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

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.

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

Fig. 1

Notes

  1. 1.

    From a party change perspective, Harmel and Janda (1982, 1994) argue all political parties are conservative at heart. Since the sociopolitical environment is always changing, political parties need to change if they want to survive politically and electorally. Therefore, all political parties regularly change, or rather evolve, albeit not because of internal desire, but because of external pressure.

  2. 2.

    While academic debate continues to exist regarding this party family’s conceptualisation and terminology, it does not fall within the scope of this study. This study relies on the term far right parties because internal contradictions are limited, and it remains relatively uncomplicated. For more studies that use the same terminology, see also Marcus (2000), Karapin (2002), Jungerstam-Mulders (2003), Cole (2005), Erk (2005), Veugelers and Magnan (2005), van Spanje (2010), McGowan (2014) and Van Hauwaert (2014). For one of the more comprehensive discussions of different terminologies, see Ignazi (2003). While this study relies on a different terminology, the parties that comprise the party family mostly correspond to what some scholars refer to as populist radical right parties (e.g. Mudde 2007).

  3. 3.

    It is possible to distinguish a master frame from ideology, which typically refers to a general worldview, rather than an interpretative scheme (Snow and Benford 1992). Furthermore, as Snow and Byrd (2007) indicate when referring to Islamic terrorism, ideology is quite restrictive, monolithic and structural as an explanatory concept of a dynamic and cultural phenomenon with sizeable trans-national and longitudinal variations like FRP development (cf. also Caiani et al. 2012). A master frame can capture and bridge different aspects of the mobilisation process, rather than just focus on collective identities. Whereas master frame refers to a cluster of extensive and inclusive rhetorical strategies from which FRPs can draw (Swart 1995; Carroll and Ratner 1996), ideology refers to support for more specific articulations of theory and value nested within more general ones (Oliver and Johnston 2000). In other words, a master frame does not necessarily include the sociopolitical theory and normative value systems that characterise an ideology. While a master frame is distinct from ideology, the choice between the two primarily stems from the analytical approach taken throughout this study.

  4. 4.

    These differences should not necessarily be thought of as contrasting components or a widely different make-up as such, but rather as a conceptually distinct interpretation of more flexible and comprehensive frames. For example, while anti-pluralism is a crucial component of both old right-wing extremist parties and FRPs, the former interpret this in more racial terms (e.g. biological racism), whereas the latter understand this in more ethnic terms (e.g. xenophobia or ethnocentrism).

  5. 5.

    The construction and design of the different master frame components do not fall within the scope of this article. Here, I primarily focus on what happened once these components became implemented and how the ensemble of components – the alternative master frame—spread throughout Western Europe. Note also this study does not seek to argue previously identified ideological constructs of FRPs are incorrect, but instead, they could (or should) be conceptualised differently, namely as master frame components.

  6. 6.

    Smaller and more regionally oriented parties, such as the Bürgerbewegung pro-Deutschland (BpD) or the Plataforma per Catalunya (PxC), can also be considered FRPs. The overall selection remains contentious, as various scholars consider different parties to belong to this party family, or they even define this party family differently. However, any possible differences in conceptualisation, operationalisation or case selection do not make a difference in the theorisations of master frame adoption or trans-national diffusion proposed in the following sections.

  7. 7.

    This presentation of patterns of adoption does not justify the positioning of the FRPs alongside the curve. Instead, the logistic pattern of alternative master frame adoption suggests the implausibility of this phenomenon as a set of ad hoc or independent occurrences and provides initial support for the interpretation of FRPs as part of a more substantial development. Furthermore, it is important to notice that emergence, persistence or even (electoral) success is irrelevant for the initial diffusion argument.

  8. 8.

    The literature often recognises the specific role of the FN as the FRP family's pater familias (e.g. Backes 1996; Ignazi 1997).

  9. 9.

    For an extensive theoretical account of how to describe an innovator, see Fordham and Asal (2007).

  10. 10.

    Even more, it is more likely than not this occurs, seeing some of the more international and global dynamics described earlier in this study. The analysis of these additional diffusion dynamics just does not fall within the scope of this study.

  11. 11.

    For more information regarding the data collection method, the sampling procedure, as well as the overall qualities of the dataset, the author refers to the online appendix.

  12. 12.

    Different FRPs can observe the same master frame differently, which can originate from a prior difference in knowledge, intellectual aptitudes or even a difference in contextual supply- and/or demand-side factors. Together, these factors can affect the impact and the effectiveness of new experiences and observations, and thereby bias posterior knowledge and master frame adoption. For a more detailed discussion, see—for example—Shipan and Volden (2008) and Gilardi (2010).

  13. 13.

    During the 1984-1989 term of the European Parliament, some ideologically diverse right-wing extremist parties organised in the "Group of the European Right". In the following term, a more ideologically coherent group of FRPs formalised in the “Technical Group of the European Right”. For a brief 10-month period during the 2004-2009 term, some FRPs formed the group “Identity, Tradition, Sovereignty”. In the 2009–2014 term, some West European FRPs were part of the “Europe of Freedom and Democracy” group (e.g. LN, DFP, PS). In the subsequent term (2014-2019), FRPs became between the “Europe of Freedom and Direct Democracy” group (e.g. SD, AfD) and the “Europe of Nations and Freedom” group (e.g. FPÖ, VB, FN, LN, AfD, PVV).

References

  1. Anselin, L. 1988. Spatial econometrics: Methods and models, vol. 1. Berlin: Springer Science & Business Media.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Art, D. 2011. Inside the radical right: The development of anti-immigrant parties in Western Europe. Cambridge University Press.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Erk, J. 2005. From Vlaams Blok to Vlaams Belang: the Belgian far-right renames itself. West European Politics 28 (3): 493–502.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  30. Gray, V. 1973. Innovation in the states: A diffusion study. The American Political Science Review 67 (4): 1174–1185.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  49. Kreppel, A., and G. Tsebelis. 1999. Coalition formation in the European Parliament. Comparative Political Studies 32 (8): 933–966.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  54. Mammone, A. 2015. Transnational neofascism in France and Italy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  55. Marcus, J. 2000. Exorcising europe's demons: A far-right resurgence? Washington Quarterly 23 (4): 31–40.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  58. Meseguer, C. 2006. Learning and economic policy choices. European Journal of Political Economy 22 (1): 156–178.

    Google Scholar 

  59. Meyer, D.S., and N. Whittier. 1994. Social movement spillover. Social Problems 41 (2): 277–298.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  62. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  64. Myers, D. 2000. The diffusion of collective violence: Infectiousness, susceptibility, and mass media networks. American Journal of Sociology 106 (1): 173–208.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  78. Rydgren, J. 2007. The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 241–262.

    Google 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.

  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.

    Google Scholar 

  83. Shipan, C.R., and C. Volden. 2012. Policy diffusion: Seven lessons for scholars and practitioners. Public Administration Review 72 (6): 788–796.

    Google Scholar 

  84. Simmons, B.A., F. Dobbin, and G. Garrett. 2006. Introduction: The international diffusion of liberalism. International Organization 60 (4): 781–810.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  95. Strang, D., and N.B. Tuma. 1993. Spatial and temporal heterogeneity in diffusion. American Journal of Sociology 99 (3): 614–639.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  108. Walker, J.L. 1969. The diffusion of innovations among the American States. The American Political Sciences Review. 63 (3): 880–899.

    Google 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.

    Google Scholar 

  110. Welsh, H.A. 1994. Political transition processes in Central and Eastern Europe. Comparative Politics 16 (4): 379–394.

    Google Scholar 

  111. Weyland, K. 2009. Bounded rationality and policy diffusion. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  112. Weyland, K. 2010. The diffusion of regime contention in European democratization, 1830–1940. Comparative Political Studies 43 (8–9): 1148–1176.

    Google 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 

Download references

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.

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Steven M. Van Hauwaert.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 117 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Van Hauwaert, S.M. On far right parties, master frames and trans-national diffusion: understanding far right party development in Western Europe. Comp Eur Polit 17, 132–154 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41295-017-0112-z

Download citation

Keywords

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