Class differences in precarity and welfare priorities within Europe’s center-left coalitions

Jack Garigliano
{"title":"Class differences in precarity and welfare priorities within Europe’s center-left coalitions","authors":"Jack Garigliano","doi":"10.1177/13540688231199448","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Mainstream European left-wing parties have seen their traditional class base evolve in postindustrial economies. In response, these parties have adjusted their platforms to adopt policies that aim to secure positions for workers in a more volatile labor market through education and training. But how does the electoral appeal of this “social investment” paradigm compare to that of the older welfare paradigm that passively distributes benefits to the poor and inactive? Using cross-country data from two surveys, I find that the policy preferences of industrial workers respond differently to labor market precarity than do those of service sector workers, particularly sociocultural professionals. Further, industrial workers who prefer traditional welfare policies are less likely to vote for the center-left than professionals, even if those professionals hold similar policy priorities. These results help explain the center-left’s recent electoral trends while also highlighting current limitations on building cross-class political coalitions in postindustrial economies.","PeriodicalId":506984,"journal":{"name":"Party Politics","volume":"560 ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-01-30","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Party Politics","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/13540688231199448","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Mainstream European left-wing parties have seen their traditional class base evolve in postindustrial economies. In response, these parties have adjusted their platforms to adopt policies that aim to secure positions for workers in a more volatile labor market through education and training. But how does the electoral appeal of this “social investment” paradigm compare to that of the older welfare paradigm that passively distributes benefits to the poor and inactive? Using cross-country data from two surveys, I find that the policy preferences of industrial workers respond differently to labor market precarity than do those of service sector workers, particularly sociocultural professionals. Further, industrial workers who prefer traditional welfare policies are less likely to vote for the center-left than professionals, even if those professionals hold similar policy priorities. These results help explain the center-left’s recent electoral trends while also highlighting current limitations on building cross-class political coalitions in postindustrial economies.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
欧洲中左翼联盟内部在不稳定性和福利优先事项方面的阶级差异
欧洲主流左翼政党看到了其传统的阶级基础在后工业经济中的演变。为此,这些政党调整了党纲,采取了旨在通过教育和培训为工人在更加动荡的劳动力市场中争取职位的政策。但是,这种 "社会投资 "范式的选举吸引力,与被动地向穷人和非活跃人群发放福利的旧福利范式相比,又如何呢?通过使用两项调查的跨国数据,我发现产业工人的政策偏好对劳动力市场不稳定性的反应不同于服务业工人,尤其是社会文化专业人士。此外,与专业人士相比,偏好传统福利政策的产业工人不太可能投票支持中左翼,即使这些专业人士持有类似的政策优先权。这些结果有助于解释中左翼最近的选举趋势,同时也凸显了目前在后工业经济中建立跨阶层政治联盟的局限性。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Book review: Financing the 2020 election Book Review: of Riley-Smith and of Wheatcroft Giorgia on their minds: Vote switching to Fratelli d’Italia in the Italian general election of 2022 Public support for the cordon sanitaire: Descriptive evidence from Spain Book review: Data-driven campaigning and political parties: Five advanced democracies compared
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1