IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/ehl/lserod/125308.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The relative importance of industrial relations ideas in politics: a quantitative analysis of political party manifestos across 54 countries

Author

Listed:
  • Lamare, J. Ryan
  • Budd, John W.

Abstract

Ideas are important but hard to quantify, making large-scale, quantitative analyses difficult. Political parties are important ideational contributors, and their election year manifestos provide explicit compilations of their ideas. Using Comparative Manifesto Project data, we propose three channels through which ideas enter into manifestos and examine the fraction of manifesto content devoted to pro-worker and anti-union statements to measure the importance of these ideas. Multivariate analyses across 54 countries, 75 years, and 1132 parties uniquely uncover predictors of industrial relations ideas, including party characteristics, responses to other parties, and economic and political conditions. Further, pro-worker ideas matter to voters during elections.

Suggested Citation

  • Lamare, J. Ryan & Budd, John W., 2022. "The relative importance of industrial relations ideas in politics: a quantitative analysis of political party manifestos across 54 countries," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 125308, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    • Handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:125308
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/125308/
    File Function: Open access version.
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Rueda, David, 2006. "Social Democracy and Active Labour-Market Policies: Insiders, Outsiders and the Politics of Employment Promotion," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 36(3), pages 385-406, July.
    2. John W. Budd & J. Ryan Lamare, 2021. "The Importance of Political Systems for Trade Union Membership, Coverage and Influence: Theory and Comparative Evidence," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 59(3), pages 757-787, September.
    3. Bingham Powell Jr, G. & Vanberg, Georg S., 2000. "Election Laws, Disproportionality and Median Correspondence: Implications for Two Visions of Democracy," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 30(3), pages 383-411, July.
    4. Döring, Holger & Regel, Sven, 2019. "Party Facts: A database of political parties worldwide," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 25(2), pages 97-109.
    5. Kostas Gemenis, 2013. "What to Do (and Not to Do) with the C omparative M anifestos P roject Data," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 61, pages 23-43, April.
    6. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65(2), pages 135-135.
    7. Colm McLaughlin & Chris F. Wright, 2018. "The Role of Ideas in Understanding Industrial Relations Policy Change in Liberal Market Economies," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 57(4), pages 568-610, October.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. J. Ryan Lamare & John W. Budd, 2022. "The relative importance of industrial relations ideas in politics: A quantitative analysis of political party manifestos across 54 countries," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 22-49, January.
    2. Kellermann, Kim Leonie, 2017. "Political participation and party capture in a dualized economy: A game theory approach," CIW Discussion Papers 4/2017, University of Münster, Center for Interdisciplinary Economics (CIW).
    3. Bernd Brandl, 2023. "The cooperation between business organizations, trade unions, and the state during the COVID‐19 pandemic: A comparative analysis of the nature of the tripartite relationship," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 62(2), pages 145-171, April.
    4. Patrick Lunz, 2013. "What's left of the left? Partisanship and the political economy of labour market reform: why has the social democratic party in Germany liberalised labour markets?," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 65, European Institute, LSE.
    5. Patrick Lunz, 2013. "What's left of the left? Partisanship and the political economy of labour market reform: why has the social democratic party in Germany liberalised labour markets?," Europe in Question Discussion Paper Series of the London School of Economics (LEQs) 5, London School of Economics / European Institute.
    6. Potrafke, Niklas, 2017. "Partisan politics: The empirical evidence from OECD panel studies," Journal of Comparative Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(4), pages 712-750.
    7. Abou-Chadi, Tarik & Krause, Werner, 2020. "The Causal Effect of Radical Right Success on Mainstream Parties’ Policy Positions: A Regression Discontinuity Approach," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 50(3), pages 829-847.
    8. Krause, Werner, 2020. "Appearing moderate or radical? Radical left party success and the two-dimensional political space," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 43(7), pages 1365-1387.
    9. Christophe Crombez, 2004. "Introduction," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 16(3), pages 227-231, July.
    10. Persson, Torsten & Tabellini, Guido, 2002. "Political economics and public finance," Handbook of Public Economics, in: A. J. Auerbach & M. Feldstein (ed.), Handbook of Public Economics, edition 1, volume 3, chapter 24, pages 1549-1659, Elsevier.
    11. Kaivan Munshi & Mark Rosenzweig, 2008. "The Efficacy of Parochial Politics: Caste, Commitment, and Competence in Indian Local Governments," NBER Working Papers 14335, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    12. Navin Kartik & Francesco Squintani & Katrin Tinn, 2024. "Information Revelation and Pandering in Elections," Papers 2406.17084, arXiv.org.
    13. Burkhard Schipper & Hee Yeul Woo, 2012. "Political Awareness and Microtargeting of Voters in Electoral Competition," Working Papers 124, University of California, Davis, Department of Economics.
    14. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    15. Hank C. Jenkins-Smith & Neil J. Mitchell & Kerry G. Herron, 2004. "Foreign and Domestic Policy Belief Structures in the U.S. and British Publics," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 48(3), pages 287-309, June.
    16. Eric Kaufmann & Henry Patterson, 2006. "Intra‐Party Support for the Good Friday Agreement in the Ulster Unionist Party," Political Studies, Political Studies Association, vol. 54(3), pages 509-532, October.
    17. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.
    18. Peter J. Coughlin, 2015. "Probabilistic voting in models of electoral competition," Chapters, in: Jac C. Heckelman & Nicholas R. Miller (ed.), Handbook of Social Choice and Voting, chapter 13, pages 218-234, Edward Elgar Publishing.
    19. Mihir Bhattacharya, 2019. "Constitutionally consistent voting rules over single-peaked domains," Social Choice and Welfare, Springer;The Society for Social Choice and Welfare, vol. 52(2), pages 225-246, February.
    20. Marc Henry & Ismael Mourifié, 2013. "Euclidean Revealed Preferences: Testing The Spatial Voting Model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 28(4), pages 650-666, June.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • R14 - Urban, Rural, Regional, Real Estate, and Transportation Economics - - General Regional Economics - - - Land Use Patterns
    • J01 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - General - - - Labor Economics: General
    • J50 - Labor and Demographic Economics - - Labor-Management Relations, Trade Unions, and Collective Bargaining - - - General

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ehl:lserod:125308. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: LSERO Manager (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/lsepsuk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.