Why Some Anti-Immigrant Parties Fail and Others Succeed A Two-Step Model of Aggregate Electoral Support

Over the past 2 decades, some anti-immigrant parties have managed to gain substantial electoral support in various European countries, most notably, Austria (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) and Flanders (Vlaams Blok). However, in other countries, the success of such parties either has been insigni...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published inComparative political studies Vol. 38; no. 5; pp. 537 - 573
Main Authors Van Der Brug, Wouter, Fennema, Meindert, Tillie, Jean
Format Journal Article
LanguageEnglish
Published Thousand Oaks, CA SAGE Publications 01.06.2005
SAGE PUBLICATIONS, INC
Subjects
Case studies
Comparative politics
Conservatism
Elections
Electoral behaviour
Europe
Immigrants
Immigration Policy
Migration
Political Parties
Political support
Political theory
Populism
Voting
Xenophobia
voting
populism
extreme right
elections
anti-immigrant parties
Online AccessGet full text

Cover

More Information
Summary:Over the past 2 decades, some anti-immigrant parties have managed to gain substantial electoral support in various European countries, most notably, Austria (Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs) and Flanders (Vlaams Blok). However, in other countries, the success of such parties either has been insignificant or did not last. The most popular models of support for anti-immigrant parties focus primarily on the demand side of the electoral process. The authors develop a model to explain differences in aggregate-level support for these parties, which also takes into account the supply side. This model builds upon an explanation provided by Kitschelt. The model is tested empirically for 13 European anti-immigrant parties in the period from 1989 to 1999, altogether yielding 25 party-year combinations. The authors test the sociostructural model and their alternative model at the level of political parties. The sociostructural model explains 3% of the variance in success, whereas the authors’ model explains 83%.
Bibliography:ObjectType-Article-2
SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1
ObjectType-Feature-1
content type line 23
ObjectType-Article-1
ObjectType-Feature-2
ISSN:0010-4140
1552-3829
DOI:10.1177/0010414004273928