Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-t5tsf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-05T04:28:14.555Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Acting Right? Privatization, Encompassing Interests, and the Left

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 May 2015

Timothy Hicks Open the ORCID record for Timothy Hicks [Opens in a new window]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

I present a theoretical account of the politics of privatization that predicts left-wing support for the policy is conditional on the proportionality of the electoral system. In contrast to accounts that see privatization as an inherently right-wing policy, I argue that, like trade policy, it has the feature of creating distributed benefits and concentrated costs. Less proportional electoral systems create incentives for the Left to be responsive to those who face the concentrated costs, and thus for them to oppose privatization more strongly. More proportional systems reduce these incentives and increase the extent to which distributed benefits are internalized by elected representatives. Hypotheses are derived from this theory at both the individual and macro-policy level, and then tested separately. Quantitative evidence on public opinion from the 1990s and privatization revenues from Western European countries over the period 1980–2005 supports the argument.

Type
Original Articles
Information
Political Science Research and Methods , Volume 4 , Issue 2 , May 2016 , pp. 427 - 448
Copyright
© The European Political Science Association 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Timothy Hicks, Lecturer, School of Public Policy, University College London, The Rubin Building, 29/31 Tavistock Square, London ([email protected]). The author is grateful to Jim Alt, Lucy Barnes, Torben Iversen, Des King, Jonas Pontusson, David Soskice, Anne Wren, and especially David Rueda, for extremely helpful comments at various stages of this project. This paper has also benefited from panel feedback at the MPSA Conference (Chicago, 2009), the conference on “Inequality and Institutions” (Oxford, May 2009), and the SASE Conference (Paris, 2009). I acknowledge IIIS and Nuffield College for providing financial assistance and the Yale Political Science Department for their hospitality.

References

Alexandre, Hervé, and Charreaux, Gerard. 2004. ‘Efficiency of French Privatizations: A Dynamic Vision’. Journal of Corporate Finance 10(3):467–494.Google Scholar
Alvarez, R. Michael, Garrett, Geoffrey, and Lange, Peter. 1991. ‘Government Partisanship, Labor Organization, and Macroeconomic Performance’. American Political Science Review 85(2):539–556.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, Klaus, Leimgruber, Philipp, Beyeler, Michelle, and Menegale, Sarah. 2007. Comparative Political Data Set 1960–2004. Bern, Switzerland: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern.Google Scholar
Armingeon, Klaus, Careja, Romana, Weisstanner, David, Engler, Sarah, Potolidis, Panajotis, and Gerber, Marlène. 2012. Comparative Political Data Set III, 1990–2011. Bern, Switzerland: Institute of Political Science, University of Bern.Google Scholar
Barbieri, Katherine, Keshk, Omar M.G., and Pollins, Brian M.. 2009. ‘Trading Data: Evaluating Our Assumptions and Coding Rules’. Conflict Management and Peace Science 26(5):471–491.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bartels, Brandon L. 2008. ‘Beyond “Fixed Versus Random Effects”: A Framework for Improving Substantive and Statistical Analysis of Panel, TSCS, and Multilevel Data’. Unpublished Working Paper, Department of Political Science, The George Washington University, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
Beck, Nathaniel, Gleditsch, Kristian Skrede, and Beardsley, Kyle. 2006. ‘Space Is More than Geography: Using Spatial Econometrics in the Study of Political Economy’. International Studies Quarterly 50(1):27–44.Google Scholar
Bell, Andrew, and Jones, Kelvyn. 2015. ‘Explaining Fixed Effects: Random Effects Modeling of Time-Series Cross-Sectional and Panel Data’. Political Science Research and Methods 3(1):133–153.Google Scholar
Berry, William D., Golder, Matt, and Milton, Daniel. 2012. ‘Improving Tests of Theories Positing Interaction’. Journal of Politics 74(3):653–671.Google Scholar
Biais, Bruno, and Perotti, Enrico. 2002. ‘Machiavellian Privatization’. American Economic Review 92(1):240–258.Google Scholar
Boardman, Anthony E., and Vining, Aidan R.. 1989. ‘Ownership and Performance in Competitive Environments: A Comparison of the Performance of Private, Mixed, and State-Owned Enterprises’. Journal of Law and Economics 32(1):1–33.Google Scholar
Boix, Carles. 1997. ‘Privatizing the Public Business Sector in the Eighties: Economic Performance, Partisan Responses and Divided Governments’. British Journal of Political Science 27(4):473–496.Google Scholar
Bortolotti, Bernardo, and Siniscalco, Domenico. 2004. The Challenges of Privatization: An International Analysis. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bortolotti, Bernardo, Fantini, Marcella, and Siniscalco, Domenico. 2003. ‘Privatisation Around the World: Evidence from Panel Data’. Journal of Public Economics 88(1–2):305–332.Google Scholar
Boycko, Maxim, Shleifer, Andrei, and Vishny, Robert W.. 1996. ‘A Theory of Privatisation’. Economic Journal 106(435):309–319.Google Scholar
Christoffersen, Henrik, and Paldam, Martin. 2004. ‘Privatization in Denmark, 1980–2002’. Working Paper No. 1127, CESifo, Ifo Institute -- Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, Munich, Germany.Google Scholar
Dewenter, Kathryn L., and Malatesta, Paul H.. 2001. ‘State-Owned and Privately Owned Firms: An Empirical Analysis of Profitability, Leverage, and Labor Intensity’. American Economic Review 91(1):320–334.Google Scholar
D’Souza, Juliet, and Megginson, William L.. 1999. ‘The Financial and Operating Performance of Privatized Firms During the 1990s’. Journal of Finance 54(4):1397–1438.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durant, Robert F., and Legge, Jerome S. Jr. 2001. ‘Politics, Public Opinion, and Privatization: A Test of Competing Theories in Great Britain’. Public Organization Review 1(1):75–95.Google Scholar
Durant, Robert F., and Legge, Jerome S. Jr. 2002. ‘Politics, Public Opinion, and Privatization in France: Assessing the Calculus of Consent for Market Reforms’. Public Administration Review 62(3):307–323.Google Scholar
Ehrlich, Isaac, Gallais-Hamonno, Georges, Liu, Zhiqiang, and Lutter, Randall. 1994. ‘Productivity Growth and Firm Ownership: An Analytical and Empirical Investigation’. Journal of Political Economy 102(5):1006–1038.Google Scholar
Feigenbaum, Harvey B., and Henig, Jeffrey R.. 1994. ‘The Political Underpinnings of Privatization: A Typology’. World Politics 46(2):185–208.Google Scholar
Florio, Massimo. 2003. ‘Does Privatisation Matter? The Long-Term Performance of British Telecom Over 40 Years’. Fiscal Studies 24(2):197–234.Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert J. Jr. 2002. Macroeconomic Policies of Developed Democracies. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert J. Jr. 2007. ‘Context Matters: The Challenges of Multicausality, Context-Conditionality, and Endogeneity for Empirical Evaluation of Positive Theory in Comparative Politics’. In: Carles Boix and Susan Stokes (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Comparative Politics, Chapter 2, 27–72. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Franzese, Robert J. Jr., and Hays, Jude C.. 2007. ‘Spatial Econometric Models of Cross-Sectional Interdependence in Political Science Panel and Time-Series-Cross-Section Data’. Political Analysis 15(2):140–164.Google Scholar
Gallagher, Michael. 1991. ‘Proportionality, Disproportionality and Electoral Systems’. Electoral Studies 10(1):33–51.Google Scholar
Gingrich, Jane R. 2011. Making Markets in the Welfare State: The Politics of Varying Market Reforms. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
González-Páramo, José Manuel, and Hernández de Cos, Pablo. 2005. ‘The Impact of Public Ownership and Competition on Productivity’. Kyklos 58(4):495–517.Google Scholar
Häusermann, Silja. 2010. The Politics of Welfare State Reform in Continental Europe: Modernization in Hard Times. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Henisz, Witold J., Zelner, Bennet A., and Guillén, Mauro F.. 2005. ‘The Worldwide Diffusion of Market-Oriented Infrastructure Reform, 1977–1999’. American Sociological Review 70(6):871–897.Google Scholar
Hibbs, Douglas A. 1977. ‘Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy’. American Political Science Review 71(4):1467–1487.Google Scholar
Hicks, Timothy. 2013. ‘Partisan Strategy and Path Dependence: The Post-War Emergence of Health Systems in the UK and Sweden’. Comparative Politics 45(2):207–226.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hicks, Timothy. 2015. ‘Inequality, marketisation, and the left: Schools policy in England and Sweden’. European Journal of Political Research 54(2):326–342.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Soskice, David. 2006. ‘Electoral Institutions and the Politics of Coalitions: Why Some Democracies Redistribute More than Others’. American Political Science Review 100(2):165–181.Google Scholar
Iversen, Torben, and Stephens, John D.. 2008. ‘Partisan Politics, the Welfare State, and Three Worlds of Human Capital Formation’. Comparative Political Studies 41(4–5):600–637.Google Scholar
Katzenstein, Peter J.. 1985. Small States in World Markets: Industrial Policy in Europe. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press.Google Scholar
King, Desmond S. 1987. The New Right: Politics, Markets and Citizenship. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Klitgaard, Michael Baggesen. 2008. ‘School Vouchers and the New Politics of the Welfare State’. Governance 21(4):479–498.Google Scholar
Knutsen, Oddbjørn. 2005. ‘The Impact of Sector Employment on Party Choice: A Comparative Study of Eight West European Countries’. European Journal of Political Research 44(4):593–621.Google Scholar
Kole, Stacey R., and Mulherin, J. Harold. 1997. ‘The Government as a Shareholder: A Case from the United States’. Journal of Law and Economics 40(1):1–22.Google Scholar
Lenz, Gabriel S.. 2009. ‘Learning and Opinion Change, Not Priming: Reconsidering the Priming Hypothesis’. American Journal of Political Science 53(4):821–837.Google Scholar
Lindvall, Johannes. 2009. ‘The Real But Limited Influence of Expert Ideas’. World Politics 61(4):703–730.Google Scholar
Lohmann, Susanne, and O’Halloran, Sharyn. 1994. ‘Divided Government and U.S. Trade Policy: Theory and Evidence’. International Organization 48(4):595–632.Google Scholar
Mayda, Anna Maria, and Rodrik, Dani. 2005. ‘Why are Some People (and Countries) More Protectionist than Others?’. European Economic Review 49(6):1393–1430.Google Scholar
Megginson, William L., and Netter, Jeffry M.. 2001. ‘From State to Market: A Survey of Empirical Studies on Privatization’. Journal of Economic Literature 39(2):321–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Meseguer, Covadonga. 2004. ‘What Role for Learning? The Diffusion of Privatisation in OECD and Latin American Countries’. Journal of Public Policy 24(3):299–325.Google Scholar
Meth-Cohn, Delia, and Müller, Wolfgang C.. 1994. ‘Looking Reality in the Eye: The Politics of Privatization in Austria’. In: Vincent Wright (ed.), Privatization in Western Europe: Pressures, Problems and Paradoxes, Chapter 8, 160–179. London, UK: Pinter Publishers.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V. 1997. Interests, Institutions and Information: Domestic Politics and International Relations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Milner, Helen V., and Judkins, Benjamin. 2004. ‘Partisanship, Trade Policy, and Globalization: Is there a Left-Right Divide on Trade Policy?’ International Studies Quarterly 48(1):95–120.Google Scholar
Murillo, Maria Victoria. 2001. Labor Unions, Partisan Coalitions, and Market Reforms in Latin America. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Newbery, David M., and Pollitt, Michael G.. 1997. ‘The Restructuring and Privatisation of Britain’s CEGB—Was It Worth It?’. Journal of Industrial Economics 45(3):269–303.Google Scholar
Nickell, Stephen J. 1996. ‘Competition and Corporate Performance’. Journal of Political Economy 104(4):724–746.Google Scholar
Obinger, Herbert, Schmitt, Carina, and Zohlnhöfer, Reimut. 2014. ‘Partisan Politics and Privatization in OECD Countries’. Comparative Political Studies 47(9):1294–1323.Google Scholar
Olson, Mancur. 1982. The Rise and Decline of Nations: Economic Growth, Stagflation, and Social Rigidities. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Persson, Torsten, and Tabellini, Guido. 2005. The Economic Effects of Constitutions. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Phelan, William. 2011. ‘Open International Markets Without Exclusion: Encompassing Domestic Political Institutions, International Organization, and Self-Contained Regimes’. International Theory 3(2):286–306.Google Scholar
Pint, Ellen M. 1991. ‘Nationalization Vs. Regulation of Monopolies: The Effects of Ownership on Efficiency’. Journal of Public Economics 44(2):131–164.Google Scholar
Plümper, Thomas, and Neumayer, Eric. 2010. ‘Model Specification in the Analysis of Spatial Dependence’. European Journal of Political Research 49(3):418–442.Google Scholar
Pontusson, Jonas. 1989. ‘The Triumph of Pragmatism: Nationalisation and Privatisation in Sweden’. In: John Vickers and Vincent Wright (eds), The Politics of Privatisation in Western Europe, Chapter 9, 129–140. London, UK: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
Pontusson, Jonas. 1991. ‘Labor, Corporatism, and Industrial Policy: The Swedish Case in Comparative Perspective’. Comparative Politics 23(2):163–179.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Robinson, James A., and Torvik, Ragnar. 2005. ‘White Elephants’. Journal of Public Economics 89(2–3):197–210.Google Scholar
Rogowski, Ronald. 1987. ‘Trade and the Variety of Democratic Institutions’. International Organization 41(2):203–223.Google Scholar
Rueda, David. 2005. ‘Insider–Outsider Politics in Industrialized Democracies: The Challenge to Social Democratic Parties’. American Political Science Review 99(1):61–74.Google Scholar
Scheve, Kenneth F., and Slaughter, Matthew J.. 2001. ‘What Determines Individual Trade-Policy Preferences?’. Journal of International Economics 54(2):267–292.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carina. 2011. ‘What Drives the Diffusion of Privatization Policy? Evidence from the Telecommunications Sector’. Journal of Public Policy 31(1):95–117.Google Scholar
Schmitt, Carina. 2014. ‘The Employment Effects of Privatizing Public Utilities in OECD Countries’. Public Management Review 16(8):1164–1183.Google Scholar
Schneider, Volker, Fink, Simon, and Tenbucken, Marc. 2005. ‘Buying Out the State: A Comparative Perspective on the Privatization of Infrastructures’. Comparative Political Studies 38(6):704–727.Google Scholar
Schulten, Thorsten, Brandt, Torsten, and Hermann, Christoph. 2008. ‘Liberalisation and Privatization of Public Services and Strategic Options for European Trade Unions’. Transfer: European Review of Labour and Research 14(2):295–311.Google Scholar
Simmons, Beth A., Dobbin, Frank, and Garrett, Geoffrey. 2006. ‘Introduction: The International Diffusion of Liberalism’. International Organization 60(4):781–810.Google Scholar
Vining, Aidan R., and Boardman, Anthony E.. 1992. ‘Ownership Versus Competition: Efficiency in Public Enterprise’. Public Choice 73(2):205–239.Google Scholar
Weingast, Barry R., Shepsle, Kenneth A., and Johnsen, Christopher. 1981. ‘The Political Economy of Benefits and Costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics’. Journal of Political Economy 89(4):642–664.Google Scholar
Zohlnhöfer, Reimut, Obinger, Herbert, and Wolf, Frieder. 2008. ‘Partisan Politics, Globalization, and the Determinants of Privatization Proceeds in Advanced Democracies (1990–2000)’. Governance 21(1):95–121.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: Link

Hicks et al datasets

Dataset

http://dx.doi.org/10.7910/DVN/MKC1HA
Link