Return to: Search Page or to: Table of Contents Vol. 20, Issue 2

Kirill Zhirkov, "Nativist but not alienated: A comparative perspective on the radical right vote in Western Europe," Party Politics, 20 (March 2014), 286-296. [Available at http://ppq.sagepub.com/content/vol20/issue2/ ]

First paragraph:
The ongoing crisis in the Eurozone led to a rise in the popularity of the radical right parties in Western Europe. Antiimmigrant and the Eurosceptic Party for Freedom finished third at the 2010 Dutch general election getting support from more than 15% of the voters. Marine Le Pen, after succeeding her father, Jean Marie Le Pen, as the head of the National Front, showed the best result in party history with nearly 18% of the ballots cast in the first round of the 2012 French presidential election. The Norwegian Progress Party will be represented in the government for the first time in its history after the right-wing coalition victory at the 2013 parliamentary election. Such success changes the West European political system as well as the radical right parties themselves. The presence of the radical right on the political arena tends to affect other political forces which shift to the right and begin to exploit the immigration issue (Schain, 2006; Van Spanje, 2010), whereas radical parties tend to mitigate their rhetoric after securing a place in national politics (Rooduijn et al., 2012). When participating in government coalitions, radical right parties pass legislation directed towards 'cultural protectionism' and restriction of immigration (Minkenberg, 2001; Zaslove, 2004) but at the same time they begin to accept the 'rules of the game' related to coalition-building and policymaking (Duncan, 2010). Therefore, nowadays there is an increasing need for analysis which would take into account both political relevance of the radical right and their growing embeddedness into the West European political system.

Figures and Tables:
Table 1. List of countries and ESS rounds included in the analysis.
Table 2. List of moderate right parties by country.
Table 3. List of radical right parties by country.
Table 4. Factor analyses for multi-item explanatory variables.
Table 5. Results of multilevel multinomial logistic regression model (fixed effects only).
Table 6. Results of multilevel binomial logistic regression models.
Table 7. Results of multilevel multinomial logistic regression model (random effects included).

Last Paragraph:
(first paragrap of onclusion) In the present study I compared radical right voting in Western Europe to other forms of electoral behavior, most importantly to moderate right voting and abstention. In my regression analysis I used a multilevel multinomial design which allows both differentiating between various options of voting behavior and controlling for crosscountry and cross-time variance of effects. However, while interpreting results of the analysis presented above a few methodological limitations should be taken into account. First, the ESS is not a focused electoral study and usually does not coincide in time with national elections. Therefore, the actual electoral choices of participants and their responses could be separated by several months thus leading to possible imprecision in answers. Second, survey questions on voting behavior are often characterized by substantial non-response rates, and the ESS is not an exception--in my selected sample nearly 12% of answers were coded as missing. This problem is likely to specifically affect the responses of radical right voters due to social desirability bias; the phenomenon that survey data tend to contain less radical right votes compared to actual election results was mentioned in recent empirical studies (e.g. Werts et al., 2013). However, I would like to emphasize that these limitations are related to data availability and/or shortcomings of present-day statistical techniques and not to the chosen research design per se.

Last updated March 2014