Political Parties and Higher Education Spending: Who Favours Redistribution?

Rauh, Christian; Kirchner, Antje; Kappe, Roland

doi:10.1080/01402382.2011.616659

Cited by 41 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 36 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Although some efforts have been made to code subnational manifestos in some countries (e.g., Bräuninger and Debus 2008), to our knowledge no comparative dataset on subnational parties exists. However, the focus on national parties seems justified, as we want to relate our findings to the existing literature (as we make strong claims vis-à-vis the state of the art), where it is common practice to focus on the national level (but see Rauh et al 2011). Moreover, comparative public spending data is only available for this level.…”

Section: From Indirect To Direct Measures Of Party Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…Subsequent more elaborated analyses (Boix 1998;Castles 1989Castles , 1998Hega and Hokenmaier 2002) tested the explanatory power of various determinants in (repeated) cross-sectional multivariate regressions. Still newer contributions (Ansell 2008(Ansell , 2010Busemeyer 2006Busemeyer , 2007Busemeyer , 2009Iversen and Stephens 2008;Jensen 2011;Potrafke 2011aPotrafke , 2011bRauh et al 2011) applied pooled time-series cross-section (TSCS) regressions to annual data to analyse governing parties' impact on education spending. Hitherto, pooled TSCS regressions on annual data have become the methodological standard to estimate government effects on expenditure.…”

Section: Party Influence On Education Spending: Methodological Progrementioning

confidence: 99%

“…While some authors found that left-wing parties increase education expenditure (Boix 1998;Busemeyer 2007;Castles 1982Castles , 1989Castles , 1998Hega and Hokenmaier 2002;Iversen and Stephens 2008;Potrafke 2011a;Schmidt , 2007, others reported that right-wing parties tend to spend more on education (Ansell 2008(Ansell , 2010Rauh et al 2011). Adding to the confusion, still others even found no party effects and assigned this to the increasing influence of deindustrialization (Jensen 2011).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Party politics and education spending: challenging some common wisdom

Garritzmann¹,

Seng²

2015

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Much literature has analysed parties' influence on public education spending. We challenge this literature on theoretical, methodological and empirical grounds. It is standard to regress expenditure on cabinet seat share weighted party family dummies in time series cross section regressions using 'country year' data. But using 'country year' data artificially inflates the number of cases and leads to biased estimates, as governments usually do not change annually. Second, using party families as proxies for party preferences assumes that parties within families hold similar positions while they differ across families. But this is empirically often not the case. Finally, a historical institutionalist perspective suggests that we should not expect party effects anymore in the first place. Empirically, we propose a new design, using direct measures of party preferences in analyses on govern ment term level. We find that the partisan composition of government did not have any significant effects on education spending from 1995 to 2010 in 21 democ racies.

show abstract

Section: From Indirect To Direct Measures Of Party Preferencesmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Party Influence On Education Spending: Methodological Progrementioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Party politics and education spending: challenging some common wisdom

Garritzmann¹,

Seng²

2015

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…14 The finding that parties of the left are associated with lower levels of higher education enrolment, while perhaps counter-intuitive, finds an echo in recent studies which find education expenditure is more of a priority for the right in the German Länder (Wolf 2009;Rauh et al 2011). It may be that, as in other areas (e.g.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Regional policy variation in Germany: the diversity of living conditions in a ‘unitary federal state’

Jeffery¹,

Pamphilis²,

Turner³

et al. 2014

Journal of European Public Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The German federal system is conventionally understood as highly coordinated between federal and regional governments and aimed at producing a 'uniformity' of living conditions. This view has increasingly been challenged as new work focuses on innovation and diversity at the regional level, and also as a consequence of reforms to the federal system that took place in 2006. This article attempts to establish a more systematic basis for assessing and explaining the scope and significance of regional policy variation in Germany. Our findings suggest that -despite institutional structures that foster intense coordination between central and regional governments and apparent popular preferences for uniformity of policy outcomes-the extent of policy variation in Germany is much greater than conventionally understood and driven both by structural factors and partisan choices at the regional level.

show abstract

“…However, due to the fact that this division is commonly used in the cited literature and due to the focus of this article on partisan dynamics in higher education policy, there is unfortunately no room for an extensive debate about the applicability of this terminology. (Rauh et al 2011). Their offered explanation is that, contrary to other instruments of the welfare state, access to higher education is skewed towards the wealthy part of the population, therefore the socio-economic background of students is related to their likelihood of attending university (Lucas 2001;Raftery and Hout 1993).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Bringing political parties into the picture: a two-dimensional analytical framework for higher education policy

Jungblut

2014

High Educ

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article examines conceptually the role of political parties in higher education policy. It discusses in how far political parties matter for changes in higher education policy, whether they offer different policy positions that might result in differing policy outputs and how one can conceptualize these differences. To do so, it develops a two-dimensional analytical framework consisting of one dimension that captures re-distributive conflicts and one dimension that captures conflicts over the control of the higher education system. To exemplify this, the article presents illustrative higher education systems and develops hypotheses about where different parties would ideally position themselves in relation to the framework. The article expands on these ideal positions by introducing different forms of path dependencies that might limit political parties and thus lead to a situation of constrained partisan preferences. Finally, it proposes a research agenda based on the analytical framework and the hypotheses generated from it. Overall, the article argues that political parties can be expected to favour different higher education systems and thus matter for changes in higher education policy.

show abstract

Political Parties and Higher Education Spending: Who Favours Redistribution?

Cited by 41 publications

References 36 publications

Party politics and education spending: challenging some common wisdom

Party politics and education spending: challenging some common wisdom

Regional policy variation in Germany: the diversity of living conditions in a ‘unitary federal state’

Bringing political parties into the picture: a two-dimensional analytical framework for higher education policy

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About