Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

European Vox Radicis: Representation and policy congruence on the extremes

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Comparative European Politics Aims and scope

Abstract

Although ideological congruence is a central component of empirical and normative theory of representation, little is known about congruence between ideologically extreme parties (IEPs) and their supporters or the broader electorate. Moreover, we know even less about whether levels of congruence vary from one extreme to the other, and across dimensions of political contestation. Our article integrates both left and right poles in the analysis of ideological extremism and inquires about IEPs’ policy congruence with their supporters and the broader electorate. For this purpose, we analyze policy congruence along three ideological dimensions: socioeconomic, sociocultural and pro/anti-European integration. Based on our findings, IEPs are not highly congruent with the broader electorate. These parties are congruent with their supporters – and this holds especially for those situated on the right-wing pole of the political spectrum. Importantly, IEPs’ congruence scores vary across issue dimensions. Our findings have implications for understanding the function of IEPs in modern democracies and the broader debates on representation and policy congruence.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Figure 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. See Mudde (2004, p. 543).

  2. For example, the German Die Linke, Dutch Socialist Party, Scottish Socialist Party, Slovak Social Democracy, Lithuanian Labour Party.

  3. Except for a study by Abedi (2004, p. 6) on ‘anti-political establishment parties’ that treats parties at both poles as ‘different manifestations of the same phenomenon’, most studies focus on either IERPs or IELPs.

  4. Yet, the goal here is not to analyze the protest vote per se but the implications of the protest thesis for IEPs’ congruence with their supporters and the average voter.

  5. IEPs are also called ‘radical’, a word stemming from Latin ‘radix’ (root).

  6. Though IERPs traditionally targeted the ‘once-hads’, they recently expanded their electorate to the ‘never-hads’, typically targeted by IELPs (Lipset and Raab, 1970; Rydgren, 2003).

  7. However, the representation channel may be alternatively conceived as bottom-up, whereby elites follow public opinion (Esaiasson and Holmberg, 1996; Andeweg and Thomassen, 2005).

  8. Generally, survey respondents may interpret the meaning of questions and scales differently and give ‘different responses even though they may have identical underlying attitudes’ (Krosnick and Presser, 2010, p. 269). This danger is not only inherent to this approach but is common to other studies of congruence and research using surveys more generally.

  9. We would like to stress that our method of selecting cases is based on the spatial nature of party extremism. As a consequence, some parties (Groen!, IU, UKIP and V) are classified as ‘extremist’ but do not reject or undermine the current system. The question is whether, compared to all other parties included in our sample, these cases differ regarding the congruence achieved with their supporters and the wider electorate. As it will be shown in the section ‘Findings’, there is no remarkable pattern of differences. Nonetheless, we have noted the very few instances where these parties stand out, see notes 14, 15 and 16.

  10. UK and Germany 2005; Netherlands 2006; Belgium, Denmark, France, Finland, Greece and Ireland 2007; Italy and Spain 2008; Austria 2006 and 2008; Portugal 2009 (5 June).

  11. In some cases, using the vote cast in the EP election helps achieve a larger sample of IEP supporters (for example, BE, RC, DF, LAOS, PVV and UKIP, Table A2).

  12. There is no consensus in the literature regarding the exact relationship between the EU and LR dimensions (Hix and Lord, 1997; Marks and Steenbergen, 2002).

  13. For example, the sample size of the Front National is incredibly low. This deficiency may be because of social desirability bias (Krosnick and Presser, 2010, p. 285): respondents often do not report having cast an extreme right vote (Arzheimer and Carter, 2003, p. 9).

  14. Taking a closer look at the IELPs that were included in our sample based on the spatial nature of extremism: Belgian Groen! appears as the most incongruent with its national and EU election supporters in the socioeconomic dimension; in the same dimension, V is the most congruent with its national elections supporters and IU with its EU election supporters. Otherwise, these three parties do not stand out and their inclusion does not have implications for the findings we report here.

  15. Focusing on the EU dimension: while the FPÖ achieves highest congruence with its supporters in the national election, the UKIP, which was included in our sample based on spatial extremism, is the most congruent with its supporters in the European election. This is not surprising, as this is a specifically anti-EU party.

  16. Interestingly, the UKIP is the most congruent with the broader electorate on the sociocultural dimension (see notes 9 and 14).

References

  • Abedi, A. (2004) Anti-political Establishment Parties: A Comparative Analysis. New York: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Achen, C.H. (1978) Measuring representation. American Journal of Political Science 22 (3): 475–510.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Adams, J., Clark, M., Ezrow, L. and Glasgow, G. (2006) Are niche parties fundamentally different from mainstream parties?: The causes and electoral consequences of Western European parties’ policy shifts, 1976–1998. American Journal of Political Science 50 (3): 513–529.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • American Political Science Association (APSA). (1950) Towards a more responsible party system: A report of the committee on political parties. American Political Science Review 44 (3), Part 2, supplement, http://www.apsanet.org/~pop/APSA_Report.htm.

  • Andeweg, R.B. and Thomassen, J.J.A. (2005) Modes of political representation: Toward a new typology. Legislative Studies Quarterly 30 (4): 507–528.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzheimer, K. (2008) Protest, neo-liberalism or anti-immigrant sentiment: What motivates the voters of the extreme right in Western Europe? Zeitschrift für Vergleichende Politikwissenschaften 2 (2): 173–197.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzheimer, K. (2009) Contextual factors and the extreme right vote in Western Europe, 1980–2002. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 259–275.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzheimer, K. and Carter, E. (2003) Explaining Variation in the Extreme Right Vote: The Individual and the Political Environment. Keele European Parties Research Unit (KEPRU) Working Paper 19.

  • Benoit, K. and Laver, M. (2006) Party Policy in Modern Democracies. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Betz, H.-G. (1998) Introduction. In: H.-G. Betz and S. Immerfall (eds.) The New Politics of the Right: Neo-populist Parties and Movements in Established Democracies. Basingstoke, UK: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blais, A. and Bodet, M.A. (2006) Does representation foster closer congruence between citizens and policy makers? Comparative Political Studies 39 (10): 1243–1262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Charalambous, G. (2011) All the shades of red: Examining the radical left euroscepticism. Contemporary Politics 17 (3): 299–320.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinas, E. and Gemenis, K. (2010) Measuring parties’ ideological positions with manifesto data: A critical evaluation of the competing methods. Party Politics 16 (4): 427–450.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Downs, A. (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • EES. (2009) European Parliament election study 2009, voter study and contextual data. Final Release 23 June 2011, http://www.piredeu.eu, accessed 17 September 2011.

  • Enelow, J. and Hinich, M.J. (1984) The Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Esaiasson, P. and Holmberg, S. (1996) Representation from Above: Members of Parliament and Representative Democracy in Sweden. Aldershot, UK: Dartmouth.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, L. (2007) The variance matters: How party systems represent the preferences of voters. Journal of Politics 69 (1): 182–192.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, L. (2008a) Parties’ policy programmes and the dog that didn’t bark: No evidence that proportional systems promote extreme party positioning. British Journal of Political Science 38 (3): 479–497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, L. (2008b) On the inverse relationship between votes and proximity for niche parties. European Journal of Political Research 47 (2): 206–220.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, L. (2010) Linking Citizens and Parties: How Electoral Systems Matter for Electoral Representation. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, L. and Xezonakis, G. (2011) Citizen satisfaction with democracy and parties' policy offerings. Comparative Political Studies 44 (8): 1152–1178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ezrow, L., De Vries, C.E., Steenbergen, M. and Edwards, E.E (2011) 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.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gemenis, K. (2011) What to do (and not to do) with the comparative manifestos project data. Paper presented at the 2011 EPOP Conference; 9–11 September 2011, Exeter, UK.

  • Gemenis, K. (2012) Proxy documents as a source of measurement error in the Comparative Manifestos Project, Electoral Studies, doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2012.01.002.

  • Golder, M. and Stramski, J. (2010) Ideological congruence and electoral institutions. American Journal of Political Science 54 (1): 90–106.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Green, J. and Hobolt, S.B. (2008) Owning the issue agenda: Party strategies and vote choices in British elections. Electoral Studies 27 (3): 460–476.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hix, S. and Lord, C. (1997) Political Parties in the European Union. Houndmills (Hampshire), UK: MacMillan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, S. (1997) Dynamic opinion representation. Scandinavian Political Studies 20 (3): 265–283.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Holmberg, S. (2004) Polarizing political parties. In: H.M. Narud and A. Krogstad (eds.) Elections, Parties and Political Representation, Festschrift for Professor Henry Valens’ 80th Anniversary. Oslo: Tidsskrift for Samfunngsforskning.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L., Marks, G. and Wilson, C.J. (2002) Does left/right structure party positions on European integration? Comparative Political Studies 35 (8): 956–989.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hooghe, L. et al (2010) Reliability and validity of measuring party positions: The Chapel Hill expert surveys of 2002 and 2006. European Journal of Political Research 49 (5): 687–703.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huber, J.D. and Powell Jr, G.B. (1994) Congruence between citizens and policymakers in two visions of liberal democracy. World Politics 46 (3): 291–326.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ignazi, P. (2006) Extreme Right Parties in Western Europe. Oxford, NY: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kestilä-Kekkonen, E. and Wass, H. (2008) Representation of the work-related immigration issue: Positions of the finish electorate and MP candidates in the 2003 parliamentary elections. Ethnopolitics 7 (4): 413–432.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kim, M. (2009) Cross-national analyses of satisfaction with democracy and ideological congruence. Journal of Elections, Public Opinion & Parties 19 (1): 49–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H. (1995) The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H. and McGann, A.J. (2005) The radical right in the Alps: Evolution of support for the Swiss SVP and the Austrian FPÖ. Party Politics 11 (1): 147–171.

    Google Scholar 

  • Konstantinidis, I. and Lefkofridi, Z. (2011) ‘Ticket-splitting’ in EU ‘split-level democracy’: Policy representation across national & EP arenas. Paper presented at the 2011 ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops; 12–17 April 2011, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

  • Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S. and Frey, Th. (2008) West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Kritzinger, S., Lefkofridi, Z. and Casado-Asensio, J. (2010) Policy-Repräsentation und europäische Integration: Wählerpräferenzen im Spiegel der Parteien. In: R. Pfefferle, N. Schmidt and G. Valchars (eds.) Europa als Prozess: 15 Jahre Europäische Union und Österreich/(Festschrift für Peter Gerlich). Wien: LIT Verlag, pp 131–151.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krosnick, J.A. and Presser, S. (2010) Questionnaire design. In: J.D. Wright and P.V. Marsden (eds.) Handbook of Survey Research, 2nd edn. West Yorkshire, UK: Emerald Group, pp 263–314.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lefkofridi, Z., Wagner, M. and Willmann, J.E. (2011) Left-authoritarian citizens in Europe: Seeking policy representation across issue dimensions. Paper presented at the 2011 ECPR Joint Sessions of Workshops; 12–17 April 2011, St. Gallen, Switzerland.

  • Lipset, S.M. (1966) Political Man. London: Mercury Books.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S.M. and Raab, E. (1970) The Politics of Unreason: Right-wing Extremism in America, 1790–1970. New York: Harper & Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lodge, M. (1981) Magnitude Scaling. Quantitative Applications in the Social Sciences, Vol. 25. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, P. (2007) Political opposition and the European Union. Government and Opposition 42 (1): 1–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mansbridge, J. (2009) ‘Selection model’ of political representation. Journal of Political Philosophy 7 (4): 369–398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • March, L. (2007) From Vanguard of the proletariat to Vox Populi: Left-populism as a ‘shadow’ of contemporary socialism. SAIS Review XXVII (1): 64–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, L. (2008) Contemporary Far Left Parties in Europe. From Marxist to Mainstream? Berlin: Friedrich Ebert Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • March, L. and Mudde, C. (2005) What's left of the radical left? The European radical left after 1989: Decline and mutation. Comparative European Politics 3 (1): 23–49.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G. and Steenbergen, M. (2002) Understanding political contestation in the European Union. Comparative Political Studies 35 (8): 879–892.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G. and Wilson, C. (1999) National parties and the contestation of Europe. In: T. Banchoff and M. Smith (eds.) Legitimacy and the European Union: The Contested Polity. London: Routledge.

    Google Scholar 

  • Marks, G., Hooghe, L., Nelson, M. and Edwards, E. (2006) Party competition and European integration in the East and West: Different structure, same causality. Comparative Political Studies 39 (2): 155–175.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mattila, M. and Raunio, T. (2006) Cautious voters and supportive parties: Opinion congruence between voters and parties on the EU dimension. European Union Politics 7 (4): 427–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Meguid, B. (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Miller, W.E. and Stokes, D.E. (1963) Constituency influence in congress. American Political Science Review 57 (1): 45–56.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkeberg, M. (2001) The radical right in public office: Agenda-setting and policy effects. West European Politics 24 (4): 1–21.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2004) The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition 39 (4): 542–563.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. (2005) Radical Right: Parties and Electoral Competition. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Oesch, D. (2008) Explaining workers’ support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: Evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway and Switzerland. International Political Science Review 29 (3): 349–373.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pappas, T. (2008) Political leadership and the emergence of radical mass movements in democracy. Comparative Political Studies 41 (8): 1117–1140.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, B.G. (2009) The ideological congruence controversy: The impact of alternative conceptualizations and data on the effects of election rules. Comparative Political Studies 49 (12): 1475–1497.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G.B. (2000) Elections as Instruments of Democracy: Majoritarian and Proportional Visions. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G.B. (2006) Election laws and representative government. British Journal of Political Science 36: 291–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Powell, G.B. and Vanberg, G.S. (2000) Election laws, disproportionality and median correspondence: Implications for two visions of democracy. British Journal of Political Science 30 (3): 383–411.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rabinowitz, G. and MacDonald, S.E. (1989) A directional theory of issue voting. The American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ray, L. (1999) Measuring party positions on European integration: Results from an expert survey. The European Journal of Political Research 36 (2): 283–306.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ray, L. (2007) Validity of measured party positions on European integration: Assumptions, approaches, and a comparison of alternative measures. Electoral Studies 26 (1): 11–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, J. (2003) Meso level reasons for racism and xenophobia: Some converging and diverging effects of radical right populism in France and Sweden. European Journal of Social Theory 6 (1): 45–68.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, J. (2007) The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology 33 (5): 241–262.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sapir, E. and van der Eijk, C. (2011) PIREDEU EES 2009 Voter study May 2011 codebook and release notes, http://www.piredeu.eu, accessed 17 September 2011.

  • Saris, W.E. and Gallhofer, I.N. (2007) Design, Evaluation and Analysis of Questionnaires for Survey Research. New York: Wiley.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1976) Parties and Party Systems. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sartori, G. (1982) Teoria dei partiti e caso italiano. Milan: Sugar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, H. (2005) The European Parliament elections of June 2004: Still second-order? West European Politics 28 (3): 650–679.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt, H. and Thomassen, J.J.A. (1999) Political Representation and Legitimacy in the European Union. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sperber, N. (2010) Three million Trotskyists? Explaining extreme left voting in France in the 2002 Presidential election. European Journal of Political Research 49 (3): 359–392.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Steenbergen, M. and Marks, G. (2007) Evaluating expert surveys. European Journal of Political Research 46 (3): 347–366.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thomassen, J.J.A. (2012) The blind corner of representation. In: Z. Lefkofridi, N. Giger and K. Kissau (eds.) Special Issue ‘Inequality and Representaion in Europe’. Representation 48(1), pp 13–27.

  • van der Brug, W. and Fennema, M. (2003) Protest or mainstream? How the European anti-immigrant parties developed into two separate groups by 1999. European Journal of Political Research 42 (1): 55–76.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Brug, W. and Van Spanje, J. (2009) Immigration, Europe and the ‘new cultural dimension’. European Journal of Political Research 48 (3): 309–334.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Brug, W., Fennema, M. and Tillie, J. (2000) Anti-immigrant parties in Europe: Ideological or protest vote? European Journal of Political Research 37 (1): 77–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • van der Brug, W., Fennema, M. and Tillie, J. (2005) Why some anti-immigrant parties fail and others succeed: A two-step model of aggregate electoral support. Comparative Political Studies 38 (5): 537–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • van der Eijk, C. and Franklin, M. (1996) Choosing Europe? The European Electorate and National Politics in the Face of Union. Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Weßels, B. 2007 Political representation and democracy. In: R.J. Dalton and H.-D. Klingemann (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Political Behavior. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wodak, R. and Pelinka, A. (2002) The Haider Phenomenon in Austria. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Austrian Research Fund (FWF) for supporting parts of this research (S10902-G11). We are grateful to the European Science Foundation (ESF)-HumVib EUROCORES for sponsoring Zoe Lefkofridi's research fellowship at Stanford University in Autumn 2011. We appreciate comments by Julian Aichholzer, Kostas Gemenis, Sylvia Kritzinger, Roula Nezi, Markus Wagner, the anonymous referees and the participants of the Workshop ‘Representation and Policy Congruence in Europe’ organized by the Mannheimer Zentrum für Europäische Sozialforschung (MZES)-University of Mannheim, Germany (28–29 May 2010). Special thanks to Jon Krosnick for discussing with us some of the ideas included in this article. All errors remain our own.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Institute for European Integration Research, Austrian Academy of Sciences, Strohgasse 45/DG, Vienna, 1030, Austria

    Zoe Lefkofridi & Juan Casado-Asensio

  2. Institute for Political Science, University of Vienna, Universitätstraße 8, 1010, Vienna, Austria

    Zoe Lefkofridi

Authors
  1. Zoe Lefkofridi
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Juan Casado-Asensio
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Zoe Lefkofridi.

Appendix

Appendix

Questions and answer scales

(A) Items used to construct the socioeconomic indicators:

EES2009

  • Q46: In political matters people talk of ‘the left’ and ‘the right’. What is your position? Please indicate your views using a number on a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means ‘left’ and 10 means ‘right’. Which number best describes your position?

  • Now I will read out some statements to you. For each of the following statements, please tell me to what degree you agree or disagree with each statement. Do you ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’? (1–5 scale).

    • Q57: Private enterprise is the best way to solve (COUNTRY)'s economic problems.

    • Q61: Politics should abstain from intervening in the economy.

CHES2006

  • Q11: Parties can be classified in terms of their stance on economic issues. Parties on the economic left want government to play an active role in the economy. Parties on the economic right emphasize a reduced economic role for government: privatization, lower taxes, less regulation, less government spending and a leaner welfare state (0–10 scale)

  • Finally, some questions on where political parties stood on the following policy dimensions in (COUNTRY) in 2006. On each dimension, we ask you to assess the position of the party leadership.

    • Q15: Position on deregulation: where 0 means ‘strongly opposes deregulation of markets’ and 10 means ‘strongly supports deregulation of markets’.

(B) Items used to construct the sociocultural indicators:

EES2009

  • Now I will read out some statements to you. For each of the following statements, please tell me to what degree you agree or disagree with each statement. Do you ‘strongly agree’, ‘agree’, ‘neither agree nor disagree’, ‘disagree’ or ‘strongly disagree’? (1–5 scale)

    • Q56: Immigrants should be required to adapt to the customs of (COUNTRY).

    • Q58: Same-sex marriages should be prohibited by law.

    • Q62: People who break the law should be given much harsher sentences than they are these days.

    • Q67: Immigration to (COUNTRY) should be decreased significantly.

CHES2006

  • Finally, some questions on where political parties stood on the following policy dimensions in (COUNTRY) in 2006. On each dimension, we ask you to assess the position of the party leadership.

    • Q19: Position on civil liberties versus law and order, where 0 means ‘Strongly promotes civil liberties’ and 10 means ‘Strongly supports tough measures to fight crime’.

    • Q21: Position on social lifestyle (for example, homosexuality), where 0 means ‘strongly supports liberal policies’ and 10 ‘strongly opposes liberal policies’.

    • Q25: Position on immigration policy, where 0 means ‘Strongly opposes tough policy’ and 10 means ‘Strongly favors tough policy’.

    • Q27: Position on integration of immigrants and asylum seekers (multiculturalism versus assimilation), where 0 means ‘Strongly favors multiculturalism’ and 10 means ‘Strongly favors assimilation’.

(C) Items measuring the position on European integration:

EES2009

  • Q 80: Some say European unification should be pushed further. Others say it already has gone too far. What is your opinion? Please indicate your views using a scale from 0 to 10, where 0 means unification ‘has already gone too far’ and 10 means it ‘should be pushed further’. What number on this scale best describes your position (0–10 scale).

CHES2006

  • Q1: How would you describe the general position on European integration that the party leadership took over the course of 2006? Where 0 means ‘strongly opposed’ and 6 means ‘strongly in favor’ (0–6 scale).

Table A1

Table A1 Sample sizes for national and EP vote (by dimension)
Full size table

Table A2

Table A2 Sample sizes for general electorate (by dimension)
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Lefkofridi, Z., Casado-Asensio, J. European Vox Radicis: Representation and policy congruence on the extremes. Comp Eur Polit 11, 93–118 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2012.1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/cep.2012.1

Keywords

Search

Navigation