在左与右之间:荷兰Twitter上全民基本收入的话语网络分析

IF 1.9 3区 社会学 Q3 PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION
Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg
{"title":"在左与右之间:荷兰Twitter上全民基本收入的话语网络分析","authors":"Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg","doi":"10.1017/s0047279422000976","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\n Universal Basic Income (UBI) found its way back to media and policy agendas, presented as an alternative to the social investment policies omnipresent in Europe. In spite of the apparent appeal, however, UBI faces a discursive and political stalemate that seems hard to overcome. In an attempt to understand this tension, we explore the discursive coalitions surrounding UBI in a debate on Dutch Twitter. We use discourse network analysis to (a) cluster discussants endorsing similar positions and (b) see which political elites endorse these positions. We find that the known schism between the liberal and egalitarian interpretations of UBI is driven by ambivalence towards its redistributive implications. Moreover, we observe a turn towards social investment frames amongst UBI advocates, who centrally argue that UBI is activating and deregulating social security. This change in framing, however, seems to have little visible impact on elite coalition formation. Green-left elites remain overrepresented amongst proponents, while liberal and conservatives are opposed, and the socialist party remains divided on the issue. Thus, while the implementation of a ‘full’ UBI seems blocked by redistributive concerns, the social investment turn may be the political compromise that explains the popular appeal and political success of UBI inspired experiments.","PeriodicalId":51438,"journal":{"name":"Journal of Social Policy","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.9000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Between left and right: A discourse network analysis of Universal Basic Income on Dutch Twitter\",\"authors\":\"Erwin Gielens, Femke Roosma, P. Achterberg\",\"doi\":\"10.1017/s0047279422000976\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\n Universal Basic Income (UBI) found its way back to media and policy agendas, presented as an alternative to the social investment policies omnipresent in Europe. In spite of the apparent appeal, however, UBI faces a discursive and political stalemate that seems hard to overcome. In an attempt to understand this tension, we explore the discursive coalitions surrounding UBI in a debate on Dutch Twitter. We use discourse network analysis to (a) cluster discussants endorsing similar positions and (b) see which political elites endorse these positions. We find that the known schism between the liberal and egalitarian interpretations of UBI is driven by ambivalence towards its redistributive implications. Moreover, we observe a turn towards social investment frames amongst UBI advocates, who centrally argue that UBI is activating and deregulating social security. This change in framing, however, seems to have little visible impact on elite coalition formation. Green-left elites remain overrepresented amongst proponents, while liberal and conservatives are opposed, and the socialist party remains divided on the issue. Thus, while the implementation of a ‘full’ UBI seems blocked by redistributive concerns, the social investment turn may be the political compromise that explains the popular appeal and political success of UBI inspired experiments.\",\"PeriodicalId\":51438,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Journal of Social Policy\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-03-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"1\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Journal of Social Policy\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279422000976\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of Social Policy","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1017/s0047279422000976","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

摘要

全民基本收入(UBI)重新回到了媒体和政策议程中,被视为欧洲无所不在的社会投资政策的替代方案。然而,尽管UBI具有明显的吸引力,但它面临着一个似乎难以克服的话语和政治僵局。为了理解这种紧张关系,我们在荷兰Twitter上的一场辩论中探讨了围绕UBI的话语联盟。我们使用话语网络分析(a)聚集支持类似立场的讨论者,(b)查看哪些政治精英支持这些立场。我们发现,对全民基本收入的自由主义和平等主义解释之间的已知分歧,是由对其再分配影响的矛盾心理所驱动的。此外,我们观察到UBI倡导者转向社会投资框架,他们集中认为UBI正在激活和解除对社会保障的管制。然而,这种框架上的变化似乎对精英联盟的形成没有什么明显的影响。在支持者中,绿左派精英的比例仍然过高,而自由派和保守派则持反对态度,而社会党在这个问题上仍存在分歧。因此,虽然“全面”UBI的实施似乎受到再分配问题的阻碍,但社会投资转向可能是一种政治妥协,解释了UBI启发实验的大众吸引力和政治成功。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Between left and right: A discourse network analysis of Universal Basic Income on Dutch Twitter
Universal Basic Income (UBI) found its way back to media and policy agendas, presented as an alternative to the social investment policies omnipresent in Europe. In spite of the apparent appeal, however, UBI faces a discursive and political stalemate that seems hard to overcome. In an attempt to understand this tension, we explore the discursive coalitions surrounding UBI in a debate on Dutch Twitter. We use discourse network analysis to (a) cluster discussants endorsing similar positions and (b) see which political elites endorse these positions. We find that the known schism between the liberal and egalitarian interpretations of UBI is driven by ambivalence towards its redistributive implications. Moreover, we observe a turn towards social investment frames amongst UBI advocates, who centrally argue that UBI is activating and deregulating social security. This change in framing, however, seems to have little visible impact on elite coalition formation. Green-left elites remain overrepresented amongst proponents, while liberal and conservatives are opposed, and the socialist party remains divided on the issue. Thus, while the implementation of a ‘full’ UBI seems blocked by redistributive concerns, the social investment turn may be the political compromise that explains the popular appeal and political success of UBI inspired experiments.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.40
自引率
20.00%
发文量
89
期刊介绍: The Journal of Social Policy carries high quality articles on all aspects of social policy in an international context. It places particular emphasis upon articles which seek to contribute to debates on the future direction of social policy, to present new empirical data, to advance theories, or to analyse issues in the making and implementation of social policies. The Journal of Social Policy is part of the "Social Policy Package", which also includes Social Policy and Society and the Social Policy Digest. An online resource, the Social Policy Digest, was launched in 2003. The Digest provides a regularly up-dated, fully searchable, summary of policy developments and research findings across the whole range of social policy.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信