Ideology, Parties and Social Politics in Europe

Abstract

This article aims at ‘bringing ideology back in’ for the analysis of party politics and, more specifically, for the discussion of the delicate dyad ‘responsiveness vs. responsibility’. The article starts with an analytical discussion on the concept of ideology and on how to study its adaptation and change. It then reviews the ideological shifts that have characterised welfare state discourse and politics since the 1980s: first, the neoliberal turn and its attack on the old social democratic consensus; then the gradual emergence of a new ideological perspective that is called here liberal neo-welfarism. The main argument is that ideology plays an important role in framing partisan strategies in the delicate and increasingly prominent field of social politics. Ideological change reflects not only exogenous socio-economic transformations but also endogenous and relatively autonomous epistemic dynamics that bridge intellectual and partisan arenas.

Notes

1. Under Zapatero the PSOE elaborated an original doctrine of ‘citizens’ socialism’, combining a strong prioritarian egalitarianism (the consolidation of a robust ‘fourth social protection pillar’ – alongside universal education, healthcare and pensions – targeted towards the worst off) with an equally strong rights-based, non-discrimination agenda in defence of ‘individuality’, minority recognition and gender parity (Sevilla 2002).

2. LNW includes, in my perspective, not only ‘liberalised’, but also ‘modernised’ social democracy as characterised by Merkel (new emphasis on active inclusion, social investment, economic openness and competitiveness, but also preservation of more traditional redistributive objectives through progressive taxation and high quality universal services) (Merkel 2007); social democratic variants such as Zapatero’s citizens’ socialism, with its emphasis on personal rights (see above, note 1); and modernised versions of the Christian democratic notion of the social market economy (as discussed in the previous section).

3. The existing literature on partisan policy profiles within the European Parliament or, more generally, on the impact of the EU on party families does not allow capture of the programmatic differences which are needed for a systematic comparison in terms of liberal neo-welfarism (e.g. McElroy and Benoit 2012; Nanou 2013). In order to offer some empirical grounding to my argument, I present at least some qualitative data (not yet based, for the moment, on structured methodologies) drawn from official party documents.

4. The table is based on a simple reading of the manifestoes and on the author’s assessment of the salience attributed to the items listed in the first column.