Textual analysis

Measuring populism worldwide

“…And how can the conceptual framework of populism be operationalized using valid and reliable empirical evidence? Researchers have used several alternative techniques to classify political parties including (i) identifying “ party families ” according to shared names (Mair and Mudde, 1998); (ii) comparing members of transnational organizational affiliations; (iii) discourse analysis of the rhetorical language used in leadership speeches and social media (Aalberg et al, 2017; Bonikowski and Gidron, 2016; Duina and Carson, 2019; Hart, 2020; Hawkins, 2009; Hawkins et al, 2019a; Kelly, 2019; Kreis, 2017; Lamont et al, 2017); (iv) hand and digitalized content analysis of the texts of programmatic party platforms, exemplified by the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP) (Budge and Farlie, 1983; Budge et al, 2001; Klingemann et al, 2006; Laver, 2000; Rooduijn and Pauwels, 2011); (v) analysis of roll-call votes by legislators (Poole and Rosenthal, 2001); (vi) surveys of political elites such as elected representatives, parliamentary candidates, activists, and party members (Bailer, 2014; Katz and Wessels, 1999; van Haute and Gauja, 2015); (vii) mass surveys gathering citizen’s estimates of party issue positions and their own policy preferences, as well as measuring populist attitudes (Akkerman et al, 2014), and (viii) using expert surveys to identify party ideological values and issue positions (Bakker et al, 2015; Benoit and Laver, 2006; Castles and Mair, 1984; Meijers and Zaslove, 2020). Reviews suggest that each approach has different pros and cons (Laver, 2001; Mair, 2001; Ware, 1996).…”

Crisis, Rhetoric and Right-Wing Populist Incumbency: An Analysis of Donald Trump's Tweets and Press Briefings

“…Different authors disagree whether populism is best understood as a strategy of political mobilization (Weyland 2001), a thin-centred ideology (Mudde 2004; Stanley 2008) or a type of discursive, sociocultural frame (Aslanidis 2015; Bonikowski and Gidron 2016; Rooduijn 2014). Despite differences in approach, scholars usually identify shared features – that is, that populism is a type of discourse which combines ‘thin’ ideational commitments with a particular type of rhetoric (Hawkins et al 2019; Mudde 2004). This approach is well suited to empirical analysis because it is easily operationalizable (Mudde et al 2017: 39) and allows a combining of the ‘thin’ veneer of populism, especially its anti-elitism, with context-specific, ‘thick’ political ideas (Mudde et al 2017: 30).…”

“…When crisis occurs during an electoral campaign, incumbents' rhetorical strategies play a central role in balancing crisis response with managing electoral expectations. Finally, following an ideational approach, we understand populism as a type of discourse in which particular ideas, especially anti-elitism, are combined with transgressive rhetorical styles (Canovan 1999; Hawkins et al 2019; Maurer and Diehl 2020; Mudde 2004; Rooduijn 2014). In right-wing populism, anti-elitism and transgressive rhetorical style are complemented with ‘thicker’ political ideas focused on the exclusion of cultural, religious, linguistic and/or racial minorities (Bonikowski 2017; Mudde and Kaltwasser 2013).…”

Hurricane or fresh breeze? Disentangling the populist effect on the quality of democracy

“…3 Second, we conduct empirical tests, based on the pairwise overlaps of these measures, which show that they consider the same concept, with some limits. Third, we convert all source measures of populism to a dichotomous scale (already employed by Huber and Schimpf, 2016a, 2016b; Mudde, 2011; March, 2011; Kessel, 2015), using a cut-off point (Hawkins, 2009; Hawkins, 2013; Hawkins and Castanho Silva, 2016). 4 Fourth, to consider the limits of comparability, we also construct a second, more limited measure containing only the most similar classifications, which we use as a robustness check.…”

“…3Three of our sources use a discursive concept based on the rhetoric of populist leaders and party manifestoes (Hawkins 2009; Hawkins 2013; Hawkins & Castanho Silva 2016). However, in practice this discursive concept results in similar classifications (Mudde & Rovira Kaltwasser 2012b:9).…”