Advertisement

Der Einfluss von Wahlerfolgen euroskeptischer Parteien

„Ansteckungsgefahr“ für die etablierten Parteien und ihre Positionen zur EU?
  • Maurits J. MeijersEmail author
Chapter
Part of the Vergleichende Politikwissenschaft book series (VGPO)

Zusammenfassung

Verschiedene Fallstudien suggerieren, dass antieuropäische Parteien einen Einfluss auf die Positionierung etablierter Parteien zur europäischen Integration haben. Eine systematisch-vergleichende Auseinandersetzung mit der Frage, ob etablierte Parteien auf euroskeptische Parteien reagieren, hat es allerdings noch nicht gegeben. Daher prüft dieser Beitrag mit einem komparativen Forschungsdesign, ob Wahlerfolge von euroskeptischen Herausforder-Parteien, die Positionen etablierter Parteien zur europäischen Integration in Westeuropa negativ beeinflussen. Auf Basis der Daten von Expertenumfragen wird gezeigt, dass Wahlerfolge von euroskeptischen Herausforderer-Parteien Positionsänderungen zum EU-Thema bei etablierten Parteien herbeiführen können. Dies trifft allerdings nur zu, wenn euroskeptische Herausforderer in jenem Land das EU-Thema für wichtig halten. Die Ergebnisse zeigen außerdem, dass Mitte-Links-Parteien sowohl auf Wahlerfolge von links- als auch rechtsradikalen euroskeptischen Parteien reagieren. Mitte-Rechts-Parteien sind hingegen nur für rechtsradikalen Euroskeptizismus empfänglich.

Schlagworte

Euroskeptizismus europäische Integration Parteienkonkurrenz Rechtsradikalismus Linksradikalismus 

Abstract

Several case studies have suggested that anti-European parties can induce positional shifts among mainstream parties on the issue of European integration. This chapter aims to investigate with a systematic comparative design whether the support for Eurosceptic challenger parties indeed influences mainstream party position change on European integration in Western Europe. Using expert survey data it is demonstrated that Eurosceptic challenger support is capable of influencing mainstream position shifts on European integration provided that, on average, EU issues are regarded as important by the Eurosceptic challengers. Moreover, the centre-left is more affected by Eurosceptic contagion since it reacts to both radical right and radical left Eurosceptic success, whereas the centre-right is only susceptible to radical right success.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literatur

  1. Abou-Chadi, T. 2016. Niche Party Success and Mainstream Party Policy Shifts – How Green and Far-Right Parties Differ in Their Impact. British Journal of Political Science 46 (2): 417-436.Google Scholar
  2. Adams, J. 2012. Causes and Electoral Consequences of Party Policy Shifts in Multiparty Elections: Theoretical Results and Empirical Evidence. Annual Review of Political Science 15 (1): 401–419.Google Scholar
  3. Adams, J., M. Clark, L. Ezrow, und G. Glasgow. 2006. Are Niche Parties Fundamentally Different from Mainstream Parties? The Causes and the Electoral Consequences of Western European Parties’ Policy Shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 513–529.Google Scholar
  4. Adams, J., und Z. Somer-Topcu. 2009. Policy Adjustment by Parties in Response to Rival Parties’ Policy Shifts: Spatial Theory and the Dynamics of Party Competition in Twenty-Five Post-War Democracies. British Journal of Political Science 39: 825–846.Google Scholar
  5. Arzheimer, K., und A. Schmitt. 2005. Der ökonomische Ansatz. In Handbuch Wahlforschung, Hrsg. J.W. Falter und H. Schoen, 243–303. Wiesbaden: VS Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.Google Scholar
  6. Baker, D., A. Gamble, N. Randall, und D. Seawright. 2008. Euroscepticism in the British Party System: “A Source of Fascination, Perplexity, and Sometimes Frustration”. In Opposing Europe. The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism. Vol. 1: Case Studies and Country Surveys, Hrsg. A. Szczerbiak und P. Taggart, 93–116. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  7. Bakke, E., und N. Sitter. 2005. Patterns of Stability: Party Competition and Strategy in Central Europe since 1989. Party Politics 11(2): 243–263.Google Scholar
  8. Bakker, R., C.E. de Vries, E.E. Edwards, L. Hooghe, S. Jolly, G. Marks, J. Pol, J.Rovny, M. Steenbergen, und M.A. Vachudova. 2015. Measuring Party Positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill Expert Survey Trend File, 1999-2010. Party Politics 21 (1): 143–152.Google Scholar
  9. Bale, T., C. Green-Pedersen, A. Krouwel, K.R. Luther, und N. Sitter. 2010. If You Can’t Beat Them, Join Them? Explaining Social Democratic Responses to the Challenge from the Populist Radical Right in Western Europe. Political Studies 58 (3): 410–426.Google Scholar
  10. Brambor, T., W.R. Clark, und M. Golder. 2005. Understanding Interaction Models: Improving Empirical Analyses. Political Analysis 14 (1): 63–82.Google Scholar
  11. Van Der Brug, W., und J. Van Spanje. 2009. Immigration, Europe and the ‘new’ cultural dimension. European Journal of Political Research 48 (3): 309–334.Google Scholar
  12. Budge, I. 1994. A New Spatial Theory of Party Competition: Uncertainty, Ideology and Policy Equilibria Viewed Comparatively and Temporally. British Journal of Political Science 24 (04): 443–67.Google Scholar
  13. Budge, I. 2000. Expert judgements of party policy positions: uses and limitations in political research. European Journal of Political Research 37: 103–113.Google Scholar
  14. Carmines, E. G., und J. A. Stimson. 1986. On the Structure and Sequence of Issue Evolution. The American Political Science Review 80 (3): 901–920.Google Scholar
  15. Carrubba, C. J. 2001. The Electoral Connection in European Union Politics. The Journal of Politics 63 (1): 141–158.Google Scholar
  16. Carvalho, J. 2013. Impact of Extreme Right Parties on Immigration Policy: Comparing Britain, France and Italy. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  17. Dolezal, M., und J. Hellström. 2016. The radical right as driving force in the electoral arena? In Politicising Europe: Mass Politics and Integration, Hrsg. S. Hutter, E. Grande und H. Kriesi, 156-180. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  18. Downs, A. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper.Google Scholar
  19. Ezrow, L., C. E. de Vries, M. R. Steenbergen, und E. Edwards. 2010. Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: Do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters? Party Politics 17 (3): 275–301.Google Scholar
  20. Gabel, M. 2000. European integration, voters and national politics. West European Politics 23 (4): 52–72.Google Scholar
  21. Glencross, A. 2015. Why a British referendum on EU membership will not solve the Europe question. International Affairs 91 (2): 303–317.Google Scholar
  22. Green-Pedersen, C. 2012. A Giant Fast Asleep? Party Incentives and the Politicisation of European Integration. Political Studies 60: 115–130.Google Scholar
  23. Greene, W. H. 2000. Econometric Analysis. New York: Prentice-Hall.Google Scholar
  24. Halikiopoulou, D., K. Nanou, und S. Vasilopoulou. 2012. The paradox of nationalism: The common denominator of radical right and radical left euroscepticism. European Journal of Political Research 51 (4): 504–539.Google Scholar
  25. Harmel, R., und L. Svasand. 1997. The Influence of New Parties on Old Parties’ Platforms: The Cases of the Progress Parties and Conservative Parties of Denmark and Norway. Party Politics 3 (3): 315–340.Google Scholar
  26. Hix, S., und C. Lord. 1997. Political parties in the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan.Google Scholar
  27. Hooghe, L., R. Bakker, A. Brigevich, C.E. de Vries, E. E. Edwards, und G. Marks. 2010. Reliability and validity of the 2002 and 2006 Chapel Hill expert surveys on party positioning. European Journal of Political Research 49: 687–703.Google Scholar
  28. Hooghe, L., und G. Marks. 2009. A Postfunctionalist Theory of European Integration: From Permissive Consensus to Constraining Dissensus. British Journal of Political Science 39 (01): 1–23.Google Scholar
  29. Hooghe, L., G. Marks, und C.J. Wilson. 2002. Does Left/Right Structure Party Positions on European Integration? Comparative Political Studies 35 (8): 965–989.Google Scholar
  30. Hutter, S., und E. Grande. 2014. Politicizing Europe in the national electoral arena: A comparative analysis of five West European countries, 1970-2010. Journal of Common Market Studies 52 (5): 1007–1018.Google Scholar
  31. Klingemann, H.-D., A. Volkens, J. Bara, I. Budge., und M. McDonald. 2006. Mapping Policy Preferences II. Estimates for Parties, Electors, and Governments in Eastern Europe, European Union and OECD 1990-223. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  32. Koepke, J. R., und N. Ringe. 2006. The Second-order Election Model in an Enlarged Europe. European Union Politics 7(3): 321–346.Google Scholar
  33. Kriesi, H., E. Grande, R. Lachat, M. Dolezal, S. Bornschier, und T. Frey. 2008. West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  34. Leconte, C. 2010. Understanding Euroscepticism. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  35. Lubbers, M., und P. Scheepers. 2005. Political versus Instrumental Euro-scepticism: Mapping Scepticism in European Countries and Regions. European Union Politics 6 (2): 223–242.Google Scholar
  36. Lubbers, M., und P. Scheepers. 2010. Divergent trends of euroscepticism in countries and regions of the European Union. European Journal of Political Research 49 (6): 787–817.Google Scholar
  37. Maag, S. 2015. Contents of the Politicization of European Integration. Actor Positions and Selective Emphasis at the Level of EU Sub-issues. ( Unveröffentlichte Doktorabeit. Institut für Politikwissenschaft. Universität Zürich.).Google Scholar
  38. March, L. 2011. Radical Left Parties in Europe. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  39. March, L., und C. Rommerskirchen. 2015. Out of left field? Explaining the variable electoral success of European radical left parties. Party Politics 21 (1): 40–53.Google Scholar
  40. Meguid, B. M. 2005. Competition Between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99 (03): 347–359.Google Scholar
  41. Meijers, M. J. 2015. Contagious Euroscepticism? The Impact of Eurosceptic Support on Mainstream Party Positions on European Integration. Party Politics.  https://doi.org/10.1177/1354068815601787
  42. Meijers, M. J. 2016. Is Euroscepticism Contagious? Examining the Impact of Eurosceptic Challenger Parties on Mainstream Party Attitudes toward the European Union. (Unveröffentlichte Doktorabeit. Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.)Google Scholar
  43. Meijers, M. J., und C. Rauh. 2016. Has Eurosceptic Mobilization Become More Contagious? Comparing the 2009 and 2014 European Parliament Elections in The Netherlands and France. Politics and Governance 4 (1): 83–103.Google Scholar
  44. Meijers, M. J., und Van Der Veer, H. 2016. Issue Competition without Electoral Incentives? A Study of Issue Contagion in the European Parliament. Konferenzpapier für die “23rd International Conference of Europeanists”, 14.-16. April 2016, Philadelphia, USA.Google Scholar
  45. Meyer, T. M., und M. Wagner. 2014. How parties and candidates move: shifting emphasis or positions? Papier für “BGSS Research Working Group on Party Competition”, 28. Mai 2014, Wissenschaftszentrum für Sozialforschung Berlin.Google Scholar
  46. Mondon, A. 2013. The Mainstreaming of the Extreme Right in France and Australia: A Populist Hegemony? Farnham: Ashgate.Google Scholar
  47. Mudde, C. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  48. Petrocik, J. R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–850.Google Scholar
  49. Quaglia, L. 2008. Euroscepticism in Italy. In Opposing Europe. The comparative party politics of Euroscepticism. Vol. 1: Case studies and country surveys, Hrsg. A. Szczerbiak und P. Taggart, 58–73. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  50. Rauh, C. 2015. Communicating supranational governance? The salience of EU affairs in the German Bundestag, 1991-2013. European Union Politics 16 (1):116–138.Google Scholar
  51. Rauh, C., und Zürn, M. 2014. Zur Politisierung der EU in der Krise. In Krise der europäischen Vergesellschaftung? Soziologische Perspektiven, Hrsg. M. Heidenreich, 121–145. Wiesbaden: Springer VS.Google Scholar
  52. Ray, L. 1999. Measuring party orientations towards European integration: Results from an expert survey. European Journal of Political Research 36 (2):283–306.Google Scholar
  53. Ray, L. 2007a. Validity of measured party positions on European integration: Assumptions, approaches, and a comparison of alternative measures. Electoral Studies 26 (1): 11–22.Google Scholar
  54. Ray, L. 2007b. Mainstream Euroscepticism: Trend or Oxymoron? Acta Politica 42: 153–172.Google Scholar
  55. Rooduijn, M., S. L. de Lange, und W. Van Der Brug. 2014. A populist Zeitgeist? Programmatic contagion by populist parties in Western Europe. Party Politics 20 (4): 563–575.Google Scholar
  56. Scharpf, F. W. 2009. The Asymmetry of European Integration or why the EU cannot be a “Social Market Economy. KFG Working Paper Series, No. 6, September 2009, Kolleg-Forschergruppe (KFG) „The Transformative Power of Europe“, Free University Berlin, Working Paper Series.Google Scholar
  57. Schattschneider, E. E. 1960. The Semisovereign People: a Realist’s View of Democracy in America. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Winston.Google Scholar
  58. Schumacher, G. und K. Van Kersbergen. 2016. Do mainstream parties adapt to the welfare chauvinism of populist parties? Party Politics 22(3): 300–312.Google Scholar
  59. Smith, J. 2012. The European dividing line in party politics. International Affairs 6 (June), 1277–1295.Google Scholar
  60. Somer-Topcu, Z. 2009. Timely Decisions: The Effects of Past National Elections on Party Policy Change. The Journal of Politics 71 (1): 238–248.Google Scholar
  61. 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
  62. Statham, P., und H.-J. Trenz. 2013. The Politicization of Europe: Contesting the Constitution in the Mass Media. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  63. Steenbergen, M. R., E. E. Edwards, und C. E. de Vries. 2007. Who’s Cueing Whom?: Mass-Elite Linkages and the Future of European Integration. European Union Politics 8 (1): 13–35.Google Scholar
  64. Steenbergen, M. R., und G. Marks. 2007. Evaluating expert judgments. European Journal of Political Research 46: 347–366.Google Scholar
  65. Steenbergen, M. R., und D. J. Scott. 2004. Contesting Europe? The salience of European integration as a party issue. In European Integration and Political Conflict, Hrsg. G. Marks und M. R. Steenbergen, 165–192. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  66. Szczerbiak, A., und P. Taggart. 2000. Opposing Europe: Party Systems and Opposition to the Union, the Euro and Europeanisation. SEI Working Papers (36): 1–19.Google Scholar
  67. Szczerbiak, A., und P. Taggart, Hrsg. 2008a. Opposing Europe. The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism. Vol. 1: Case Studies and Country Surveys. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  68. Szczerbiak, A., und P. Taggart, Hrsg. 2008b. Opposing Europe? The Comparative Party Politics of Euroscepticism. Vol. 2: Comparative and Theoretical Perspectives. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  69. Taggart, P. 1998. A Touchstone of Dissent: Euroscepticism in Contemporary Western European Party Systems. European Journal of Political Research 33 (3): 363–388.Google Scholar
  70. Taggart, P., und A. Szczerbiak. 2008. Introduction: Opposing Europe? The Politics of Euroscepticism in Europe. In Opposing Europe. The comparative party politics of Euroscepticism. Vol. 1: Case studies and country surveys, Hrsg. A. Szczerbiak und P. Taggart, 1–15. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  71. Vasilopoulou, S. 2013. Continuity and Change in the Study of Euroscepticism: Plus ça change? JCMS: Journal of Common Market Studies 51 (1): 153–168.Google Scholar
  72. Volkens, A., P. Lehmann, N. Merz, S. Regel, A. Werner, O. Lacewell. et al. 2013. The Manifesto Data Collection. Manifesto Project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Berlin: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung (WZB).Google Scholar
  73. de Vries, C. E. 2007. Sleeping Giant: Fact or Fairytale?: How European Integration Affects National Elections. European Union Politics 8 (3): 363–385.Google Scholar
  74. de Vries, C. E. 2010. EU Issue Voting: Asset or Liability?: How European Integration Affects Parties’ Electoral Fortunes. European Union Politics 11 (1): 89–117.Google Scholar
  75. de Vries, C. E., und S. B. Hobolt. 2012. When dimensions collide: The electoral success of issue entrepreneurs. European Union Politics 13 (2): 246–268.Google Scholar
  76. Van De Wardt, M. 2014. Putting the damper on: Do parties de-emphasize issues in response to internal divisions among their supporters? Party Politics 20 (3): 330–340.Google Scholar
  77. Van De Wardt, M. 2015. Desperate Needs, Desperate Deeds: Why Mainstream Parties Respond to the Issues of Niche Parties. West European Politics 38 (1): 93–122.Google Scholar
  78. Van De Wardt, M., C. E. de Vries, und S. B. Hobolt. 2014. Exploiting the Cracks: Wedge Issues in Multiparty Competition. The Journal of Politics 76 (04): 986–999.Google Scholar
  79. Werts, H., P. Scheepers, und M. Lubbers. 2013. Euro-scepticism and radical right-wing voting in Europe, 2002-2008: Social cleavages, socio-political attitudes and contextual characteristics determining voting for the radical right. European Union Politics 14 (2): 183–205.Google Scholar
  80. de Wilde, P., und H.-J. Trenz. 2012. Denouncing European integration: Euroscepticism as polity contestation. European Journal of Social Theory 15 (4): 537–554.Google Scholar
  81. Williams, M. H. 2006. The impact of radical right-wing parties in West European democracies. New York: Palgrave Macmillan.Google Scholar
  82. Wooldridge, J. M. 2002. Econometric Analysis of Cross Section and Panel Data. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Fachmedien Wiesbaden GmbH 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Nijmegen School of Management, Department of Political Science, Radboud UniversityHK NIJMEGENNiederlande

Personalised recommendations