Partisanship, continuity, and change: Politics in Finnish unemployment benefit reforms 1985–2016

The apparent decline of partisan effects on social policies since the 1980s has encouraged the development of theories that challenge the traditional partisan politics theory. Although the new politics approach pointed to institutional path‐dependence and to the unpopularity of radical retrenchment, recent research has highlighted shifts in electoral landscapes, differences in party systems and institutional contexts, and changing party‐voter linkages. This in‐depth case study contributes to debates on partisan effects by focusing on Finland, whose dualistic unemployment benefit system and institutional and political conditions provide an interesting case to analyse changing partisan effects. The aim is to explain, through qualitative policy analysis, why government partisanship has not had a significant effect on unemployment benefit levels since 1985. The explanations are different for earnings‐related and flat‐rate benefits. For the former, retrenchment efforts have seen a distinct partisan divide, but trade unions have thwarted most cutbacks; thus, although partisanship has not mattered much for policy outcomes, power resources have remained important as inhibitor of cuts. For the latter, parties that in the late 1980s still had differing priorities have since converged on policies emphasizing activation and work incentives. Universal flat‐rate benefits have lacked political support and have been left to stagnate. The study suggests that one single theory is not sufficient to explain developments even in one single welfare policy—there are too many aspects to cover—not to speak of the entire welfare state consisting of an array of different schemes.