Research briefs
Titles and abstracts from the most recent research briefs.
Find out more about our 2024 research briefs theme by reading this introduction to the topic, "Rethinking Progressive Politics Based on Facts Rather than Myths".
The myth of vote losses to the radical right
Tarik Abou-Chadi, Daniel Bischof, Thomas Kurer, Markus Wagner
Abstract
A key myth about social democracy is that its decline is directly related to the rise of the radical right across Europe. Social democrats – so the myth goes – have lost the working class to radical right parties as a result of policy choices on issues such as immigration. This research brief puts this myth to a test and shows that it does not hold up to empirical scrutiny. Using several data sources and research tools we show that social democrats in Western Europe have lost only a small share of their voters to the radical right. At the same time, only few of today’s radical right supporters previously identified with social democracy and only few people consider voting for both a social democratic and a radical right party.
Download - The myth of vote losses to the radical right.
Why the rise of the greens does not threaten the welfare state
Hanna Schwander, Björn Bremer
Abstract
This research brief challenges the myth that the rise of green parties threatens the welfare state. Contrary to popular belief, the study shows that green voters strongly support the welfare state and the welfare state issues are a relevant part of the policy agenda of green parties. The authors argue that the new middle class, which represents the electoral backbone of green parties exhibits left-libertarian values favoring social reciprocity and individual autonomy. Therefore, green voters are as left as social democratic voters and support the redistributive welfare state in equal measures as our results show. Equally, green voters are not willing to trade social consumption against social investment. On the supply side, the study explores green parties' positions and shows that green parties are both welfare-state friendly and increasingly emphasize distributive issues in their electoral platforms. Our findings suggest the potential for new coalitions supporting both socio-cultural inclusion and economic equality in progressive politics.
Download - Why the rise of the greens does not threaten the welfare state.
A progressive service-class coalition? The political differences between the “new” working class and socio-cultural professionals
Macarena Ares
Abstract
Progressive parties face challenges to jointly mobilize “traditional” and “new” left-wing social constituencies. The industrial working class, a traditional left-wing electorate, is in numerical decline. At the same time, socio-cultural professionals (e.g. medical doctors, journalists) are a numerous social class with high support for the left. However, frictions arise when targeting these two groups jointly, because of the culturally authoritarian preferences held by workers and the liberal stances taken by socio-cultural professionals. This brief addresses the myth that this challenge can easily be overcome by directing appeals toward the “new” working class – workers in the service sector. The assumption behind this myth is that service workers and socio-cultural professionals share policy preferences and behavior. This research brief shows that there is no easy solution to build a cross-class coalition because cultural issues also divide service workers and socio-cultural professionals. While these three classes display left-wing allegiances, their affinities are towards different parties. Socio-cultural professionals are more closely aligned with the new left, whereas workers remain closer to social-democratic parties.
Why social democratic parties do not benefit from orthodox fiscal policies
Björn Bremer
Abstract
An important myth about social democratic parties is that they need to support orthodox fiscal policies to increase their economic credibility and electability. Politicians believe that this is the only way to appeal to centrist voters, whom they deem to be fiscally conservative. This research brief challenges this myth and shows that it does not hold up to empirical scrutiny. First, it argues that when social democratic parties support austerity, they turn it into a valence issue and create contradictions within their own economic program. They fail to win the support of voters concerned about government debt while losing the support of their core voters who oppose austerity. Second, it shows that social democratic parties lose electorally when they actually implement austerity. Spending-based consolidations that hurt their key constituencies are especially detrimental; they have contributed to the electoral crisis of social democracy. Therefore, center-left parties should oppose orthodox fiscal policies to both protect voters from the onslaught of austerity and to ensure their own electoral survival.
Download - Why social democratic parties do not benefit from orthodox fiscal policies.
Why Welfare Chauvinism is not a Winning Strategy for the Left
Matthias Enggist
Abstract
Is restricting immigrants’ access to welfare (welfare chauvinism) an electorally winning strategy for left parties? Based on survey data from eight West European countries, we show in this policy brief that this is generally not the case. Welfare chauvinism finds little support among current voters of green, social democratic and radical left parties, as well as among potential left voters, who could be won over from other parties. While the potential of gaining new voters with welfare chauvinism is rather meagre, left parties risk alienating their existing base by adopting welfare chauvinist stances. People who identify as left-wing on average strongly oppose discrimination between immigrants and country nationals and might turn away from a party that outspokenly advocates restricting immigrants’ welfare rights.
Download - Why Welfare Chauvinism is not a Winning Strategy for the Left.
The myth of a divided Left
Tarik Abou-Chadi, Silja Häusermann
Abstract
Commentaries in the media, the public debate, and in politics itself often assert that there is a deep rift that cuts through the progressive field in the early 21st century, dividing middle-class supporters of socio-culturally progressive politics from working-class proponents of economically progressive stances. Therefore, progressive political actors allegedly have to make the hard but inescapable choice between either direction. However, this diagnosis relies on assumptions that are empirically wrong. Based on recent research, we show that there is little empirical evidence in support of a dilemma or rift cutting through the Left. Progressive parties have the potential to form an electoral coalition based on economically left as well as culturally progressive positions. The myth of a divided Left has stood in the way of formulating such an agenda for the next decades.