The literature has pointed to a change in radical right-wing parties’ (RRWPs) position regarding the welfare state. Those parties have abandoned the neoliberal approach on distributive issues and have become defenders of social expenditure for deserving groups. Nevertheless, as RRWPs have joined with right-wing mainstream parties to form governments, their distributive policy position might cause conflict in a coalition. This study, therefore, addresses this puzzle by analysing the social policy outcomes of RRWPs’ government participation. The conclusion is that those parties contribute to the welfare state retrenchment. However, policies are not affected evenly. Expenditure that targets groups regarded as undeserving by the radical right is retrenched the most.

Literature posits that mainstream right-wing parties have adopted restrictive positions on immigrants’ entitlements to social rights to avoid losing votes to populist radical right-wing parties (PRRPs). Although studies recognize that this co-option is only partial, we know little about the remaining differences between PRRPs’ and mainstream right-wing parties’ welfare chauvinism strategies. This article fills this knowledge gap by comparing how mainstream and populist right-wing governments approach different migrant groups’ entitlements to social rights. The article combines an event history analysis of the Determinants of International Migration Policy database with a qualitative examination of the indexation of family benefits in selected European Countries to compare PRRPs’ and mainstream parties’ impact on the social rights of different migrant groups. The results reveal that the main difference between PRRPs and mainstream right-wing parties in Western Europe is the formers’ support for restrictions on intra-EU migrants’ entitlements to social benefits. This finding has important implications for the study of the European social policy agenda, as PRRPs’ increasing politicization of intra-EU migrants’ access to social rights may compromise the future of intra-European solidarity.

Populist radical right-wing parties (PRRPs) in Western Europe have almost without exception shifted their position on distributive issues, abandoning their earlier support for a minimal welfare state in favor of higher social spending. Recent studies suggest that PRRPs' distributive preferences go beyond the clash between simply expanding or retrenching welfare; instead, they defend a specific welfare state that focuses on consumption policies for the "deserving." Drawing on this literature and the welfare paradigm literature, this paper suggests that PRRPs are not only welfare chauvinist but that they promote what we call a "dualistic" welfare state: protectionism for the "deserving" and neoliberal for the "undeserving." To unpack PRRPs' welfare attitude and verify their influence on welfare reforms, this study focuses on two cases in which a PRRP cooperated with governing parties: Denmark ( ) and Austria (2017. The study confirms that PRRPs pursued a coherent but dual approach to welfare state distribution. Policy negotiations show that PRRPs successfully pursue austerity and workfare measures for social policies targeting the "undeserving," while preserving and expanding consumption policies for the "deserving." This paper thus contributes to the research on PRRPs' welfare attitudes and, more broadly, the recent welfare transformations in Western Europe.

No abstract