Paying for appeasement: On the moderating role of public subsidies in East Central European party politics

Abstract

Focusing on the relationship between the access of political parties to direct public funding and electoral support for anti-political-establishment (e.g. populist, extremist) parties (APEp), this article tries to fill an important gap in the literature. Whereas previous contributions, mostly focused on the United States or established democracies in Western Europe, have presented contradictory findings, our study of 19 new democracies in East Central Europe clearly shows that the absence of state subsidies for political parties boosts support for those with an anti-political-establishment character. More importantly, and taking into account the minimum legal payout threshold that grants parties access to public subsidies, our results show that the more restrictive the regulations and the greater the difficulties faced by parties in obtaining state help, the higher the support for APEp. Our findings have obvious implications for the development of post-Communist party systems and the future of legislative (party funding) reform in the region.

Direct public funding of political parties: Between proxy measures and hard data

“…While across Western democracies, the degree of state funding of elections was found to boost the electoral support for the radical-right parties (Bichay, 2020), the opposite holds for the new East-European democracies. Easier access to DPF earmarked for campaigning proved to diminish the support for the anti-establishment parties across post-communist polities (Bértoa and Rama, 2021). 2 Despite these divergent findings, the long-term effect of electoral subsidies on party longevity appears to be limited.…”

“…I turn now to the other two aspects of the DPF mechanism – eligibility and allocation rules. While eligibility rules are employed as a substitute for a dichotomous indicator of DPF (Birnir, 2005; Bértoa and Rama, 2021; Casal Bértoa and Spirova, 2017), allocation rules received almost no consideration from the academic community. The lack of attention is somewhat surprising, considering their prominent role in the policymakers’ struggles over the distributional consequences of DPF for party competition.…”

“…2.The differences between Bichay (2020) and Bértoa and Rama (2021) regarding the effect of DPF on radical parties may be due not only to the differences between West and East but also to the different operationalization of DPF. While Bichay relies on the expert scores from the Varieties of Democracies, Bértoa and Rama resort to the pay-out threshold.…”

Supreme Audit Institutions and Sustainability of Public Finance. Links and Evidence along the Economic Cycles

“…Discussions regarding public finances comprise issues such as the reform of public finances [5][6][7], quality of public financial management [8], and public finance sustainability [10]. Studies have reported that less developed economies are more exposed to the risks of short-term budgetary deficits [27].…”

“…Public finances play an important role in ensuring social progress. The literature reports such developments on the subject as the focus on the quality of public finance [2][3][4], public finance reform [5][6][7], the quality of public financial management [8,9], and the sustainability of public finances [10][11][12].…”