| Literature DB >> 28781719 |
Anne C Kroon1, Rens Vliegenthart1, Martine van Selm1.
Abstract
In the past decade, European governments have implemented activating policy reforms to maximize older workers' employment and employability, representing a paradigmatic change in approaches to work and retirement. This study isolates the factors that explain the relative success and failure of competitive frames that are either in favor of or against activating policies in European news coverage, by applying time-series analysis (ordinary least squares with panel-corrected standard errors) to monthly aggregated news coverage in the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, Denmark, and Spain over the timespan 2006-2013. The results show that pro-activating and counteractivating frames generally coincide in competitive framing environments. The pro-activating frame proliferated in times of high employment protection, whereas the counteractivating frame prevailed stronger in conservative compared with progressive newspapers, and gained momentum during the aftermath of the financial crisis and in times governments on the economic left were in power. The study advances knowledge of competitive issue framing by demonstrating how the economic, policy, and political context matters for the emergence and evolvement of competing frames. In addition, the findings contribute to the understanding of the factors that contribute to news representations that promote active aging in European news, which may foster support for policy reforms that sustain older workers' employability.Entities:
Keywords: active aging; competitive framing; framing; policy reforms; workforce aging
Year: 2017 PMID: 28781719 PMCID: PMC5519061 DOI: 10.1177/1940161217708525
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Press Polit ISSN: 1940-1612
Selected Countries’ Position on the Level of Employment Protection and Social Insurance.
| Employment Protection | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| High | Low | ||
| Social insurance | High | The Netherlands | Denmark |
| Low | Spain | The United Kingdom | |
Source. Derived from T. M. Andersen and Svarer (2007).
Sample Characteristics.
| Newspaper | Country | Conservative Leaning | No. of Articles Selected | No. of Articles Analyzed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Spain | Yes | 142 | 142 |
|
| Spain | No | 186 | 186 |
| Total (Spain) | 328 | 328 | ||
|
| Denmark | Yes | 303 | 150 |
|
| Denmark | No | 201 | 104 |
| Total (Denmark) | 504 | 254 | ||
|
| The United Kingdom | Yes | 173 | 173 |
|
| The United Kingdom | No | 269 | 269 |
| Total (the United Kingdom) | 442 | 442 | ||
|
| The Netherlands | Yes | 172 | 172 |
|
| The Netherlands | No | 166 | 166 |
| Total (the Netherlands) | 338 | 338 | ||
| Total | 1,612 | 1,362 |
Frames across Countries.
| Spain | Denmark | The United Kingdom | The Netherlands | Total | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % |
| % | α | Percent Agreement | |
| Pro-activating frame | 165 | 40.64 | 125 | 28.34 | 106 | 21.29 | 209 | 30.33 | 605 | 29.74 | 0.60 | 94.67 |
| Contra-activating frame | 141 | 34.73 | 82 | 18.59 | 69 | 13.86 | 87 | 12.63 | 379 | 18.63 | 0.60 | 90.22 |
| Ageism frame | 16 | 3.94 | 48 | 10.88 | 114 | 22.89 | 71 | 10.3 | 249 | 12.24 | 0.70 | 90.46 |
| Labor market opportunities frame | 62 | 15.27 | 146 | 33.11 | 157 | 31.53 | 234 | 33.96 | 599 | 29.45 | 0.75 | 92.25 |
| Individual responsibility frame | 22 | 5.42 | 40 | 9.07 | 52 | 10.44 | 88 | 12.77 | 202 | 9.93 | 0.92 | 92.25 |
| Total | 406 | 19.96 | 441 | 21.68 | 498 | 24.48 | 689 | 33.87 | 2,034 | 100 | 0.70 | 91.97 |
Note. α = Krippendorff’s alpha.
Descriptive Statistics.
| Spain | Denmark | The United Kingdom | The Netherlands | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Attention | 3.01 | 0.23 | 2.42 | 0.20 | 2.06 | 0.15 | 1.72 | 0.16 |
| Governments’ ideology stance on economic issues (left–right) | 5 | 0.11 | 5.71 | 0.12 | 5.24 | 0.11 | 6.58 | 0.05 |
| EPL | 2.28 | 0.01 | 2.16 | 0.00 | 1.24 | 0.00 | 2.85 | 0.00 |
| Social insurance | 5,287.57 | 32.39 | 13,340.45 | 78.55 | 8,361.07 | 35.28 | 10,308.61 | 61.00 |
| Unemployment | 15.36 | 0.45 | 4.84 | 0.11 | 4.95 | 0.07 | 4.00 | 0.07 |
Note. EPL = employment protection legislation.
Figure 1.Absolute issue attention across countries.
Figure 2.Pro-activating and contra-activating frames across time.
Explaining Variation in Attention for Workforce Aging and the Pro-activating and Counteractivating Frame.
| Attention | Pro-activating Frame | Counteractivating Frame | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| Lagged dependent variable | 0.131 | 0.040 | 0.057 | 0.038[ | 0.031 | 0.042 |
| Conservative (vs. progressive) newspapers | −0.460 | 0.183 | −2.593 | 1.895 | 3.327 | 1.829[ |
| Financial crisis (second phase) | −0.147 | 0.247 | −4.020 | 2.416[ | 5.556 | 2.324 |
| Governments’ ideology stance on economic issues (left–right) | −0.130 | 0.068[ | −0.057 | 0.785 | −1.392 | 0.738[ |
| EPL | −0.114 | 0.148 | 4.461 | 1.654 | 2.380 | 1.676 |
| Social insurance | 0.000 | 0.000[ | 0.000 | 0.000 | −0.001 | 0.000 |
| Unemployment | 0.502 | 0.612 | −1.822 | 6.509 | 8.616 | 6.213 |
| Long-term unemployment | −0.395 | 0.617 | 3.204 | 6.571 | −8.086 | 6.273 |
| No. of articles | 4.851 | 0.539 | 2.257 | 0.523 | ||
| Constant | 1.687 | 0.582 | 2.460 | 6.277 | 16.029 | 6.004 |
|
| .089 | .169 | .087 | |||
Note. The data predict changes in attention, pro-activating, and contra-activating framing. Cell entries are unstandardized coefficients and standard errors; No. of articles is centered around its grand mean. EPL = employment protection legislation.
p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.