Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A drunken guest in Europe?

The influence of populist radical right parties on democratic quality

Ein betrunkener Gast?

Der Einfluss rechtspopulistischer Parteien auf Demokratiequalität

  • Aufsätze
  • Published:
Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft Aims and scope Submit manuscript

… Populism acts like a drunken guest at a dinner party: While usually it does not respect the rules of public contestation, it spells out painful but real problems of the existing political order (Arditi (2005), in: Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012, p. 209))

Abstract

This paper examines the influence of populist radical-right parties (PRRPs) on the democratic quality in Europe. We build on both, theoretical work and qualitative evaluations on the influence of populism on democratic quality. We follow Cas Mudde and Cristobál Rovira Kaltwasser’s (2012) distinction between populism in government and populism in opposition. We expect populism in opposition to function as a corrective. That is to say, it acts as a “drunken guest” who blurts out painful truths (e. g. issues which are ignored by other parties or shortcomings of policy outputs). In government, however, it is likely to harm democratic quality since it does not respect the rules of public contestation (e. g. undermining the legitimacy of democratic institutions). Furthermore, we contend that the effect’s size is moderated by the level of consolidation, and in the case of PRRPs in government, by the specific type of government.

Our empirical tests reveal evidence for the effects of PRRPs in government. We further demonstrate the moderating influence of the cabinet type, adding to the existing literature by offering a comparative, large-n study and testing qualitative derived theory in a cross country setting.

Zusammenfassung

Dieser Artikel untersucht den Einfluss von rechtspopulistischen Parteien (PRRPs) auf die Demokratiequalität in Europa. Basierend auf dem theoretischen Rahmen von Cas Mudde und Cristobál Rovira Kaltwasser (2012) unterscheiden wir zwischen Effekten von Populismus in der Opposition und Populismus in der Regierung. Wir erwarten, dass populistische Parteien in der Opposition als Korrektiv fungieren können. Diese nehmen die Rolle eines „betrunkenen Gastes“ ein, der unangenehme Wahrheiten ausspricht. In der Regierung hingegen ist es wahrscheinlicher, dass sich diese Parteien negativ auf die Demokratiequalität auswirken, da sie die Regeln öffentlichen und politischen Wettbewerbs nicht einhalten (z. B. Unterminierung der Legitimität demokratischer Organisationen). Darüber hinaus argumentieren wir, dass die Effekte durch den Grad der demokratischen Konsolidierung sowie bei Regierungsbeteiligung durch den Koalitionstypus moderiert werden.

Unsere empirische Evidenz unterstützt unsere Argumente für den Effekt von PRRPs in der Regierung sowie den moderierenden Einfluss des Kabinetttyps. Mit der vergleichend ausgelegten Studie über mehrere Länder leisten wir einen theoretischen und empirischen Beitrag zur aktuellen Debatte.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Similarly, Hawkins (2003, p. 1140) defines populism as “a charismatic mode of linkages combined with a democratic discourse that emphasizes the embodiment of a popular will”.

  2. This combination contributes to the exclusionary character of these parties (Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser 2013).

  3. The minimal definition applied by Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser (2012) tends to be rather problematic for a quantitative analysis in Europe. Applying a minimal definition leads to minimal variance in Europe since all countries are fairly democratic.

  4. For a detailed review of these effects, see subsequent section on negative effects.

  5. Recent empirical research, however, also shows that the presence of successful PRRPs in Eastern Europe lowers propensities of citizens to vote on average (Immerzeel and Pickup 2015).

  6. Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Ireland, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Netherlands, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland and the United Kingdom.

  7. We chose 2012 as an end point because data for both dependent variables are only available until then.

  8. See Table 4 in the Appendix for a list of all parties used in the analysis. To distinguish between PRRPs and other parties, we mainly followed Mudde (2007), de Lange (2008) and Van Kessel (2015), all of whom chose their cases on the definition which we applied in our paper, too. Further sources were Art (2011), Financial Times (2008), Grabow and Hartleb (2014), McGann and Kitschelt (2005), Oesch (2008) and Rydgren (2006). Obviously, several cases are highly contested. For example, Fidesz in Hungary is populist according to Enyedi (2015). However, Mudde (2007, p. 50) argues against classifying Fidesz as radical-right, since the host-ideology element is conservative. Very recently, he and colleagues argued that there has been a (slight) shift towards the radical-right (Jenne and Mudde 2012; Mudde 2015). This shift, however, lies outside our period under review.

  9. The National Front (FN) in France failed to gain any parliamentary seats at certain times. However, due to its rather strong election results (over 10 % in most elections since 1990), we decided to count the FN as in opposition.

  10. We loose an additional number of eight cases due to missing data.

  11. This is in line with Gelman and Hill (2007), who argue that a hierarchical structure within the data justifies multi-level models, even without further tests. However, we applied an additional analysis of variance between the null and empty model. The results (Table 5 in the Appendix) of this test justifies the introduction of a second level to our model due to a significant difference in the maximum likelihood.

  12. We used the statistical package R (R Core Team 2015b) to create the dataset and for our analyses. Specifially, we made use of the following R‑packages: foreign (R Core Team 2015a), ggplot2 (Wickham 2009), nlme (Pinheiro et al. 2016), plyr (Wickham 2011), stargazer (Hlavac 2015), texreg (Leifeld 2013), xtable (Dahl 2015), and zoo (Zeileis and Grothendieck 2005). Data is available upon request.

  13. The scales combined in Pemstein, Meserve and Melton (2010) are Arat’s measurement of particiaption, inclusiveness, competitiveness and coerciveness (Arat 1991), the BLM measure for political liberties (Bowman et al. 2005), Bollen’s index on political liberties and popular sovereignty (Bollen 2001), the Freedom House scale on political rights and civil liberties (Freedom House 2007), Hadenius’ measure for elections and political freedoms (Hadenius 1992), the PACL on executive elections, legislative elections and party competition (Przeworski et al. 2000), the Polity index which measures recruitment and independence of the executive and participation (Marshall et al. 2012), Dahl’s Polyarchy concept (Coppedge and Reinicke 1990), the PRC score on competitiveness, inclusiveness and political liberties (Gasiorowski 1996; Reich 2002), and Vanhanen’s index regarding competition and participation (Vanhanen 2003).

  14. These dimensions are: (1) Transparency, (2) Individual Liberties, (3) Rule Of Law, (4) Mutual Constraints, and (5) Effective Access to Power of Minorities (Merkel et al. 2014).

  15. The definition Marshall et al. (2016) apply measures the time since the last major regime change. Given that all countries in our sample are democracies in terms of Polity IV’s definition, we can use it as the time since democratization. If a country in our dataset was democratic but fell back to autocracy, we reset the count to “0” again. Since Malta is not available in the Politiy IV dataset we started counting in Malta’s year of independence (1964).

  16. However, to ensure that we can conclude different effects independent from the non-statistically significant effect of PRRPs in opposition, we follow the example of Gelman and Stern (2006) to test the extent to which the effects between PRRPs in government and opposition, respectively, are statistically significantly different from each other. The results indicate that this is the case in both Model 1A and Model 1B (see Fig. 2 in the Appendix). This adds further support to our argument that the effects of PRRPs in government and opposition differ substantially.

  17. This becomes clearer, when plotting the interaction effects (Berry et al. 2012; Brambor et al. 2006). See Fig. 3 in the Appendix.

  18. Again, we plot the interaction for greater clarity in Fig. 4.

  19. See Table 6 in the Appendix for the regression results. For differences of effects see Fig. 5 in the Appendix. For Transparency, Individual Liberties, and Minority Rights, we dropped eight cases due to missing data entries on the dependent variable. For Rule of Law and Mutual Constraints, the number of missing cases are 13 and 16 for identical reasons.

  20. Fig. 6 illustrates this point graphically. The exact p-values are: Rule of Law p = 0.12; Mutual Constraints p = 0.12. For Minority Rights, we observe greater uncertainty that manifests itself in relatively large standard errors.

References

  • Abts, Koen, and Stefan Rummens. 2007. Populism versus democracy. Political Studies 55(2):405–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, Tjitske. 2012. Comparing radical right parties in government: immigration and integration policies in nine countries (1996–2010). West European Politics 35(3):511–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Akkerman, Tjitske, and Sarah L. de Lange. 2012. Radical right parties in office: incumbency records and the electoral cost of governing. Government and Opposition 47(4):574–596.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Albertazzi, Daniele. 2008. Switzerland: yet another populist paradise. In Twenty-first century populism, ed. Daniele Albertazzi, Duncan McDonnell, 100–119. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Albertazzi, Daniele, and Sean Mueller. 2013. Populism and liberal democracy: populists in government in Austria, Italy, Poland and Switzerland. Government and Opposition 48(3):343–371.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arat, Zehra F. 1991. Democracy and human rights in developing countries, Authors Guild Backinprint.com edn., Lincoln: iUniverse.

    Google Scholar 

  • Arditi, Benjamín. 2004. Populism as a spectre of democracy: a response to Canovan. Political Studies 52(1):135–143.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arditi, Benjamín. 2005. Populism as an internal periphery of democratic politics. In Populism and the mirror of democracy, ed. Francisco Panizza, 72–99. London: Verso.

    Google Scholar 

  • Art, David. 2011. Inside the radical right: the development of anti immigrant parties in Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Aslanidis, Paris. 2015. Is populism an ideology? A refutation and a new perspective. Political Studies. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12224.

    Google Scholar 

  • Backes, Uwe. 2006. Politische Extremismen – Begriffshistorische und begriffssystematische Grandlagen. In Gefährdung der Freiheit. Extremistische Ideologien im Vergleich, ed. Uwe Backes, Eckhard Jesse, 17–40. Göttingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Beetham, David. 2004. Towards a universal framework for democracy assessment. Democratization 11(2):1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berry, William D., Matt Golder, and Daniel Milton. 2012. Improving tests of theories positing interaction. The Journal of Politics 74(3):653–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, Hans-Georg. 1993. The new politics of resentment: radical right-wing populist parties in Western Europe. Comparative Politics 25(4):413–427.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, Hans-Georg. 1994. Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe. New York: St. Martins Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, Hans-Georg. 2015. The revenge of the Ploucs: the revival of radical populism under Marine Le Pen in France. In European populism in the shadow of the Great Recession. Studies in European political science, ed. Hanspeter Kriesi, Takis S. Pappas, 75–90. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boix, Carles, and Susan C. Stokes. 2003. Endogenous democratization. World Politics 55(4):517–549.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bollen, Kenneth A. 2001. Cross-national indicators of liberal democracy, 2nd edn., 1950–1990. Ann Arbor: Inter-University Consortium for Political and Social Research.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bowman, Kirk, Fabrice Lehoucq, and James Mahoney. 2005. Measuring political democracy: case expertise, data adequacy and Central America. Comparative Political Studies 38(8):939–970.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brambor, Thomas, William R. Clark, and Matt Golder. 2006. Understanding interaction models: improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis 14(1):63–82.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Canovan, Margaret. 1981. Populism. London: Junction Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canovan, Margaret. 1999. Trust the people! Populism and the two faces of democracy. Political Studies 47(1):2–16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, Michael, and Wolfgang H. Reinicke. 1990. Measuring polyarchy. Studies In Comparative International Development 25(1):51–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coppedge, Michael, John Gerring, David Altman, Michael Bernhard, Steven Fish, Allen Hicken, Matthew Kroenig, Staffan I. Lindberg, Kelly McMann, Pamela Paxton, Holli A. Semetko, Svend-Erik Skaaning, Jeffrey Staton, and Jan Teorell. 2011. Conceptualizing and measuring democracy: a new approach. Perspectives on Politics 9(2):247–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dahl, David B. 2015. xtable: Export Tables to LaTeX or HTML. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • der Standard. Strache: “Ortstafeljudas” Haider. http://derstandard.at/2329874/Strache-Ortstafeljudas-Haider (Created 9 February 2006). Accessed 9 February 2015.

  • der Standard. Staatsanwaltschaft weitet Erhebungen wegen Ortstafel-Verrückung aus. http://derstandard.at/3030239/Staatsanwaltschaft-weitet-Erhebungen-wegen-Ortstafel-Verrueckung-aus (Created 27 November 2007). Accessed 19 May 2015.

  • Diamond, Larry Jay, and Leonardo Morlino. 2005. Assessing the quality of democracy. A journal of democracy book. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Doering, Holger, and Philip Manow. 2015. Parliaments and governments database (ParlGov): Information on parties, elections and cabinets in modern democracies. http://www.parlgov.org/. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Enyedi, Zslot. 2015. Plebeians, citoyens and arisocrats or where is the bottom of bottom up? The case of Hungary. In European populism in the shadow of the great recession. Studies in European political science, ed. Hanspeter Kriesi, Takis S. Pappas, 235–250. Colchester: ECPR Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Financial Times. Populist parties set to shine in Lithuania poll. http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/7e9ac51c-96df-11dd-8cc4-000077b07658.html#axzz38hcGQRwp (Created 10 October 2008). Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Freedom House. 2007. Freedom in the World 2007. https://freedomhouse.org/report/freedom-world/freedom-world-2007. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frölich-Steffen, Susanne, and Lars Rensmann. 2005. Populistische Regierungsparteien in Ost- und Westeuropa: Vergleichende Perspektiven der politikwissenschaftlichen Forschung. In Populisten an der Macht: populistische Regierungsparteien in West- und Osteuropa, ed. Susanne Frölich-Steffen, Lars Rensmann, 3–34. Wien: Braumüller.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gasiorowski, Mark J. 1996. An overview of the political regime change dataset. Comparative Political Studies 29(4):469–483.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, Andrew, and Jennifer Hill. 2007. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical models. Analytical methods for social research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gelman, Andrew, and Hal Stern. 2006. The difference between “significant” and “not significant” is not itself statistically significant. The American Statistician 60(4):328–331.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grabow, Karsten, and Florian Hartleb. 2014. EUROPE – NO, THANKS? Study on the rise of right-wing and national populist parties in Europe. Brussels, Sankt Augustin and Berlin: Centre for European Studies & Konrad-Adenauer-Stiftung e. V.

    Google Scholar 

  • Griffin, Roger. 1999. Last Rights? In The radical right in Central and Eastern Europe since 1989, ed. Sabrina P. Ramet, 297–321. University Park: Pennsylvania State University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hadenius, Axel. 1992. Democracy and development. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Hanley, Seán. 2012. The Czech Republicans 1990–1998: a populist outsider in a consolidating democracy. In Populism in Europe and the Americas, ed. Cas Mudde, Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, 68–88. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Hawkins, Kirk A. 2003. Populism in Venezuela: the rise of chavismo. Third World Quarterly 24(6):1137–1160.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinisch, Reinhard C. 2003. Success in opposition – failure in government: explaining the performance of right-wing populist parties in public office. West European Politics 26(3):91–130.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heinisch, Reinhard C. 2008. Right-wing populism in Austria: a case for comparison. Problems of Post-Communism 55(3):40–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hlavac, Marek. 2015. stargazer: well-formatted regression and summary statistics tables. Cambridge: Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huber, Robert A., and Christian H. Schimpf. 2015. Friend or foe? Testing the influence of populism on democratic quality in Latin America. Political Studies. doi:10.1111/1467-9248.12219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Immerzeel, Tim, and Mark Pickup. 2015. Populist radical right parties mobilizing ‘the people’? The role of populist radical right success in voter turnout. Electoral Studies 40:347–360.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jäckle, Sebastian, Uwe Wagschal, and Rafael Bauschke. 2012. Das Demokratiebarometer: basically theory driven? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft 6(1):99–125.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jenne, Erin K., and Cas Mudde. 2012. Can outsiders help? Journal of Democracy 23(3):147–155.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Kessel, Stijn. 2015. Populist parties in Europe: agents of discontent? Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, Sarah L. 2008. From pariah to power: the government participation of radical right-wing populist parties in West European democracies. Antwerp: University of Antwerp. PhD Thesis.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, Sarah L. 2012. New alliances: why mainstream parties govern with radical right-wing populist parties. Political Studies 60(4):899–918.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • de Lange, Sarah L., and Tjitske Akkerman. 2012. Populist parties in Belgium: a case of hegemonic liberal democracy? In Populism in Europe and the Americas, ed. Cas Mudde, Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, 27–46. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Leifeld, Philip. 2013. texreg: conversion of statistical model output in R to LaTeX and HTML Tables. Journal of Statistical Software 55(8):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, Luke. 2008. Contemporary far left parties in Europe: from Marxism to the mainstream? Bonn: Friedrich Ebert Stiftung.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, Luke. 2011. Radical left parties in contemporary Europe. Extremism and democracy. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Monty G., Ted Robert Gurr, and Keith Jaggers. 2012. Polity IV project: political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2012: dataset users’ manual. http://www.systemicpeace.org/polity/polity4.htm. Accessed 26 August 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marshall, Monty G., Ted Robert Gurr, and Keith Jaggers. 2016. Polity IV project: political regime characteristics and transitions, 1800–2013: dataset users’ manual. http://www.systemicpeace.org/inscr/p4manualv2015.pdf. Accessed 12 July 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • McGann, Anthony J., and Herbert Kitschelt. 2005. The radical right in the Alps: evolution of support for the Swiss SVP and Austrian FPO. Party Politics 11(2):147–171.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Merkel, Wolfgang, Daniel Bochsler, Karima Bousbah, Marc Bühlmann, Heiko Giebler, Miriam Hänni, Lea Heyne, Lisa Müller, Saskia Ruth, and Bernhard Wessels. 2014. Democracy barometer: methodology: version 5. Aarau: Zentrum für Demokratie.

    Google Scholar 

  • Minkenberg, Michael. 2011. The radical right in Europe. Guetersloh: Bertelsmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas. 2004. The populist Zeitgeist. Government and Opposition 39(4):542–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas. 2010. The populist radical right: a pathological normalcy. West European Politics 33(6):1167–1186.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas. The Hungary PM made a ‘rivers of blood’ speech … and no one cares. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jul/30/viktor-orban-fidesz-hungary-prime-minister-europe-neo-nazi (Created 30 July 2015). Accessed 21 May 2016.

  • Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser (eds.). 2012. Populism in Europe and the Americas: threat or corrective for democracy? Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, Cas, and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser. 2013. Exclusionary vs. inclusionary populism: comparing contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition 48(2):147–174.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Müller, Wolfgang C. 2002. Evil or the “engine of democracy”? Populism and party competition in Austria. In Democracies and the populist challenge, ed. Yves Mény, Yves Surel, 155–175. New York: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Mény, Yves, and Yves Surel. 2000. Par le peuple, pour le peuple: le populisme et les démocraties. L’espace du politique. Paris: Fayard.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mény, Yves, and Yves Surel (eds.). 2002. Democracies and the populist challenge. New York: Palgrave.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oesch, Daniel. 2008. Explaining workers’ support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway and Switzerland. International Political Science Review 29(3):349–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Papadopoulos, Yannis. 2002. Populism, the democratic question and contemporary governance. In Democracies and the populist challenge, ed. Yves Mény, Yves Surel, 45–61. New York: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Pemstein, Daniel, Stephen A. Meserve, and James Melton. 2010. Democratic compromise: a latent variable analysis of ten measures of regime type. Political Analysis 18(4):426–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pinheiro, Jose, Douglas Bates, Saikat DebRoy, Deepayan Sarkar, and R Core Team. 2016. nlme: linear and nonlinear mixed effects models. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Przeworski, Adam, Michael E. Alvarez, José Antonio Cheibub, and Fernando Limongi. 2000. Democracy and development: political institutions and well-being in the world, 1950–1990. Cambridge studies in the theory of democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. 2015a. foreign: Read Data Stored by Minitab, S, SAS, SPSS, Stata, Systat, Weka, dBase. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • R Core Team. 2015b. R: a language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Reich, Gary. 2002. Categorizing political regimes: new data for old problems. Democratization 9(4):1–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensmann, Lars. 2003. The new politics of prejudice: comparative perspectives on extreme right parties in European democracies. German Politics & Society 21(4):93–123.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rensmann, Lars. 2006. Populismus und Ideologie. In Populismus, ed. Frank Decker, 59–80. Wiesbaden: VS.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rensmann, Lars, Steffen Hagemann, and Hajo Funke. 2011. Autoritarismus und Demokratie: politische Theorie und Kultur in der globalen Moderne. Schwalbach: Wochenschau Wissenschaft.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roberts, Kenneth M. 2012. Populism and democracy in Venezuela under Hugo Chávez. In Populism in Europe and the Americas, ed. Cas Mudde, Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser, 136–159. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Rooduijn, Matthijs. 2014. The nucleus of populism: in search of the lowest common denominator. Government and Opposition 49(4):573–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, Jens. 2006. From populism to ethnic nationalism: radical right-wing populism in Sweden. Oxford: Berghahn.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, Jens. 2008. France: The Front National, Ethnonationalism and Populism. In Twenty-first century populism, ed. Daniele Albertazzi, Duncan McDonnell, 166–180. Houndmills, Basingstoke, Hampshire [England] and New York: Palgrave Macmillan.

  • Sartori, Giovanni. 1970. Concept Misformation in Comparative Politics. The American Political Science Review 64(4):1033–1053.

  • Sartori, Giovanni. 1987. The Theory of Democracy Revisited. Chatham, N.J.: Chatham House.

  • Schmidt, Manfred G. 2010. Demokratietheorien: eine Einführung, 5th edn., Wiesbaden: VS.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, Paul A. 2000. Populism. Concepts in the social sciences. Buckingham: Open University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taggart, Paul A. 2002. Populism and the pathology of representative politics. In Democracies and the populist challenge, ed. Yves Mény, Yves Surel, 62–80. New York: Palgrave.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Tännsjö, Torbjörn. 1992. Populist democracy: a defence. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Urbinati, Nadia. 1998. Democracy and populism. Constellations 5(1):110–124.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vanhanen, Tatu. 2003. Democratization: a comparative analysis of 170 countries, 7th edn., Routledge Research in Comparative Politics. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walker, Ignacio. 2008. Democracy and populism in Latin America. Working paper #347. Notre Dame: The Helen Kellogg Institute for International Studies.

    Google Scholar 

  • Weyland, Kurt. 1999. Neoliberal populism in Latin America and Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics 31(4):379.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weyland, Kurt. 2001. Clarifying a contested concept: populism in the study of Latin American politics. Comparative Politics 34(1):1–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, Hadley. 2009. ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. New York: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Wickham, Hadley. 2011. The split-apply-combine strategy for data analysis. Journal of Statistical Software 40(1):1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Worldbank. 2013. World development indicators. http://data.worldbank.org/data-catalog/world-development-indicators. Accessed 21 May 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zeileis, Achim, and Gabor Grothendieck. 2005. zoo: S3 infrastructure for regular and irregular time series. Journal of Statistical Software 14(6):1–27.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors are grateful to Zorzeta Bakaki, Martin Dolezal, Andreas Duer, Franz Fallend, Jessica Fortin-Rittberger, Corinna Kröber, Reinhard Heinisch, Liam F. McGrath, Gert Pickel, Gabriele Spilker, Steven M. Van Hauwaert, the editors of the journal and the anonymous reviewers for their helpful comments. We presented earlier versions of this paper at the Annual Austrian Political Science Conference (Vienna/November 2014), the Comparative Section Conference of the DVPW (Hamburg/February 2015) and the Contemporary Populism in Europe Conference (Prague/May 2015) and are grateful for the comments by all participants of the panels. Christian Schimpf acknowledges the support by the University of Mannheim’s Graduate School of Economic and Social Sciences funded by the German Research Foundation. All mistakes remain ours.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. IFW C 44, ETH Zürich, Haldeneggsteig 4, 8092, Zurich, Switzerland

    Robert A. Huber

  2. GESIS Leibniz Institut für Sozialwissenschaften, Graduate School of Economics and Social Sciences (University of Mannheim), PO Box 12 21 55, 68072, Mannheim, Germany

    Christian H. Schimpf

Authors
  1. Robert A. Huber
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Christian H. Schimpf
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Robert A. Huber.

Appendix

Appendix

Table 4 List of Populist Parties in Europe
Full size table
Table 5 Comparison of Null and Empty Model
Full size table
Table 6 Disaggregation: Model 5 to 9
Full size table
Fig. 2
figure 2

Differences between Populism in Government and Opposition Model 1A & 1B

Full size image
Fig. 3
figure 3

Interaction Effect of Government with Consolidation

Full size image
Fig. 4
figure 4

Interaction Effect of Opposition with Consolidation

Full size image
Fig. 5
figure 5

Differences between Populism in Government and Opposition in Disaggregation

Full size image
Fig. 6
figure 6

Coefficient Plot for Model 5–9

Full size image

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Huber, R.A., Schimpf, C.H. A drunken guest in Europe?. Z Vgl Polit Wiss 10, 103–129 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-016-0302-0

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12286-016-0302-0

Keywords

Schlüsselwörter

Search

Navigation