Radical left parties (RLPs) are a diverse lot and several RLP subtypes have been distinguished in the literature. However, the degree to which these subtypes are associated to significantly different policy proposals has not been analysed. At the same time, little is known about whether these predicated subtypes are associated to differences in their voters' characteristics. In this article, we analyse the policy positions of RLPs across a number of issues using manifesto and expert survey data, allowing us to assess the nature of the differentiation between types of RLPs. We find that RLPs differ in the extent to which they adopt New Politics issues, and we propose a classification of Traditional and New Left RLPs. Using cross-national survey data coming from the European Election Studies series and multilevel multinomial models, we also examine the ideological, policy and social differences in the electorates of the various types of RLPs. We find socio-demographic and attitudinal differences between the voters of Traditional and New Left RLPs that are consistent with the programmatic differences of the parties.

This paper evaluates the sampling methods of an international survey, the Immigrant Citizens Survey, which aimed at surveying immigrants from outside the European Union (EU) in 15 cities in seven EU countries. In five countries, no sample frame was available for the target population. Consequently, alternative ways to obtain a representative sample had to be found. In three countries ‘location sampling’ was employed, while in two countries traditional methods were used with adaptations to reach the target population. The paper assesses the main methodological challenges of carrying out a survey among a group of immigrants for whom no sampling frame exists. The samples of the survey in these five countries are compared to results of official statistics in order to assess the accuracy of the samples obtained through the different sampling methods. It can be shown that alternative sampling methods can provide meaningful results in terms of core demographic characteristics although some estimates differ to some extent from the census results.

We provide a systematic assessment of various methods to position political parties on immigration, a policy domain that does not necessarily overlap with left–right and is characterized by varying salience and issue complexity. Manual and automated coding methods drawing on 283 party manifestos are compared – manual sentence-by-sentence coding using a conventional codebook, manual coding using checklists, automated coding using Wordscores, Wordfish and keywords. We also use expert surveys and the Comparative Manifesto Project (CMP), covering the main parties in Austria, Belgium, France, Ireland, the Netherlands, Spain, Switzerland and the United Kingdom, between 1993 and 2013. We find high levels of consistency between expert positioning, manual sentence-by-sentence coding and manual checklist coding and poor or inconsistent results with the CMP, Wordscores, Wordfish and the dictionary approach. An often-neglected method – manual coding using checklists – offers resource efficiency with no loss in validity or reliability.

The existence of a gap between public preferences for more restrictive immigration policies and relatively expansive immigration policy in Western democracies has received considerable attention. Sometimes, this gap has been explained by the nature of immigration policies: dominated by elites while the public remained uninterested. In many countries, however, immigration has gained considerable salience among the public. There are competing expectations and accounts relating to whether policy-makers ignore or follow public demands on immigration. In this article we examine the potential drivers of variations in the opinion-policy gap on immigration in seven countries (1995)(1996)(1997)(1998)(1999)(2000)(2001)(2002)(2003)(2004)(2005)(2006)(2007)(2008)(2009)(2010). We analyse the effect of the politicization of immigration on this opinion-policy gap. The strength of anti-immigrant parties is unrelated to the opinion-policy gap on immigration. The salience of the issue and the intensity of the public debate are associated with the opinion-policy gap, and the combination of negative attitudes with extensive media coverage seems particularly conducive to policy congruence.

Discussions about how public policies can promote more effectively the active engagement and participation of immigrants and their children1 in the political and civic life of the countries where they live are at the core of current scholarly and public debates. In advanced democracies, there are recurrent disputes about the appropriateness and potential benefits or shortcomings of introducing legal reforms that would guarantee that large immigrant populations — and especially their native-born children — are not excluded from the political process and from political representation. As Jones-Correa (1998: 35 and 46ff.) notes, migrants’ political marginalization has several potential negative implications for democratic politics: it undermines the process of democratic representation and accountability, it undervalues the role of active participation in the polity for the construction of the political community, and it perpetuates the view of immigrants and their descendants as outsiders to that community. Furthermore, the negative consequences related to migrants’ political exclusion are likely to spill over to their social and economic integration, as the policy process will fail to address adequately their needs in these domains. Yet there are widely divergent views on what are the most effective ways to promote migrants’ political inclusion, and on when and under what conditions should first-generation immigrants be granted full political rights