No CrossRef data available.
Article contents
Electoral discourse and formative structural narratives of welfare divergence in multi-level systems: homelessness policy in UK elections 1970–2011
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 09 March 2020
Abstract
Over recent decades there has been an international shift towards multi-level governance. Against this backdrop, many comparative welfare studies take government policy outputs as the starting point for their analysis. However, the associated pluralization of electoral systems in unitary states means that welfare choices are no longer exclusively informed by single state-wide ballots. Accordingly, this study makes an original contribution by exploring the formative role of electoral discourse in shaping social policy divergence in (quasi-)federal states. It does this through an examination of party politicization and the issue-salience of homelessness in manifestos for UK state-wide and regional elections. The findings reveal how electoral discourse is a key driver of policy divergence. These territorially-specific structural narratives are used to propose a model of welfare divergence in multi-level systems, one that is cognizant of the formative role of electoral discourse in shaping the development of welfare regimes.
- Type
- Research Article
- Information
- Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy , Volume 29 , Issue 1 , February 2013 , pp. 28 - 47
- Copyright
- Copyright © 2013 Taylor & Francis
References
Andersen, H. S. 2002. Excluded places: The interaction between segregation, urban decay and deprived neighbourhoods. Housing, Theory & Society, 19: 153–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anderson, I. 2007. Sustainable solutions to homelessness: The Scottish case. European Journal of Homelessness, 1: 163–183.Google Scholar
Anderson, I. 2009. “Homelessness policy in Scotland: A complete safety net by 2012?”. In Homelessness in the UK: Problems and solutions, Edited by: Fitzpatrick, S., Quilgars, D. and Pleace, N.107–124. Coventry: Chartered Institute for Housing.Google Scholar
Arapoglou, V. 2003. The governance of homelessness in Greece: Discourse and power in the study of philanthropic networks. Critical Social Policy, 24 (1): 102–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brockmann, M., Clarke, L. and Winch, C. 2008. Knowledge, skills, competence: European divergences in vocational education and training (VET)—the English, German and Dutch cases. Oxford Review of Education, 34 (5): 547–562.Google Scholar
Caroa, F. and Morris, R. 2003. Devolution and aging policy. Journal of Aging & Social Policy, 14 (3 & 4): 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cobb, R. W. and Ross, M. H. 1997. “Agenda setting and the denial of agenda access: Key concepts.”. In Cultural strategies of agenda denial lawrence, Edited by: Cobb, R. W. and Ross, M. H.46–58. KS: University Press of Kansas.Google Scholar
Cohen, B. 1963. The press and foreign policy, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Conservative Party. 1945. Mr. Churchill's declaration of policy to the electors, London: Conservative Party.Google Scholar
Cowan, D. 1998. Reforming the homelessness legislation. Critical Social Policy, 18 (57): 435–464.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Creed, W., Langstraat, J. and Scully, M. A. 2002. Picture of the frame: Frame analysis as technique and as politics. Organizational Research Methods, 5 (1): 34–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cress, D. and Snow, D. 2000. The outcomes of homeless mobilization: The influence of organization, disruption, political mediation, and framing. American Journal of Sociology, 105 (4): 1063–1104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Democratic Unionist Party. 2011. Let's Keep Northern Ireland Moving Forward, Belfast: DUP.Google Scholar
Department for Social Development. 2011. Northern Ireland housing bulletin 1st April – 30th June 2011, Belfast: DSDNI.Google Scholar
Esping Andersen, G. 1990. Three worlds of welfare capitalism, Cambridge: Polity Press.Google Scholar
FEANTSA. (2012). On the way home? FEANTSA monitoring report on homelessness and homeless policies in Europe. Brussels: FEANTSA.Google Scholar
Fearon, J. 2003. Electoral accountability and the control of politicians: Selecting good types versus sanctioning poor performance, in democracy, accountability, and representation, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Ferejohn, J. 2003. “Accountability and authority: Toward a theory of political accountability.”. In Democracy, accountability and representation, Edited by: Manin, B., Przeworski, B. and Stokes, S.116–132. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S. 2005. Explaining homelessness: A critical realist perspective. Housing, Theory and Society, 22 (1): 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., Johnsen, S., & Watts, B. (2012a). International homelessness policy review: A report to inform the review of homelessness legislation in Wales. York: Centre for Housing Policy, University of York.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., Pawson, H., Bramley, G. and Wilcox, S. 2012b. The homelessness monitor: Great Britain 2012, London: Crisis.Google Scholar
Fitzpatrick, S., Quilgars, D. and Pleace, N. 2009. Homelessness in the UK: Problems and solutions, Edited by: Fitzpatrick, S., Quilgars, D. and Pleace, N.Coventry: Chartered Institute for Housing.Google Scholar
Gamson, W. A. and Modigliani, A. 1989. Media discourse and public opinion on nuclear power. American Journal of Sociology, 95 (1): 1–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gauld, R. 2003. One country, four systems: Comparing changing health policies in New Zealand. International Political Science Review, 24 (2): 199–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grosvenor, I. and Hall, A. 2012. Back to school from a holiday in the slums!: Images, words and inequalities. Critical Social Policy, 32 (1): 11–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Housing (Northern Ireland) Order. (2003). Article 135. Retrieved 11 June 2013 from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/nisi/2003/412/article/135Google Scholar
Kohler Riessman, C. 2008. Narrative methods for the human sciences, Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications.Google Scholar
Labour Party. 1970. Now Britain's strong–Let's make it great to live in, London: Labour Party.Google Scholar
Libbrecht, L., Maddens, B., Swenden, W. and Fabre, E. 2009. Issue-salience in regional party manifestos in Spain. European Journal of Political Research, 48 (1): 58–79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Liberal Democratic Party. 2001. Freedom, justice, honesty, London: Liberal Democratic Party.Google Scholar
Liberal–Social Democratic Party Alliance. 1987. Britain United: The time has come, London: Liberal–Social Democratic Party Alliance.Google Scholar
Link, B., Schwartz, S., Moore, R., Phelan, J., Struening, E., Stueve, A. and Colten, M. 1995. Public knowledge, attitudes, and beliefs about homeless people: Evidence for compassion fatigue?. American Journal of Community Psychology, 23 (4): 533–555.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Localism Act 2011, Ch. 20 (2011). Retrieved from http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2011/20/contents/enactedGoogle Scholar
Lux, M. 2003. Efficiency and effectiveness of housing policies in the Central and Eastern Europe countries. International Journal of Housing Policy, 3 (3): 243–259.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mackie, P. and Hoffman, S. 2011. Homelessness legislation in Wales: Stakeholder perspectives on potential improvements, Cardiff: Cardiff University.Google Scholar
McKee, K. and Phillips, D. 2012. “Social housing and homelessness policies: Reconciling social justice and social mix.”. In Social policy and social justice in Scotland, Edited by: Mooney, G. and Scott, G.214–234. Bristol: Policy Press.Google Scholar
Neale, J. 1997. “Theorising homelessness: Contemporary sociological and feminist perspectives.”. In Homelessness and social policy, Edited by: Burrows, R., Pleace, N. and Quilgars, D.89–105. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Nelson, T., Clawson, R. and Oxley, Z. 1997. Media Framing of a Civil Liberties Conflict and its effect on Tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91 (2): 567–583.Google Scholar
Netto, G. 2006. Vulnerability to homelessness, use of services and homelessness prevention in black and minority ethnic communities. Housing Studies, 21 (4): 581–601.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Office for National Statistics. 2011. Statistical bulletin, homelessness, London: ONS.Google Scholar
Okamoto, Y. 2003. A comparative study of homelessness in the United Kingdom and Japan. Journal of Social Issues, 63 (3): 525–534.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pawson, H. and Davidson, E. 2008. Radically divergent? Homelessness policy and practice in post-devolution Scotland. European Journal of Housing Policy, 8 (1): 39–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petersen, A. and McCabe, A. 1983. Developmental psycholinguistics, NY: Plenum.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Petrocik, J. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science, 40 (3): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phelan, E. and Norris, M. 2008. Neo-coporatist governance of homeless services in Dublin: Reconceptualization, incorporation and exclusion. Critical Social Policy, 28 (1): 51–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Plaid Cymru. 1999. The manifesto of Plaid Cymru – the party of Wales, Cardiff: Plaid Cymru.Google Scholar
Pleace, N. 2000. The new consensus, the old consensus and the provision of services for people sleeping rough. Housing Studies, 1 (4): 581–594.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pleace, N., & Fitzpatrick, S. (2004). Centrepoint Youth Homelessness Index: An estimate of youth homelessness for England. London: Centrepoint.Google Scholar
Reeve, K. and Batty, E. 2011. The hidden truth about homelessness, London: Centre for Regional Economic and Social Research.Google Scholar
RePass, D. 1971. Issue-salience and party choice. American Political Science Review, 65: 389–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rodiguez-Pose, A. and Gill, N. 2003. The global trend towards devolution and its implications. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 21 (3): 333–351.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Royed, T. 1996. Testing the mandate model in Britain and in the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras. British Journal of Political Science, 26 (1): 56–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schön, D. and Rein, M. 1994. Frame reflection: Toward the resolution of intractable policy controversies, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
Scottish Government. 2011. Operation of the homeless persons legislation in Scotland: 2010–11, Edinburgh: Scottish Government.Google Scholar
Scottish National Party. 2003. The complete case for a better Scotland, Edinburgh: SNP.Google Scholar
Seyd, P. 1975. Shelter: The national campaign for the homeless. The Political Quarterly, 46 (4): 418–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shlay, A. and Rossi, P. 1992. Social science research and contemporary studies of homelessness. Annual Review of Sociology, 18 (1): 129–160.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Social Democratic and Labour Party. 2003. Reshaping government, rebuilding public services, Belfast: SDLP.Google Scholar
Somerville, P. 2013. Understanding homelessness. Housing, Theory and Society, Advance online publication. doi:10.1080/14036096.2012.756096Google Scholar
Statistics Wales. 2011. Homelessness April to June 2011 and July to September 2011, Cardiff: Statistics Wales.Google Scholar
Stimson, J. 2003. “Party government and responsiveness.”. In Democracy, accountability and representation, Edited by: Manin, B., Przeworski, A. and Stokes, S.45–61. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Till, M. 2005. Assessing the housing dimension of social inclusion in Six European Countries. European Journal of the Social Sciences, 18 (2): 153–172.Google Scholar
Topf, R. 1994. “Party manifestos.”. In Labour's last chance: 1992 election and beyond, Edited by: Heath, A., Jovell, R. and Curtice, J.189–203. Aldershot: Dartmouth.Google Scholar
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. (1948). Article 25. Retrieved 11 June 2013 from http://www.un.org/en/documents/udhr/Google Scholar
Volkens, A. 2001. “Manifesto research since 1979: From reliability to validity.”. In Estimating the policy positions of political actors, Edited by: Laver, M.94–110. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
Walgrave, S. and De Swert, S. 2007. Where does issue ownership come from? From the party or from the media? Issue-party identifications in Belgium, 1991–2005. The International Journal of Press/Politics, 12 (1): 37–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Welsh Assembly Government. 2009. Ten Year Homelessness Plan for Wales 2009-19, Cardiff: WAG.Google Scholar
Welsh Government. 2012. Homes for Wales: A white paper for better lives and communities, Cardiff: Welsh Government.Google Scholar
Whiteford, M. 2013. New labour, street homelessness and social exclusion: A defaulted promissory note?. Housing Studies, 28 (1) 10–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, A. (1993). Towards an integration of content analysis and discourse analysis. Lancaster University Unit for Computer Research on the English Language Technical Papers No. 3.Google Scholar