Issue trade‐offs and the politics of representation: Experimental evidence from four European democracies

Abstract

The politics of representation has become increasingly complex in recent years. Amid weakening traditional political cleavages, the emergence of new political divides and mounting anti-elitism that have helped the rise of radical populist parties, voters face significant cross-pressures when casting their ballots. Despite a wealth of studies on the role of issue preferences in voting behavior, there are still many unknowns when it comes to understanding how voters trade off competing issue preferences against each other. Studying issue trade-offs is also important against the backdrop of the well-documented preference of radical left and right voters for redistribution and restrictive immigration policies, respectively. To investigate the strength of issue preferences among radical left, radical right and mainstream party voters and the willingness to compromise on their most important issues, we conducted a conjoint survey experiment with 2,000 participants in France, Germany, Italy and Spain. The voting scenario in the experiment featured proposals on salient political issues and different (non)populist stances on political representation. The results from the cross-country study as well as a large replication study with a sample of 4,000 German respondents show that voters of radical right parties are willing to accept large trade offs regarding their other issue preferences as long as their preference for restrictive immigration policies is fulfilled. Differently, radical left, Green and mainstream party voters have a more variegated range of issue preferences, some of them so strong that they are not traded off for their preferred redistribution and EU integration positions, respectively. The findings shed light on trade-offs related to emerging issues such as climate change and the distinct logics behind support for radical parties. They also have implications for the electoral prospects of mainstream and radical parties when trying to reposition themselves in the diversifying issue space of contemporary democracies. As such, understanding how voters navigate issue cross-pressures helps to explain the broader dynamics that are (re)configuring political conflict and voting behavior in Europe.

No Conservative View Left

“…Even for other parties, the success of the radical right mainly signals the importance of immigration, allowing them to subsequently adopt more conservative immigration policies (Abou-Chadi and Krause 2020) without necessarily fostering broad ideological disagreements or a comprehensive competing narrative (Izzo 2023). This sentiment is also reflected among their supporters, who often demonstrate a willingness to prioritize immigration restrictions over any other policies (Kirkizh, Froio, and Stier 2023), indicating a lack of strong convictions on many issues and, consequently, a low ideological alignment on other beliefs.…”

“…Previous literature on party alignment and supporter bases primarily categorizes differences using similarities in ideological content, i.e., classes of party families. For example, research indicates that voters affiliated with certain party families are more willing to compromise on numerous preferences to secure a few key policies, demonstrating an ideological disconnect (Kirkizh, Froio, and Stier 2023). Additionally, some party families appear more principled,…”

“…Drawing from extensive research on party ideologies, partisan sorting, and public opinion (Adams et al 2006;Gidron 2022;Kirkizh, Froio, and Stier 2023), I hypothesize an asymmetry in ideological alignment between individuals identifying with parties on either the left or right end of the ideological spectrum (or spectra in two-dimensional solutions). This hypothesis aligns with findings from studies on the distinct ideological contents characterizing the right and left parties' ideologies.…”

Does Democratic Backsliding Depend on the Policy Issue? Evidence from a Conjoint Experiment

“…We investigate the mechanisms explaining the acceptance of democratic transgressions across issue areas by combining literature on democratic backsliding with earlier literature on 'issue evolution' and issue salience (Braun & Schäfer, 2022;Carmines & Stimson, 1986;Ciuk & Yost, 2016;Wojcieszak, 2014).We hypothesize that identity-related 'wedge issues', which do not fit into the traditional left-right issue dimension and that carry a strong emotional loading (van de Wardt, De Vries, and Hobolt 2014), are more likely to generate trade-offs between issue congruence and democratic principles. Moreover, drawing on recent studies on issue dimensionality (Bengtson 2021;Kirkizh, Froio, and Stier 2022) we examine whether these effects are asymmetrical between opponents and proponents of a given issue.…”