Coalition Support Research Articles

Are city elections unique? Perceptions of electoral cleavages and social sorting across levels of government

A long tradition of scholarship has argued that the cleavages that animate urban politics are distinct from those that structure regional or national politics. More recent scholarship has challenged this view, demonstrating the relevance of cleavages that apply at higher levels of government, such as partisanship and ideology, for urban elections. We contribute to this debate by investigating the perceptions of urban residents themselves. Using survey data from a major Canadian city, we use a novel survey question battery to compare how urban residents understand municipal and provincial electoral cleavages. We consider two questions that speak to the distinctiveness of local politics: (1) How do electors perceive coalitions of support at the two levels of government, and do perceptions of coalitions differ across levels? (2) How do perceptions compare to actual electoral coalitions at the two levels? We find little evidence to support the view that local electoral cleavages are unique.

Social investment in the knowledge-based economy: new politics and policies

ABSTRACT This themed issue entitled Social Investment in the Knowledge-Based Economy aims to investigate desirable policy packages of social investment for the knowledge-based economy, the interactions between policy and economic inequality, and political and institutional configurations that shape policies. This introduction to our themed issue situates the contribution of the volume in the literature, summarizes the main findings and their implications, and identifies core issues for a future research agenda. We trace the development of the social investment approach over time and across regions, and we explain its logic and the accumulated evidence supporting its importance. We then link our contributions squarely to the transition to the knowledge economy and the concern with innovation, growth, and inequality. We summarize the policy lessons emerging from the individual articles which emphasize specifically the need to treat social investment as complementary to social protection. We also summarize the insights into the politics of generating support coalitions for the introduction of effective social investment policies, emphasizing the leadership role of political parties in shaping both public preferences and legislation. Finally, we outline some key unanswered questions, among them questions regarding the obstacles to major progress in social investment so far and the impact of immigration and party system fragmentation on future progress.

A kollektív cselekvés vállalkozói : Példák a magyar borászok helyi szerveződéseinek köréből

Milyen szerepet játszanak a magyar bortermelők helyi szerveződéseiben az intézményi vállalkozók, akik erőforrásaikat a kollektív cselekvést támogató, innovatív játékszabályok létrehozására használják fel? Négy olyan közösséget vizsgálunk meg részletesen, amelyek önszerveződés útján kollektív márkákat hoztak létre. Eredményeink igazolják az intézményi vállalkozók fontos szerepét a lokális kollektív cselekvés intézményesítésében. Irányítják, összefogják az új intézmények kialakításának innovációs folyamatát, de még fontosabb, hogy kialakítják és fenntartják a létrejövő szabályrendszereket támogató koalíciót. Motivációjukra sokféle tényező hat: személyes karriercélok, családi normák, a közösséggel való azonosulás, politikai szerepvállalás, kapcsolatépítés. De közös bennük, hogy közösségeik beágyazott, megbecsült és hosszú távra tervező tagjai. Feltételezhető, hogy minél nagyobb az „intézményi űr”, amelyet a szerveződések betöltenek, annál markánsabb a szerepük.

Squeezed Out? The Liberal Democrats and the 2019 General Election

AbstractThe 2019 general election was a crushing disappointment for the Liberal Democrats, as Jo Swinson lost her East Dunbartonshire seat to the SNP and the party’s anti‐Brexit stance failed to deliver gains from the Conservatives. Although the Liberal Democrats’ poor performance can partly be blamed on a misfiring campaign strategy, it also reflected the structural difficulties which the party faces in an increasingly polarised political environment. The polarisation of public opinion along multiple axes over the last decade—over austerity, Brexit, and attitudes to Jeremy Corbyn—has fractured the broad coalition of support which the Liberal Democrats assembled during the 1990s and 2000s. Analysis of the 2019 results suggest that the party has made some progress towards developing a new core vote, particularly among suburban Remainers in south east England, but it is not clear whether this will be large or robust enough to have a significant impact on the future of British politics.

Creating Climate Coalitions: Mass Preferences for Compensating Vulnerability in the World’s Two Largest Democracies

Combating climate change requires large economic adjustments with significant distributional implications. To build coalitions of support, scholars and policymakers propose compensating individuals who will bear decarbonization's costs. What are the determinants of public opinion regarding climate compensation and investment? We present theory to explicate how distinct sources of vulnerability influence preferences for different types of climate policy. Fielding original surveys in the United States and India, we show that people who reside in coal-producing regions prefer compensation for lost jobs. The general public privileges diffuse redistribution mechanisms and investments, discounting compensation to targeted groups. Those who are both physically and economically vulnerable have cross-cutting preferences. Nevertheless, there is considerable support across our samples for policies that compensate different coalitions of climate vulnerable citizens, in line with theories of `just energy' transition and embedded liberalism. We connect the distinctive compensatory preferences of fossil fuel communities to a logic of shared identities.

Support for a universal basic income: A demand–capacity paradox?

Debate around a universal basic income (UBI) tends to focus on the economic and social implications of the policy proposal. Less clear, however, are the factors influencing support for a UBI. Using the 2016 European Social Survey, we investigate how trade union membership and left political ideology (central to power resources theory) and attitudes towards immigrants’ access to welfare benefits (central to welfare state chauvinism) affect individual support for a UBI. We also investigate how country-level differences in levels of social spending moderate individual-level UBI support. Results from multi-level models suggest that a broader coalition of UBI supporters can generally be found in countries where social spending is low. Specifically, we find that welfare state chauvinism is more likely to be associated with negative attitudes towards a UBI in countries with high levels of spending, but has only a weak association with UBI support in low-spending countries. Similarly, political ideology is more consequential in explaining UBI support in countries with higher levels of spending. These tensions form a demand–capacity paradox: the countries which are presumably least equipped to implement a UBI see the most broad-based support for the policy.

A discourse network analysis of the public media debate on the UK Soft Drinks Industry Levy

Abstract Background On 6th April 2018, the UK Government introduced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) as a policy designed to reduce population level sugar consumption and related illnesses. Given that the successful introduction of upstream food and nutrition policies is a highly political enterprise involving multiple interested parties, understanding the complex network of stakeholders seeking to influence such policy decisions is imperative. Methods Media content analysis was employed to build a data set of relevant articles from UK national newspapers. Articles were analysed to identify stakeholder agreement or disagreement with defined concept statements. We used discourse network analysis to produce visual representations of the stakeholder network and coalitions evident in the debate, leading up to and following the announcement of the SDIL. Results We identified 3,883 statements made by 214 individuals from 176 organisations, relating to 47 concepts. Visualisations revealed a complex network of stakeholders with two discourse coalitions. Polarisation arose from 3 factors: (i) differences in political ideology; (ii) position on the specific policy option; (iii) interpretation of the evidence. Industry stakeholders appeared less united before the SDIL announcement. Some industry actors appeared in the supportive coalition, possibly due to the use of corporate social responsibility rhetoric. Jamie Oliver was a dominant supportive stakeholder, suggestive of his role as a policy entrepreneur. Conclusions This study illustrates the complexity of the network of stakeholders involved in the public debate on food policies such as sugar tax and the SDIL. Public health advocates seeking to gain support for future upstream regulation to promote population health would benefit from tailoring their communication to take advantage of sources of polarisation. Vocal celebrity policy entrepreneurs may be instrumental to facilitate alignment of stakeholders around a clear ideology. Key messages This study provides a novel insight into the network of stakeholders involved in public debates on food policies. Public health advocates may benefit by identifying and aligning with a clear ideology.

Koalisi Partai Politik Islam Pada PILPRES 2019: Antara Ideologis dan Pragmatis

<p class="06IsiAbstrak">This paper will discuss about how coalition forms are carried out by political parties, especially islamic political parties. What is the coalition process, what are the motives of the coalition, and how the formation of the coalition formed will be discussed in this paper. During the Presidential and Vice President Elections in 2019, there were two candidate pairs competing, namely the Ir.Joko Widodo-KH.Maruf Amin and the couple Prabowo Subianto-Sandiaga Salahuddin Uno.</p><p class="06IsiAbstrak">This paper uses a qualitative method with the type of case study. The electoral realm of the 2019 Presidential Elections became the empirical space discussed. The 2019 presidential election was supported by a large coalition of Jokowi-Maruf supporters and Prabowo-Sandi suppoters. These two pairs of candidates are supported by political parties based on the Islamic and nationally voters. From this 2019 Presidential Election, we can see the ideological movements of political parties in Indonesia. <em>First</em>, political parties are still oriented towards victory rather than ideology and policy. <em>Second</em>, the ideology of political parties is increasingly blurred. <em>Third</em>, the influence of the electoral system which led to the escape of the ideology of political parties.</p>

Interaction between the G20 agenda and members’ national-level policy: A theoretical model for increasing G20 effectiveness

ABSTRACT Based on regime theory and orchestration-intermediary theory on the interaction of international institutions, complemented with a revisionist realist perspective, this article proposes a theoretical model to examine the effectiveness of the G20 agenda. The theoretical model consists of weighing up a member state’s willingness and capacity to build a political coalition and technical support from relevant intermediary institutions on a G20 agenda, as well as the use of coercion or soft power pressure by the political coalition behind the agenda. Employing a case study approach, the article illustrates the theoretical process by examining (1) the Enhanced Structural Reform Agenda and (2) the green finance agenda at the G20 Hangzhou Summit of 2016. The article concludes that any real progress achieved on the G20 agenda in the post-crisis period requires the presence of all factors in the theoretical model and provides recommendations on improving the G20’s effectiveness based on the case studies.

A New Path for U.S. Climate Politics: Choosing Policies That Mobilize Business for Decarbonization

What policies could mobilize business support for progressive and durable national climate policy in the United States? I examine the climate policy experiences of U.S. states and propose that a national clean energy standard combined with carefully allocated public investment in clean energy infrastructure and innovation could mobilize economic interests in support of decarbonization. Further, I argue that the more entrenched clean energy and infrastructure become, the more likely it becomes that comprehensive climate policies can be passed in the future. This includes performance and deployment mandates beyond the electricity industry, including in the transport and building sectors. These initial steps may also help to build a winning coalition for progressive federal carbon pricing, as opposed to an accommodative coalition in support of weak carbon pricing.

The Bully in the Pulpit: The Impact of Donald Trump's Public Discourse

Donald Trump’s public discourse has been characterized by making ad hominem attacks aimed at branding and delegitimizing critics and opponents, exaggerating threats or offering inappropriate reassurance, blurring the distinction between fact and fiction, stoking cultural divisions and racial and ethnic tensions, and challenging the rule of law. This rhetoric was both consistent with his pre-presidential expressions and a clear deviation from the norms of the presidency. Rather than being an asset for the president, his public discourse has diminished his ability to govern. His rhetoric has not aided him in expanding his supportive coalition. Incivility has not proven useful in attracting those not predisposed to support him, and he has not been able to brand policies effectively. Nor has he convinced most people to distrust his critics, including the media, and he has not persuaded them with either his exaggerations or minimizing of threats. His prevaricating has not won him additional adherents. Instead, the public finds him untrustworthy and not someone to whom they should defer. His public discourse and his playing to his base has brought him low and highly polarized approval ratings. Most Americans considered his rhetoric to be divisive and polarizing. In the end, Trump’s rhetoric has made it even more difficult to govern effectively. Equally important, there is reason to conclude that Trump’s discourse has been deleterious for American democracy. His rhetoric has encouraged incivility in public discourse, accelerated the use of disinformation, legitimized the expression of prejudice and increasing the salience of cultural divisions and racial and ethnic tensions, and undermined democratic accountability. Although most people reject both the tone and substance of the president’s rhetoric, many Republicans do not. Especially for his co-partisans, he has distorted the public’s knowledge about politics and policy, warped their understanding of policy challenges, and chipped away at respect for the rule of law.

Consumption Taxation in the European Economic Community: Fostering the Common Market or Financing the Welfare State?

AbstractThe literature on the comparative political economy of taxation often links consumption taxation to the welfare state. It argues that the expansion of consumption taxation paid for the expansion of welfare states and that bigger welfare states therefore tax consumption more heavily. We challenge this perspective by looking at the introduction of the Value Added Tax (VAT) in the European Economic Community in 1967, the breakthrough of this form of consumption taxation. Studying the crucial case of Germany, and complementing it with the shadow case of the Netherlands, we demonstrate that political struggles about this reform did not center on a conflict between supporters and opponents of welfare state expansion. Instead, the VAT was primarily a tool to foster market integration in Europe by reducing barriers to trade. As we show, the coalition in support of the VAT only succeeded after it won the backing of important export interests.

The Power of Humanitarian Narratives: A Domestic Coalition Theory of Justifications for Military Action

Conventional wisdom assumes the best way to mobilize public support for military action is through the lens of national security. Humanitarian justifications provide a helpful substitute when US interests are not at stake, but are less reliable. However, US presidents have provided humanitarian explanations for every military intervention of the post-Cold War period. What, if any, power do humanitarian justifications have in security-driven interventions? The article answers this question by developing a domestic coalition framework that evaluates justifications in terms of whose support matters most in the build-up to intervention. Survey experiments demonstrate that humanitarian narratives are necessary to build the largest possible coalition of support. However, presidents risk backlash if they stretch humanitarian claims too far. Data from thirteen waves of Chicago Council surveys and an original dataset of justifications for US interventions confirm that humanitarian justifications are a common and politically relevant tool. The findings challenge both the folk realist expectation that the public responds primarily to threats to its own security and the constructivist tendency to limit the power of humanitarian justifications to cases of humanitarian intervention. Instead, humanitarian justifications are equally, if not more, important than security explanations for mobilizing domestic support, even in security-driven interventions.

A discourse network analysis of UK newspaper coverage of the \u201csugar tax\u201d debate before and after the announcement of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy

BackgroundOn 6th April 2018, the UK Government introduced the Soft Drinks Industry Levy (SDIL) as a mechanism designed to address increasing prevalence of obesity and associated ill health by reducing sugar consumption. Given that the successful introduction of upstream food and nutrition policies is a highly political enterprise involving multiple interested parties, understanding the complex network of stakeholders seeking to influence such policy decisions is imperative.MethodsMedia content analysis was used to build a dataset of relevant newspaper articles, which were analysed to identify stakeholder agreement or disagreement with defined concept statements. We used discourse network analysis to produce visual representations of the network of stakeholders and coalitions evident in the debate as it was presented in UK newspapers, in the lead up to and following the announcement of the Soft Drinks Industry Levy in the UK, from May 2015 to November 2016.ResultsCoding identified 3883 statements made by 214 individuals from 176 organisations, relating to 47 concepts. Network visualisations revealed a complex network of stakeholders with clear sceptical and supportive coalitions. Industry stakeholders appeared less united in the network than anticipated, particularly before the SDIL announcement. Some key industry actors appeared in the supportive coalition, possibly due to the use of corporate social responsibility rhetoric. Jamie Oliver appeared as a dominant stakeholder, firmly embedded with public health advocates.ConclusionThis study highlights the complexity of the network of stakeholders involved in the public debate on food policies such as sugar tax and the SDIL. Polarisation of stakeholders arose from differences in ideology, focus on a specific policy and statements about the weight of evidence. Vocal celebrity policy entrepreneurs may be instrumental in gaining public and policy makers’ support for future upstream regulation to promote population health, to facilitate alignment around a clear ideology.

A Bridge in Flux: Narratives and the Policy Process in the Pacific Northwest

AbstractPolicy narratives play an important role in the policy process. Often policy narratives originate from advocacy coalitions seeking increased support from the public for their policy stance. Although most Narrative Policy Framework studies have focused on national policy issues, this study examines a state and local economic development project by exploring the policy narratives from competing coalitions in favor and opposed to the project. Specifically, in the Portland–Vancouver area of Oregon and Washington, local policy discussions have been dominated by a proposal for a new mega bridge on Interstate‐5 connecting the two cities across the Columbia River. A new government agency (CRC—Columbia River Crossing) was formed for the implementation of this project. Upon approval of a proposal, CRC experienced heavy backlash from citizens, local businesses, community leaders, and other stakeholders leading to the formation of two competing coalitions in opposition and support of the bridge. This study, using content analysis of 370 public documents, finds that competing coalitions utilize policy narratives in strategic ways to characterize the opposing coalition, themselves, and other actors in the policy subsystem. This study also suggests that the strength and cohesion of a coalition's narrative contributes to its policy success and the winning/losing status of a coalition potentially determines the types of strategies they will use. Last, this study introduces and tests a new narrative strategy called the impotent shift testing a coalition's strategic use of the victim character.

A paradox of embedded agency: Sustainable investors boundary bridging to emerging fields

This study provides additional insight into the paradox of embedded agency through an examination of investors' interests in sustainable business. According to the paradox, although actors are embedded in institutional fields, they may become agents of change. This research adds to existing literature by examining how varying degrees of embeddedness may affect change behaviors. In addition, this research considers the latter in a new venture investment context that: 1) distinguishes between individual, organizational, and hybrid organizational investor types, 2) perceives investors in a mature field crossing over to engage in or “boundary bridging” to emerging fields related to new industries and other mature fields, and 3) conceptualizes a change agent role as a mixed coalition of leaders and supporters rather than a single autonomous actor. By examining investors’ various roles in sustainable entrepreneurship, contributions are also made to the literature on sustainable entrepreneurship. Empirical tests of hypotheses use negative binomial regression analyses on a sample of 186 Crunchbase listed firms. Results find that the lead investors who choose sustainable start-ups over information technology start-ups are change agents, sometimes in syndicate coalitions that include other supportive embedded investors having differing motivations.

Power, coalitions and institutional change in South African climate policy

ABSTRACTThis paper examines power relations, coalitions and conflicts that drive and hinder institutional change in South African climate policy. The analysis finds that the most contested climate policies are those that create distributional conflicts where powerful, non-poor actors will potentially experience real losses to their fossil fuel-based operations. This finding opposes the assumption of competing objectives between emissions and poverty reduction. Yet, actors use discourse that relates to potentially competing objectives between emissions reductions, jobs, poverty reduction and economic welfare.The analysis relates to the broader questions on how to address public policy problems that affect the two objectives of mitigating climate change and simultaneously boosting socio-economic development. South Africa is a middle-income country that represents the challenge of accommodating simultaneous efforts for emissions and poverty reduction.Institutional change has been constrained especially in the process towards establishing climate budgets and a carbon tax. The opposing coalitions have succeeded in delaying the implementation of these processes, as a result of unequal power relations. Institutional change in South African climate policy can be predominantly characterized as layering with elements of policy innovation. New policies build on existing regulations in all three cases of climate policy examined: the climate change response white paper, the carbon tax and the renewable energy programme. Unbalanced power relations between coalitions of support in government and civil society and opposition mainly from the affected industry result in very fragile institutional change.Key policy insightsThe South African government has managed to drive institutional change in climate policy significantly over the past 7 years.Powerful coalitions of coal-related industries and their lobbies have constrained institutional change and managed to delay the implementation of carbon pricing measures.A successfully managed renewable energy programme has started to transform a coal- and nuclear-powered electricity sector towards integrating sustainable energy technologies. The programme is vulnerable to intergovernmental opposition and requires management at the highest political levels.Potential conflict with poverty reduction measures is not a major concern that actively hinders institutional change towards climate objectives. Predominantly non-poor actors frequently use poverty-related discourse to elevate their interests to issues of public concern.

Education and affinity? pedagogies of sexual citizenship in LGBTIQ youth support videos

ABSTRACTThis article provides an analysis of some of the ways in which educational resources for youth frame identity, sexuality and normativity within broader contexts of support and sexual citizenship. It focuses on online video resources for young people produced in Australia by the LGBTIQ support and curriculum advocacy organisation Safe Schools Coalition Australia and by the Minus18 Foundation. Developed as part of the larger All of Us educational package, these videos are explicitly pedagogical, presenting the viewer with ‘real life’ experiences from a range of young Australians. We consider the work the All of Us videos do in engaging with concepts of sexual citizenship, particularly as they seek to help young people navigate multiple forms of belonging and support. Of special interest is a series of tensions between normalising tendencies and the complexification of identities, communities, intimacies and belongings. While the videos may be perceived to operate within largely normative conceptualisations of sexuality, they explore ways of building affinity, peer support, and alternative ways of being that extend well beyond the logics usually offered by these frameworks.

Representing the compromise: How institutions serve government support coalitions in European Union policy making

AbstractThis article presents an original model of policy making by multiparty coalitions at the international level. Specifically, it analyses how domestic institutions serve parties in enforcing policy compromises onto national ministers negotiating legislation in the European Union (EU). In contrast to existing research on coalition politics, the model accounts for the benefits of not only legislative but also executive institutions and incorporates opposition parties as pivotal actors under minority governments. Ministers propose policy positions at the EU level that represent domestic coalition compromises when cabinet participation, executive coordination and parliamentary oversight of EU affairs make it cheap for coalition partners to challenge the minister's position and when ideological divisiveness increases the incentive to do so. Statistical analyses of 1,694 policy positions taken by ministers from 22 member states in the Council of the EU provide strong empirical evidence for the model. The results support the claim of executive dominance in EU policy making but also highlight that, where institutions are strong, ministers represent domestic coalition compromises rather than their own positions.

Discovering fake news embedded in the opposing hashtag activism networks on Twitter: #Gunreformnow vs. #NRA

AbstractAfter Russia’s malicious attempts to influence the 2016 presidential election were revealed, “fake news” gained notoriety and became a popular term in political discourses and related research areas. Empirical research about fake news in diverse settings is in the beginning phase while research has revealed limitedly that “what we know about fake news so far is predominantly based on anecdotal evidence.” The purpose of this study is to investigate fake news included in politically opposing hashtag activism, #Gunreformnow and #NRA (The National Rifle Association). This study attempted to lay out the process of identifying fake news in the hashtag activism network on Twitter as a two-step process: 1) hashtag frequency analysis, top word-pair analysis, and social network analysis and 2) qualitative content analysis. This study discovered several frames through a qualitative approach. One of the prominent fake news frames was intentionally misleading information that attacks the opposing political party and its advocators. The disinformation tweets overall presented far-right wing ideologies and included multiple hashtags and a YouTube video to promote and distribute their agendas while calling for coalition of far-right wing supporters. However, the fake news tweets often failed to provide a reliable source to back up credibility of the content.