Attitudes on populism A comparative enquiry across countries and parties IRENE ESTEBAN Universitá degli Studi di Milano and Universidad Autónoma de Madrid CONTENTS List of Tables and Figures iv Acknowledgments vii Abstract x Introducción x Introduction xiv THEORETICAL SECTION Chapter 1. A conceptual and theoretical examination of the study of populism page 2 1.1 Defining the concepts 3 1.1.1 Populism 4 1.1.2 Political cynicism 15 1.1.3 Stealth democracy 15 1.1.4 Political disaffection 18 1.1.5 Authoritarianism 22 1.1.6 External efficacy 27 1.2 Defining the relationships between concepts 28 1.2.1 How are these concepts related to attitudes? 34 1.3 References 38 Chapter 2. The operationalisation of populist attitudes 44 2.1 Concept validity 45 2.2 Definitions in the different studies measuring populist attitudes 46 2.3 Dimensions of populism in attitudinal studies 48 2.4 Measurement validity 52 2.5 Operationalisation and indicators of the construct 53 2.6 Validity assessment of the measured construct 58 2.7 References EMPIRICAL SECTION Chapter 3. Two of a kind? People centrism and anti-establishment compared 64 3.1 Introduction 66 3.2 Theory and hypotheses 67 3.2.1 Populist definition and the measurement of populist attitudes 67 3.2.2 Explanations of populist attitudes 68 3.2.3 Cynic ideology, similarities and differences between cynicism and populism 69 3.2.4 Predictors of attitudes on people centrism and anti-establishment attitudes 71 3.2.5 Hypotheses 73 3.3 Data and methods 73 3.3.1 The case of Belgium 73 3.3.2 Dataset 74 3.3.3 Indicators 75 3.3.4 Statistical modelling 76 3.4 Analyses 76 3.4.1 Dimensionality of people centrism and anti-establishment attitudes 76 3.4.2 Explanatory models 79 3.4.3 People centrism and anti-establishment at the regional level: the impact on vote choice 83 ii 3.5 Concluding remarks 91 3.6 References 92 Chapter 4. Same problems, different solutions. Stealth democracy and the vote for a populist party 95 4.1 Introduction 96 4.2 Theory and hypotheses 97 4.2.1 Populist voters and stealth democrats: antagonising contemporary democratic processes 98 4.2.2 Where populist voters and stealth democrats diverge: legitimacy and solutions 99 4.2.3 Expectations: Procedural preferences as a three-sided relationship 101 4.3 Data and methods 102 4.4 Analyses 107 4.5 Concluding remarks 110 4.6 References 112 Chapter 5. Two kinds of Populism, two kinds of voters? Italy and its many Populisms 115 5.1 Introduction 116 5.2 Theory and hypotheses 117 5.2.1 The Italian political landscape between 2013 and 2018 117 5.2.2 The Lega 121 5.2.3 Movimento Cinque Stelle 123 5.2.4 The differences in populist parties 127 5.2.5 The importance of ideology: The left- right divide in the Lega and M5S 129 5.2.6 Hypotheses 132 5.3 Data and methods 133 5.3.1 Exploratory analyses 134 5.3.2 Multinomial analyses 137 5.4 Analyses 140 5.5 Concluding remarks 147 5.6 References 149 Chapter 6. The two Iberian exceptions: Explaining the absence of right-wing populist parties in Spain and Portugal 152 6.1 Introduction 153 6.2 Theory and hypotheses 154 6.2.1 The grounds for a populist radical right: a European perspective 154 6.2.2 Why has it taken so long for right-wing populist supply to appear? 164 6.2.2.1 Explanations for the Spanish case 165 6.2.2.2 Explanations for the Portuguese case 167 6.3 Data and methods 168 6.3.1 Are populist right-wing voters represented in Spain and Portugal? The ability of the mainstream right to attract populist voters 174 6.4 Analyses 178 6.4.1 Was the mainstream right successfully attracting right-wing voters? 178 6.5 Concluding remarks 184 6.6 References 186 CONCLUDING REMARKS 191 OBSERVACIONES FINALES 197 Appendix 203 iii LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES TABLES 2.1 Overview of definition and dimensions of populism in different studies page 51 2.2 Most used indicators to measure populist attitudes 54 2.3 Methodological aspects from papers measuring populist attitudes 60 3.1 Fit indexes of CFA models 77 3.2 Regression on people centrism and anti-establishment attitudes in Belgium 80 4.1 Fit indexes of CFA models in Belgium 105 5.1 Vote in Italy in 2018 and vote in 2013 118 5.2 Refuse to place themselves in left-right axis 132 5.3 Results of factor analysis for populism and nativism 135 5.4 Result of factor loadings for populism and nativism 135 6.1. Self-placement of European countries in the extreme-right positions of ideological scales, 2016 (in percentages) 163 iv FIGURES 1.1. Overlap of populism and other political attitudes 29 2.1. From theoretical concept to observed variable 46 3.1. Results of the CFA for attitude dimensions 78 3.2. People centrism and probability to vote for a party in Flanders (I) 84 3.3. People centrism and probability to vote for a party in Flanders (II) 85 3.4. Anti-establishment and probability to vote for a party in Flanders (I) 86 3.5. Anti-establishment and probability to vote for a party in Flanders (II) 87 3.6. People centrism and probability to vote for a party in Wallonia (I) 88 3.7. People centrism and probability to vote for a party in Wallonia (II) 89 3.8. Anti-establishment and probability to vote for a party in Wallonia (I) 90 3.9. Anti-establishment and probability to vote for a party in Wallonia (II) 90 4.1. CFA Model of criticism of contemporary representation and stealth attitudes 105 4.2. Average marginal effects on the vote for the populist party 108 4.3 Average marginal effect of criticism at different levels of stealth democracy 109 5.1. Aggregate volatility in Italy from 1948 to 2018 119 5.2. Left-right general placement of the Italian parties (2014) 125 5.3. Orientation of the party leadership towards European Integration (2014) 126 5.4. Anti-elite salience of the Italian parties (2014) 127 5.5. Vote in 2018 and left-right self placement 131 5.6. Populist attitudes and vote for M5S, PD, FI and Lega in 2018 136 5.7. Nativist attitudes and vote for M5S, PD, FI and Lega in 2018 137 v 5.8. Average Marginal effects of the multinomial model for Movimento Cinque Stelle 141 5.9. Average Marginal effects of the multinomial model for Lega 142 5.10. Results of Model 5 for Partito Democratico and Forza Italia 146 6.1. Satisfaction with government in European countries, 2002-2014 156 6.2. Satisfaction with democracy in European countries, 2002-2014 157 6.3. Feelings about household income nowadays in European countries, 2002-2014 160 6.4. Immigrants make worse / better place to live in European countries, 2002-2014) 161 6.5. Attitudes towards immigration in some countries and parties in Europe, 2016 170 6.6. Attitudes on political trust in some countries and parties in Europe, 2016 171 6.7. Attitudes on conservation values in some countries and parties in Europe, 2016 172 6.8. Attitudes toward European integration values in some countries and parties in Europe, 2016 173 6.9. Voters’ self-placements in ideological scales and parties in Portugal, 2016 175 6.10. Voters’ self-placements in ideological scales and parties in Spain, 2016 176 6.11. How are voters with right-wing populist attitudes represented in Spain, 2004-2016? (logistic regressions) 180 6.12. How are voters with right wing populist attitudes represented in Portugal, 2004-2016? (logistic regressions) 182 7.1. Conceptual map of the conclusions of the thesis 194 vi ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The last four years dedicated to this PhD have been an emotional and professional challenge, and have taught me many things about myself and the world of academic research. There have been plenty of moments of joy – also of frustration, and all of them have contributed to my personal and professional growth. Along the way, I have shared this journey with many inspiring and supportive people, and this dissertation would be incomplete without expressing my gratitude to all of them. First of all, I thank my supervisor, Prof. Dr. Paolo Segatti for accepting to guide me during this dissertation, and for helping me to conduct research on a topic that is as complex as interesting. Paolo has generously provided me with everything a PhD student needs: plenty of valuable advice, support, and sharp critique to always aim to make my work better. He has not only shared his deep knowledge of the topic, but challenged me in every step to make me aware of the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological shortcomings of my research. Furthermore, he has always been supportive, even when he did not agree with my premises. I am very grateful that you agreed to be my supervisor, Paolo, and that you have pushed and supported me always when I needed it. Ti ringrazio sinceramente. Special words of gratitude also go to my co-supervisor, Prof. Emeritus Dr. José Ramón Montero. José Ramón started mentoring me long before my PhD journey started, and he always knew how to put me at ease with my own struggles, and showed me to focus on what is important. José Ramón, you always have had a listening ear; when I was doubtful you believed in me. Your dedication is inspiring and your encouragement unparalleled.