DOCSLIB.ORG

Codebook Indiveu – Party Preferences

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

Codebook InDivEU – party preferences European University Institute, Robert Schuman Centre for Advanced Studies December 2020 Introduction The “InDivEU – party preferences” dataset provides data on the positions of more than 400 parties from 28 countries1 on questions of (differentiated) European integration. The dataset comprises a selection of party positions taken from two existing datasets: (1) The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File The EU Profiler/euandi Trend File contains party positions for three rounds of European Parliament elections (2009, 2014, and 2019). Party positions were determined in an iterative process of party self-placement and expert judgement. For more information: https://cadmus.eui.eu/handle/1814/65944 (2) The Chapel Hill Expert Survey The Chapel Hill Expert Survey contains party positions for the national elections most closely corresponding the European Parliament elections of 2009, 2014, 2019. Party positions were determined by expert judgement. For more information: https://www.chesdata.eu/ Three additional party positions, related to DI-specific questions, are included in the dataset. These positions were determined by experts involved in the 2019 edition of euandi after the elections took place. The inclusion of party positions in the “InDivEU – party preferences” is limited to the following issues: - General questions about the EU - Questions about EU policy - Questions about differentiated integration - Questions about party ideology 1 This includes all 27 member states of the European Union in 2020, plus the United Kingdom. How to Cite When using the ‘InDivEU – Party Preferences’ dataset, please cite all of the following three articles: 1. Reiljan, Andres, Frederico Ferreira da Silva, Lorenzo Cicchi, Diego Garzia, Alexander H. Trechsel, Longitudinal dataset of political issue-positions of 411 parties across 28 European countries (2009–2019) from voting advice applications EU profiler and euandi, Data in Brief, Volume 31, 2020, 105968, ISSN 2352-3409, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dib.2020.105968. 2. Polk, Jonathan, Jan Rovny, Ryan Bakker, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Jelle Koedam, Filip Kostelka, Gary Marks, Gijs Schumacher, Marco Steenbergen, Milada Anna Vachudova and Marko Zilovic. 2017. "Explaining the salience of anti-elitism and reducing political corruption for political parties in Europe with the 2014 Chapel Hill Expert Survey data," Research & Politics (January-March): 1-9. 3. Bakker, Ryan, Catherine de Vries, Erica Edwards, Liesbet Hooghe, Seth Jolly, Gary Marks, Jonathan Polk, Jan Rovny, Marco Steenbergen, and Milada Anna Vachudova. 2015."Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999-2010." Party Politics 21.1: 143-152. General variables COUNTRY_NAME = Alphabetic country identifier COUNTRY_CODE = Numeric country identifier EASTWEST = 0: party from Central/Eastern Europe, 1: party from EU-15 EUANDI_WAVE_ELECTION_YEAR = The year in which the party was placed by EU Profiler or euandi. EUANDI_ID = EU Profiler/euandi unique party identifier EUANDI_PARTYNAME = EU Profiler/euandi party name, short version or acronym EUANDI_PARTYNAME_LONG = EU Profiler/euandi EnGlish translation of party name, lonG version EUANDI_PARTY_FAMILY = party family membership, accordinG to the followinG classification: 1 = Radical Right 2 = Conservatives 3 = Liberal 4 = Christian-Democratic 5 = Socialist 6 = Radical Left 7 = Green 8 = Other This is based on CHES’ General classification and extended to parties that are not included in it, with the followinG modification: families of reGionalist, confessional and aGrarian / center parties are not included due to very low number of parties that belonG to these party families. These and any other parties that do not fall under any of the seven distinGuished families, are compiled into the ‘Other’ category. EUANDI_EPVOTE = The vote share of the party in the respective European Parliament election. EUANDI_EPVOTE_COALITION = Vote share of a party coalition that the respective party was part of (in case when the separate party vote share is not discernible). CHES_WAVE = The year in which the party was placed by CHES. CHES_ELECTION_YEAR = The year in which the last national election took place CHES_ID = CHES unique party identifier CHES_PARTYNAME = CHES party acronym or short version CHES_VOTE = vote percentage received by the party in the last national election CHES_SEAT = seat share of the party in the last national election CHES_GOVT = government participation 0= Party not in government 0.5= Party in government for part of the year 1= Party in government full year MARPOR_ID = Manifesto Project unique party identifier A) EUandI Party positions on each statement were coded accordinG to the followinG answer cateGories: No opinion = . Completely disaGree = 0 Tend to disaGree = 25 Neutral = 50 Tend to aGree = 75 Completely aGree = 100 Common statements 2009 S6_09 ImmiGrants from outside Europe should be required to accept our culture and values. S12_09 The EU should acquire its own tax raisinG powers. S15_09 The EU should drastically reduce its subsidies to Europe’s farmers. S21_09 On foreiGn policy issues, such as the relationship with Russia, the EU should speak with one voice. S22_09 The European Union should strenGthen its security and defence policy. S23_09 European inteGration is a Good thinG. S24_09 [Your country] is much better off in the EU than outside it. S25_09 The European Union should be enlarGed to include Turkey. S26_09 The European Parliament should be Given more powers. S27_09 Individual member states of the EU should have less veto power S28_09 Any new European Treaty should be subject to approval in a referendum in [your country] Common statements 2014 S2_14 It should be harder for EU immiGrants workinG or stayinG in [your country] to get access to social assistance benefits than it is for [your country's] citizens S4_14 To fiGht the problem of illeGal immiGration, the European Union should take responsibility in patrollinG its borders S12_14 The EU should acquire its own tax raisinG powers S16_14 The EU should relax its austerity policy in order to foster economic Growth S22_14 The European Union should strenGthen its security and defence policy S23_14 On foreiGn policy issues the EU should speak with one voice S24_14 European inteGration is a Good thinG S25_14 To tackle the sovereiGn debt crisis, the member states of the Eurozone should be allowed to issue common bonds (Eurobonds) S26_14 The sinGle European currency (Euro) is a bad thinG S27_14 Individual member states of the EU should have less veto power S28_14 Any new European Treaty should be subject to approval in a referendum in [your country] Common Statements 2019 S3_19 The EU should riGorously punish Member States that violate the EU deficit rules S4_19 Asylum-seekers should be distributed proportionally among EU Member States throuGh a mandatory relocation system S6_19 ImmiGrants from outside Europe should be required to accept our culture and values S11_19 The EU should acquire its own tax raisinG powers S17_19 The European Union should strenGthen its security and defence policy S18_19 On foreiGn policy issues the EU should speak with one voice S19_19 European inteGration is a Good thinG S20_19 The single European currency (Euro) is a bad thing S21_19 Individual member states of the EU should have less veto power S22_19 In European Parliament elections, EU citizens should be allowed to cast a vote for a party or candidate from any other Member State Statements continuity (2009; 2014; 2019) S6_09 S6_14 S6_19 ImmiGrants from outside Europe should be required to accept our culture and values. S12_09 S12_14 S11_19 The EU should acquire its own tax raisinG powers. S21_09 S23_14 S18_19 On foreiGn policy issues, such as the relationship with Russia, the EU should speak with one voice. S22_09 S22_14 S17_19 The European Union should strenGthen its security and defence policy. S23_09 S24_14 S19_19 European inteGration is a Good thinG. S27_09 S27_14 S21_19 Individual member states of the EU should have less veto power B) CHES General Questions on European Integration EU_POSITION = overall orientation of the party leadership towards European inteGration in YEAR. 1 = Strongly opposed 2 = Opposed 3 = Somewhat opposed 4 = Neutral 5 = Somewhat in favor 6 = In favor 7 = Strongly in favor EU_SALIENCE = relative salience of European integration in the party’s public stance in YEAR. 0 = European Integration is of no importance. : 10 = European Integration is of great importance. EU_DISSENT = degree of dissent on European integration in YEAR. 0 = Party was completely united. : 10 = Party was extremely divided. EU_BENEFIT = position of the party leadership in YEAR on whether COUNTRY has ben- efited from being a member of the EU [3-point scale]. (Asked in 2010 and 2014) 1 = Benefited 2 = Neither benefited nor lost 3 = Not benefited Specific EU Policy Questions EU_EP = position of the party leadership in YEAR on the powers of the European Parliament. 1 = Strongly opposes 2 = Opposes 3 = Somewhat opposes 4 = Neutral 5 = Somewhat favors 6 = Favors 7 = Strongly favors EU_INTMARK = position of the party leadership in YEAR on the internal market (i.e. free movement of goods, services, capital and labor). 1 = Strongly opposes : 7 = Strongly favors EU_BUDGETS = position of the party leadership in YEAR on EU authority over economic and budGetary policy. 1 = Strongly opposes : 7 = Strongly favors EU_COHESION = position of the party leadership in YEAR on EU cohesion or reGional
Recommended publications
  • Romanian Political Science Review Vol. XXI, No. 1 2021

    Romanian Political Science Review Vol. XXI, No. 1 2021

    Romanian Political Science Review vol. XXI, no. 1 2021 The end of the Cold War, and the extinction of communism both as an ideology and a practice of government, not only have made possible an unparalleled experiment in building a democratic order in Central and Eastern Europe, but have opened up a most extraordinary intellectual opportunity: to understand, compare and eventually appraise what had previously been neither understandable nor comparable. Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review was established in the realization that the problems and concerns of both new and old democracies are beginning to converge. The journal fosters the work of the first generations of Romanian political scientists permeated by a sense of critical engagement with European and American intellectual and political traditions that inspired and explained the modern notions of democracy, pluralism, political liberty, individual freedom, and civil rights. Believing that ideas do matter, the Editors share a common commitment as intellectuals and scholars to try to shed light on the major political problems facing Romania, a country that has recently undergone unprecedented political and social changes. They think of Studia Politica. Romanian Political Science Review as a challenge and a mandate to be involved in scholarly issues of fundamental importance, related not only to the democratization of Romanian polity and politics, to the “great transformation” that is taking place in Central and Eastern Europe, but also to the make-over of the assumptions and prospects of their discipline. They hope to be joined in by those scholars in other countries who feel that the demise of communism calls for a new political science able to reassess the very foundations of democratic ideals and procedures.
  • Jihočeská Univerzita V Českých Budějovicích

    Jihočeská Univerzita V Českých Budějovicích

    JIHOČESKÁ UNIVERZITA V ČESKÝCH BUDĚJOVICÍCH FILOZOFICKÁ FAKULTA ÚSTAV ČESKO-NĚMECKÝCH AREÁLOVÝCH STUDIÍ A GERMANISTIKY BAKALÁŘSKÁ PRÁCE ČESKÁ PIRÁTSKÁ STRANA A PIRÁTSKÁ STRANA NĚMECKA A VOLBY DO EVROPSKÉHO PARLAMENTU V ROCE 2019 Vedoucí práce: PhDr. Miroslav Šepták, Ph.D. Autor práce: Viktorie Tichánková Studijní obor: Česko-německá areálová studia Ročník: 3 2020 Prohlašuji, že svoji bakalářskou práci jsem vypracovala samostatně, pouze s použitím pramenů a literatury uvedených v seznamu citované literatury. Prohlašuji, že v souladu s § 47b zákona č. 111/1998 Sb. v platném znění souhlasím se zveřejněním své bakalářské práce, a to v nezkrácené podobě elektronickou cestou ve veřejně přístupné části databáze STAG provozované Jihočeskou univerzitou v Českých Budějovicích na jejích internetových stránkách, a to se zachováním mého autorského práva k odevzdanému textu této kvalifikační práce. Souhlasím dále s tím, aby toutéž elektronickou cestou byly v souladu s uvedeným ustanovením zákona č. 111/1998 Sb. zveřejněny posudky školitele a oponentů práce i záznam o průběhu a výsledky obhajoby kvalifikační práce. Rovněž souhlasím s porovnáním textu mé kvalifikační práce s databází kvalifikačních prací Theses.cz provozovanou Národním registrem vysokoškolských kvalifikačních prací a systémem na odhalování plagiátů. České Budějovice 9. května 2020 .…………………… Viktorie Tichánková Poděkování Touto cestou bych chtěla poděkovat mým rodičům a mému chlapci za to, že mne po celou dobu podporovali a byli mi nablízku. Dále bych chtěla poděkovat europoslancům Markétě Gregorové, Mikulášovi Peksovi a Patricku Breyerovi za ochotu poskytnout mi odpovědi na mé otázky, čímž mi pomohli proniknout hlouběji do tématu, o kterém v bakalářské práci píši. Největší díky patří PhDr. Miroslavovi Šeptákovi, Ph.D. za odborné rady, čas a vstřícnost, které mi během psaní věnoval a za podporu, kterou mi neustále projevoval.
  • The Rise of Syriza: an Interview with Aristides Baltas

    The Rise of Syriza: an Interview with Aristides Baltas

    THE RISE OF SYRIZA: AN INTERVIEW WITH ARISTIDES BALTAS This interview with Aristides Baltas, the eminent Greek philosopher who was one of the founders of Syriza and is currently a coordinator of its policy planning committee, was conducted by Leo Panitch with the help of Michalis Spourdalakis in Athens on 29 May 2012, three weeks after Syriza came a close second in the first Greek election of 6 May, and just three days before the party’s platform was to be revealed for the second election of 17 June. Leo Panitch (LP): Can we begin with the question of what is distinctive about Syriza in terms of socialist strategy today? Aristides Baltas (AB): I think that independently of everything else, what’s happening in Greece does have a bearing on socialist strategy, which is not possible to discuss during the electoral campaign, but which will present issues that we’re going to face after the elections, no matter how the elections turn out. We haven’t had the opportunity to discuss this, because we are doing so many diverse things that we look like a chicken running around with its head cut off. But this is precisely why I first want to step back to 2008, when through an interesting procedure, Synaspismos, the main party in the Syriza coalition, formulated the main elements of the programme in a book of over 300 pages. The polls were showing that Syriza was growing in popularity (indeed we reached over 15 per cent in voting intentions that year), and there was a big pressure on us at that time, as we kept hearing: ‘you don’t have a programme; we don’t know who you are; we don’t know what you’re saying’.
  • Download/Print the Study in PDF Format

    Download/Print the Study in PDF Format

    GENERAL ELECTION IN GREECE 7th July 2019 European New Democracy is the favourite in the Elections monitor Greek general election of 7th July Corinne Deloy On 26th May, just a few hours after the announcement of the results of the European, regional and local elections held in Greece, Prime Minister Alexis Tsipras (Coalition of the Radical Left, SYRIZA), whose party came second to the main opposition party, New Analysis Democracy (ND), declared: “I cannot ignore this result. It is for the people to decide and I am therefore going to request the organisation of an early general election”. Organisation of an early general election (3 months’ early) surprised some observers of Greek political life who thought that the head of government would call on compatriots to vote as late as possible to allow the country’s position to improve as much as possible. New Democracy won in the European elections with 33.12% of the vote, ahead of SYRIZA, with 23.76%. The Movement for Change (Kinima allagis, KINAL), the left-wing opposition party which includes the Panhellenic Socialist Movement (PASOK), the Social Democrats Movement (KIDISO), the River (To Potami) and the Democratic Left (DIMAR), collected 7.72% of the vote and the Greek Communist Party (KKE), 5.35%. Alexis Tsipras had made these elections a referendum Costas Bakoyannis (ND), the new mayor of Athens, on the action of his government. “We are not voting belongs to a political dynasty: he is the son of Dora for a new government, but it is clear that this vote is Bakoyannis, former Minister of Culture (1992-1993) not without consequence.
  • European Parliament Elections 2019 - Forecast

    European Parliament Elections 2019 - Forecast

    Briefing May 2019 European Parliament Elections 2019 - Forecast Austria – 18 MEPs Staff lead: Nick Dornheim PARTIES (EP group) Freedom Party of Austria The Greens – The Green Austrian People’s Party (ÖVP) (EPP) Social Democratic Party of Austria NEOS – The New (FPÖ) (Salvini’s Alliance) – Alternative (Greens/EFA) – 6 seats (SPÖ) (S&D) - 5 seats Austria (ALDE) 1 seat 5 seats 1 seat 1. Othmar Karas* Andreas Schieder Harald Vilimsky* Werner Kogler Claudia Gamon 2. Karoline Edtstadler Evelyn Regner* Georg Mayer* Sarah Wiener Karin Feldinger 3. Angelika Winzig Günther Sidl Petra Steger Monika Vana* Stefan Windberger 4. Simone Schmiedtbauer Bettina Vollath Roman Haider Thomas Waitz* Stefan Zotti 5. Lukas Mandl* Hannes Heide Vesna Schuster Olga Voglauer Nini Tsiklauri 6. Wolfram Pirchner Julia Elisabeth Herr Elisabeth Dieringer-Granza Thomas Schobesberger Johannes Margreiter 7. Christian Sagartz Christian Alexander Dax Josef Graf Teresa Reiter 8. Barbara Thaler Stefanie Mösl Maximilian Kurz Isak Schneider 9. Christian Zoll Luca Peter Marco Kaiser Andrea Kerbleder Peter Berry 10. Claudia Wolf-Schöffmann Theresa Muigg Karin Berger Julia Reichenhauser NB 1: Only the parties reaching the 4% electoral threshold are mentioned in the table. Likely to be elected Unlikely to be elected or *: Incumbent Member of the NB 2: 18 seats are allocated to Austria, same as in the previous election. and/or take seat to take seat, if elected European Parliament ••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••••• www.eurocommerce.eu Belgium – 21 MEPs Staff lead: Stefania Moise PARTIES (EP group) DUTCH SPEAKING CONSITUENCY FRENCH SPEAKING CONSITUENCY GERMAN SPEAKING CONSTITUENCY 1. Geert Bourgeois 1. Paul Magnette 1. Pascal Arimont* 2. Assita Kanko 2. Maria Arena* 2.
  • Parliamentary Elections 2011, Preliminary Data

    Parliamentary Elections 2011, Preliminary Data

    Elections 2011 Parliamentary elections 2011, preliminary data True Finns the biggest winner in the elections. Coalition Party the largest party in the Parliamentary elections 2011 Corrected on 27 April 2011. The correction is indicated in red. The True Finns emerged as the winner of the elections as the other parliamentary parties lost their support compared with the previous Parliamentary elections. The True Finns increased their support by 14.9 percentage points, thus gaining 19.0 per cent of the country's votes, which raised it from the smallest parliamentary party into the third largest party in Finland. The number of votes cast for the True Finns gave it 34 additional seats in Parliament. In total, the True Finns got 39 MPs and a total of 559,000 votes in the whole country, which is over 447,000 votes more than in the Parliamentary elections 2007. Support for parties in Parliamentary elections 2011 and 2007 The Centre Party of Finland lost most in the elections, as it dropped from the largest party to the fourth biggest party. The Centre Party gained 15.8 per cent of all the votes cast. When compared with the previous Parliamentary elections, its support went down by 7.3 percentage points. The Centre Party received 463,000 votes and 35 MPs into Parliament. The number of seats for the party fell by 16 and the number of votes by over 177,000 compared with the 2007 Parliamentary elections. Helsinki 18.4.2011 Quoting is encouraged provided Statistics Finland is acknowledged as the source. The National Coalition Party emerged as the largest party.
  • ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed

    ESS9 Appendix A3 Political Parties Ed

    APPENDIX A3 POLITICAL PARTIES, ESS9 - 2018 ed. 3.0 Austria 2 Belgium 4 Bulgaria 7 Croatia 8 Cyprus 10 Czechia 12 Denmark 14 Estonia 15 Finland 17 France 19 Germany 20 Hungary 21 Iceland 23 Ireland 25 Italy 26 Latvia 28 Lithuania 31 Montenegro 34 Netherlands 36 Norway 38 Poland 40 Portugal 44 Serbia 47 Slovakia 52 Slovenia 53 Spain 54 Sweden 57 Switzerland 58 United Kingdom 61 Version Notes, ESS9 Appendix A3 POLITICAL PARTIES ESS9 edition 3.0 (published 10.12.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Denmark, Iceland. ESS9 edition 2.0 (published 15.06.20): Changes from previous edition: Additional countries: Croatia, Latvia, Lithuania, Montenegro, Portugal, Slovakia, Spain, Sweden. Austria 1. Political parties Language used in data file: German Year of last election: 2017 Official party names, English 1. Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs (SPÖ) - Social Democratic Party of Austria - 26.9 % names/translation, and size in last 2. Österreichische Volkspartei (ÖVP) - Austrian People's Party - 31.5 % election: 3. Freiheitliche Partei Österreichs (FPÖ) - Freedom Party of Austria - 26.0 % 4. Liste Peter Pilz (PILZ) - PILZ - 4.4 % 5. Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne) - The Greens – The Green Alternative - 3.8 % 6. Kommunistische Partei Österreichs (KPÖ) - Communist Party of Austria - 0.8 % 7. NEOS – Das Neue Österreich und Liberales Forum (NEOS) - NEOS – The New Austria and Liberal Forum - 5.3 % 8. G!LT - Verein zur Förderung der Offenen Demokratie (GILT) - My Vote Counts! - 1.0 % Description of political parties listed 1. The Social Democratic Party (Sozialdemokratische Partei Österreichs, or SPÖ) is a social above democratic/center-left political party that was founded in 1888 as the Social Democratic Worker's Party (Sozialdemokratische Arbeiterpartei, or SDAP), when Victor Adler managed to unite the various opposing factions.
  • The Making of SYRIZA

    The Making of SYRIZA

    Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line Panos Petrou The making of SYRIZA Published: June 11, 2012. http://socialistworker.org/print/2012/06/11/the-making-of-syriza Transcription, Editing and Markup: Sam Richards and Paul Saba Copyright: This work is in the Public Domain under the Creative Commons Common Deed. You can freely copy, distribute and display this work; as well as make derivative and commercial works. Please credit the Encyclopedia of Anti-Revisionism On-Line as your source, include the url to this work, and note any of the transcribers, editors & proofreaders above. June 11, 2012 -- Socialist Worker (USA) -- Greece's Coalition of the Radical Left, SYRIZA, has a chance of winning parliamentary elections in Greece on June 17, which would give it an opportunity to form a government of the left that would reject the drastic austerity measures imposed on Greece as a condition of the European Union's bailout of the country's financial elite. SYRIZA rose from small-party status to a second-place finish in elections on May 6, 2012, finishing ahead of the PASOK party, which has ruled Greece for most of the past four decades, and close behind the main conservative party New Democracy. When none of the three top finishers were able to form a government with a majority in parliament, a date for a new election was set -- and SYRIZA has been neck-and-neck with New Democracy ever since. Where did SYRIZA, an alliance of numerous left-wing organisations and unaffiliated individuals, come from? Panos Petrou, a leading member of Internationalist Workers Left (DEA, by its initials in Greek), a revolutionary socialist organisation that co-founded SYRIZA in 2004, explains how the coalition rose to the prominence it has today.
  • Explaining Vote for Populist Parties: the Impact of the Political Trust, the Economic and the Political Context Danilo Serani De

    Explaining Vote for Populist Parties: the Impact of the Political Trust, the Economic and the Political Context Danilo Serani De

    Explaining vote for populist parties: the impact of the political trust, the economic and the political context Danilo Serani Department of Political and Social Sciences Universitat Pompeu Fabra [email protected] Abstract Over the last decades, the uneven electoral success of populist parties in Europe sparked the interest of many scholars. Until now, special attention has been devoted only to radical (especially right-wing) populist parties, at the same time as the impact of political trust on the vote for these parties has not been sufficiently addressed. In this paper, I focus on the direct and conditional effects of the trust in the main political actors on the vote for radical and non-radical populist parties. By using data from the European Social Survey (2004- 2014), this paper investigates the association between political trust and the Great Recession, as well as with the ideological convergence of the establishment parties. The results seem to confirm that political (dis)trust has a direct impact on the vote for a populist party, and its effects are accentuated during a crisis and when the establishment parties converge to the center. Key words Political trust, voting behavior, populism, multilevel analysis, economic crisis Paper prepared for the WAPOR Conference, Barcelona, November 24-25th 2016 This is a draft, please do not quote or circulate without author’s permission Introduction Over the last three decades, Europe witnessed the spread of the third wave of populism (Mudde, 2007). Far from being a transitory anomaly of liberal democracies, populist challengers of the establishment parties managed themselves to consolidate their position in the party systems.
  • A Comparative Constitutional Analysis Between Italy and Hungary

    A Comparative Constitutional Analysis Between Italy and Hungary

    Department of Political Science Master’s Degree in International Relations – European Studies Chair in Comparative Public Law POPULISM IN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE EUROPEAN UNION: A COMPARATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL ANALYSIS BETWEEN ITALY AND HUNGARY SUPERVISOR CANDIDATE Professor Cristina Fasone Claudia Mattei 635892 CO-SUPERVISOR Professor Giovanni Orsina Academic Year 2018/2019 1 Table of contents Introduction 6 1 CHAPTER – POPULISM 9 1.1 What is populism? A definition for a highly contested phenomenon 10 1.2 Understanding populism 14 1.2.1 Who are the people? 14 1.2.2 Who are the elites? 18 1.2.3 The real meaning of the volonté générale 19 1.2.4 The people and the general will: populism vs. democracy 20 1.3 Historical birth of populism 24 1.3.1 The American People’s Party 24 1.3.2 The Russian narodnichestvo 26 1.4 Marriage between populism and ‘host’ ideologies: different families 29 1.4.1 Right-wing populism 30 1.4.2 Left-wing populism 31 1.4.3 Populist constitutionalism 33 1.5 Why does populism develop? 36 1.5.1 The causes behind the populist rise 37 1.5.2 The cause of the cause: the auto-destruction of politics as origin of populism 39 1.5.3 Technocracy replaces politics: the case of the European Union 41 1.6 Populism in the world 44 2 CHAPTER – POPULISM IN EUROPE 48 2.1 Genesis of populism in Europe: Boulangism 48 2.2 Populism in Western Europe 51 2.2.1 Post-WW2 populist experiences in Western Europe 51 2.2.2 The rise of modern populism in Western Europe 53 2 2.3 Populism in Eastern Europe 58 2.3.1 Interwar populism in Eastern Europe 58 2.3.2
  • The Growth of the Radical Right in Nordic Countries: Observations from the Past 20 Years

    The Growth of the Radical Right in Nordic Countries: Observations from the Past 20 Years

    THE GROWTH OF THE RADICAL RIGHT IN NORDIC COUNTRIES: OBSERVATIONS FROM THE PAST 20 YEARS By Anders Widfeldt TRANSATLANTIC COUNCIL ON MIGRATION THE GROWTH OF THE RADICAL RIGHT IN NORDIC COUNTRIES: Observations from the Past 20 Years By Anders Widfeldt June 2018 Acknowledgments This research was commissioned for the eighteenth plenary meeting of the Transatlantic Council on Migration, an initiative of the Migration Policy Institute (MPI), held in Stockholm in November 2017. The meeting’s theme was “The Future of Migration Policy in a Volatile Political Landscape,” and this report was one of several that informed the Council’s discussions. The Council is a unique deliberative body that examines vital policy issues and informs migration policymaking processes in North America and Europe. The Council’s work is generously supported by the following foundations and governments: the Open Society Foundations, Carnegie Corporation of New York, the Barrow Cadbury Trust, the Luso- American Development Foundation, the Calouste Gulbenkian Foundation, and the governments of Germany, the Netherlands, Norway, and Sweden. For more on the Transatlantic Council on Migration, please visit: www.migrationpolicy.org/ transatlantic. © 2018 Migration Policy Institute. All Rights Reserved. Cover Design: April Siruno, MPI Layout: Sara Staedicke, MPI No part of this publication may be reproduced or transmitted in any form by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopy, or any information storage and retrieval system, without permission from the Migration Policy Institute. A full-text PDF of this document is available for free download from www.migrationpolicy.org. Information for reproducing excerpts from this report can be found at www.migrationpolicy.org/about/copyright-policy.
  • Review of European and National Election Results Update: September 2019

    Review of European and National Election Results Update: September 2019

    REVIEW OF EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL ELECTION RESULTS UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 2019 A Public Opinion Monitoring Publication REVIEW OF EUROPEAN AND NATIONAL ELECTION RESULTS UPDATE: SEPTEMBER 2019 Directorate-General for Communication Public Opinion Monitoring Unit May 2019 - PE 640.149 IMPRESSUM AUTHORS Philipp SCHULMEISTER, Head of Unit (Editor) Alice CHIESA, Marc FRIEDLI, Dimitra TSOULOU MALAKOUDI, Matthias BÜTTNER Special thanks to EP Liaison Offices and Members’ Administration Unit PRODUCTION Katarzyna ONISZK Manuscript completed in September 2019 Brussels, © European Union, 2019 Cover photo: © Andrey Kuzmin, Shutterstock.com ABOUT THE PUBLISHER This paper has been drawn up by the Public Opinion Monitoring Unit within the Directorate–General for Communication (DG COMM) of the European Parliament. To contact the Public Opinion Monitoring Unit please write to: [email protected] LINGUISTIC VERSION Original: EN DISCLAIMER This document is prepared for, and primarily addressed to, the Members and staff of the European Parliament to assist them in their parliamentary work. The content of the document is the sole responsibility of its author(s) and any opinions expressed herein should not be taken to represent an official position of the Parliament. TABLE OF CONTENTS EDITORIAL 1 1. COMPOSITION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT 5 DISTRIBUTION OF SEATS OVERVIEW 1979 - 2019 6 COMPOSITION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT LAST UPDATE (31/07/2019) 7 CONSTITUTIVE SESSION (02/07/2019) AND OUTGOING EP SINCE 1979 8 PROPORTION OF WOMEN AND MEN PROPORTION - LAST UPDATE 02/07/2019 28 PROPORTIONS IN POLITICAL GROUPS - LAST UPDATE 02/07/2019 29 PROPORTION OF WOMEN IN POLITICAL GROUPS - SINCE 1979 30 2. NUMBER OF NATIONAL PARTIES IN THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT CONSTITUTIVE SESSION 31 3.