Hanna Schwander

Who is in and who is out? A risk-based conceptualization of insiders and outsiders

With the post-industrialization and flexibilization of European labour markets, research on social and economic correlates of labour market vulnerability and weak labour market attachment is growing. Part of this literature conceptualizes these correlates in terms of dualization and insider–outsider divides in an attempt to explore their political implications: this article is written in order to contribute to this strand of research. In this article, we propose a conceptualization and measurement of labour market insiders and outsiders, based on their respective risk of being atypically employed or unemployed. We propose both a dichotomous measure of insiders/outsiders and a continuous measure of the degree of an individual’s ‘outsiderness’. We argue that such risk-based measures are particularly suited for research on the policy preferences and political implications of insider–outsider divides. On the basis of EU-SILC and national household panel data, we provide a map of dualization across different countries and welfare regimes. We then explore the correlates of labour market vulnerability – that is, outsiderness – by relating it to indicators of income and upward job mobility, as well as labour market policy preferences. The results consistently confirm an impact of labour market vulnerability, indicating a potential for a politicization of the insider/outsider conflict.

Revisiting the left cabinet share: How to measure the partisan profile of governments in welfare state research

Measuring the power of the political left with the ‘share of social democratic cabinet seats’ is the gold standard in the literature on partisan effects. We argue that this measure of left power suffers from conceptual ambiguity and propose an alternative approach to measure the ideological orientation of governments based on their power in cabinets and data on party positions. We see several shortcomings of the traditional measure: the social democratic cabinet share neglects the fact that parties’ ideological profiles differ across countries and have significantly changed over recent decades. Also, specific policy measures of party preferences are often more appropriate to gauge the government’s position than relying on highly aggregated left/right measures. In addition, the social democratic cabinet share does not take into account the impact of coalition partners, cabinet decision making and the possibility of minority governments relying on parliamentary support outside the cabinet on the ability of parties to implement the social policies. After discussing the reasons for the conceptual ambiguity of existing indicators for the power of the left, we present alternative measures for the ideological orientation of the government based on the composition of cabinets and different information about party positions. We demonstrate how these measures can be combined to a single indicator that takes into account both the ideological position of governing parties in a particular policy domain and their power to affect cabinet decisions. We critically discuss the availability and merits of data on party positions and cabinet compositions and provide recommendations for constructing measures in welfare state research.

Are outsiders equally out everywhere? The economic disadvantage of outsiders in cross-national perspective

Despite intense policy debate over labour market dualization, research on cross-country differences in the ‘outsider penalty’ is still in its infancy. In this article, we assess two explanations for cross-national variation in the disadvantages affecting temporary workers (‘outsiders’), measured by the chances of regular employment and risk of unemployment: their socio-economic composition and the effect of labour market institutions (employment protection regulation and the strength of unions). Our findings suggest that variation in the outsider penalty is not caused by the socio-economic composition of the outsider group, but rather by the institutional setting of a country. Outsiders are more disadvantaged in countries with strong employment protection legislation. In contrast, strong unions do not reinforce but mitigate insider/outsider divides in at least some dimensions, a finding that adds to recent research about unions’ reorientation towards mobilizing outsiders.

Sharing the Risk? Households, Labor Market Vulnerability, and Social Policy Preferences in Western Europe

Explaining social policy preferences has become a major topic in comparative politics with labor market risk as a key determinant of these preferences. However, one question continues to loom large: are preference divides blurred by mixed households, that is, secure labor market participants living with vulnerable partners? In this article, we build on the insider-outsider literature and show that while the household does matter, its mitigating effect is limited in scope and strongly conditional on gender. Women’s preferences depend on their partner’s labor market situation, while men’s preferences are unaffected by it. Overall, only a small minority of the population across Western Europe benefits from a “household safety net.” Our findings have important implications for understanding the politicization of insider-outsider divides.

Labour Market Risks in Times of Welfare State Changes

This chapter analyzes how welfare state reforms affect inequality in labour market risks in Continental Europe. Further, the chapter sheds light on the development of labour market risks among different outsider groups. Based on several waves of the EU-SILC, the author finds varying patterns of labour market inequality between insiders and outsiders, depending on the reform strategies of governments. In Germany, labour market risks have become more equally distributed since the 2005 implementation of Agenda 2010. By contrast, labour market inequality has increased in Spain and Italy, and remained constant in France. In the latter countries, labour market risks are concentrated most strongly among the younger generation, while low-skilled individuals are most disadvantaged in Germany.

Die sozial „auffälligen“ Nichtwähler: Determinanten der Wahlenthaltung bei der Bundestagswahl 2013

In diesem Kapitel untersuchen wir die Wahlbeteiligung bei der Bundestagswahl 2013. Dabei befassen wir uns einerseits mit der Frage, welche Individualmerkmale die Wahrscheinlichkeit der Wahlteilnahme erhohen, andererseits untersuchen wir, welche sozio-okonomischen Kontextfaktoren mit der Wahlbeteiligung korreliert sind. Hierzu analysieren wir einerseits eine Nachwahlbefragung zur Bundestagswahl 2013 und andererseits detaillierte Strukturdaten der ca. 400 deutschen Kreise und kreisfreien Stadte. Sowohl die Analysen mit Individual- als auch die mit Aggregatdaten zeigen, dass Armut und soziale Problemlagen die Wahlbeteiligung deutlich senken. Damit bestatigt sich die bereits in den 1930er Jahren durch den schwedischen Politikwissenschaftler Herbert Tingsten formulierte Gesetzmasigkeit: Je niedriger die Wahlbeteiligung ausfallt, desto ungleicher ist sie.

Switzerland : building a multi-pillar pension system for a flexible labour market

The Swiss multi-pillar system has been widely praised over the last two decades for its capacity to adjust to shifts in economic and demographic circumstances. The regime also enjoys widespread support in the Swiss population, because its structure means that the pension security of all Swiss residents is based on the interplay of three different pillars. A closer look at the distributive implications of this system, however, reveals that the idea of all Swiss pensioners resting securely on three pillars in their old age does not hold true. The Swiss three pillar system, in place since 1985, targeted its coverage mainly at standard employees. A range of important reforms since 1985 has enhanced pension security for atypical workers but they are still at considerable risk of receiving an inadequate income in old age.