Electoral discourse and formative structural narratives of welfare divergence in multi-level systems: homelessness policy in UK elections 1970–2011

Abstract

Over recent decades there has been an international shift towards multi-level governance. Against this backdrop, many comparative welfare studies take government policy outputs as the starting point for their analysis. However, the associated pluralization of electoral systems in unitary states means that welfare choices are no longer exclusively informed by single state-wide ballots. Accordingly, this study makes an original contribution by exploring the formative role of electoral discourse in shaping social policy divergence in (quasi-)federal states. It does this through an examination of party politicization and the issue-salience of homelessness in manifestos for UK state-wide and regional elections. The findings reveal how electoral discourse is a key driver of policy divergence. These territorially-specific structural narratives are used to propose a model of welfare divergence in multi-level systems, one that is cognizant of the formative role of electoral discourse in shaping the development of welfare regimes.

Keywords:

• homelessness
• policy
• issue salience
• manifesto
• elections
• United Kingdom

Acknowledgements

The author would like to acknowledge the constructive comments of two anonymous referees when revising an earlier version of this paper.

Notes

This paper is concerned with the way that electoral politics drive policy divergence using the example of homelessness. Whilst such processes may lead to welfare state divergence, this is not being claimed here. This would require analysis across a range of policy areas and is out of the scope of this paper.

Programmatic rights are ‘soft’ rights that signify principles in policy documents and debates they are not necessarily convertible into hard, legally enforceable rights. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (1948) describes housing as a fundamental human right.

As amended from 1 November 2003 by Article 135 of the Housing (Northern Ireland) Order (2003).

Retrieved April 20, 2013, from http://www.crisis.org.uk/pages/rough-sleeping.html.

Defined in terms of the share of the popular vote.

The term “regionalist” is used to reflect existing practice in European election studies (for example, Libbrecht et al., 2009); inverted commas are used to acknowledge the nation status of Scotland and Wales.

Where necessary, hardcopy only versions of early manifestos were transcribed. The software used was Nvivo 9.

Four incidences.

This period of study was determined by the fact that prior to 1970 there are no specific references to homelessness in the main state-wide parties' general election manifestos. Rather, between 1945 and 1970 isolated references are made to chronic housing need following war damage and as a result of slum clearance (e.g. “the rebuilding of badly bombed areas [is part of] the general attack on the housing problem … ”; Conservative Party, 1945, p. 8). It is not until the 1970 general election that homelessness gets cross-party attention – for example, “the homeless and the slum-dweller [we will address … ] the shortage of homes that causes misery for many … ”; (Liberal Party, 1970, p. 14), and “for the families that are homeless today … [we will introduce … ] our vigorous new housing drive for the 1970s” (Conservative Party, 1970, p. 21).

Chi-squared = 19.092, degrees of freedom (df) = 6, p = 0.00401105.

Although the differences are not statistically significant: chi-squared = 4.692, df = 2, p = 0.0957514.

Chi-squared = 21.723, df = 10, p = 0.01657963.

The Act effectively made unlawful homelessness and begging for subsistence.

Chi-squared = 15.25, df = 2.0.001615.

Chi-squared = 12.588, df = 3, p = 0.00561784.

Chi-squared = 9.571, df = 2, p = 0.00834995.