The London School of Economics and Political Science Department of Government
Total Page：16
File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb
THE LONDON SCHOOL OF ECONOMICS AND POLITICAL SCIENCE DEPARTMENT OF GOVERNMENT Whose party? Whose interests? Childcare policy, electoral imperative and organisational reform within the US Democrats, Australian Labor Party and Britain’s New Labour KATHLEEN A. HENEHAN A thesis submitted to the Department of Government of the London School of Economics for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy LONDON AUGUST 2014 DECLARATION I certify that the thesis I have presented for examination for the MPhil/PhD degree of the London School of Economics and Political Science is solely my own work other than where I have clearly indicated that it is the work of others (in which case the extent of any work carried out jointly by me and any other person is clearly identified in it). The copyright of this thesis rests with the author. Quotation from it is permitted, provided that full acknowledgement is made. This thesis may not be reproduced without my prior written consent. I warrant that this authorisation does not, to the best of my belief, infringe the rights of any third party. I declare that my thesis consists of 91,853 words. 2 ABSTRACT The US Democrats, Australian Labor Party and British Labour Party adopted the issue of childcare assistance for middle-income families as both a campaign and as a legislative issue decades apart from one and other, despite similar rates of female employment. The varied timing of parties’ policy adoption is also uncorrelated with labour shortages, union density and female trade union membership. However, it is correlated with two politically-charged factors: first, each party adopted childcare policy as their rate of ‘organised female labour mobilisation’ (union density interacted with female trade union membership) reached its country-level peak; second, each party adopted the issue within the broader context of post-industrial electoral change, when shifts in both class and gender-based party-voter linkages dictated that the centre-left could no longer win elections by focusing largely on a male, blue-collar base. Were these parties driven to promote childcare in response to the changing needs of their traditional affiliates (unions), or was policy adoption an outcome of autonomous party elites in search of a new electoral constituency? Using both qualitative and quantitative techniques, this research analyses the correlates of policy adoption and the specific mechanisms through which party position change on the issue took place (e.g. legislator conversion versus legislator turnover). It finds that parties largely adopted the issue as a means to make strategic electoral appeals to higher-educated, post-materialist and in particular, female voters. However, the speed in which they were able to make these appeals (and hence, the time at which they adopted the issue) was contingent on the speed in which elites were able to reform their party’s internal organisation and specifically, wrest power away from both the unions and rank-and-file members in order to centralise decision making power on election campaigns, executive appointments and candidate selection processes into the hands of the leadership. 3 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Having been warned (several times) that the PhD is a long and lonely process, it was one that I approached with trepidation. Yet throughout this endeavour, countless people have allayed my fears. From the start, my supervisor, Jonathan Hopkin provided guidance, support and encouragement. His interest in the subject and enthusiasm for political discussion made this process an enjoyable one. My colleagues in ‘421’ have also made this journey a happy one: their debates ranging from the political to the methodological have kept my mind in focus whilst their (occasional) off-topic conversations have made a windowless research room one that I look forward to entering every day. Special thanks goes to Ninfa Fuentes, whose advice I have sought on everything from framing my research question to structuring my bibliography. Her patience and guidance have helped me immeasurably whilst her razor sharp wit has kept me laughing throughout. I am also grateful to my undergraduate professors, Seth Thompsen, Jodi Finkel and Matthew Streb who provided immense encouragement and without whom I never would have considered applying for a PhD. The Clapham Chasers have supported me throughout – their track sessions and long runs kept me sane through the more difficult parts of this processes. My parents, Jean and Michael, have been a constant source of support and encouragement. Finally, I would like to thank Joe: the amount of patience, generosity and care he has shown throughout this process is veritably superhuman. It is to him that this thesis is dedicated. 4 Table of Contents Declaration ................................................................................................................ 2 Abstract ..................................................................................................................... 3 Acknowledgements ................................................................................................... 4 Acronyms and abbreviations ..................................................................................... 7 List of Figures ........................................................................................................... 8 List of Tables ............................................................................................................. 10 1. Introduction 1.1 Background and research question ................................................................ 11 1.2 Case selection ................................................................................................ 14 1.3 Theoretical framework ................................................................................. 21 1.4 Methodology and methods ............................................................................ 33 1.5 Main findings ................................................................................................ 48 1.6 Contributions/importance .............................................................................. 49 1.7 Thesis structure ............................................................................................. 50 2. Contextualising childcare policy adoption: theory and literature review 2.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 51 2.2 Welfare state growth and social policy development .................................... 51 2.3 Party politics and social policy development ................................................ 58 2.4 Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 81 3. Ever tried. Ever failed. US Democrats and universal childcare policy 3.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 85 3.2 Breaking new ground .................................................................................... 85 3.3 Democrats and childcare in political context ................................................ 93 a. Democrats’ shifting electoral coalition ..................................................... 93 b. Two responses to post-materialism ........................................................... 99 c. Unions, childcare and the Democratic elite ............................................... 108 3.4 Position change: union pressure or electoral imperative ............................... 111 a. Driving change: conversion or replacement? ............................................ 112 b. The shape of ‘replacement’ ....................................................................... 125 c. Approximating the forces and mechanics of change ................................. 126 3.5 Conclusions: a new electoral agenda emboldened by reform ....................... 127 4. Two steps forward… The Australian Labor Party and universal childcare 4.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 130 4.2 This time, a real promise: childcare from World War II until the late 1980s ................................................................................................................... 130 4.3 The ALP and childcare in context ................................................................. 135 a. The ALP’s new electoral coalition ............................................................ 135 b. An electoral and organisational response ................................................. 140 c. Unions, childcare and the ALP elite .......................................................... 149 4.4 Driving the ALP’s position change: union pressure or electoral imperative ........................................................................................................... 151 a. Mechanising and driving policy adoption ................................................. 152 b. Legislator replacement: the ALP’s new brand .......................................... 159 4.5 Conclusions: a new electoral agenda but first, reform .................................. 160 5. Better late than never: New Labour and childcare policy adoption 5.1 Introduction ................................................................................................... 163 5.2 From zero to sixty: an outline of childcare policy in the UK ........................ 163 5.3 Labour and childcare