people receiving benefits. See, for example, Blondal, Sveinbjorn and Pearson, Mark, “Unemployment and Other Non-Employment Benefits,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy 11, no. 1 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

18 For an analysis, see Steinmo, Thelen, and Longstreth (fn. 7); Pontusson, Jonas, “From Comparative Public Policy to Political Economy,” Comparative Political Studies 28, no. 1 (1995)Google Scholar; Hall, Peter and Taylor, Rose-mary, “Political Science and the Three New Institutionalisms,” Political Studies 44, no. 5 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

19 Katzenstein, Peter, Small States in World Markets (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1985), 32Google Scholar.

20 For a similar argument analyzing some additional policies (government consumption, taxes on labor income, and taxes on corporate income), see David Rueda, “Political Agency and Institutions: Explaining the Influence of Left Government and Wage Bargaining on Inequality,” in Pablo Bera-mendi and Christopher J. Anderson, eds., Democracy, Inequality and Representation (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, forthcoming).

21 See, for example, Tufte, Edward, Political Control of the Economy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978)Google Scholar; Hibbs (fn. 6); and especially Cusack (fn. 12).

22 Cusack (fn. 12), 375.

23 See, for example, Blais, André, Blake, Donald, and Dion, Stephane, Governments, Parties, and Public Sector Employees (Pittsburgh, Pa.: University of Pittsburgh Press, 1997)Google Scholar; Knutsen, Oddbjørn, “Social Class, Sector Employment, and Gender as Party Cleavages in the Scandinavian Countries,” Scandinavian Political Studies 24, no. 4 (2001)Google Scholar.

24 Garrett, Geoffrey and Way, Christopher, “Corporatism, Public Sector Employment, and Macroeconomic Performance,” Comparative Political Studies 32, no. 4 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

24 Ibid., 417

26 The most cited early works are those by Cameron, David, “The Expansion of the Public Economy: A Comparative Analysis,” American Political Science Review 72, no. 4 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Stephens, John, The Transition from Capitalism to Socialism (London: Macmillan, 1979)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Korpi, Walter, The Democratic Class Struggle (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1983)Google Scholar. More recently, Evelyne Huber and John Stephens support, but also amend, this power resource approach to the welfare state; Huber, and Stephens, , Development and Crisis of the Welfare State (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For a more institutional analysis of the welfare state, see the contributions in Pierson, Paul, ed., The New Politics of the Welfare State (New York: Oxford University Press, 2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

27 Shalev, Michael, “The Social Democratic Model and Beyond,” Comparative Social Research 6 (1983), 317Google Scholar.

28 Rueda, David, “Insider-Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies,” American Political Science Review 99 (February 2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Social Democracy and Active Labour Market Policies: Insiders, Outsiders, and the Politics of Employment Promotion,” British Journal of Political Science 36 (July 2006)Google Scholar; idem, Social Democracy Inside Out: Partisanship and Labor Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007)Google Scholar.

29 For the details, see, for example, Rueda (fn. 28, 2007).

30 Moene, Karl Ove and Wallerstein, Michael, “Earnings Inequality and Welfare Spending: A Disaggregated Analysis,” World Politics 55 (July 2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

31 Esping-Andersen, Gøsta, The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

32 Iversen, Torben and Cusack, Thomas R., “The Causes of Welfare State Expansion: Deindustrialization or Globalization?” World Politics 52 (April 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

33 Rueda (fn. 28, 2005).

34 See, for example, Wilensky, Harold, The Welfare State and Equality: Structural and Ideological Roots of Public Expenditures (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1975)Google Scholar.

35 See Rueda (fn. 28, 2007) for an argument that emphasizes the role of corporatist institutions in protecting insiders.

36 Since low-paid labor includes both insiders and outsiders, the expectations of the traditional and bsider-outsider models are the same here.

37 For an explanation, see Dolado, Juan, Kramarz, Francis, Machin, Stephen, Manning, Alan, Margolis, David, Teulings, Coen, Saint-Paul, Gilles, and Keen, Michael, “The Economic Impact of Minimum Wages in Europe,” Economic Policy 11, no. 23 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

38 OECD, Employment Outlook (Paris: OECD, 1998), 32Google Scholar.

39 For an overview, see OECD (fn. 38), Annex 2.B.

40 Garrett, Geoffrey, Partisan Politics in the Global Economy (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998), 5CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

41 Pablo Beramendi and Thomas R. Cusack, “Diverse Disparities: The Politics and Economics of Wage, Market and Disposable Income Inequalities” Political Research Quarterly (forthcoming).

42 See Appendix 1 for details and sources for all variables used in this article.

43 For a more detailed analysis of some of the options, see Huber, John D. and Powell, G. Bingham Jr., “Congruence between Citizens and Policymakers in Two Visions of Liberal Democracy,” World Politics 46 (April 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

44 For evidence supporting the position that a government's behavior will be influenced by its share of seats in parliament, see Müller, Wolfgang and Stram, Kaare, eds., Coalition Government in Western Europe (New York: Oxford University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

45 Party manifestos data can be criticized for being a reflection of what parties say to win elections and not necessarily of what they will do once they have won them. For an analysis arguing that there is a correlation between party platforms and policy in the American case, see Budge, Ian and Hofferbert, Richard, “Mandates and Policy Outputs,” American Political Science Review 84, no. 1 (1990)Google Scholar.

46 For a more detailed explanation of this argument, see Gabel, Matthew and Huber, John, “Putting Parties in Their Place,” American Journal of Political Science 44, no. 1 (2000)Google Scholar.

47 Michael McDonald and Silvia Mendes, “Parties in Parliaments and Governments, 1950–1995” (Manuscript, Political Science Department, Binghamton University-SUNY, 2001).

48 The original index ranges from left (-100) to right (+100); I have inverted it to facilitate the interpretation of the results with regards to the hypotheses presented in Figure 1.

49 Gabel and Huber (fn. 46). The measure I use is in fact very highly correlated with Cusack's (fn. 12) more commonly used cabinet partisanship variable (with is based in expert opinions).

50 Powell, G. Bingham Jr., Elections as Instruments of Democracy (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2000)Google Scholar.

51 If there is only one party in government, its cabinet weight is 100 percent. When there are more, a party's weight is given as its proportion of parliamentary seats within the total of seats held by the coalition parties. There is considerable evidence showing that “governments apportion their cabinet portfolios to parties in simple proportion to the relative percentage of seats held by each in the lower house of the legislature”; Powell (fn. 50), 173. See also Laver, Michael and Schofield, Norman, Multiparty Government (New York: Oxford University Press, 1990)Google Scholar.

52 Hicks, Alexander and Kenworthy, Lane, “Cooperation and Political Economic Performance in Affluent Democratic Capitalism,” American Journal of Sociology 103, no. 6 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

53 See, for example, Huber and Stephens (fn. 26).

54 Clayton, Richard and Pontusson, Jonas, “Welfare-State Retrenchment Revisited: Entitlement Cuts, Public Sector Restructuring, and Ineqalitarian trends in Advanced Capitalist Society,” World Politics 51 (October 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

55 Iversen and Cusack (fn. 32).

56 As with other ratios, the use of this measure introduces the question of whether the causes (or the effects) that are observed are related to a change in the minimum wage or to a change in the average wage.

57 Dolado et al. (fn. 37).

58 For a more detailed explanation, see Dolado et al. (fn. 37); and OECD (fn. 38).

59 See Appendix 1 for details.

60 The countries are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and the U.S. In the regressions for the determinants of government employment and welfare state generosity, data are missing ; for Australia (1992–95), Switzerland (1973 and 1974), and Belgium (1995, but only for the government employment regression). In the regressions for the determinants of minimum wages data for Switzerland are missing. Finally, the lack of availability of OECD inequality data imposes more limitations in our analysis of the determinants of 50–10 ratios. In these regressions data for Switzerland are again missing (since minimum wages are now an explanatory variable), as well as for the year 1995 (for all countries), Australia (1973–75), Belgium (1973–84), Canada (1974–80), Denmark (1973–79), Finland (1973–76), Germany (1973–83), Italy (1973–85), Japan (1973 and 1974), the Netherlands (1973–76), Norway (1973–89, 1994, and 1995), and Sweden (1972–74).

61 Beck, Nathaniel and Katz, Jonathan, “What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series Cross- Section Data,” American Political Science Review 89, no. 3 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; idem, “Nuisance vs. Substance,” Political Analysis 6, no. 1 (1996)Google Scholar.

62 The periods are 1973–79, 1980–84, 1985–89, and 1991–95. The excluded reference year is 1990.

63 These analyses on inequality include linearly interpolated data for a few missing observations in the wage series. I did not interpolate across gaps of more than three years, and interpolated observations account for only 13 out of those used in the analyses (the N is 226 in these regressions).

64 Davidson, Russell and MacKinnon, James G., Estimation and Inference in Econometrics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1993)Google Scholar.

65 See Appendix 1 for details and data sources.

66 See, for example, Iversen, Torben, “Power, Flexibility and the Breakdown of Centralized Wage Bargaining,” Comparative Politics 28, no. 4 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Moses, Jonathan, “Abdication from National Policy Autonomy: What's Left to Leave?” Politics and Society 22, no. 2 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and Scharpf, Fritz, Crisis and Choice in European Social Democracy (Ithaca, N.Y.: Cornell University Press, 1991)Google Scholar.

67 Boix, Carles, Political Parties, Growth and Equality (New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Garrett, Geoffrey and Lange, Peter, “Political Responses to Interdependence: What's ‘Left’ for the Left?” International Organization 45, no. 4 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

68 Garrett (fn. 40).

69 One interpretation of the policy changes of the early 1980s, for example, is that many governments had reached unsustainable levels of public debt; see Schwartz, Herman, “Small States in Big Trouble: State Reorganization in Australia, Denmark, New Zealand, and Sweden in the 1980s,” World Politics 46 (July 1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

70 See Cutright, Phillip, “Political Structure, Economic Development, and National Social Security Programs,” American Journal of sociology 70, no. 5 (1965)CrossRefGoogle Scholar; Wilensky (fn. 34).

71 See Appendix 1 for details and data sources.

72 Galbraith, James, Created Unequal (New York: Free Press, 1998)Google Scholar; (Bradbury, Catherine, “Rising Tide in the Labor Market: To What Degree Do Expansions Benefit the Disadvantaged,” New England Economic Review 32 (May-June 2000)Google Scholar.

73 Wood, Adrian, North-South Trade, Employment and Inequality (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1994)Google Scholar.

74 Blau, Francine and Kahn, Lawrence, “Gender Differences in Pay,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 14, no. 4 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

75 Topel, Robert, “Wage Inequality and Regional Labor Market Performance in the United States,” in Tachibanaki, Toshiaki, ed., Labour Market and Economic Performance (New York: St. Martin's Press, 1994)Google Scholar; Svensson, Lennart, Closing the Gender Gap (Lund: Ekonomisk-Historiska Föreningen, 1995)Google Scholar.

76 Iversen, Torben and Wren, Anne, “Equality, Employment and Budgetary Restraint: The Trilemma of the Service Economy,” World Politics 50 (July 1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

77 For more details about calculating conditional effects and their significance, see Wooldrige, Jeffrey, Introductory Econometrics (Cincinnati: South-Western College Publishing, 2000), 190–91Google Scholar.

78 The same increase in a country with high corporatism would promote a similar although less substantial decrease in inequality, but, as mentioned above, left government is not associated with more government employment in these countries.

79 It is important to point out, however, that this is not an ideal measure of welfare state generosity for testing an insider-outsider argument. The variable capturing social transfers in this analysis is too aggregate and it includes portions (like old-age benefits) that would mostly benefit insiders.

80 Results available from the author.

81 It could be argued that governments influence the minimum wage even if they do not set a statutory level and that they can influence the wage demands of social partners. The analysis above is reproduced with a dependent variable reflecting minimum wages (whether statutory or the result of collective bargaining) as a percentage of average wages. They confirm the results discussed in this section.

82 For a similar analysis, see Kenworthy, Lane, “Corporatism and Unemployment in the 1980s and 1990s,” American Sociological Review 67 (June 2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

83 Results available from author.

84 Results available from author.

85 See, for example, Cameron (fn. 26); Katzenstein (fn. 19); Alvarez, Michael, Garrett, Geoffrey, and Lange, Peter, “Government Partisanship, Labor Organization and Macro-Economic Performance,” Ameriean Political Science Review 85 (June 1991)Google Scholar; Garrett (fn. 40).

86 See, for example, Rueda and Pontusson (fn. 8); Wallerstein (fn. 8); Beramendi and Cusack (fn. 41).

87 Wallerstein, Michael and Western, Bruce, “Unions in Decline? What Has Changed and Why,” Annual Review of Political Science 3 (June 2000), 374CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

88 Pontusson, Rueda, and Way (fn. 8).

89 McDonald and Mendes (fn. 47).

90 Armingeon, Klaus, Leimgruber, Philipp, Beyeler, Michelle, and Menegale, Sarah, Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2002 (Bern: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern, 2005)Google Scholar.

91 Woldendorp, Jaap, Keman, Hans, and Budge, Ian, Party Government in 48 Democracies, 1945–1998 (Boston: Kluwer Academic Publishers, 2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar.

92 Hicks and Kenworthy (fn. 52).

93 Armingeon et al. (fn. 90).

94 Neumark, David and Wascher, William, “A Cross-National Analysis of the Effects of Minimum Wages on Youth Employment,” NBER Working Paper 7299 (1999)Google Scholar.

95 Ibid.; Dolado et al. (fn. 37); OECD (fn. 38).

96 Armingeon et al. (fn. 90).

97 Robert Franzese, “The Political Economy of Public Debt: An Empirical Examination of the OECD Postwar Experience” (Paper presented at the Wallis Conference on Political Economy, Northwestern University, Chicago, 1998).