What explains public service restructuring? Evaluating contending explanations

Abstract

This article assesses the explanatory power of two prominent accounts of welfare state restructuring in the area of public sector reform. Paul Pierson's work is studied as an example of the politician-constituent framework, and contrasted with a coalitional approach to welfare state restructuring. A general theoretical critique is put forward, and the theoretical frameworks are evaluated in the light of case studies of public service sector restructuring in Finland and Sweden. The coalitional approach is rejected because no evidence is found of significant divergence in the attitudes and goals of exposed and sheltered sector trade unions regarding public services. Instead, it is argued that public sector cuts resulted from decreased local tax revenue and central government determination to reduce budget deficits. Public and trade union protest was limited owing to the delayed and uncertain impact of the cuts. In essence, therefore, the article adheres to Pierson's account of the logic of welfare state restructuring.