Advertisement

On far right parties, master frames and trans-national diffusion: understanding far right party development in Western Europe

  • Steven M. Van Hauwaert
Original Article

Abstract

A common assumption throughout the far right party (FRP) literature is that of developmental independence between FRPs, meaning explanatory accounts typically (i) look at FRPs as structurally independent political agents and (ii) examine their development as context-unique processes, in the absence of cross-sectional implications. Three initial observations can refute the plausibility and larger validity of such a claim. First, the dissemination of a relatively stable and comparable master frame between FRPs increases their similarities. Second, it is possible to distinguish the FN as the primary source (or innovator) of those similarities. Third, the adoption rate of the master frame illustrates spatial and temporal heterogeneity. Together, these observations support this study’s claim that we should think of FRP development in terms of interdependence. More specifically, this study theorises and illustrates developmental interdependence between FRPs using trans-national diffusion dynamics. Drawing from unique interview evidence and using master frame adoption as the primary process under analysis, this study also describes learning and emulation as the core mechanisms that underlie trans-national diffusion between FRPs. In the end, this theorisation is not intended to replace existing, more variable-oriented and structural explanations of FRP development, but rather to complement them and add to what we already know about FRPs.

Keywords

Far right parties Master frame adoption Developmental interdependence Trans-national diffusion Interviews 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Preliminary versions of this manuscript have been presented at various locations, including the MPSA Conference in Chicago and the ELECDEM final conference in Florence. I am grateful to participants and panel members for their feedback, comments and suggestions. In particular, I would like to thank the anonymous reviewers and editors of Comparative European Politics, Sarah de Lange, Zoltán Fazekas, Caterina Froio, John Ishiyama, Heike Klüver, Joost van Spanje and especially Pascal Perrineau for their valuable comments and insights.

Supplementary material

41295_2017_112_MOESM1_ESM.docx (117 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 117 kb)

References

  1. Anselin, L. 1988. Spatial econometrics: Methods and models, vol. 1. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Art, D. 2011. Inside the radical right: The development of anti-immigrant parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  3. Arter, D. 1999. Scandinavian politics today. Manchester: Manchester University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Arzheimer, K. 2009. Contextual factors and the extreme right vote in Western Europe, 1980–2002. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 259–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Attina, F. 1990. The voting behaviour of the European Parliament members and the problem of the Europarties. European Journal of Political Research 18 (5): 557–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Backes, U. 1996. Ideologie und Programmatik rechtsextremer Parteien-Unterschiede und Gemeinsamkeiten. In Rechtsextremismus: Ergebnisse und Perspectiven der Forschung, ed. J.W. Falter, H. Jaschke, and J.R. Winkler, 376–387. Opladen: Westdeutscher.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Benford, R.D., and D.A. Snow. 2000. Framing processes and social movements: An overview and assessment. Annual Review of Sociology 26: 611–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Berry, W.D., and D. Baybeck. 2005. Using geographic information systems to study interstate competition. American Political Science Review 99 (4): 505–519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Braun, D., and F. Gilardi. 2006. Taking ‘Galton’s problem’seriously towards a theory of policy diffusion. Journal of Theoretical Politics 18 (3): 298–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Brooks, S.M. 2005. Interdependent and domestic foundations of policy change: The diffusion of pension privatization around the world. International Studies Quarterly 49 (2): 273–294.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Caiani, M., D. della Porta, and C. Wagemann. 2012. Mobilizing on the extreme right: Germany, Italy, and the United States. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll, W.K., and R.S. Ratner. 1996. Master framing and cross-movement networking in contemporary social movements. The Sociological Quarterly 37 (4): 601–625.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chabot, S., and J.W. Duyvendak. 2002. Globalization and transnational diffusion between social movements: Reconceptualizing the dissemination of the Gandhian repertoire and the “coming out” routine. Theory and Society 31 (6): 697–740.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Coffé, H. 2005. Extreem-rechts in Vlaanderen en Wallonië: het verschil. Roeselare: Roulerta.Google Scholar
  15. Cole, A. 2005. Old right or new right? The ideological positioning of parties of the far right. European Journal of Political Research 44 (2): 203–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Collier, D., and R.E. Messick. 1975. Prerequisites versus diffusion: Testing alternative explanations of social security adoption. American Political Science Review 69 (4): 1299–1315.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. DeClair, E.G. 1999. Politics on the fringe: The people, policies, and organization of the Frenc National Front. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
  18. della Porta, D., and H. Kriesi. 2009. Social movements in a globalizing world: An introduction. In Social movements in a globalizing world, 2nd ed, ed. D. della Porta, H. Kriesi, and D. Rucht, 3–22. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillian.Google Scholar
  19. della Porta, D., H. Kriesi, and D. Rucht (eds.). 2009. Social movements in a globalizing world, 2nd ed. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  20. della Porta, D., and S. Tarrow. 2012. Interactive diffusion: The coevolution of police and protest behavior with an application to transnational contention. Comparative Political Studies 45 (1): 119–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Dietz, T.M. 2000. Similar but different? The European Greens compared to other transnational party federations in Europe. Party Politics 6 (2): 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Elkins, Z., and B. Simmons. 2005. On waves, clusters, and diffusion: a conceptual framework. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598: 33–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Erk, J. 2005. From Vlaams Blok to Vlaams Belang: the Belgian far-right renames itself. West European Politics 28 (3): 493–502.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fordham, B.O., and V. Asal. 2007. Billiard balls or snowflakes? Major power prestige and the international diffusion of institutions and practices. International Studies Quarterly 51 (1): 31–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Frank, A.G., and M. Fuentes. 1994. On studying the cycles in social movements. Research in Social Movements, Conflicts and Change 17: 173–196.Google Scholar
  26. Gamson, W.A. 1992. Talking politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  27. Gilardi, F. 2010. Who learns from what in policy diffusion processes? American Journal of Political Science 54 (3): 650–666.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Gilardi, F. 2012. Transnational diffusion: Norms, ideas, and policies. In Handbook of international relations, ed. W. Carlsnaes, T. Risse, and B. Simmons, 453–477. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.Google Scholar
  29. Graham, E.R., C.R. Shipan, and C. Volden. 2013. The diffusion of policy diffusion research in political science. British Journal of Political Science 43 (03): 673–701.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Gray, V. 1973. Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. The American Political Science Review 67 (4): 1174–1185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Green, D.P., and I. Shapiro. 1994. Pathologies of rational choice theory: A critique of applications in political science. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Handl, V. 2005. Choosing between China and Europe? Virtual inspiration and policy transfer in the programmatic development of the Czech Communist Party. Journal of Communist Studies and Transition Politics 21 (1): 123–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Harmel, R., and K. Janda. 1982. Parties and their environments: Limits to reform?. New York, NY: Longman.Google Scholar
  34. Harmel, R., and K. Janda. 1994. An integrated theory of party goals and party change. Journal of Theoretical Politics 6 (3): 259–287.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Husbands, C. 1996. Racism, xenophobia and the extreme right: A five country assessment, 97–118. Durban: Racism Xenophobia and Ethnic Conflict. Indicator.Google Scholar
  36. Ignazi, P. 1997. The extreme right in Europe: A survey. In The revival of right-wing extremism in the nineties, ed. P.H. Merkl, and L. Weinberg, 47–64. London: Frank Cass.Google Scholar
  37. Ishiyama, J.T. 1999. Strange bedfellows: Explaining political cooperation between communist successor parties and nationalists in Eastern Europe. Nations and Nationalism 4 (1): 61–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Jahn, D. 2006. Globalization as ‘Galton’s problem’: The missing link in the analysis of diffusion patterns in welfare state development. International Organization 60 (02): 401–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Jasper, J.M., and J. Goodwin. 2009. The social movements reader. New York, NY: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar
  40. Johansson, K.M. 2002. Party elites in multilevel Europe the Christian democrats and the single European Act. Party Politics 8 (4): 423–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Johansson, K.M., and T. Raunio. 2001. Partisan responses to Europe: Comparing Finnish and Swedish political parties. European Journal of Political Research 39 (2): 225–249.Google Scholar
  42. Jordana, J., and D.C. Levi-Faur. 2005. The diffusion of regulatory capitalism in Latin America: Sectoral and national channels in the making of a new order.”. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598 (1): 102–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Jungerstam-Mulders, S. 2003. Uneven Odds. The Electoral Success of the Freiheitliche Partei Osterreichs, the Vlaams Blok, The Republikaner and the Centrumdemocraten under the Conditions Provided by the Political System in Austria, Belgium, Germany and the Netherlands. Helsinki: SSKH Skrifter.Google Scholar
  44. Kahneman, D., and A. Tversky. 1979. Prospect theory: An analysis of decision under risk. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society 47 (2): 263–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Karapin, R. 2002. Far-right parties and the construction of immigration issues in Germany. In Shadows over Europe, 187–219. Palgrave Macmillan US.Google Scholar
  46. Katz, E. 1968. Diffusion (interpersonal influence). In International encyclopaedia of the social sciences, ed. D.L. Shils, 78–85. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  47. Kitschelt, H., P. Lange, G. Marks, and J.D. Stephens. 1999. Convergence and divergence in advanced capitalist democracies. Continuity and change in contemporary capitalism, 427–460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Kreppel, A. 2000. Rules, ideology and coalition formation in the European Parliament Past, Present and Future. European Union Politics 1 (3): 340–362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Kreppel, A., and G. Tsebelis. 1999. Coalition formation in the European Parliament. Comparative Political Studies 32 (8): 933–966.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kriesi, H., and T.S. Pappas. 2015. European populism in the shadow of the great recession. Colchester: Ecpr Press.Google Scholar
  51. Ladrech, R. 1993. Social democratic parties and EC integration.”. European Journal of Political Research 24 (2): 195–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Lindblom, C.E. 1977. Politics and markets: The world’s political economic systems. New York, NY: Basic Books.Google Scholar
  53. Luther, K.R. 2011. Of goals and own goals: A case study of right-wing populist party strategy for and during incumbency. Party Politics 17 (4): 453–470.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mammone, A. 2015. Transnational neofascism in France and Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Marcus, J. 2000. Exorcising europe's demons: A far-right resurgence? Washington Quarterly 23 (4): 31–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. McAdam, D., and D. Rucht. 1993. The cross-national diffusion of movement ideas. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 528 (1): 56–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Meseguer, C. 2005. Policy learning, policy diffusion, and the making of a new order. The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 598 (1): 67–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Meseguer, C. 2006. Learning and economic policy choices. European Journal of Political Economy 22 (1): 156–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Meyer, D.S., and N. Whittier. 1994. Social movement spillover. Social Problems 41 (2): 277–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Michaelson, M.G. 1993. The development of a scientific speciality as diffusion through social relations: The case of role analysis. Social Networks 15 (3): 217–236.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Moser, P. 1996. The European Parliament as a conditional agenda setter: What are the conditions? A critique of Tsebelis (1994). American Political Science Review 90 (4): 834–838.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Mudde, C. 2013. Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what? European Journal of Political Research 52 (1): 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Myers, D. 2000. The diffusion of collective violence: Infectiousness, susceptibility, and mass media networks. American Journal of Sociology 106 (1): 173–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Oberschall, A. 1980. Loosely structured collective conflict. Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 3: 45–68.Google Scholar
  66. Oberschall, A. 1989. The 1960 Sit-ins: Protest diffusion and movement take-off. Research in Social Movements, Conflict, and Change 11: 31–53.Google Scholar
  67. Oliver, P., and H. Johnston. 2000. What a good idea! Ideologies and frames in social movement research. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 5 (1): 37–54.Google Scholar
  68. Oliver, P.E., and D. Myers. 1998. The Coevolution of social movements. Mobilization: An International Journal 8 (1): 1–24.Google Scholar
  69. Pacheco, J. 2012. The social contagion model: Exploring the role of public opinion on the diffusion of antismoking legislation across the American States. Journal of Politics 74 (1): 187–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Przeworski, A., and H. Teune. 1970. The logic of comparative social inquiry. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
  71. Rogers, E.M. 1983. Diffusion of innovations, 3rd ed. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  72. Rogers, E.M. 1995. Diffusion of innovations, 4th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  73. Rogers, E.M. 2003. Diffusion of innovations, 5th ed. New York, NY: Free Press.Google Scholar
  74. Rose, R. 1993. Lesson-drawing in public policy: A guide to learning across time and space, vol. 91. Chatham, NJ: Chatham House Publishers.Google Scholar
  75. Ross, B.J. 1973. Scale components in the diffusion of the Danish Communist Party, 19201964. Geographical Analysis 5 (1): 35–44.Google Scholar
  76. Ross, M.H., and E. Homer. 1976. Galton’s problem in cross-national research. World Politics 29 (1): 1–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Rydgren, J. 2005. Is extreme right-wing populism contagious? Explaining the emergence of a new party family. European Journal of Political Research 44 (3): 413–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. Rydgren, J. 2007. The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 241–262.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Sartori, G. 1976. Parties and party systems: A framework for analysis. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  80. Schain, M., Zolberg, A., & Hossay, P. 2002. The development of radical right parties in Western Europe. In Shadows over Europe (pp. 3–17). Palgrave Macmillan US.Google Scholar
  81. Shields, J. 2007. The extreme right in France: From Pétain to Le Pen. New York, NY: Routledge.Google Scholar
  82. Shipan, C.R., and C. Volden. 2008. The mechanisms of policy diffusion. American Journal of Political Science 52 (4): 840–857.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Shipan, C.R., and C. Volden. 2012. Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review 72 (6): 788–796.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  84. Simmons, B.A., F. Dobbin, and G. Garrett. 2006. Introduction: The international diffusion of liberalism. International Organization 60 (4): 781–810.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Simmons, B.A., F. Dobbin, and G. Garrett. 2007. The global diffusion of public policies: Social construction, coercion, competition, or learning? Annual Review of Sociology 33: 449–472.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Simmons, B.A., F. Dobbin, and G. Garrett (eds.). 2008. The global diffusion of markets and democracy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  87. Sitter, N. 2002. Opposing Europe: Euroscepticism, opposition and party competition. Sussex: Sussex European Institute.Google Scholar
  88. Smith, J.G., J. Smith, and H. Johnston (eds.). 2002. Globalization and resistance: Transnational dimensions of social movements. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield.Google Scholar
  89. Snow, D., and S. Byrd. 2007. Ideology, framing processes, and Islamic terrorist movements. Mobilization: An. International Quarterly 12 (2): 119–136.Google Scholar
  90. Snow, D.A., and R.D. Benford. 1988. Ideology, frame resonance, and participant mobilization. International Social Movement Research 1 (1): 197–217.Google Scholar
  91. Snow, D.A., and R.D. Benford. 1992. Master frames and cycles of protest. In Frontier in social movement theory, ed. A.D. Morris, and C.M.C. Mueller, 133–155. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Snow, D.A., and R.D. Benford. 1999. Alternative types of cross-national diffusion in the social movement arena. In Social movements in a globalizing world, ed. D. della Porta, H. Kriesi, and D. Rucht, 23–49. Basingstoke, NY: Palgrave Macmillian.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. Snow, D.A., and R.D. Benford. 2009. Interactive types of cross-national diffusion in the social movement arena. In Social movements in a globalizing world, ed. D. Della Porta, H. Kriesi, and D. Rucht, 23–39. London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  94. Snow, D.A., B.E. Rochford, S. Worden, and R.D. Benford. 1986. Frame alignment processes, micromobilization, and movement participation. American Sociological Review 51 (4): 464–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Strang, D., and N.B. Tuma. 1993. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology 99 (3): 614–639.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. Soule, S.A. 2004. Diffusion process within and across movements. In The Blackwell Companion to Social Movements, ed. D.A. Snow, S.A. Soule, and H. Kriesi, 294–310. Malden, MA: Blackwell.Google Scholar
  97. Strang, D., and J.W. Meyer. 1993. Institutional conditions for diffusion. Theory and society 22 (4): 487–511.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Strang, D., and S.A. Soule. 1998. Diffusion in organizations and social movements: From hybrid corn to poison pills. Annual Review of Sociology 24: 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. Swart, W.J. 1995. The league of nations and the Irish question: Master frames, cycles of protest, and “Master Frame Alignment”. The Sociological Quarterly 36 (3): 465–481.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Tarrow, S. 1994. Power in movements: Social movements, collective action and politics. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  101. Tarrow, S. 2002. From lumping to splitting: Specifying globalization and resistance. In Globalization and resistance: Transnational dimensions of social movements, ed. J.G. Smith, J. Smith, and H. Johnston, 229–249. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers.Google Scholar
  102. Tilly, C. 1984. Big structures, large processes, huge comparisons. London: Sage.Google Scholar
  103. Tsebelis, G. 1994. The power of the European Parliament as a conditional agenda setter. American Political Science Review 88 (01): 128–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Van Hauwaert, S.M. 2014. Trans-national diffusion patterns and the future of far right party research: Independence vs. interdependence. European Journal of Futures Research 2 (1): 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. van Spanje, J. 2010. Contagious Parties anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties’ immigration stances in contemporary Western Europe. Party Politics 16 (5): 563–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. Veugelers, J., and A. Magnan. 2005. Conditions of far-right strength in contemporary Western Europe: an application of Kitschelt's theory. European Journal of Political Research 44 (6): 837–860.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Volden, C., M.M. Ting, and D.P. Carpenter. 2008. A formal model of learning and policy diffusion. American Political Science Review 102 (3): 319–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. Walker, J.L. 1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American States. The American Political Sciences Review. 63 (3): 880–899.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wang, D.J., and S.A. Soule. 2012. Social Movement Organizational Collaboration: Networks of learning and the diffusion of protest tactics, 1960–19951. American Journal of Sociology 117 (6): 1674–1722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Welsh, H.A. 1994. Political transition processes in Central and Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics 16 (4): 379–394.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Weyland, K. 2009. Bounded rationality and policy diffusion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. Weyland, K. 2010. The diffusion of regime contention in European democratization, 1830–1940. Comparative Political Studies 43 (8–9): 1148–1176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Whittier, N. 2008. The consequences of social movements for each other. In The Blackwell companion to social movements, ed. D.A. Snow, S.A. Soule, and H. Kriesi, 531–551. Oxford: Wiley-Blackwell.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Macmillan Publishers Ltd., part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Political ScienceJohannes Gutenberg University of MainzMainzGermany

Personalised recommendations