From Corporatism to Partisan Politics: Social Policy Making under Strain in Switzerland

Abstract

The literature on neo-corporatist agreements in social and labor market policy in the 1990s points to a decline of concertation in European countries with a long-standing tradition of corporatist negotiation. This article identifies a similar trend in Switzerland and argues that three destabilizing factors account for it: 1) retrenchment pressure and ideological polarization prevent compromises; 2) the emergence of new social demands and interests challenges the homogeneity and legitimacy of peak organizations and thus their bargaining power; 3) increasing media coverage tends to open up the traditionally confidential and selective sphere of corporatist negotiation and weakens the social partners' ability to reach agreements. The impact of these factors on neo-corporatist bargaining is tested in Switzerland, a case where corporatist negotiations used to be particularly decisive in social policy making. Empirical evidence comes from a crosstime comparison of two major social policies: Unemployment insurance and pension reforms in the 1970s and in the 1990s. In the last decade, the main locus of decision-making shifted from the sphere of interest groups to partisan politics. In parliament, the political parties were able to draft bills enjoying wide acceptance thanks to compensations offered to groups particularly vulnerable to new social risks.

Policy forums: Why do they exist and what are they used for?

“…What is more, increasing media coverage fosters the tension between the "logic of influence", which is compromise-oriented and prevalent among the negotiators of corporatist organizations, and the "logic of membership", which stresses fidelity to the objectives of their respective reference groups (Streeck and Schmitter 1985;Häusermann et al 2004).…”

A Long Goodbye to Bismarck? : The Politics of Welfare Reform in Continental Europe

“…These loopholes in social protection became increasingly visible from the 1970s onwards. As a consequence, some agreement mainly across Left and value-libertarian political parties emerged with regard to the need for modernization of policies such as maternity protection, women 's pension rights and the protection of atypical employment (Bonoli 2006: 7;Häusermann 2006Häusermann , 2010bHäusermann et al 2004). Hence, the very structure of the Bismarckian welfare system produced insider -outsider conflicts, some leeway for expansive reforms and an opportunity for new actors, mainly the political parties instead of trade unions , to play a decisive role in welfare system restructuring.…”

“…by the political parties in Parliament . In virtually all the important reforms of the 1990s -the pension reforms of 1995 and 2003, the unemployment reform of 1995 and the current disability insurance reform -it was only in Parliament that the modernizing elements of reform were added (Bonoli 1999;Häusermann et al 2004).…”

“…Among other reasons, this can be explained precisely by the changing configuration of winners and losers of welfare system reforms: recalibration benefits mainly outsiders -women , unemployed, young families, atypical workers -who do not belong to the main constituency of labor and capital (Häusermann et al 2004). Hence, trade unions and employers proved unable to draw a compromise on these policies in the pre-parliamentary arena.…”

Stratégies syndicales et renouvellement des élites: le syndicat FTMH face à la crise des années 1990

“…Il s'agit de l'appel à l'opinion publique à travers des communiqués de presse, des actions médiatiques (mobilisations), c'est-à-dire des straté-gies plus revendicatives, plus politiques, qui sont cohérentes avec la relativisation du principe des négociations corporatistes, traditionnellement peu transparentes. Häusermann et al (2004) relèvent également une média-tisation accrue des négociations corporatistes au cours de la dernière dé-cennie. Cependant, l'objet de leur étude concerne la phase corporatiste de l'élaboration des politiques sociales, c'est-à-dire le niveau des politiques publiques, et non le partenariat social.…”