Nội dung được dịch bởi AI, chỉ mang tính chất tham khảo
Liên kết tái cấu trúc bầu cử với chính sách phúc lợi: đánh giá ảnh hưởng của đảng phái đến chính sách thị trường lao động chủ động trong các nền dân chủ hậu công nghiệp
Tóm tắt
Bài viết này xem xét các yếu tố chính trị quyết định sự biến động của các chính sách thị trường lao động chủ động giữa các nền dân chủ tiên tiến. Cụ thể, nó điều tra các điều kiện mà theo đó một nhà nước phúc lợi dung nạp thay vì bỏ qua lợi ích của những người lao động không có việc làm. Dựa trên tài liệu về sự tái cấu trúc bầu cử hậu công nghiệp, bài viết này lập luận rằng các định hướng tư tưởng không chỉ trong các lĩnh vực kinh tế-xã hội mà còn trong các lĩnh vực xã hội-văn hóa quyết định các sở thích chính sách của các đảng chính trị đối với các chương trình thị trường lao động. Nghiên cứu này sau đó giả thuyết rằng các chính phủ theo khuynh hướng tự do hơn có khả năng hỗ trợ việc hình thành vốn nhân lực cho những người lao động không có việc làm cao hơn so với các chính phủ độc tài. Một phân tích dữ liệu dựa trên thành phần nội các của 21 quốc gia công nghiệp hóa tiên tiến từ năm 1985 đến 2017 cho thấy chính phủ theo xu hướng tự do cánh tả và cánh hữu ủng hộ việc chi tiêu công cho các chương trình thị trường lao động chủ động, do đó hỗ trợ giả thuyết của nghiên cứu này. Hơn nữa, nó cũng tiết lộ rằng trong khi các chính phủ tự do cánh tả tăng chi cho các chương trình tạo việc làm trực tiếp, thì các chính phủ tự do cánh hữu lại làm như vậy đối với các chương trình hỗ trợ việc làm và đào tạo.
Từ khóa
#chính sách thị trường lao động #chính trị #các nền dân chủ hậu công nghiệp #chính phủ tự do #chi tiêu côngTài liệu tham khảo
Allan, J.P., and L.A. Scruggs. 2004. Political Partisanship and Welfare State Reform in Advanced Industrial Societies. American Journal of Political Science 48 (3): 496–512.
Armingeon, K. 2007. Active Labour Market Policy, International Organizations and Domestic Politics. Journal of European Public Policy 14 (6): 905–932.
Armingeon, K., V. Wenger, F. Wiedemeier, C. Isler, L. Knöpfel, and D. Weisstanner. (2019a) Supplement to the Comparative Political Data Set – Government Composition 1960–2017. August 2019, https://www.cpds-data.org/, accessed 19 March 2020.
Armingeon, K., V. Wenger, F. Wiedemeier, C. Isler, L. Knöpfel, D. Weisstanner, and S. Engler. (2019b) Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2017. August 2019, https://www.cpds-data.org/, accessed 19 March 2020.
Bakker, R., C. de Vries, E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, S. Jolly, G. Marks, J. Polk, J. Rovny, M. Steenbergen, and M.A. Vachudova. 2015. Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey trend file, 1999–2010. Party Politics 21 (1): 143–152.
Beck, N., and J. Katz. 1995. What to Do (and Not to Do) with Time-Series-Cross-Section Data in Comparative Politics. American Political Science Review 89 (3): 634–647.
Beck, N., and J.N. Katz. 2011. Modeling Dynamics in Time-Series–Cross-Section Political Economy Data. Annual Review of Political Science 14 (1): 331–352.
Beramendi, P., S. Häusermann, H. Kitschelt, and H. Kriesi, eds. 2015. The Politics of Advanced Capitalism. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Bergemann, A., and G.J. Van Den Berg. 2008. Active Labor Market Policy Effects for Women in Europe—A Survey. Annales D’économie Et De Statistique 91/92: 385–408.
Boix, C. 1998. Political Parties, Growth and Equality: Conservative and Social Democratic Economic Strategies in the World Economy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Bonoli, G. 2013. The Origins of Active Social Policy: Labour Market and Childcare Polices in a Comparative Perspective. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Bonoli, G., and F. Liechti. 2018. Good Intentions and Matthew Effects: Access Biases in Participation in Active Labour Market Policies. Journal of European Public Policy 25 (6): 894–911.
Brady, D., E. Huber, and J.D. Stephens. 2020. Comparative Welfare States Dataset. 26 January 2020, https://www.lisdatacenter.org/news-and-events/comparative-welfare-states-dataset-2020/. Accessed 11 Oct 2020.
Budge, I., H.-D. Klingemann, A. Volkens, J. Bara, and E. Tanenbaum. 2001. Mapping Policy Preferences: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments, 1945–1998. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Butschek, S., and T. Walter. 2014. What Active Labour Market Programmes Work for Immigrants in Europe? A Meta-analysis of the Evaluation Literature. IZA Journal of Migration 3 (1): 48.
Chauvel, L. 2009. Comparing Welfare Regime Changes: Living Standards and the Unequal Life Chances of Different Birth Cohorts. In A Young Generation under Pressure?: The Financial Situation and the “Rush Hour” of the Cohorts 1970–1985 in a Generational Comparison, ed. J. Tremmel, 23–36. Heidelberg: Springer.
De. Boef, S., and L. Keele. 2008. Taking Time Seriously. American Journal of Political Science 52 (1): 184–200.
Emmenegger, P. 2011. Job Security Regulations in Western Democracies: A Fuzzy Set Analysis. European Journal of Political Research 50 (3): 336–364.
Emmenegger, P., and R. Careja. 2012. From Dilemma to Dualization: Social and Migration Policies in the “Reluctant Countries of Immigration.” In The Age of Dualization: The Changing Face of Inequality in Deindustrializing Societies, ed. P. Emmenegger, S. Häusermann, B. Palier, and M. Seeleib-Kaiser, 124–148. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1990. The Three Worlds of Welfare Capitalism. Princeton, NJ.: Princeton University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. 1999. Social Foundations of Postindustrial Economies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Esping-Andersen, G. 2009. Incomplete Revolution: Adapting Welfare States to Women’s New Roles. Cambridge, U.K.: Polity Press.
Garritzmann, J., and H. Schwander. (forthcoming) Gender and Attitudes towards Welfare State Reform: Are Women Really Social Investment Promoters? Journal of European Social Policy, advance online publication July 2020.
Garritzmann, J.L., M.R. Busemeyer, and E. Neimanns. 2018. Public Demand for Social Investment: New Supporting Coalitions for Welfare State Reform in Western Europe? Journal of European Public Policy 25 (6): 844–861.
Garritzmann, J.L., and K. Seng. 2016. Party Politics and Education Spending: Challenging Some Common Wisdom. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (4): 510–530.
Gaston, N., and G. Rajaguru. 2008. The Rise (and Fall) of Labour Market Programmes: Domestic vs. Global factors. Oxford Economic Papers 60 (4): 619–648.
Geering, D., and S. Häusermann. 2013. Changing Party Electorates and Economic Realignment: Explaining Party Positions on Labor Market Policy in Western Europe. Zürich: University of Zurich.
Gingrich, J., and S. Häusermann. 2015. The Decline of the Working-Class Vote, the Reconfiguration of the Welfare Support Coalition and Consequences for the Welfare State. Journal of European Social Policy 25 (1): 50–75.
Gordon, J.C. 2015. Protecting the Unemployed: Varieties of Unionism and the Evolution of Unemployment Benefits and Active Labor Market Policy in the Rich Democracies. Socio-Economic Review 13 (1): 79–99.
Green-Pedersen, C., K. Van Kersbergen, and A. Hemerijck. 2001. Neo-liberalism, the “Third Way” or What? Recent Social Democratic Welfare Policies in Denmark and the Netherlands. Journal of European Public Policy 8 (2): 307–325.
Häusermann, S. 2010a. The Politics of Welfare State Reform in Continental Europe: Modernization in Hard Times. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Häusermann, S. 2010b. Solidarity with whom? Why Organised Labour is Losing Ground in Continental Pension Politics. European Journal of Political Research 49 (2): 223–256.
Häusermann, S. 2018. Social Democracy and the Welfare State in Context: The Conditioning Effect of Institutional Legacies and Party Competition. In Welfare Democracies and Party Politics: Explaining Electoral Dynamics in Times of Changing Welfare Capitalism, ed. P. Manow, B. Palier, and H. Schwander, 150–170. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Häusermann, S., T. Kurer, and H. Schwander. 2016. Sharing the Risk? Households, Labor Market Vulnerability, and Social Policy Preferences in Western Europe. Journal of Politics 78 (4): 1045–1060.
Häusermann, S., G. Picot, and D. Geering. 2013. Review Article: Rethinking Party Politics and the Welfare State—Recent Advances in the Literature. British Journal of Political Science 43 (1): 221–240.
Hibbs, D.A., Jr. 1977. Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy. American Political Science Review 71 (4): 1467–1487.
Huo, J. 2009. Third Way Reforms: Social Democracy after the Golden Age. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Huo, J., M. Nelson, and J.D. Stephens. 2008. Decommodification and Activation in Social Democratic Policy: Resolving the Paradox. Journal of European Social Policy 18 (1): 5–20.
Iversen, T., and M. Goplerud. 2018. Redistribution Without a Median Voter: Models of Multidimensional Politics. Annual Review of Political Science 21 (1): 295–317.
Iversen, T., and D. Soskice. 2015. Democratic Limits to Redistribution: Inclusionary Versus Exclusionary Coalitions in The knowledge Economy. World Politics 67 (2): 185–225.
Iversen, T., and J.D. Stephens. 2008. Partisan politics, the Welfare State, and Three Worlds of Human Capital Formation. Comparative Political Studies 41 (4–5): 600–637.
Janoski, T. 1994. Direct State Intervention in the Labor Market: The Explanation of Active Labor Market Policy from 1950 to 1988 in Social Democratic, Conservative, and Liberal Regimes. In The Comparative Political Economy of the Welfare State, ed. T. Janoski and A. Hicks, 54–92. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kaiser, B. (2014) RHAUSMAN: Stata Module to Perform Robust Hausman Specification Test. Statistical Software Components S457909, Boston: Boston College Department of Economics, revised 7 November 2015.
Kam, C.D., and R.J. Franzese Jr. 2007. Modeling and Interpreting Interactive Hypotheses in Regression Analysis. Ann Arbor, Michigan: University of Michigan Press.
Keman, H. 2011. Third Ways and Social Democracy: The Right Way to Go? British Journal of Political Science 41 (3): 671–680.
Kitschelt, H. 1994. The Transformation of European Social Democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kitschelt, H. (2004) Diversification and Reconfiguration of Party Systems in Postindustrial Democracies. Bonn: Digital Library Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.
Kittel, B., and H. Winner. 2005. How Reliable is Pooled Analysis in Political Economy? The Globalization–Welfare State Nexus Revisited. European Journal of Political Research 44 (2): 269–293.
Klingemann, H.-D., A. Volkens, J. Bara, and I. Budge. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II: Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Central and Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990–2003. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Kriesi, H., E. Grande, R. Lachat, M. Dolezal, S. Bornschier, and T. Frey. 2008. West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Martin, C.J., and K. Thelen. 2007. The State and Coordinated Capitalism: Contributions of the Public Sector to Social Solidarity in Postindustrial Societies. World Politics 60 (1): 1–36.
McDonald, M.D., and S.M. Mendes. 2001. The Policy Space of Party Manifestos. In Estimating the Policy Position of Political Actors, ed. M. Laver, 90–114. New York: Routledge.
Neimanns, E., M.R. Busemeyer, and J.L. Garritzmann. 2018. How Popular are Social Investment Policies Really? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Eight Western European Countries. European Sociological Review 34 (3): 238–253.
OECD 2019a. Labour Market Programmes: Public Expenditure and Participant Stocks on LMP. http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/. Accessed 29 December 2019.
OECD (2019b) OECD Health Statistics 2019: Economic References. June 2019, http://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/. Accessed 29 December 2019.
Picot, G., and I. Menéndez. 2019. Political Parties and Non-standard Employment: An Analysis of France, Germany, Italy and Spain. Socio-Economic Review 17 (4): 899–919.
Plümper, T., V.E. Troeger, and P. Manow. 2005. Panel data Analysis in Comparative Politics: Linking Method to Theory. European Journal of Political Research 44 (2): 327–354.
Polk, J., J. Rovny, R. Bakker, E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, S. Jolly, J. Koedam, F. Kostelka, G. Marks, G. Schumacher, M. Steenbergen, M. Vachudova, and M. Zilovic. 2017. Explaining the Salience of Anti-elitism and Reducing Political Corruption for Political Parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey Data. Research & Politics 4 (1): 1–9.
Rueda, D. 2005. Insider–Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies: The Challenge to Social Democratic Parties. American Political Science Review 99 (1): 61–74.
Rueda, D. 2006. Social Democracy and Active Labour-Market Policies: Insiders, Outsiders and the Politics of Employment Promotion. British Journal of Political Science 36 (3): 385–406.
Rueda, D. 2007. Social Democracy Inside Out: Partisanship and Labor Market Policy in Industrialized Democracies. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Schmitt, C. 2016. Panel Data Analysis and Partisan Variables: How Periodization Does Influence Partisan Effects. Journal of European Public Policy 23 (10): 1442–1459.
Strom, K. 1990. A Behavioral Theory of Competitive Political Parties. American Journal of Political Science 34 (2): 565–598.
Thelen, K. 2014. Varieties of Liberalization and the New Politics of Social Solidarity. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Vis, B. 2012. The Comparative Advantages of fsQCA and Regression Analysis for Moderately Large-N Analyses. Sociological Methods and Research 41 (1): 168–198.
Vlandas, T. 2013. Mixing Apples with Oranges? Partisanship and Active labour Market Policies in Europe. Journal of European Social Policy 23 (1): 3–20.
Volkens, A., W. Krause, P. Lehmann, T. Matthieß, N. Merz, S. Regel, and B. Weßels. 2019. Manifesto Project Dataset (version 2019b). 17 December 2019, https://doi.org/10.25522/manifesto.mpds.2019b. Accessed 23 March 2020.
Volkens, A., P. Lehmann, T. Matthieß, N. Merz, and A. Werner. 2015. The Manifesto Data Collection. http://manifesto-project.wzb.eu/. Accessed 21 June 2015.
Wenzelburger, G., and R. Zohlnhöfer. 2020. Bringing Agency Back into the Study of Partisan Politics: A Note on Recent Developments in the Literature on Party Politics. Party Politics. https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068820919316.
White, M., and G. Knight. 2002. Benchmarking the Effectiveness of NDYP: A Review of European and US Literature on the Microeconomic Effects of Labour Market Programmes for Young People. PSI Research Discussion Series. London: Policy Studies Institute.