It's not Economic Interventionism, Stupid! Reassessing the Political Economy of Radical Right‐wing Populist Parties

Abstract

This paper engages in a comparative analysis of the economic positions of radical rightwing populist parties in Western Europe. Following Ennser-Jedenastik (2016), we argue that those parties' political economy is best captured in terms of the nativist, populist and authoritarian features of their core ideology, each of which produces a specific set of economic policies independent from the issue of government intervention in the economy. On basis of an analysis of the election manifestos of seven radical right-wing populist parties in Western Europe in the period 2005-2015, we argue that those parties share similarities in their economic nativism, authoritarianism and populism, whilst their positions on the traditional role of the state in the economy are more diverse. The findings indicate also a unified 'nativist' response to the global financial crisis both in terms of welfare chauvinism and economic protectionism. We discuss the role of internal and external factors in explaining the economic profile of radical right-wing populist parties.

A Scoping Review of Populist Radical Right Parties’ Influence on Welfare Policy and its Implications for Population Health in Europe

“…Welfare Chauvinism and Welfare Policies A common tendency of PRR parties is to engage in 'welfare chauvinism. ' 10,[21][22][23][24][25][26][27] Welfare chauvinism involves increasing welfare provisions for the population belonging to the hypothetical 'in-group, ' while limiting access and eligibility to welfare provisions for certain vulnerable population groups (mostly immigrants and minorities). According to Ennser-Jedenastik 10 welfare chauvinistic ideas are an extension of nativism (eg, giving preference to the native population in social security and healthcare) and authoritarianism (eg, exclusive government assistance to those 'morally deserving' of support, such as the elderly who have worked and contributed to society).…”

Who Deserves Welfare and Who Does Not? Comment on "A Scoping Review of Populist Radical Right Parties’ Influence on Welfare Policy and its Implications for Population Health in Europe"

“…One essential element of the review is probably hardly surprising for many readers: it is by now well-established that most Western European PRR parties have adopted a nativist perspective on social policies that is called 'welfare chauvinism. ' [4][5][6] This is a combination of support for economic redistribution with resistance towards distributing welfare services for immigrants. 7 Andersen and Bjørklund have aptly summarized it as the idea that "welfare services should be restricted to 'our own'" (p. 165).…”

“…7 Hence, PRR parties endorse redistribution, but want this redistribution to be restricted to the native population: they are favouring generosity for natives, whilst advocating cuts and restrictions for immigrants. [4][5][6] In addition, some (but certainly not all) PRR parties, especially the Swiss SVP and Norwegian FrP, adopted what Simon Otjes and colleagues call 'economic authoritarianism. ' 5 This implies the viewpoint that the "undeserving poor" should be punished, because their poverty is seen as consequence of their own fault and "moral failing. "…”

“…[4][5][6] In addition, some (but certainly not all) PRR parties, especially the Swiss SVP and Norwegian FrP, adopted what Simon Otjes and colleagues call 'economic authoritarianism. ' 5 This implies the viewpoint that the "undeserving poor" should be punished, because their poverty is seen as consequence of their own fault and "moral failing. " It is mainly targeted at "those who can work but prefer to live off social benefits" (p. 274).…”

Communicating Populism

“…Research particularly points towards economic and cultural developments that have in the past been successfully targeted, fueled, and instrumentalized by populists (e.g., Inglehart & Norris, 2016 ;Lucassen & Lubbers, 2012 ;van Hauwaert & van Kessel, 2018 ). On the one hand, economic or fi nancial downfall and crisis can contribute to economic insecurity or suff ering among the population who are then attracted to a 'unifi ed nativist', protectionist, or isolationist response presented by populists as a solution to those problems (e.g., Becker, Fetzer, & Novy, 2016 ;Otjes, Ivaldi, Jupskas, & Mazzoleni, 2018 ). On the other hand, increasing social diversity brought about by migration and the emancipation of formerly underprivileged groups may trigger feelings of relative deprivation, fear of being disadvantaged and culturally side-lined, or even fear of becoming a victim of crime.…”