Search

Rising inequalities have been described as a fertile ground for populist parties allover the globe. In this article, we argue that the perception of inequality alone canstrengthen populist attitudes and increase support for populist parties. Using datafrom the International Social Survey Programme, we find that those who perceivegreater inequality in society are more likely to support populist parties. To explorethe causal relationship, the study also conducts a survey experiment in Denmark,Germany, and Italy, randomly exposing participants to factual information aboutthe wealth distribution. The results show that the perception of inequality canincrease populist attitudes, but does not immediate affect the likelihood of votingfor populist parties in this context. The findings speak to current debates on howinequality and their perception became a pre-condition for the rise of populistparties all over Europe.

Few existing datasets on parties and interest groups include data from both sides and a wide variety of interest groups and parties. We contribute to filling this gap by making several interconnected new datasets publicly available. The PartyInterest Group Relationships in Contemporary Democracies (PAIRDEM) datasets include cross-national data from three different surveys of (1) central party organizations, (2) legislative party groups, and (3) interest groups. A fourth dataset based on coding of party statutes and party finance data was established together with the Political Party Database The datasets contain novel indicators on party-group relationships in up to 21 mature democracies. In this research note, we first present the main content of the datasets and the research design. Second, we present descriptive statistics documenting the extent of organizational ties between parties and groups in contemporary democracies. Third, we illustrate more advanced usage through a simple application.

Right-wing populist and far right parties are on the rise across Europe. While established parties are suffering dramatic electoral losses, right-wing parties are celebrating one electoral victory after another. To address their radical right challengers, many established parties have adopted a so-called ‘accommodative strategy’ by taking a more immigration-skeptical policy position. However, it is unclear whether such a strategy yields the expected benefits or whether such a position shift in turn hurts a party electorally. In this article, we find that mainstream left parties benefit from ‘going tough on immigration’ whereas it neither helps nor hurts mainstream right parties electorally. We arrive at this conclusion through an analysis of 16,811 vote choices in 15 elections in six countries from 1998 until 2013. Our findings have important implications for understanding what explains the rise of far right parties and the changing nature of electoral competition across Europe.

Interest groups are important intermediary organisations that function as a transmission belt between societal interests and political decision-makers. However, while some interest groups survive over decades, others only last a few years. This article argues that the survival of interest groups depends on their ability to mobilise resources which is crucially affected by interest group type and the public salience of an interest group’s policy domain. The theoretical expectations are tested based on a novel dataset mapping the survival of 1699 interest groups registered at the German Bundestag between 1974 and 2012. Using event history analysis, it is shown that interest group type and public salience indeed affect whether interest groups survive. Sectional groups last significantly longer than cause groups, and interest group survival increases with the public salience of their policy area. The results have major implications for our understanding of interest groups and political representation in contemporary democracies.

Welche Kommunikationsstrategien benutzen Koalitionsparteien während ihrer Zeit im Amt? Koalitionsparteien stehen vor einem Dilemma, dass sie zwar nach aussen Einheit demonstrieren sollen, sich aber gleichzeitig von ihren Partnern differenzieren müssen. Ich argumentiere, dass politische Kommunikation eine wichtige Rolle dabei spielt, wie Parteien versuchen, ihr individuelles Profil zu erhalten. Dazu habe ich drei Hauptstrategien definiert, die Parteien benutzen können. Basierend auf einem Datensatz von über 35'000 deutschen und niederländischen Pressemitteilungen von Koalitionsparteien analysiere ich, was Parteien in ihrer Strategiewahl beeinflusst. Meine Resultate zeigen, dass Personalisierung, definiert als ein verstärkter Fokus auf Individuen, davon beeinflusst wird, wie stark sich Koalitionsparteien ideologisch unterscheiden. Ich benutze einen supervised classification algorithm, um die deutschen Pressemitteilungen in verschiedene thematische Kategorien zu klassifizieren. Ich nutze diese Klassifizierung um zu analysieren, ob Parteien während dem Wahlkampf einen besonderen Fokus auf die Themen legen, die ihnen wichtig sind. Dies ist nicht der Fall, und meine Analysen zeigen, dass Parteien kurz vor einer Wahl sogar einen geringeren Schwerpunkt auf diese Themen legen, ungeachtet ideologischer Differenzen zwischen ihnen und ihren Koalitionspartnern. Schließlich analysiere ich die Präsenz von negativem Campaigning in deutschen Pressemitteilungen und in einer Auswahl von Episoden einer politischen Talkshow. Im Falle der Pressemitteilungen stelle ich fest, dass die Parteien mit zunehmender Wahrscheinlichkeit "feindlich gesinnte" Politiker erwähnen, je näher die Wahl rückt, und dass diese Erwähnungen mit einem generell negativerem sentiment der betreffenden Pressemitteilungen korrelieren., What communication strategies do coalition parties use during their time in office? Coalition parties face a dilemma between unity and differentiation, because while they need to keep relations with their partners stable, they also have to keep up constant efforts to differentiate themselves sufficiently from them. I argue that political communication plays a key role in how parties try to maintain a strong individual profile. I have defined three main strategies that parties can use to achieve this. Based on a dataset that contains over 35'000 press releases by German and Dutch coalition parties, I analyze what influences the usage of the three strategies in question. I find that the usage personalization, which is defined as focusing on individual politicians, is affected by the ideological distance between coalition partners. I use a supervised classiffication algorithm to classify the press releases issued by German coalition parties into issue areas to analyze whether parties use election campaigns to emphasize issues that are already important to them. I find that this is not the case, and that parties actually de-emphasize these issues as an election approaches, regardless of ideological distance between them and their partners. Lastly, I analyze the presence of negative campaigning in German press releases and in a selection of episodes from a political talk show. In the case of press releases, I find that parties are more likely to specifically mention hostile politicians as an election approaches, and that these mentions correlate with a more negative sentiment of the press releases in question.