If you can't Beat them, Join them? Explaining Social Democratic Responses to the Challenge from the Populist Radical Right in Western Europe

Abstract

Over the last three decades many Western European social democratic parties have been challenged by populist radical right parties. The growth and success of parties on the right flank of the party system represents a triple challenge to the social democrats: they increase the salience of issues traditionally ‘owned’ by the right; they appeal to working‐class voters who traditionally support the centre left; and they may facilitate the formation of centre‐right governments. This article explores social democratic parties' strategic options in the face of this challenge, and tests the widespread assumption that the centre‐left parties respond by taking a tougher stance on issues related to immigration and integration. Comparative analysis of developments in Austria, Denmark, the Netherlands and Norway reveals significant variation in the substance, scope and pace of the strategic responses of their social democratic parties. And it suggests that those responses are influenced not only by the far right but also by the reactions of mainstream centre‐right parties and by parties on their left (and liberal) flank. Internal disunity, potential or actual, is also an important factor.

Immigration into the mainstream: Conflicting ideological streams, strategic reasoning and party competition

“…Immigration poses just as many dilemmas for the centre-left (see Bale et al, 2010 and2012). For Social Democratic and reformed Left parties, limiting it can easily be seen as vital in order to retain collective power and good terms and conditions in the labour market (see Hinnfors et al 2011).…”

Voices from the far right: a text analysis of Swedish parliamentary debates

“…Many researchers have followed the distinction between strategies of disengagement or engagement that was first made by Downs (2001), either in its original form or by developing it further (Meguid 2005, Bale et al 2010, Goodwin 2011, Grabow & Hartleb 2013, Saveljeff 2011, Heinze 2018. The analysis presented here is based on the classification of strategies proposed by Meguid (2005), but we have adapted it to better suit our data material, which consists of parliamentary speeches.…”

“…Conversely, engagement strategies may co-opt the radical right's policies or require collaboration with the radical right party in the legislative, executive, or electoral arena. There have been different attempts to develop Downs' classification (Meguid 2005, Bale et al 2010, Goodwin 2011, Grabow & Hartleb 2013, Saveljeff 2011, Heinze 2018, where the significant conceptual variety in existing case studies depends on different theoretical assumptions and operationalization (Heinze 2018, p. 290). In this article, we use the classification proposed by Meguid (2005Meguid ( , 2008 as our point of departure.…”

“…How mainstream parties respond to the rise of the radical right and whether they adapt to their policy positions is a matter of scholarly debate (Van Spanje 2010, Rooduijn et al 2012, Bale et al 2010, Schumacher & Van Kersbergen 2016. Whatever the outcome, there is strong evidence that the success of radical right parties depends on the way the mainstream parties respond to them (Meguid 2005, Bale et al 2010, Abou-Chadi 2016, Han 2015, Loxbo 2014, Schumacher & Van Kersbergen 2016. In this article, we address mainstream party strategy, but from a somewhat different angle; while most previous studies have focused on electoral campaigns and policy proposals, we investigate parliamentary debates.…”

How to please voters without alienating friends? Parties, organised interests and advocacy coalitions in Swiss immigration policy

“…This "antiimmigration turn" has affected parties on the right (Bale 2003), but also on the left (Bale et al 2010). If the outcome of this change in policy positions has been extensively documented, however, its causes and the processes leading to it remain unclear.…”