普鲁士对天主教徒的压迫并不能解释德国激进右翼支持率的空间差异。对哈弗特(2022 年)的批评

IF 2.9 2区 社会学 Q1 POLITICAL SCIENCE Electoral Studies Pub Date : 2024-04-27 DOI:10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102789
Kai Arzheimer, Theresa Bernemann, Timo Sprang
{"title":"普鲁士对天主教徒的压迫并不能解释德国激进右翼支持率的空间差异。对哈弗特(2022 年)的批评","authors":"Kai Arzheimer,&nbsp;Theresa Bernemann,&nbsp;Timo Sprang","doi":"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102789","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><p>A growing literature links contemporary far-right mobilization to the “legacies” of events in the distant past, but often, the effects are small, and their estimates appear to rely on problematic assumptions. We re-analyse Haffert's (2022) study, a key example of this strand of research. Haffert claims that historical political oppression of Catholics in Prussia moderates support for the radical right AfD party among Catholics in contemporary Germany. While the argument itself has intellectual merit, we identify some severe limitations in the empirical strategy. Retesting the study's cross-level interaction hypothesis using more suitable multi-level data and a more appropriate statistical model, we find a modest overall difference in AfD support between formerly Prussian and non-Prussian territories. However, this difference is unrelated to individual Catholic religion or to the contextual presence of Catholics. This contradicts the oppression hypothesis. Our study thus provides another counterpoint to the claim that historical events have strong and long-lasting effects on contemporary support for the radical right. We conclude that simpler explanations for variations in radical right support should be exhausted before resorting to history.</p></div>","PeriodicalId":48188,"journal":{"name":"Electoral Studies","volume":"89 ","pages":"Article 102789"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000477/pdfft?md5=8b0c75faf974eb845135c7c1e0f41c14&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424000477-main.pdf","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Oppression of Catholics in Prussia does not explain spatial differences in support for the radical right in Germany. A critique of Haffert (2022)\",\"authors\":\"Kai Arzheimer,&nbsp;Theresa Bernemann,&nbsp;Timo Sprang\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.electstud.2024.102789\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><p>A growing literature links contemporary far-right mobilization to the “legacies” of events in the distant past, but often, the effects are small, and their estimates appear to rely on problematic assumptions. We re-analyse Haffert's (2022) study, a key example of this strand of research. Haffert claims that historical political oppression of Catholics in Prussia moderates support for the radical right AfD party among Catholics in contemporary Germany. While the argument itself has intellectual merit, we identify some severe limitations in the empirical strategy. Retesting the study's cross-level interaction hypothesis using more suitable multi-level data and a more appropriate statistical model, we find a modest overall difference in AfD support between formerly Prussian and non-Prussian territories. However, this difference is unrelated to individual Catholic religion or to the contextual presence of Catholics. This contradicts the oppression hypothesis. Our study thus provides another counterpoint to the claim that historical events have strong and long-lasting effects on contemporary support for the radical right. We conclude that simpler explanations for variations in radical right support should be exhausted before resorting to history.</p></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":48188,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"volume\":\"89 \",\"pages\":\"Article 102789\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000477/pdfft?md5=8b0c75faf974eb845135c7c1e0f41c14&pid=1-s2.0-S0261379424000477-main.pdf\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Electoral Studies\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000477\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Electoral Studies","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0261379424000477","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

越来越多的文献将当代极右翼的动员与遥远过去事件的 "遗留影响 "联系起来,但这些影响往往很小,而且其估计似乎依赖于有问题的假设。我们重新分析了 Haffert(2022 年)的研究,这是该研究领域的一个重要实例。Haffert 声称,历史上普鲁士对天主教徒的政治压迫缓和了当代德国天主教徒对激进右翼政党 AfD 的支持。虽然这一论点本身有其思想价值,但我们发现其实证策略存在一些严重的局限性。我们使用更合适的多层次数据和更合适的统计模型重新检验了该研究的跨层次互动假设,发现前普鲁士地区和非普鲁士地区的 AfD 支持率总体上存在一定差异。然而,这种差异与个人的天主教宗教信仰或天主教徒的存在背景无关。这与压迫假说相矛盾。因此,我们的研究为历史事件对当代激进右翼支持产生强烈而持久影响的说法提供了另一种反驳。我们的结论是,在诉诸历史之前,应先对激进右翼支持率的变化进行更简单的解释。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
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
Oppression of Catholics in Prussia does not explain spatial differences in support for the radical right in Germany. A critique of Haffert (2022)

A growing literature links contemporary far-right mobilization to the “legacies” of events in the distant past, but often, the effects are small, and their estimates appear to rely on problematic assumptions. We re-analyse Haffert's (2022) study, a key example of this strand of research. Haffert claims that historical political oppression of Catholics in Prussia moderates support for the radical right AfD party among Catholics in contemporary Germany. While the argument itself has intellectual merit, we identify some severe limitations in the empirical strategy. Retesting the study's cross-level interaction hypothesis using more suitable multi-level data and a more appropriate statistical model, we find a modest overall difference in AfD support between formerly Prussian and non-Prussian territories. However, this difference is unrelated to individual Catholic religion or to the contextual presence of Catholics. This contradicts the oppression hypothesis. Our study thus provides another counterpoint to the claim that historical events have strong and long-lasting effects on contemporary support for the radical right. We conclude that simpler explanations for variations in radical right support should be exhausted before resorting to history.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Electoral Studies
Electoral Studies POLITICAL SCIENCE-
CiteScore
3.40
自引率
13.00%
发文量
82
审稿时长
67 days
期刊介绍: Electoral Studies is an international journal covering all aspects of voting, the central act in the democratic process. Political scientists, economists, sociologists, game theorists, geographers, contemporary historians and lawyers have common, and overlapping, interests in what causes voters to act as they do, and the consequences. Electoral Studies provides a forum for these diverse approaches. It publishes fully refereed papers, both theoretical and empirical, on such topics as relationships between votes and seats, and between election outcomes and politicians reactions; historical, sociological, or geographical correlates of voting behaviour; rational choice analysis of political acts, and critiques of such analyses.
期刊最新文献
Does disability affect support for political parties? Economic growth, largest-party vote shares, and electoral authoritarianism Targeting voters online: How parties’ campaigns differ Masking turnout inequality. Invalid voting and class bias when compulsory voting is reinstated Does decentralization boost electoral participation? Revisiting the question in a non-western context
×
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