Abstract
AbstractThis paper engages in a comparative analysis of the economic positions of radical right‐wing populist parties in Western Europe. Following Ennser‐Jedenastik (), we argue that those parties’ political economy is best captured in terms of the nativist, populist and authoritarian features of their core ideology, each of which produces a specific set of economic policies independent from the issue of government intervention in the economy. On basis of an analysis of the election manifestos of seven radical right‐wing populist parties in Western Europe in the period 2005‐2015, we argue that those parties share similarities in their economic nativism, authoritarianism and populism, whilst their positions on the traditional role of the state in the economy are more diverse. The findings indicate also a unified ‘nativist’ response to the global financial crisis both in terms of welfare chauvinism and economic protectionism. We discuss the role of internal and external factors in explaining the economic profile of radical right‐wing populist parties.
Highlights
There is a growing interest in the economic agendas of radical right-wing populist parties (RRPPs) (Mudde 2016: 11)
We examine whether the crisis may have been an impetus for parties to become more similar in terms of economic nativism, authoritarianism and populism, chosing to let foreigners, undeserving poor and elites pay the cost of the crisis
We look at the broader economic implications of the core ideology of RRPPs and how nativist, authoritarian and populist elements are reflected in the economic policy of those parties
Summary
In contrast with the expectations above that RRPPs will converge around nativist, authoritarian and populist economic policies, we anticipate that those parties will exhibit less consistency in the economic positions they assume on a common left-right axis of competition. The left-right dimension is conceptualized here in terms of the issue of economic interventionism, which reflects the traditional polarity between state and market (Downs 1957). The left favours regulation of business and high taxes, while the right favours lower taxes and smaller government. We use party positions concerning taxes and regulations to tap into the position on the issue of interventionism.
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
