福利国家维护者:2006-2019年瑞典对削减疾病福利的抗议

IF 2 4区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Scandinavian Political Studies Pub Date : 2021-05-07 DOI:10.1111/1467-9477.12201
Magda Bertz Wågström, Jonas Larsson Taghizadeh
{"title":"福利国家维护者:2006-2019年瑞典对削减疾病福利的抗议","authors":"Magda Bertz Wågström, Jonas Larsson Taghizadeh","doi":"10.1111/1467-9477.12201","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The power resource approach (PRA) claims that the labour movement continues to be the most prominent defender of the welfare state. The new politics thesis (NPT), on the other hand, claims that the welfare state has created new interest groups in the form of welfare clients who have taken over as the most prominent welfare state upholders. In an attempt to empirically evaluate these claims, we present a study of the extent to which clients and the labour move- ment have been involved in protests against cutbacks in the Swedish sickness benefit from 2006 to 2019. The article contributes to the welfare state literature by studying a most likely case for PRA- style interest group mobilization both in terms of country (Sweden) and policy area (sick-ness insurance). It also tests the claim from PRA scholars that client interests are uncommon in these contexts. Our results show that protest engagement among client groups is greater than the engagement among the labour movement when looking at protests directed specifically against cuts in the sickness benefit programme. However, when broader protests against cutbacks in several transfer programmes are taken into account, the number of protests initiated by clients and by the labour movement is comparable. Overall, our results suggest that both the PRA and the NPT are needed to explain current developments in social democratic welfare states like Sweden.","PeriodicalId":51572,"journal":{"name":"Scandinavian Political Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":2.0000,"publicationDate":"2021-05-07","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-9477.12201","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"The Welfare State Upholders: Protests Against Cuts in Sickness Benefits in Sweden 2006–2019\",\"authors\":\"Magda Bertz Wågström, Jonas Larsson Taghizadeh\",\"doi\":\"10.1111/1467-9477.12201\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The power resource approach (PRA) claims that the labour movement continues to be the most prominent defender of the welfare state. The new politics thesis (NPT), on the other hand, claims that the welfare state has created new interest groups in the form of welfare clients who have taken over as the most prominent welfare state upholders. In an attempt to empirically evaluate these claims, we present a study of the extent to which clients and the labour move- ment have been involved in protests against cutbacks in the Swedish sickness benefit from 2006 to 2019. The article contributes to the welfare state literature by studying a most likely case for PRA- style interest group mobilization both in terms of country (Sweden) and policy area (sick-ness insurance). It also tests the claim from PRA scholars that client interests are uncommon in these contexts. Our results show that protest engagement among client groups is greater than the engagement among the labour movement when looking at protests directed specifically against cuts in the sickness benefit programme. However, when broader protests against cutbacks in several transfer programmes are taken into account, the number of protests initiated by clients and by the labour movement is comparable. Overall, our results suggest that both the PRA and the NPT are needed to explain current developments in social democratic welfare states like Sweden.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51572,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Scandinavian Political Studies\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-05-07\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1111/1467-9477.12201\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Scandinavian Political Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12201\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Scandinavian Political Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9477.12201","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

权力资源方法(PRA)声称,工人运动仍然是福利国家最突出的捍卫者。另一方面,新政治理论(NPT)声称,福利国家创造了新的利益集团,这些利益集团以福利客户的形式取代了福利国家最突出的维护者。为了对这些说法进行实证评估,我们提出了一项研究,研究了客户和劳工运动在多大程度上参与了反对2006年至2019年瑞典疾病福利削减的抗议活动。本文通过从国家(瑞典)和政策领域(疾病保险)两方面研究PRA式利益集团动员最有可能的案例,为福利国家文献做出了贡献。它还检验了PRA学者的说法,即客户利益在这些背景下并不常见。我们的研究结果表明,在专门针对削减疾病福利计划的抗议活动中,客户群体的抗议参与程度大于劳工运动的参与程度。然而,如果考虑到针对削减若干转移方案的更广泛抗议,则由客户发起的抗议和由工人运动发起的抗议的数量是相当的。总的来说,我们的结果表明,PRA和NPT都需要解释瑞典等社会民主福利国家的当前发展。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
The Welfare State Upholders: Protests Against Cuts in Sickness Benefits in Sweden 2006–2019
The power resource approach (PRA) claims that the labour movement continues to be the most prominent defender of the welfare state. The new politics thesis (NPT), on the other hand, claims that the welfare state has created new interest groups in the form of welfare clients who have taken over as the most prominent welfare state upholders. In an attempt to empirically evaluate these claims, we present a study of the extent to which clients and the labour move- ment have been involved in protests against cutbacks in the Swedish sickness benefit from 2006 to 2019. The article contributes to the welfare state literature by studying a most likely case for PRA- style interest group mobilization both in terms of country (Sweden) and policy area (sick-ness insurance). It also tests the claim from PRA scholars that client interests are uncommon in these contexts. Our results show that protest engagement among client groups is greater than the engagement among the labour movement when looking at protests directed specifically against cuts in the sickness benefit programme. However, when broader protests against cutbacks in several transfer programmes are taken into account, the number of protests initiated by clients and by the labour movement is comparable. Overall, our results suggest that both the PRA and the NPT are needed to explain current developments in social democratic welfare states like Sweden.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Scandinavian Political Studies
Scandinavian Political Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
2.40
自引率
7.70%
发文量
24
期刊介绍: Scandinavian Political Studies is the only English language political science journal from Scandinavia. The journal publishes widely on policy and electoral issues affecting the Scandinavian countries, and sets those issues in European and global context. Scandinavian Political Studies is an indispensable source for all those researching and teaching in Scandinavian political science, public policy and electoral analysis.
期刊最新文献
The Scandinavian states' staffing of the United Nations‐system “Ideology and Religion” how left‐right ideology plays a key role in attitudes toward Israel and Palestine in Sweden Bottom‐up foreign policy? Finland, NATO and public opinion Aligning working‐class interests and preferences: The case of inheritance tax Same but different: On continuity and change in agricultural policy reforms
×
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