Policy and Populism: Analysing Support for Die Linke

IF 1.4 3区 社会学 Q2 POLITICAL SCIENCE Political Studies Review Pub Date : 2023-06-09 DOI:10.1177/14789299231177285
Edward Goodger
{"title":"Policy and Populism: Analysing Support for Die Linke","authors":"Edward Goodger","doi":"10.1177/14789299231177285","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Defining ‘radical left’ political actors by their challenge to contemporary economic norms, this article draws the example of Die Linke in Germany and analyses explanations for this party’s support. Two theories are tested. First, the policy-proximity account, building off the Downsian spatial model and tested with three policy dimensions relating to economics, cultural policy, and migration policy. Second, the populism-based account, which defines this as a conflict between ‘the people’ versus ‘elites’. Using German Longitudinal Election Survey data, this article carries out a large-N analysis of support for Die Linke. It uses multiple linear regression to test how far support for this party is explained by proximity between voters and the party, or by levels of populism among voters. Results showed greater support for Die Linke from proximal voters on each dimension; however, highly populist voters were not found to be more supportive of Die Linke. The article concludes in favour of a policy-proximity explanation but suggests the party’s well-established nature may have altered voters’ policy preferences, potentially leaving a reverse causal relationship and leaving in doubt the role of policy-proximity on radical left support.","PeriodicalId":46813,"journal":{"name":"Political Studies Review","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.4000,"publicationDate":"2023-06-09","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Political Studies Review","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/14789299231177285","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Defining ‘radical left’ political actors by their challenge to contemporary economic norms, this article draws the example of Die Linke in Germany and analyses explanations for this party’s support. Two theories are tested. First, the policy-proximity account, building off the Downsian spatial model and tested with three policy dimensions relating to economics, cultural policy, and migration policy. Second, the populism-based account, which defines this as a conflict between ‘the people’ versus ‘elites’. Using German Longitudinal Election Survey data, this article carries out a large-N analysis of support for Die Linke. It uses multiple linear regression to test how far support for this party is explained by proximity between voters and the party, or by levels of populism among voters. Results showed greater support for Die Linke from proximal voters on each dimension; however, highly populist voters were not found to be more supportive of Die Linke. The article concludes in favour of a policy-proximity explanation but suggests the party’s well-established nature may have altered voters’ policy preferences, potentially leaving a reverse causal relationship and leaving in doubt the role of policy-proximity on radical left support.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
政策与民粹主义:对左翼党的支持分析
通过对当代经济规范的挑战来定义“激进左翼”政治行为者,本文以德国的Die Linke为例,分析了对该党支持的解释。对两种理论进行了检验。首先,政策邻近度账户,建立在唐斯空间模型的基础上,并用与经济、文化政策和移民政策相关的三个政策维度进行了测试。其次,基于民粹主义的说法,将其定义为“人民”与“精英”之间的冲突。本文利用德国纵向选举调查数据,对Die Linke的支持度进行了大N分析。它使用多元线性回归来测试选民和政党之间的接近程度或选民中的民粹主义程度对该党的支持程度。结果显示,Die Linke在各个维度上都得到了近端选民的更大支持;然而,高度民粹主义的选民并没有发现更支持Die Linke。这篇文章的结论支持政策接近性的解释,但表明该党既定的性质可能改变了选民的政策偏好,可能留下相反的因果关系,并使人们怀疑政策接近性对激进左翼支持的作用。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Political Studies Review
Political Studies Review POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
4.60
自引率
10.50%
发文量
62
期刊介绍: Political Studies Review provides unrivalled review coverage of new books and literature on political science and international relations and does so in a timely and comprehensive way. In addition to providing a comprehensive range of reviews of books in politics, PSR is a forum for a range of approaches to reviews and debate in the discipline. PSR both commissions original review essays and strongly encourages submission of review articles, review symposia, longer reviews of books and debates relating to theories and methods in the study of politics. The editors are particularly keen to develop new and exciting approaches to reviewing the discipline and would be happy to consider a range of ideas and suggestions.
期刊最新文献
Acupuncture Treatment for Generalized Anxiety Disorder by Activating the Vagus Nerve and Improving Heart-Rate Variability and Heart-Rhythm Coherence, A Case-Series Study. Factions and the Redistributive Effects of Reform in Japan Commissioned Book Review: Patrick Diamond, The British Labour Party in Opposition and Power, 1979–2019: Forward March Halted? Contesting European Union From the ‘Heart of Europe’: A Peculiar Case of Polish Populist Euroscepticism After 2015 Economic Insecurity and the Rise of Anti-Immigrant Sentiments: The Role of Labor Market Risks and Welfare Deservingness Perception
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1