Multiple roots of the populist radical right: Support for the Dutch PVV in cities and the countryside

Abstract

Populist radical right parties are considerably more popular in some areas (neighbourhoods, municipalities, regions) than others. They thrive in some cities, in some smaller towns, and in some rural areas, but they are unsuccessful in other cities, small towns, and rural areas. We seek to explain this regional variation by modelling at the individual level how citizens respond to local conditions. We argue that patterns of populist radical right support can be explained by anxiety in the face of social change. However, how social change manifests itself is different in rural and urban areas, so that variations in populist radical right support are rooted in different kinds of conditions. To analyse the effects of these conditions we use unique geo-referenced survey data from the Netherlands collected among a nationwide sample of 8,000 Dutch respondents. Our analyses demonstrate that the presence of immigrants (and particularly increases therein) can explain why populist radical right parties are more popular in some urban areas than in others, but that it cannot explain variation across rural areas. In these areas, local marginalization is an important predictor of support for populist radical right parties. Hence, to understand the support for the populist radical right, the heterogeneity of its electorate should be recognized.

Left behind and united by populism? Populism’s multiple roots in feelings of lacking societal recognition

“…In essence, this is also an argument about perceived societal recognition, albeit of a cultural variety. Finally, the tendency of individuals in rural and declining "left-behind" regions to vote for populists (Broz, Frieden and Weymouth, 2021) may reflect a sense that these places' needs are insufficiently recognized and respected, fueling a rural variety of populist resentment (Cramer, 2016;Harteveld et al, 2021). More broadly, the seemingly contradictory findings in populism research we have cited above can be resolved once we acknowledge that different segments of society feel for different reasons to be denied the recognition they deserve.…”

“…The debates about the reasons for populism's recent upsurge in many established democracies are ongoing. One lingering puzzle common to populist movements is their success in traversing the traditional cleavages of Western societies in which they managed to assemble a diverse coalition of societal groups that cuts across ideological and socio-economic divides (Gidron and Hall, 2017;Damhuis, 2020;Kaltwasser and Hauwaert, 2020;Nachtwey, Schäfer and Frei, 2020;Harteveld et al, 2021). Understanding the commonality that ties together citizens from different backgrounds is thus key to understanding the rise of populism.…”

“…Our synthesis of literature from philosophy, psychology and the social sciences characterizes societal recognition as a fundamental human desire whose thwarting leads to self-defensive reactions with political implications such as populist attitudes. Because there are many ways to the perception of lacking recognition, feeling "left behind" may unite different groups who have been characterized as supporters of populism-people in routine jobs who perceive a lack recognition for the work they do (Sandel, 2021), conservatives who feel alienated by cultural changes in society (Norris and Inglehart, 2019), or those living in "left behind" rural places (Broz, Frieden and Weymouth, 2021;Harteveld et al, 2021). Our empirical analysis tests this proposition of lacking societal recognition as the common cause of populist sentiments in diverse segments of society.…”

Vote metropolitanization after the transnational cleavage and the suburbanization of radical right populism: the cases of London and Rome

“…Nonetheless, in the last years there has been some renewed attention to the spatial polarization of politics and to the local context in analyses of voters' behaviors (Fitzgerald, 2018;Patana, 2020;Harteveld et al, 2021). For instance, Fitzgerald (2018) has unraveled the significant impact of local ties on radical right support, showing that people who are more strongly attached to their localities (at the individual level) and the most cohesive communities (at the community level) are more likely to vote for radical right parties.…”

“…For instance, Emanuele (2018b) explained the results of the 2017 French presidential elections as a 'reactivation' of the 'apparently dormant' urban-rural cleavage. But while the use of traditional analytical categories, such as the 'region' or the 'city-countryside dichotomy', may still be useful in some cases and in some respects (Harteveld et al, 2021), these do not adequately capture the pronounced electoral heterogeneity and polarization within metropolitan areas. Thus, I believe there is a need to shift attention from the classic urban-rural divide to the less investigated innerurban one.…”