IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/bla/indres/v61y2022i1p22-49.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

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

Author

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

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

  • 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.
    • Handle: RePEc:bla:indres:v:61:y:2022:i:1:p:22-49
    DOI: 10.1111/irel.12296
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.1111/irel.12296
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1111/irel.12296?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Jonathan Preminger, 2020. "‘Ideational power’ as a resource in union struggle," Industrial Relations Journal, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 51(3), pages 209-224, May.
    2. 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.
    3. Anthony Downs, 1957. "An Economic Theory of Political Action in a Democracy," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 65, pages 135-135.
    4. 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.
    5. 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.
    6. 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.
    7. 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.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Martin B. Carstensen & Christian Lyhne Ibsen & Vivien A. Schmidt, 2022. "Ideas and power in employment relations studies," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 3-21, January.

    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. 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.
    2. Martin B. Carstensen & Christian Lyhne Ibsen & Vivien A. Schmidt, 2022. "Ideas and power in employment relations studies," Industrial Relations: A Journal of Economy and Society, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 61(1), pages 3-21, January.
    3. 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).
    4. 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.
    5. Paulo Marzionna, 2023. "Is this workplace bullying? How ideas about conflict shape conflict management strategies," British Journal of Industrial Relations, London School of Economics, vol. 61(2), pages 366-391, June.
    6. 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.
    7. Abhinash Borah, 2019. "Voting Expressively," Working Papers 1012, Ashoka University, Department of Economics.
    8. Cheryl L. Eavey, 1987. "Bureaucratic Competition and Agenda Control," Journal of Conflict Resolution, Peace Science Society (International), vol. 31(3), pages 503-524, September.
    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. Eromenko, Igor, 2010. "Accession to the WTO. Computable General Equilibrium Analysis: the Case of Ukraine. Part I," MPRA Paper 67476, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    12. 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.
    13. Spenkuch, Jörg, 2013. "On the Extent of Strategic Voting," MPRA Paper 50198, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    14. Nils Goldschmidt & Arnold Berndt, 2005. "Leonhard Miksch (1901–1950)," American Journal of Economics and Sociology, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 64(4), pages 973-998, October.
    15. 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.
    16. Marco Faravelli & Randall Walsh, 2011. "Smooth Politicians And Paternalistic Voters: A Theory Of Large Elections," Levine's Working Paper Archive 786969000000000250, David K. Levine.
    17. 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.
    18. Franklin Mixon & Len Trevino & Taisa Minto, 2005. "Are legislative TV and campaign finance regulations complementary entry barriers? Evidence from the USA," Applied Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 37(4), pages 387-396.
    19. 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.
    20. Micael Castanheira, 2003. "Why Vote For Losers?," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 1(5), pages 1207-1238, September.

    More about this item

    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:bla:indres:v:61:y:2022:i:1:p:22-49. 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: Wiley Content Delivery (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/journal.asp?ref=0019-8676 .

    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.