Political Choice Matters: Explaining the Strength of Class and Religious Cleavages in Cross-National Perspective PDF
Preview Political Choice Matters: Explaining the Strength of Class and Religious Cleavages in Cross-National Perspective
Political Choice Matters This page intentionally left blank Political Choice Matters Explaining the Strength of Class and Religious Cleavages in Cross-National Perspective Edited by Geoffrey Evans and Nan Dirk De Graaf 1 3 GreatClarendonStreet,Oxford,OX26DP, UnitedKingdom OxfordUniversityPressisadepartmentoftheUniversityofOxford. ItfurtherstheUniversity’sobjectiveofexcellenceinresearch,scholarship, andeducationbypublishingworldwide.Oxfordisaregisteredtrademarkof OxfordUniversityPressintheUKandincertainothercountries #Theseveralcontributors2013 Themoralrightsoftheauthorshavebeenasserted FirstEditionpublishedin2013 Impression:1 Allrightsreserved.Nopartofthispublicationmaybereproduced,storedin aretrievalsystem,ortransmitted,inanyformorbyanymeans,withoutthe priorpermissioninwritingofOxfordUniversityPress,orasexpresslypermitted bylaw,bylicenceorundertermsagreedwiththeappropriatereprographics rightsorganization.Enquiriesconcerningreproductionoutsidethescopeofthe aboveshouldbesenttotheRightsDepartment,OxfordUniversityPress,atthe addressabove Youmustnotcirculatethisworkinanyotherform andyoumustimposethissameconditiononanyacquirer BritishLibraryCataloguinginPublicationData Dataavailable ISBN 978–0–19–966399–6 PrintedinGreatBritainby MPGBooksGroup,BodminandKing’sLynn Contents Preface vii ListofContributors ix ListofFigures x ListofTables xvi ListofAbbreviations xix PartI. Models,Measurement,andComparativeAnalysis 1. ExplainingCleavageStrength:TheRoleofPartyPositions 3 GeoffreyEvansandNanDirkDeGraaf 2. MeasuringPartyPositions 27 RyanBakkerandSaraB.Hobolt 3. ClassVotingandLeft-RightPartyPositions:AComparativeStudy ofFifteenWesternDemocracies,1960–2005 46 GiedoJansen,GeoffreyEvans,andNanDirkDeGraaf PartII. TheCaseStudies Anglo-SaxonDemocracies 4. IdeologicalConvergenceandtheDeclineofClassVoting inBritain 87 GeoffreyEvansandJamesTilley 5. TheUnitedStates:StillthePoliticsofDiversity 114 DavidL.Weakliem 6. AccountingfortheDecliningImpactofClassonthe VoteinAustralia 137 GaryN.Marks 7. TheClass-PartyRelationshipinCanada,1965–2004 165 RobertAndersen Contents MainlandEurope 8. EnduringDivisionsandNewDimensions:Class VotinginDenmark 185 SaraB.Hobolt 9. ThePoliticalEvolutionofClassandReligion:AnInterpretation fortheNetherlands,1971–2006 205 NanDirkDeGraaf,GiedoJansen,andArianaNeed 10. PoliticalChangeandCleavageVotinginFrance:Class, Religion,PoliticalAppeals,andVoterAlignments,1962–2007 243 FlorentGougouandGuillaumeRoux 11. SocialDivisionsandPoliticalChoicesinGermany,1980–2006 277 MartinElff 12. ClassandReligiousVotinginItaly:TheRiseofPolicy Responsiveness 309 OliverHeathandPaoloBellucci RecentDemocracies 13. DoSocialDivisionsExplainPoliticalChoices?The CaseofPoland 337 NataliaLetki 14. SocialClass,Religiosity,andVoteChoiceinSpain,1979–2008 360 LluísOrriols PartIII. ConcludingObservations 15. TheImportanceofPoliticalChoiceandOtherLessonsLearned 391 GeoffreyEvansandNanDirkDeGraaf Bibliography 407 Index 437 vi Preface SomeyearsagoinameetingatNuffieldCollege,Oxfordtherewasadiscussion byasagaciousgroupofcommentatorsonwhatthestudyofclassvotingand classpoliticsshouldaspiretoachieve.Muchofthisdiscussionwasafterwards publishedinTheEndofClassPolitics?acoupleofyearslater.Theobservations of those participants and contributors are of considerable interest as they signalboththeoriginsandthesignificanceofthecurrentvolume. ForPeterMair,‘yousimplycannotexplaindifferencesinvotingpreferences fromapurelyclasspointofview—orevenfromapurelysocial-structuralpoint ofview...youneedtolookatthepoliticalandinstitutionalcontextinwhich thiscompetitiontakesplace.Allofthesefactorswillhelptoexplainwhysocial structuretranslatesintopoliticsdifferentlyfromonecountrytoanother.’ From John Goldthorpe there was a similar message, though with a rather more specific final point: ‘where changes in class voting do occur, these are not,forthemostpart,ofahighlygeneralizedkind...whenwecometotryto explainthesechanges,Iwouldguessthatwhatwewillfindisthatnationally specificfactorsloomverylargeinourexplanations,andespeciallyrelateless to social structural changes, whether of class, status or whatever, than to political changes or at all events to changes or differences in the way in whichpoliticalpartieshaverespondedtosocialstructuralshifts.’ While from Michael Hout, there was a very precise suggestion: ‘We will nevergetanypurchase...unlesswemeasurepartyscoresontheclassdimen- sion. In this way we can test ideas about what it is about party appeals that explainspartyvoting.’ Buthowarewetodothis,inacontemporaryworldwherepartiesdon’tusually proclaimclassinterestrepresentationastheirgoal?Well,inanotherquotefrom oneoftheassembledcast,thoughonepublishedsometimeearlierinPolitical Man (1981: 230), Seymour Martin Lipset observes that: ‘Even though many partiesrenouncetheprincipleofclassconflictorloyalty,anyanalysisoftheir appealsandtheirsupportsuggeststhattheydorepresenttheinterestsofdiffer- entclasses.’Sadly,MartyLipsetisnolongerwithus,buthisinsightsare.Andas we shall see, modern day party manifestos contain information that reveals positionsthatdoindeedrelatetotheinterestsandchoicesofsocialclasses. Amidstthediversityofstylesanddisciplinaryadherenceallofthesescholars sawtheneedforthesamethings:lessdescriptionofchange;moreanalysisof Preface cause;andafocusonpoliticsastheagentofchange.Thisineffectprovidesanice summationofthehypothesesguidingthiscurrentbook.Althoughclassisnow onlypartofthepicture:theseideasarenowalsoappliedtoanotherimportant cleavage: religion. This new book provides evidence of how political choice mattersforreligiousandnon-religiousvoters,justasitdoesforvotersindifferent classes. Those commentators who think that class and religion do not lend them- selves to an analysis of individual choice need to think again: the idea that religiousorclasspoliticsreflectsanalmostunthinkingadherencetoorganiza- tionsrepresentingreligiousprinciplesorclassinterestsisturnedonitshead. The emphasis is far more consistent with contemporary trends stressing instrumental accounts of voting behaviour. Class voting, far from being a ‘throwback’toanageoftribalism,issimplytherationalexpressionofindivid- ual differences in (primarily) economic interests that cluster as a result of shared characteristics deriving from similar conditions of employment. If parties do not offer programmes that differ in these respects there is little reason to expect class differences in party choice. Thus parties can and do shape class politics by restricting (or accentuating) the responsive voter’s choice set along relevant ideological dimensions. Similarly for religion: it may well be a source of identity, of fundamental values, and confessional parties or parties that take their religious roots seriously have to offer party programmes that clearly differon moral issuessuchas the battle against the liberalizationofabortioninordertosignaltheirtrustworthinesstotheircore vote.Therearenumerousexamplesofhowpartiesshapenationaldiscussions onmoralissuesbyfocusingtheirprogrammesonconservativeprinciples.But theyalsobendwithpublicopiniontokeepabreastofthetimesandindoing so hedge their electoral bets to help ensure they continue to be effective sources of representation of some version of the religious principles they uphold. In the competitive market of social and moral positions they too needtosignalstrategicallywhentheycandosowithoutlossofcredibility. Sotheanalysisofcleavagesandthesocialbasesofvotingarenotrelicsofa bygoneintellectualage,northepreserveofsociologistslockedintoalanguage ofcollectiveidentitiesand‘groupconsciousness’—asthisbookhopestoshow. For the opportunity to do so we would like to thank the EQUALSOC (Eco- nomic Change, Quality of Life, and Social Cohesion) network of excellence funded bytheEuropeanUnion’sSixth FrameworkProgramme.Wealso owe an unpaid debt to Peter Mair, whose tragic loss in the summer of 2011 deprived us of his further involvement. Peter gave many helpful comments on this project and at that meeting in Oxford he provided much of the motivationforundertakingit.Hewillbegreatlymissed. GeoffreyEvansandNanDirkDeGraaf NuffieldCollege,November2011 viii List of Contributors RobertAndersenisProfessorofSociologyandPoliticalScience,UniversityofToronto. RyanBakkerisAssistantProfessorinPoliticalScience,UniversityofGeorgia. PaoloBellucciisProfessorofPoliticalScienceattheUniversityofSienaItaly. NanDirkDeGraafisOfficialFellowinSociology,NuffieldCollege,Universityof Oxford. MartinElffisLecturerinEuropeanandGermanPolitics,UniversityofEssex. GeoffreyEvansisOfficialFellowinPolitics,NuffieldCollege,andProfessorofthe SociologyofPolitics,UniversityofOxford. FlorentGougouisaPhDcandidateinpoliticalscience,SciencePo,Paris. OliverHeathisSeniorLecturerinPolitics,RoyalHolloway,UniversityofLondon. SaraB.HoboltisProfessorofEuropeanInstitutions,EuropeanInstitute,London SchoolofEconomics&PoliticalScience. GiedoJansenisaPost-docresearcherinpoliticalscience,RadboudUniversityof Nijmegen,theNetherlands. NataliaLetkiisAssistantProfessorinSociology,UniversityofWarsaw. GaryN.MarksisaPrincipalResearchFellowattheAustralianCouncilforEducational Research,Melbourne,Australia. ArianaNeedisProfessorofSociologyandPublicGovernance,UniversityofTwente, theNetherlands. LluísOrriolsisLecturerinPolitics,UniversityofGerona. GuillaumeRouxisResearchScientist,InstituteofPoliticalStudies,Grenoble,France. JamesTilleyisFellowinPolitics,JesusCollege,andUniversityLecturerinQuantitative SocialScience,UniversityofOxford. DavidL.WeakliemisProfessorofSociology,UniversityofConnecticut.
The list of books you might like
