This article provides a theoretical and empirical cross-national analysis of the relationship between two composite concepts: left-wing mobilization (entailing consideration of the degree of social democratic party rule, left-wing party opposition, and trade union strength) and socioeconomic equality. A typology of this latter concept is presented that focuses upon four dimensions of equality: meritocratic (equality of opportunity), welfarist (ethos of the modern welfare state), emancipatory (socio-proportional equality for sexual, ethnic, and racial groups), and egalitarian (equality of income distribution). After consideration of the theoretical literature on the impact of the partisan composition of government (as well as the role of opposition and trade union forces) upon the degree of socioeconomic equality, hypotheses are derived to test empirically this relationship for the advanced capitalist states of Western Europe, North America, and the Pacific during the postwar era. The findings lend credence to a view (termed in this article the Constrained Socialism school of thought) that perceives severe politico-economic constraints in the ability to increase substantially those dimensions of socioeconomic equality that are not highly compatible with the interests of advanced capitalism.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ATKINSON, A. B. (1970) “On the measurement of inequality.”J. of Economic Theory: 244-263.
2.
BANKS, A. and W. OVERSTREET (1980) Political Handbook of the World. New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
BELL, D. (1960) The End of Ideology. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
4.
BROOKS, J. (1981) “Socio-economic inequality in developed democracies: politico-economic determinants and consequences.” Ph.D. dissertation, Carleton University (Ottawa).
5.
BUSCH, G. (1975) “Inequality of educational opportunity by social origin in higher education.”Education, Inequality, and Life Chances, Vol. 1. Paris: OECD.
6.
CAMERON, D. (1976) “Inequality and the state: a political-economic comparison.” Delivered at annual American Political Science Association convention.
7.
CHAMPERNOWNE, D. G. (1974) “A comparison of measures of inequality of income distribution.”Economic Journal:787-816.
8.
CHANDLER, W. (1977) “Canadian socialism and policy impact: contagion from the left?”Canadian J. of Pol. Sci: 755-780.
9.
CURTIS, M. (1973) “Utopia and the kibbutz,” pp. 101-114 in Curtis and Chertoff (eds.) Israel: Social Structure and Change. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction.
10.
CUTRIGHT, P. (1967) “Inequality: a cross-national analysis.”Amer. Soc. Rev: 562-578.
11.
DAHL, R. (1966) Political Oppositions in Western Democracies. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
12.
DAVIS, K. (1949) Human Society. New York: Macmillan.
13.
DOLAN M. (1980) “Foreign policies of African states in asymmetrical dyads.”Int. Studies Q.: 415-449.
14.
DOWNS, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
15.
DRYZEK, J. (1978) “Politics, economics and inequality: a cross-national analysis.”European J. of Pol. Research: 399-410.
16.
DUVERGER, M. (1954) Political Parties. New York: John Wiley.
17.
Europa, Ltd. (1950-1970) The Europa Yearbook. London: Martins.
18.
Government of Australia [GOA] (1974) Tertiary Education in Australia, Canberra: GOA.
19.
HEWITT, C. (1977) “The effect of political democracy and social democracy on equality in industrial societies.”Amer. Soc. Rev: 450-464.
20.
HYMAN, R. and I. BROUGH (1975) Social Values and Industrial Relations: A Study of Fairness and Equality. Oxford: Blackwell.
21.
International Labour Office [ILO] (1972, 1976) The Cost of Social Security. Geneva: ILO.
22.
International Labour Office (1971, 1974) Yearbook of Labour Statistics. Geneva: ILO.
23.
JACKMAN, R. (1980) “Socialist parties and income inequality in western industrial societies.”J. of Politics: 135-149.
24.
JACKMAN, R. (1975) Politics and Social Equality. New York, John Wiley.
25.
JAIN, S. (1975) Size Distribution of Income: A Compilation of Data. Washington, DC: World Bank.
26.
KERR, C. (1960) Industrialism and Industrial Man. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Univ. Press.
27.
KIRCHHEIMER, O. (1966) “The transformation of the Western European party system.” pp: 177-200 in LaPalombara and Weiner (eds.) Political Parties and Political Development. Princeton, NJ: Princeton Univ. Press.
28.
LENSKI, G. (1966) Power and Privilege: A Theory of Social Stratification. New York: McGraw-Hill.
29.
LIPSET, S. M. (1960) Political Man. Garden City, NY: Doubleday.
30.
LOGUE, J. (1979) “The welfare state: victim of its success.”Daedalus: 69-87.
31.
MACKIE, T. and R. ROSE (1974) The International Almanac of Electoral History. London: Macmillan.
32.
MARSHALL, T. H. (1950) Citizenship and Social Class. Cambridge: Cambridge Univ. Press.
33.
MORONEY, J. (1979) Income Inequality. Lexington, MA: D. C. Heath.
34.
O'CONNOR, J. (1973) The Fiscal Crisis of the State. New York: St. Martin's.
35.
Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development [OECD] (1971) Group Disparities in Educational Participation and Achievement. Paris: OECD.
36.
OFFE, C. (1980) “The `ungovernability' of liberal democracies.”Studies in Pol. Economy: 5-16.
37.
PANITCH, L. (1977) “The role and nature of the Canadian state,” pp. 3-27 in L. Panitch (ed.) The Canadian State: Political Economy and Political Power. Toronto: Univ. of Toronto Press.
38.
PANITCH, L. (1971) “Ideology and integration: the case of the British Labour Party.”Pol. Studies: 184-200.
39.
PARKIN, F. (1979) Marxism and Class Theory: A Bourgeois Critique. New York: Columbia Univ. Press.
40.
PARKIN, F. (1971) Class Inequality and Political Order. London: Paladin.
41.
PARSONS, T. (1970) “Equality and inequality in modern society.”Soc. Inquiry40 (Spring): 13-72.
42.
PRYOR, F. (1968) Public Expenditures in Communist and Capitalist Nations. Homewood, IL: Irwin.
43.
PRZEWORSKI, A. (1980) “Social democracy as a historical phenomenon.”New Left Review (October): 27-58.
44.
RAE, D. (1979) “The egalitarian state: notes on a system of contradictory ideals.”Daedalus108 (Fall): 37-54.
45.
RAJAI, M. (1971) Decline of Ideology?Chicago: Aldine-Atherton.
46.
ROSE, R. (1980) Do Parties Make a Difference?Chatham, NJ: Chatham.
47.
RUMMEL, R. J. (1970) Applied Factor Analysis. Evanston, IL: Northwestern Univ. Press.
48.
RUSSETT, B. (1964) World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
49.
SAWYER, M. (1976) “Income distribution in OECD countries.”OECD Economic Outlook (July): 3-36.
50.
SELVIN, H. (1957) “A criticism of tests of significance.”Amer. Soc. Rev.22: 519-527.
51.
SMOOHA, S. and Y. PERES (1975) “The dynamics of ethnic inequalities: the case of Israel.”Social Dynamics1 (June): 63-79.
52.
STACK, S. (1980) “The political economy of income inequality.”Canadian J. of Pol. Sci.13 (June): 273-286.
53.
STURMTHAL, A. (1972) Comparative Labor Movements. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
54.
TAYLOR, C. and M. HUDSON (1972) World Handbook of Political and Social Indicators. New Haven, CT: Yale Univ. Press.
55.
United Nations (1979) Supplement to the Statistical Yearbooks. New York: Author.
56.
United Nations (1951, 1972) United Nations Statistical Yearbook. New York: Author.
57.
WINCH, R. and D. CAMPBELL (1970) “Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. The significance of New York: Elsevier North-Holland.
58.
WILENSKY, H. (1976) The New Corporatism, Centralization, and the Welfare State. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
59.
WINCH, R. and D. CAMPBELL (1970) “Proof? No. Evidence? Yes. The significance of tests of significance,” pp. 199-206 in Morrison and Henkel (eds.) The Significance Test Controversy. Chicago: Aldine.
60.
ZOHAR, D. (1974) Political Parties in Israel. New York: Praeger.
