Radical right parties and their welfare state stances – not so blurry after all?

Abstract

Recent literature shows that radical right parties (RRPs) present moderate or blurry economic stances. However, this paper argues that this blurriness is restricted to only one of the two main conflicts of contemporary welfare politics, namely questions centring on welfare generosity. In contrast, when it comes to the goals and principles the welfare state should meet, RRPs take a clear stance favouring consumption policies such as old age pensions over social investment, in accordance with their voters' preferences. The empirical analysis based on new, fine-grained coding of welfare stances in party manifestos and original data on voters' perceptions of party stances in seven European countries supports this argument. RRPs de-emphasise how much welfare state they want while consistently and clearly defending the traditional welfare state's consumptive focus against recalibration proposals. These findings have important implications for party competition and welfare politics. KEYWORDS Radical right parties; welfare state; blurring; social investment; party competition; social policyRadical right parties (RRPs) have emerged as a third pole in many West European countries' party systems (Kriesi et al. 2008;Oesch and Rennwald 2018). While it has been shown that they mobilise voters primarily on non-economic socio-cultural issues such as immigration (Ivarsflaten 2005(Ivarsflaten , 2008, their economic positions are less clear. Some scholars have depicted their positions as inconclusive (Rathgeb 2021), moderate (Afonso and Rennwald 2018; de Lange 2007), and with high variation across time and space (Afonso 2015). Moreover, in an influential article, Rovny (2013) argued that RRPs deliberately blur their positions on the economic dimension of conflict. Since the radical right attracts core CONTACT Matthias Enggist

Populism and nature—the nature of populism: New perspectives on the relationship between populism, climate change, and nature protection

“…In broader terms, this research relates to the literature that is interested in populists' "secondary policy positions". It goes beyond the rather short-sighted view on primary policy issues, such as migration, which capture most of the attention (Elias et al 2015;Enggist and Pinggera 2021). At the same time, it also challenges important accounts concerning radical right-wing parties' environmental positioning.…”

How to study the populist radical right and the welfare state?

“…We thereby draw on comparative political economy and welfare state research to illuminate the relationship between the radical right and the welfare state in multi-dimensional terms (Beramendi et al 2015;Bonoli 2010;Garritzmann et al 2017;Häusermann 2012;Hemerijck 2018). More specifically, and building on this literature, the contributions by and Enggist and Pingerra (2021) in this special issue distinguish between social transfers and other forms of compensatory social spending (i.e. old-age pensions), social investments and human capital formation (i.e.…”

“…In this regard, the findings by Enggist and Pingerra (2021) on policy positions of PRRPs (the supply-side of electoral competition) have important implications that should be explored in further research. By distinguishing between social consumption and investment, they show that PRRPs are much more outspoken on the goals and principles that the welfare state should meet than the 'position-blurring' hypothesis suggests (Rovny 2013).…”

“…What are the main takeaway points of this special issue? When it comes to the welfare-related consequences of the populist radical right, a crucial insight is that their voters do not support a leftist 'pro-welfare' response , which is also mirrored in PRRPs' policy positions in party manifestos and policy choices when in government (Enggist and Pingerra, 2021;Ennser-Jedenastik, 2021;Meardi and Guardiancich, 2021). The strong role of 'deservingness' conceptions implies a more particularistic-authoritarian approach to social policy , which caters to 'hard-working' people with long contribution records in social insurance (e.g.…”

“…Within the domain of social transfers, the pro-welfare orientation of the radical right is essentially restricted to pro-elderly spending (i.e. pensions, health care) Enggist and Pingerra, 2021) and/or monetary family support along the lines of the male breadwinner model inherited from the industrial past (Ennser-Jedenastik, 2021;Meardi and Guardiancich, 2021).…”