How does ideology influence welfare retrenchment proposals? Application of a new methodology

Abstract

Most studies that aim to measure the influence of ideology on policymaking use the share of cabinet seats held by left versus right parties, manifesto data, expert judgments, or ideology scores as ways to operationalize ideology. These measures, however, cannot systematically capture the content of policy debates, ideological arguments used, or how these arguments change over time. Based on the concept of framing, this article presents an alternative methodology to study the role of ideology in welfare retrenchment proposals across countries and over time. By identifying recurring arguments, welfare ‘frames’ within which reform debates play out can be identified and compared over time. Applying this methodology to 578 New Zealand parliamentary budget debate speeches from 1970 to 2012, this article finds that there is more overlap in the welfare arguments used by both Labour and National in 1984 and 2000 – years when the Labour Party was in government. Thus instead of welfare frames being defined strictly along ideological party lines as Labour versus National, they might also be defined in terms of a multi-party ‘in power’ frame versus a multi-party ‘in opposition’ frame. In other words, whichever party is in power may matter more to welfare retrenchment debates than traditional party positions.