This article asks whether alleged partisan policy convergence has eradicated differences in relation to privatization of delivery of welfare state services. The study utilizes a novel methodological approach—numerous intrastate comparisons set in a consilience research framework—to assess the extent of convergence and its underlying reasons. It explores the partisan politics of school privatization of delivery across five countries that differ in their position on the left–right continuum: England, Australia, New Zealand, Norway, and Sweden. Privatization of delivery in health care was selected as a secondary policy domain. Analysis of within-country variation in both domains indicates that there remain significant differences between left and right across all countries. The right tends to set the privatization agenda, and the left is more reluctant than the right to privatize delivery of services. This difference in approach is related to the disparate influence that public and private program constituencies have over left and right parties.
AllanJ. P.ScruggsL. (2004). Political partisanship and welfare state reform in advanced industrial societies. American Journal of Political Science, 48, 496-512.
2.
AllernE.FlemmingN.ChristiansenJ. (2007). Social Democrats and trade unions in Scandinavia: The decline and persistence of institutional relationships. European Journal of Political Research, 46, 607-635.
3.
AmableB.GattiD.SchumacherJ. (2006). Welfare state retrenchment: The partisan effect revisited. Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 22, 426-444.
4.
AugerD. A. (1999). Privatization, contracting, and the states: Lessons from state government experience. Public Productivity and Management Review, 22, 435-454.
5.
Australian Labor Party. (2007). National platform. Chapter 10, privatization.
6.
BarnettP.BarnettR. (1997). A turning tide? Reflections on ideology and health service restructuring in New Zealand. Health & Place, 3, 55-58.
7.
BélandD. (2001). Does labor matter? Institutions, labor unions and pension reform in France and the United States. Journal of Public Policy, 21, 153-172.
8.
BergströmF.BlankM. (2005). A survey on the development of independent schools in Sweden. Stockholm: Swedish Research Institute of Trade.
9.
BlomqvistP. (2004). The choice revolution: Privatization of Swedish welfare services in the 1990s. Social Policy and Administration, 38, 139-155.
10.
BrudneyJ. L.FernandezS.RyuJ. E.WrightD. S. (2005). Exploring and explaining contracting out: Patterns among the American states. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory, 15, 393-419.
11.
BurkeG.SpaullA. (2001). Centenary article—Australian schools. Year Book Australia, 83, 433-446.
12.
BusemeyerM. R. (2007). Determinants of public education spending in 21 OECD democracies, 1980–2001. Journal of European Public Policy, 14, 582-610.
13.
BusemeyerM. R. (2009). Social democrats and the new partisan politics of public investment in education. Journal of European Public Policy, 16, 107-126.
14.
CookB. (2006). Privatising health: The demise of Medicare?Australian Journal of Social Issues, 41, 195-208.
EdwardsT.FitzJ.WhittyG. (1989). The state and private education: An evaluation of the assisted places scheme. London, UK: Falmer.
19.
FiskeE. B.LaddH. F. (2000). When schools compete: A cautionary tale. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
20.
GiddensA. (1998). The third way: The renewal of social democracy. Oxford, UK: Polity.
21.
GivanR. K.BachS. (2007). Workforce responses to the creeping privatization of the UK National Health Service. International Labor and Working-Class History, 71, 133-153.
Green-PedersenC. (2002). New public management reforms of the Danish and Swedish welfare states: The role of different Social Democratic responses. Governance, 15, 271-294.
24.
GreenshieldsB. (2006, October6). Not a moment to lose. Morning Star. 3.
25.
HackerJ. S. (2002). The divided welfare state. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
HarrisonM. I.CalltorpJ. (2000). The reorientation of market-oriented reforms in Swedish health-care. Health Policy, 50, 219-240.
27.
HowellC. (2001). The end of the relationship between Social Democratic parties and trade unions?Studies in Political Economy, 65, 7-37.
28.
HuberE.StephensJ. D. (2001). Development and crisis of the welfare state: Parties and policies in global markets. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
JonesG. (2006, May25). Rebels leave Blair to rely on Tory support. Daily Telegraph. 2.
31.
KettlD. F. (2005). The global public management revolution. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
32.
KittelB.ObingerH. (2003). Political parties, institutions, and the dynamics of social expenditure in times of austerity. Journal of European Public Policy, 10, 20-45.
33.
KlitgaardM. B. (2007). Do welfare state regimes determine public sector reforms? Choice reforms in American, Swedish and German schools. Scandinavian Political Studies, 30, 444-468.
34.
KlitgaardM. B. (2008). School vouchers and the new politics of the welfare state. Governance, 21, 479-498.
35.
KreisbergS. (2004). The future of public sector unionism in the United States. Journal of Labor Research, 25, 223-232.
36.
LaugesenM. (2005). Why some market reforms lack legitimacy in health care. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, 30, 1065-1100.
37.
LawsonN. (1992). The view from no. 11: Memoirs of a Tory radical. London, UK: Bantam.
38.
Le GrandJ. (2007). The other invisible hand: Delivering public services through choice and competition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
Levi-FaurD. (2006). Varieties of regulatory capitalism: Getting the most out of the comparative method. Governance, 19, 367-382.
40.
LidströmA. (1999). Local school choice policies in Sweden. Scandinavian Political Studies, 22, 137-156.
41.
LundahlL. (2002). Sweden: Decentralization, deregulation, quasi-markets—and then what?Journal of Education Policy, 17, 687-697.
NygardM. (2006). Welfare-ideological change in Scandinavia: A comparative analysis of partisan welfare state positions in four Nordic countries, 1970–2003. Scandinavian Political Studies, 29, 356-385.
ØvretveitJ. (2003). Nordic privatization and private healthcare. International Journal of Health Planning and Management, 18, 233-246.
47.
PalmeJ.KorpiW. (2003). New politics and class politics in the context of austerity and globalization: Welfare state regress in 18 countries, 1975–95. American Political Science Review, 97, 425-446.
RokkanS.LipsetS. M. (1967). Cleavage structures, party systems and voter alignments. An introduction. In LipsetS. M.RokkanS. (Eds.), Party systems and voter alignments (pp. 1-64). New York, NY: Free Press.
56.
RussellB. (2005, April28). Blair: Tory school vouchers to cost ₤2Bn. The Independent. 20.
SaltmanR. B.BergmanS. E. (2005). Renovating the commons: Swedish health care reforms in perspective. Journal of Health Politics Policy and Law, 30, 253-275.
59.
SavageL. (2004). Public sector unions shaping hospital privatization: The creation of Boston Medical Center. Environment and Planning A, 36, 547-568.
60.
Statistics Norway. (2008). Private primary and lower secondary schools and pupils in private primary and lower secondary schools. 1997–2004. Retrieved from http://www.ssb.no/utgrs/
SweetmanR. (2002). A fair and just solution?Wellington, New Zealand: Dunmore Press.
64.
TattersallA. (2006). Bringing the community in: Possibilities for public sector union success through community unionism. International Journal of Human Resources Development and Management, 6, 186-199.
65.
ThatcherM. (1993). The Downing Street years. New York, NY: HarperCollins.
66.
TimminsN. (2007). Backpedalling from Blair’s privatisation agenda. British Medical Journal, 335, 794-795.
67.
TufteE. R. (1980). Political control of the economy. Princeton NJ: Princeton University Press.
68.
WalfordG. (2000). From city technology colleges to sponsored grant maintained schools. Oxford Review of Education, 26, 145-158.
