Recent scholarship on the populist radical right tends to imprecisely describe the welfare agenda of this party family with reference to its key ideological characteristics of nativism, authoritarianism, and populism. We propose an alternative analytical framework that considers the multidimensionality of welfare state positions and the "deservingness criteria" that underlie ideas about welfare entitlement. Applying this framework to a sample of four European populist radical right parties, we conclude that three interrelated frames inform their welfare agenda. These parties, we argue, advocate social closure not only on the basis of the deservingness criterion of identity (welfare chauvinism), but also on criteria of control, attitude, and reciprocity (welfare producerism) and on an antagonism between the people and the establishment (welfare populism). Understanding the welfare agenda of the populist radical right requires us to move beyond welfare chauvinism and to reconsider the concept of welfare producerism and its interaction with welfare chauvinism. Zusammenfassung: J€ ungere Forschungbeitr€ age zur populistischen radikalen Rechten neigen dazu, die Wohlfahrtsagenda dieser Parteifamilie bez€ uglich ihrer Hauptmerkmale Nativismus, Autoritarismus und Populismus ungenau zu beschreiben. In diesem Artikel erarbeiten wir einen alternativen analytischen Rahmen, der die Vielschichtigkeit wohlfahrtsstaatlicher Positionen und die "Verdienstkriterien", die dem Anspruch auf Wohlfahrtsleistungen zugrunde liegen, ber€ ucksichtigt. Diesen Rahmen wenden wir auf vier populistische, rechtsradikale Parteien an und kommen zu dem Ergebnis, dass drei miteinander verbundene Kriterien ihre Wohlfahrtsagenden bestimmen. Diese Parteien bef€ urworten soziale Ausgrenzung nicht nur aufgrund von Identit€ at (Wohlfahrtschauvinismus), sondern auch von Kontrolle, Gesinnung und Gegenseitigkeit (Wohlfahrtsproduktivismus) sowie eines Gegensatzes zwischen Volk und Establishment (Wohlfahrtspopulismus). Um die Wohlfahrtsagenda der populistischen radikalen Rechten zu verstehen, m€ ussen wir daher € uber bestehende Konzeptionen von Wohlfahrtschauvinismus hinausgehen und das Konzept des Wohlfahrtsproduktivismus und seine Wechselwirkung mit Wohlfahrtschauvinismus neu € uberdenken. R esum e: Les etudes contemporaines de la droite populiste radicale analysent ses programmes en mati ere de politique sociale de mani ere impr ecise en s'appuyant sur les piliers id eologiques de cette *We would like to thank the editors of the Swiss Political Science Review for their support during the publication process and the anonymous reviewers for their very useful comments. Simon Bornschier commented on an earlier draft of this paper. We thank him a lot for his suggestions. Emmanuel Dalle Mulle would like to thank the Swiss National Science Foundation for its generous support (grant n. P2GEP1-165085).
The Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies (RSCAS), created in 1992 and directed by Brigid Laffan since September 2013, aims to develop inter-disciplinary and comparative research and to promote work on the major issues facing the process of integration and European society. The Centre is home to a large post-doctoral programme and hosts major research programmes and projects, and a range of working groups and ad hoc initiatives. The research agenda is organised around a set of core themes and is continuously evolving, reflecting the changing agenda of European integration and the expanding membership of the European Union.
Charismatic leaders are often assumed to drive the electoral success of populist radical right parties. Yet, little attention is given to how voter evaluations of leaders influence individual voting behavior. To our knowledge, no systematic and comparative tests of this empirical question exist. In this paper, we test to what extent voters' support for populist radical right parties is fueled by leaders' appreciation. In order to examine leader effects on the populist radical right vote, we rely on an original dataset pooling 29 National Election Studies from ten established West European parliamentary democracies (1985-2018). Our analysis finds that: (1) voters' evaluation of party leaders is significantly associated with voting for populist radical right parties; (2) leader evaluations are more important than left-right self-placement when it comes to voting for the populist radical right, and (3) leader effects are more important for populist radical right voters than for other voters.
This article introduces data collected in the Citizens’ Attitudes Under Covid-19 Project (CAUCP), which surveyed public opinion throughout the Covid-19 pandemic in 11 democracies between March and December 2020. In this paper, we present a unique cross-country panel survey of citizens’ attitudes and behaviors during a worldwide unprecedented health, governance, and economic crisis. This dataset investigates the behavioral and attitudinal consequences of multifaceted Covid19 crisis across time and contexts. In this paper, we describe the design of the CAUCP and the descriptive features of the dataset; we also present promising research prospects.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.