IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/trapol/v35y2014icp275-285.html

Mixed-methods analysis of political parties׳ manifesto discourse on rail transport policy: Westminster, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections 1945–2011

Author

Listed:
  • Chaney, Paul

Abstract

This study addresses a key lacuna by exploring the role of electoral politics in shaping public policy on rail transport in (quasi-)federal systems of governance. Attention centres on issue-salience and policy framing in party manifestos in state-wide and regional elections. The findings reveal a significant rise in issue-salience in parties׳ Westminster election programmes; with right- and left-of-centre parties increasingly advocating mixed economy approaches to rail transport as part of the wider rise of ‘valence politics’. The analysis also reveals how devolution may lead to the territorialisation of rail transport policy. In contrast to parties׳ Westminster programmes, regional manifesto discourse evidences a general rejection of neo-liberalism and stronger support for state control and/or not-for-profit rail operators. Overall, the findings underline the formative nexus between political representation and public policy – and show how, in the wake of state decentralisation, policy framing is contingent on ‘regional’ socio-economic factors and party politics, including state-building by civic nationalist parties.

Suggested Citation

  • Chaney, Paul, 2014. "Mixed-methods analysis of political parties׳ manifesto discourse on rail transport policy: Westminster, Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish elections 1945–2011," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 275-285.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:trapol:v:35:y:2014:i:c:p:275-285
    DOI: 10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.06.002
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0967070X14001231
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.tranpol.2014.06.002?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
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to

    for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Royed, Terry J., 1996. "Testing the Mandate Model in Britain and the United States: Evidence from the Reagan and Thatcher Eras," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 26(1), pages 45-80, January.
    2. Stephen Senn & Dipti Amin & Rosemary A. Bailey & Sheila M. Bird & Barbara Bogacka & Peter Colman & Andrew Garrett & Andrew Grieve & Peter Lachmann, 2007. "Statistical issues in first‐in‐man studies," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 170(3), pages 517-579, July.
    3. Graham Haughton & Dave Counsell & Geoff Vigar, 2008. "Sustainable Development in Post-devolution UK and Ireland," Regional Studies, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 42(9), pages 1223-1236.
    4. repec:cup:apsrev:v:65:y:1971:i:02:p:389-400_13 is not listed on IDEAS
    5. Else, Peter, 1996. "Subsidy requirements in a restructured rail network : With particular reference to British Rail," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 3(1-2), pages 13-15.
    6. Tim Strangleman, 2002. "Nostalgia for Nationalisation - the Politics of Privatisation," Sociological Research Online, , vol. 7(1), pages 92-105, March.
    7. Andrew Gamble, 0. "The Constitutional Revolution in the United Kingdom," Publius: The Journal of Federalism, CSF Associates Inc., vol. 36(1), pages 19-35.
    8. John Stittle, 2004. "Accounting for UK rail freight track charges: privatisation, politics and the pursuit of private sector vested interests," Accounting Forum, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 403-425, December.
    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. Paul Chaney, 2015. "“Post-Feminist†Era of Social Investment and Territorial Welfare? Exploring the Issue Salience and Policy Framing of Child Care in U.K. Elections 1983-2011," SAGE Open, , vol. 5(1), pages 21582440155, February.
    2. Robert Wapshott & Oliver Mallett, 2018. "Small and medium-sized enterprise policy: Designed to fail?," Environment and Planning C, , vol. 36(4), pages 750-772, June.
    3. Tassilo Herrschel, 2013. "Competitiveness AND Sustainability: Can ‘Smart City Regionalism’ Square the Circle?," Urban Studies, Urban Studies Journal Limited, vol. 50(11), pages 2332-2348, August.
    4. Mikael Elinder & Henrik Jordahl & Panu Poutvaara, 2008. "Selfish and Prospective: Theory and Evidence of Pocketbook Voting," CESifo Working Paper Series 2489, CESifo.
    5. Lisa Waller & Lucy Morieson & Sonam Thomas, 2026. "Understanding election promise tracking as a form of fact-checking," Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, Palgrave Macmillan, vol. 13(1), pages 1-9, December.
    6. Durevall, Dick & Henrekson, Magnus, 2011. "The futile quest for a grand explanation of long-run government expenditure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 95(7-8), pages 708-722, August.
    7. Petia Kostadinova & Magda Giurcanu, 2018. "Capturing the legislative priorities of transnational Europarties and the European Commission: A pledge approach," European Union Politics, , vol. 19(2), pages 363-379, June.
    8. Danai Machakaire & Masilonyane Mokhele, 2024. "A Literature Review on the Paradoxes of Public Interest in Spatial Planning within Urban Settings with Diverse Stakeholders," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, April.
    9. Andreas Schedler, 1998. "The Normative Force of Electoral Promises," Journal of Theoretical Politics, , vol. 10(2), pages 191-214, April.
    10. Ellger, Fabio & Klüver, Heike & Alberto, Anthea, 2023. "The electoral consequences of policy-making in coalition governments," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 10(3), pages 1-7.
    11. Matthieß, Theres, 2020. "Retrospective pledge voting: A comparative study of the electoral consequences of government parties’ pledge fulfilment," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 59(4), pages 774-796.
    12. Álvarez-SanJaime, Óscar & Cantos-Sanchez, Pedro & Moner-Colonques, Rafael & Sempere-Monerris, Jose J., 2016. "Rail access charges and internal competition in high speed trains," Transport Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(C), pages 184-195.
    13. Josiah, Jairos & Burton, Bruce & Gallhofer, Sonja & Haslam, Jim, 2010. "Accounting for privatisation in Africa? Reflections from a critical interdisciplinary perspective," CRITICAL PERSPECTIVES ON ACCOUNTING, Elsevier, vol. 21(5), pages 374-389.
    14. Werner, Annika & Giebler, Heiko, 2019. "Do Populists Represent? Theoretical Considerations on How Populist Parties (Might) Enact their Representative Function," EconStor Open Access Articles and Book Chapters, ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics, vol. 55(4), pages 379-392.
    15. Sakari Nieminen & Juha Ylisalo, 2025. "Narrow but underdetermined: interpretational issues considering the analysis of electoral pledges," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 59(3), pages 2455-2473, June.
    16. Jane Broadbent & James Guthrie, 2008. "Public sector to public services: 20 years of “contextual” accounting research," Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, Emerald Group Publishing Limited, vol. 21(2), pages 129-169, February.
    17. Matthews, Bryan & Evangelinos, Christos & Johnson, Daniel & Meunier, David, 2009. "Impacts and incentives of differentiated rail infrastructure charges in Europe - focus on freight," European Transport \ Trasporti Europei, ISTIEE, Institute for the Study of Transport within the European Economic Integration, issue 43, pages 83-112.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;
    ;

    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:eee:trapol:v:35:y:2014:i:c:p:275-285. 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: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/wps/find/journaldescription.cws_home/30473/description#description .

    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.