This article examines the effects of the refugee crisis on perceptions of asylum seekers. Previous research has demonstrated that asylum seekers are perceived in terms of deservingness—either as deserving refugees in need of help or as undeserving and unwelcome exploiters. The article uses unique panel data from a representative sample drawn directly from the Norwegian population registry. Through Structural Topic Modelling (STM) of open-ended survey responses fielded before and after the refugee crisis, this article analyses, first, how ordinary citizens perceive asylum seekers and, second, the article documents that these perceptions of asylum seekers changed. They did, however, not change from perceiving asylum seekers as deserving to perceiving them as undeserving. The change was more subtle. Responses that characterize asylum seekers as deserving prior to the crisis tended to reflect a sense of responsibility to help—of involvement. Responses after the crisis were more distanced, even as they characterized the asylum seekers as deserving. All in all, these findings improve our knowledge about how the refugee crisis affected public opinion in recipient populations.
The “populist radical right” is a contested concept in scholarly work for good reason. This chapter begins by explaining that the political parties usually grouped together under this label are not a party family in a conventional sense and do not self-identify with this category. It goes on to show how political science scholarship has established that in Europe during the past thirty or so years we have seen the rise of a set of parties that share a common ideological feature—nativism. The nativist political parties experiencing most electoral support have combined their nativist agenda with some other legitimate ideological companion, which provides deniability—a shield against charges that the nativist agenda makes the parties and their supporters right-wing extremist and undemocratic. The chapter goes on to explain that in order to make progress on our understanding of how and why the populist radical right persuades citizens, we need to recognize: first, that nativism is the only necessary ingredient without which the populist radical right loses its force; and second, that nativism in contemporary established democracies has tended not to persuade a large share of voters without an ideological companion.
Wording of experiment: EIPS2017IImagine that "EIPS2017I_community" has asked to rent a local community house in order to hold a meeting for its members and sympathizers. To what extent do you agree that the "EIPS2017I_community" should be allowed to rent the local community house for this purpose?
With the rise and influence of populist radical right (PRR) parties in Western European democracies, research has focused on explaining the PRR vote. We know less about the reasons why many people would never vote for these parties. Recent research has pointed out that negative partisanship may be particularly prominent in the case of PRR parties. This study contributes to that line of research. It demonstrates that the PRR Progress Party in Norway has the highest share of negative partisanship of all parties in the system. Novel analysis of open‐ended responses reveal that negative partisans react against both the party's policies and rhetorical style. The analysis reveals that negative partisans mirror voters of the PRR only to some extent. Notably, they emphasize disagreements with the party's views on humanity, and with environmental and economic policies. Political style is also a considerable source of negative PRR partisanship and is more important to account for never voting than to account for the support for these parties. The findings underscore that the study of negative partisanship contributes to a fuller account of patterns of PRR electoral performance and particularly its limitations.
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.