Hostname: page-component-7b9c58cd5d-6tpvb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-03-15T13:02:33.919Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Choosing whom to betray: populist right-wing parties, welfare state reforms and the trade-off between office and votes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  17 April 2014

Alexandre Afonso*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Economy, King’s College London, London, UK
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

This article analyses the impact of populist right-wing parties (PRWPs) on welfare state reforms in Western Europe in the light of the trade-off that they face between office and votes. On the one hand, PRWPs appeal to traditionally left-leaning blue-collar ‘insiders’ supportive of social insurance schemes. On the other hand, they have only been able to take part in government as junior coalition partners with liberal or conservative parties who are more likely to retrench these very same welfare programmes. In this context, the article argues that these parties have to choose between betraying their electorate (and losing votes), and betraying their coalition partners (and losing office). When they choose office, it enables welfare state retrenchment by allowing their coalition partners to curtail left-wing opposition, but entails high electoral costs for PRWPs. When they choose votes, it generates deadlock and potentially jeopardizes their participation in government. The paper draws on a comparative analysis of pension reforms during three periods of government participation of PRWPs: the Schüssel I and II cabinets in Austria (2000–06), the Rutte I cabinet in the Netherlands (2010–12) and three pension reforms in Switzerland between 1995 and 2010. The analysis draws on original primary material and interviews.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© European Consortium for Political Research 2014 

Populist right-wing parties (PRWPs) and the welfare state

One of the most important developments in West European party systems over the last thirty years has probably been the emergence and ‘mainstreaming’ of PRWPs (Mudde, Reference Mudde2007, Reference Mudde2013). Kriesi et al. (Reference Kriesi, Grande, Lachat, Dolezal, Bornschier and Frey2008: 19) consider these parties that champion immigration control, tough law and order policies and a critique of the political establishment as the driving force behind the current transformation of West European party systems. In countries such as Austria, Switzerland, Denmark, Italy, the Netherlands, or Norway, PRWPs are no longer a protest force only, but have become pivotal players in the building of parliamentary majorities (De Lange, Reference De Lange2012). While a now substantial body of literature has delved into the ideology of these parties (Mudde, Reference Mudde2007), the factors influencing their success (Bornschier, Reference Bornschier2010), their electorate (Ivarsflaten, Reference Ivarsflaten2005; Oesch, Reference Oesch2008) and their impact on other parties (Bale, Reference Bale2003; Van Spanje, Reference Van Spanje2010), few studies have sought to assess their influence on policymaking, and more specifically on welfare state reforms. The few works on their policy impact have focused on the domains that they are considered to ‘own’, such as immigration and law and order (Schain, Reference Schain2006; Akkerman, Reference Akkerman2012). In contrast, very little attention has been paid to the way they may enable change in other domains of government intervention, notably by changing coalition opportunities for other parties.

This article investigates the impact of PRWPs on welfare reforms in Western Europe with a comparative case study of pension policymaking in Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands. The main argument of the article is that PRWPs face a trade-off between office and votes when it comes to welfare state reforms, and that their policy impact depends on how they prioritize these two objectives. On the one hand, PRWPs appeal to a constituency of traditionally left-leaning blue-collar ‘insiders’ (Häusermann and Walter, Reference Häusermann and Walter2010: 144) generally supportive of social insurance schemes, such as public pensions. On the other hand, PRWPs have only been able – as far as Western Europe is concerned – to take part in government as junior coalition partners with liberal or conservative parties who are more likely to retrench these very same welfare programmes (Giger and Nelson, Reference Giger and Nelson2011). In this context, the article argues that parties have to choose between betraying their electorate (and losing votes), and betraying their coalition partners (and losing office). When they choose office, it enables welfare state retrenchment by allowing their coalition partners to curtail left-wing opposition, but entails high electoral costs for PRWPs. When they choose votes, it may jeopardize their participation in government by blocking the retrenchment plans of their coalition partners.

The article contributes both to the literature on PRWPs and on welfare state reforms. First, while research on PRWPs has shown that socio-economic factors do not figure at the centre of the electoral platforms of PRWPs or in the preferences of their voters, notably because they are keen to ‘blur’ their position to appeal to a wider range of voters (Rovny, Reference Rovny2013), this article argues that socio-economic policies can become issues of utmost importance once PRWPs are in office because their position on these domains becomes much more difficult to conceal. Second, recent scholarship on the welfare state is increasingly moving away from the idea that welfare states are ‘immovable objects’ and emphasizes how partisanship and party coalitions can enable change (Häusermann et al., Reference Häusermann, Picot and Geering2013). If one considers that party politics and coalitions are major factors in explaining welfare state reforms, the new coalition alternatives created by the rise of PRWPs can potentially influence policies in this domain as well.

The article is structured as follows. The first section outlines the dilemma between office and votes that PRWPs have to face, and proposes a number of hypotheses about their impact derived from party strategies. After outlining the methodology, the article tests the argument in a comparative case study analysis of Switzerland, Austria, and the Netherlands drawing on a variety of primary and secondary sources, including interviews. The article concludes with a discussion of findings and insights for further research.

Office, votes and policy: the dilemma of PRWPs and welfare state reforms

Since the mid-1980s, PRWPs have been the fastest growing party family in Western Europe. These parties combining nativism, populism, and authoritarianismFootnote 1 have emerged as a significant electoral and parliamentary force in a number of countries (Mudde, Reference Mudde2007). From 9.3% in 1990, the average share of seats of these parties in the parliaments of Switzerland, Austria, Belgium, the Netherlands, Denmark, and Norway had jumped to 17% in 2013. As of 2013, their share of parliamentary seats had peaked at 27.8% in AustriaFootnote 2 (2013), 30.1% in Switzerland (2007) and 16% in the Netherlands (2010). While they were first ostracized by other parties, PRWPs have progressively acquired a more respectable status, and have either taken part directly in government as coalition partners, or have struck agreements to provide support to minority governments (De Lange, Reference De Lange2012).

Although a substantial body of research has analysed the ideology and positions of PRWPs, few works have analysed their policy impact, and none so far has focused on welfare reforms. Schain (Reference Schain2006) looks at their direct and indirect impact on immigration policy, and Zaslove (Reference Zaslove2004) assesses how the ideologies of the FPÖ and the Lega Nord have influenced immigration policy reforms towards more restriction. Whereas these studies mostly assess how the ideas of these parties are taken up by ruling parties mostly for electoral purposes, they do not deal with how PRWPs directly negotiate policy within government, and how they trade off their preferences for policy, office, and votes (Strom, Reference Strom1990). Akkerman and De Lange (Reference Akkerman and De Lange2012) analyse the participation of PRWPs in government, but focus on their impact on immigration policy, assuming that this is the foremost issue that these parties care about. In many ways, this assumption is in line with the statement of Mudde (Reference Mudde2007) arguing that the core concern of these parties is nativism, socio-economic issues being at best subordinate.

While it is clear that immigration control and law and order have been the main ‘selling points’ of PRWPs, there are good reasons to believe that their policy influence is not restricted to these issues alone, especially once they come to office. First, the logic of policymaking is different from the logic of electoral politics. While it may be easier to conceal their position in electoral campaigns and focus on specific issues that they ‘own’, it becomes more difficult to do so once in office, when explicit parliamentary support has to be given or withdrawn to government proposals. If a PRWP takes part in a government coalition, it must explicitly give or withdraw its support to the policies of other parties in the coalition. Second, PRWPs may find it difficult to gain credibility if they are perceived as ‘one-issue’ parties. As one of the core issues of government intervention, it is reasonable to assume that welfare is one issue on which PRWPs will have to position themselves once in government.

So far, the role of PRWPs in welfare politics has only been marginally tackled in the literature. Kitschelt and McGann (Reference Kitschelt and McGann1995: 257–273) analysed how the welfare state may structure anti-immigration sentiments and the success of PRWPs, and Swank and Betz (Reference Swank and Betz2003) seek to assess if the welfare state tempers support for right-wing populist parties. As the participation of PRWPs in government has spread, we now have comparative evidence to assess the impact of PRWP on the welfare state, instead of the other way around. In this article, I argue that this role can be best understood in the light of the particularly high ‘costs of governing’ that these parties face (Van Spanje, Reference Van Spanje2011), due to the trade-off between the preferences of their electorate and those of their potential coalition partners. For this, I draw on Strom’s (Reference Strom1990) now classic theory of party goals highlighting the trade-offs between office, policy and votes. The main idea is that PRWPs cannot have them all, and their impact on welfare reforms depends on how they prioritize these goals.

Votes

One of the main characteristics of the electorate of PRWPs in Western Europe has been its strong – and increasing – working class profile (Arzheimer, Reference Arzheimer2012). Lower-skilled private sector workers have become the core clientele of PRWPs in Austria, Belgium, France, Denmark, and Norway (Oesch, Reference Oesch2008: 349–350). While the ‘petite bourgeoisie’ constituted the core of their electorate in Switzerland and Italy, many indicators point to the working class component as the main factor of growth in these countries as well (Häusermann and Walter, Reference Häusermann and Walter2010). In Switzerland, 42% of voters in the lowest income bracket (below 3000 CHF/month) voted for the SVP in the 2011 elections, which represented a 15% overrepresentation in relation to the average (Lutz, Reference Lutz2012: 18). In the Netherlands, 19% of people with lower-level vocational training voted for the PVV in 2010, while only 3% of people with a higher education degree did so (12% for the whole electorate) (CBS, 2011). With 34% of votes, the FPÖ was similarly strongly overrepresented among Austrian blue-collar workers in the 2013 elections (Der Standard, 2013). This has led a number of authors to present these parties as the new working-class parties (Arzheimer, Reference Arzheimer2012).

More precisely, a number of socio-economic characteristics of PRWP voters correspond to the idea of low-skilled labour market ‘insiders’ first outlined by (Rueda, Reference Rueda2005; Häusermann et al., Reference Häusermann, Picot and Geering2013: 229). Drawing on the Swiss case, (Häusermann and Walter, Reference Häusermann and Walter2010: 157) show that the SVP tends to represent traditionally left-leaning low-skilled workers in secure employment, such as blue-collar male workers from the private sector and low-skilled workers in sheltered professions. This can notably be seen in the education and gender characteristics of the PRWP electorate. First, PRWPs tend to appeal to workers with vocational training but not necessarily individuals with only elementary schooling: they claim to protect those who have something to lose. Hence, in Austria and the Netherlands, voters of the FPÖ (in 2013), and the PVV (in 2010) were overrepresented among people with a vocational training degree, but were underrepresented among people with only elementary schooling (CBS, 2011; Der Standard, 2013). Second, there is a persisting gender gap in radical right voting; men are systematically overrepresented in their electorate (Mudde, Reference Mudde2007: 90–118; Immerzeel et al., Reference Immerzeel, Coffé and Van der Lippe2013). Generally speaking, the PRWP electorate tends to be constituted by social groups who are typically protected by classic social insurance schemes in Bismarckian welfare systems, and who may be afraid to extend these rights to outsider groups, such as immigrants and women. The ‘welfare chauvinist’ attitude is probably the most characteristic expression of this, but is also consistent with the advocacy of a traditional ‘male breadwinner’ model of society whereby social insurance schemes protect primarily the core male workforce. As a whole, this electorate can be expected to defend the welfare status quo (Häusermann et al. Reference Häusermann, Picot and Geering2013: 229).

The extent to which this socio-economic profile influences party positions has been disputed. Kitschelt and McGann (Reference Kitschelt and McGann1995) pointed to a realignment of policy preferences of the working class, especially in the private sector, towards more free-market policies. The ‘winning formula’ of PRWPs was hence believed to be a combination of neoliberalism and authoritarianism. However, subsequent analyses challenged this statement, showing that there is no demand for neoliberal policies from working class voters of PRWPs (Ivarsflaten, Reference Ivarsflaten2005; Arzheimer, Reference Arzheimer2012). The main reason behind this is that economic issues tend to be less important than cultural issues in the decision to vote for PRWPs. Petit bourgeois and working class voters tend to agree on the value (anti-immigration) dimension, but disagree on the economic dimension. They vote for the same parties because the salience of the economic dimension in their voting decision is low (Ivarsflaten, Reference Ivarsflaten2005). Oesch (Reference Oesch2008) similarly showed that the identity dimension was more important for working class voters than the economic dimension.

The fact that cultural issues tend to be more important for their voters does not mean that socio-economic issues can be totally ignored by party elites. In other words, it is difficult to assume that PRWPs can get away with supporting policies – even indirectly – that harm the economic interests of their core electorate even if they get what they want in terms of immigration control. If they really want to maximize their vote share, PRWPs should defend the interests of their clientele of insiders by defending the welfare status quo (Häusermann et al., Reference Häusermann, Picot and Geering2013: 229). This can take the form of welfare chauvinist policies that reconcile the protection of acquired rights with a nationalistic dimension, but also by opposing attempts to retrench these programmes. If they are perceived to – even passively – support retrenchment, PRWPs may be more heavily sanctioned by voters. From a vote-seeking point of view, it can therefore be hypothesized that the participation of PRWPs in government should block the retrenchment of welfare programmes.

Office

The problem with the defence of the pro-welfare, pro-insider preferences of PRWP voters is that these parties have only been able to take part in government with Christian-Democratic, Liberal or Conservative parties who, on the contrary, can claim credit for retrenching the welfare state (Bale, Reference Bale2003: 69; Giger and Nelson, Reference Giger and Nelson2011). Hence, setting aside a government coalition between the Austrian FPÖ and the social-democratic SPÖ in 1983, at a time when the FPÖ was still a liberal party comparable to the German FDP, PRWPs have taken part in government as junior partners with the Christian-Democratic ÖVP in Austria (2000–06), the Christian-Democrats (CDA), and Liberals (VVD) in the Netherlands (2002–03), the conservatives in Norway (2013–) and three government coalitions led by Silvio Berlusconi’s Forza Italia, then PdL in Italy (1994–95; 2001–06; 2008–13). Besides, they have provided support to minority governments formed by the Liberals and Conservatives in Denmark (2001–07), the Christian Democrats and the Liberals in the Netherlands (2010–12), and Christian Democrats, Liberals and the Conservatives in Norway (2001–05) (De Lange, Reference De Lange2012: 900). Switzerland is a slightly different case because the same parties, including the Swiss People’s Party, have been in government since 1959 and the alliances that matter are formed around individual legislative proposals, but analyses of parliamentary behaviour show that alliances between SVP, Christian Democrats and Liberals are by far the most frequent, while alliances between SVP and social democrats are extremely rare (Schwarz, Reference Schwarz2009: 50).

Given that they cannot govern alone, PRWPs should seek to minimize their policy differences with their potential coalition partners in order to maximize their office-seeking opportunities (Häusermann et al., Reference Häusermann, Picot and Geering2013: 231). In this framework, their participation should provide improved coalition alternatives for other centre or right-wing parties, thereby facilitating welfare state retrenchment. Giger and Nelson (Reference Giger and Nelson2011) recently showed that Liberal and Christian-Democratic parties can actually gain votes when they retrench, and therefore have an incentive to do so while in office. From a strict office-seeking perspective, the participation of PRWPs can therefore be assumed to foster welfare retrenchment by expanding the strength of pro-retrenchment right-wing party blocs (Bale, Reference Bale2003). Considering the strong working-class voter base of PRWPs mentioned above, alliances with PRWPs are particularly expedient for centre-right parties because they concretely convert potential left-wing working-class votes into actual right-wing parliamentary support (Bale, Reference Bale2003; Heinisch, Reference Heinisch2003: 103–104; De Lange, Reference De Lange2012: 910). PRWP can accept to take part in government in spite of this trade-off because of the specific characteristics of coalition formation in centre-right/radical right coalitions. Centre-right parties typically provide concessions to PRWPs in immigration control or law and order (the issues PRWPs ‘own’, and about which right-wing parties have converged anyway), in exchange for more leeway in economic and social policies. Because immigration is the issue which matters the most for PRWP voters, they can bet on the fact that they will not be held fully accountable for government policies in other domains. From this point of view, and assuming that PRWPs are primarily interested in immigration control, they are a more expedient coalition partner for right-wing parties than, say, social-democrats because they may leave them a bigger margin of manoeuvre in the welfare domain. If they focus on office-seeking strategies, PRWP participation in government should therefore enable welfare retrenchment.

Policy

If preferences for immigration control unite PRWPs across different countries, economic, and social policies tend to divide them. In the framework of Kitschelt and McGann’s ‘winning formula’ outlined above, welfare retrenchment was the most likely policy position. For parties who opposed corporatism and the political establishment, free-market liberalism could potentially offer ‘the tantalising prospect of weakening existing power arrangements in […] organised market economies with their cosy ties between mainstream political parties, labour market associations and economic elites’ (Heinisch, Reference Heinisch2003: 96). Later on, however, De Lange (Reference De Lange2007) has shown that the socio-economic policy agenda of many of these parties had shifted to the centre, and Mudde (Reference Mudde2007: 119–137) argues that their economic agenda is diverse and ultimately subordinated to their nativist goals. More recently, Rovny (Reference Rovny2013) has ultimately questioned the usefulness of determining the economic policy positioning of PRWPs in the first place, because these parties are keen on blurring their position in order to appeal to different categories of voters with conflicting economic preferences.

Building on this, it is difficult to draw clear hypotheses about the impact of PRWPs on welfare state reforms from a policy-seeking perspective; this is why they have been labelled as ‘chameleons’ parties. Here, I assume that their policy position about welfare is ultimately subordinated to either office- or vote-seeking strategies. Since economic values are not the primary reason why workers vote for them, party elites may enjoy a greater leeway in formulating party policy in this domain, or so they think. It must be kept in mind that party elites act in a context of limited information as to the electoral consequences of their actions, making it difficult to make ‘rational’ decisions. As far as a common set of policy positions can be expected, they can be expected to champion policies which protect ‘deserving’ welfare recipients and consent to retrenchment in domains where recipients are perceived as ‘undeserving’ (Van Oorschot, Reference Van Oorschot2006). This means status quo for their core clientele, and consenting to retrenchment for ‘outsiders’. This is important in the context of recent welfare state reforms in Europe which combine cost-containment and some form of ‘modernization’ targeted at labour market ‘outsiders’, such as enhanced gender equality, childcare or modified eligibility criteria to accommodate atypical work trajectories. According to Häusermann (Reference Häusermann2010), these types of ‘modernization compromises’ have played a prominent role in pension reforms in a number of countries. Clearly, the ‘pro-insider’ agenda of PRWPs undermines the ‘modernization’ component of this type of reforms.

Cases and methods

The empirical section of this paper draws on a comparative case study analysis of pension reforms in Austria, Switzerland, and the Netherlands during three periods of government participation of PRWPs: the Schüssel I and II cabinets in Austria (2000–06), the Rutte I cabinet in the Netherlands (2010–12) and three pension reforms in Switzerland: the 10th (1995), 11th (first attempt, 2003) and 11th (second attempt, 2010) revisions of state pensions (AHV/AVS). I use a most-similar systems design where a number of scope conditions (consensus democracy; Bismarckian welfare system; government participation of PRWPs) are kept constant, but where both the independent (party strategy) and the dependent variable (impact on welfare reform) are allowed to vary. There are a number of reasons why negotiation democracies and Bismarckian systems are appropriate cases. First, besides the fact that proportional representation makes it easier for new parties to make their way into parliament, negotiation democracies are also particularly vulnerable to populist critiques. Since decision making in these countries entails relatively opaque negotiations and compromise-building between parties and organized interests, populist appeals against a ‘cartel of elites’ have been a particularly fruitful strategy for radical right parties (Papadopoulos, Reference Papadopoulos2005; Hakhverdian and Koop, Reference Hakhverdian and Koop2007).

Second, Bismarckian welfare systems are characterized by an ‘insider-outsider’ divide which generates a potential for political mobilization along these lines (Swank and Betz, Reference Swank and Betz2003: 224). In this context, it makes sense to analyse the impact of PRWPs in consensus democracies, where they can actually take part in government, and Bismarckian welfare systems, where the insider/outsider divide structures welfare state reforms (Häusermann, Reference Häusermann2010). These should be considered as the scope conditions of the analysis. As the focus of the study is still exploratory, I do not produce explicit hypotheses on differences between countries. Variation can take place as much within countries (across time) as across countries. Pensions are analysed as a case in point because they represent the typical ‘traditional’ social insurance scheme which PRWP voters can be reasonably expected to be attached to. By contrast to beneficiaries of other social schemes, elderly people are uniformly seen as the most ‘deserving’ welfare recipients across European countries (Van Oorschot, Reference Van Oorschot2006). Agendas of reform are also fairly comparable across countries, with the issue of the age of retirement figuring prominently in the three countries analysed here. Vote-seeking strategies are defined as the expressed will to satisfy the preferences of the electorate in the domain of welfare, while office-seeking strategies translate into a will to accommodate coalition partners. I define retrenchment as net projected cuts in pension expenditure, essentially through increases in the retirement age.

The analysis draws on a variety of primary and secondary sources. First, I reconstructed reforms and party positions drawing on a media analysis of at least one quality newspaper in each country (the NRC Handelsblad in the Netherlands, Der Standard in Austria, and the Neue Zürcher Zeitung in Switzerland) (see online methodological appendix for details), as well as party documents available on the internet, and parliamentary debates. Second, I used material from 13 interviews conducted between 2007 and 2013 with actors from political parties, interest groups and ministries.Footnote 3 As noted by De Lange and Art (Reference De Lange and Art2011: 1230), access to party elites of PRWPs is fairly difficult for researchers; this was possible in the Swiss and Dutch case, but not in the Austrian case. As the participation in government of the Austrian FPÖ dates back further, this case analysis relies more on secondary literature. In each case study, I present evidence of the trade-off emphasized in the theoretical section.

Austria: from retrenchment to the ‘Social-Patriotic Party’ (2000–06)

In the mid-1990s, the Austrian grand coalition constituted by the SPÖ and the ÖVP proposed a programme of fiscal consolidation which involved a number of cuts in the pension system, for instance through actuarial reductions in early retirement. Jörg Haider’s FPÖ, then in the opposition, spearheaded criticism to this measure, denouncing it as ‘unsocial’ and ‘irresponsible’ (Schludi, Reference Schludi2005: 170). Eventually, a large part of savings measures were watered down due to the resistance of trade unions, who yielded significant influence within the SPÖ. Along similar lines, attempts to increase the early retirement age or increases in the minimum contribution time were blocked in the second half of the 1990s. In 1996, the government commissioned a report on pension reform which proposed a series of far-reaching measures to ensure the financial sustainability of the system, such as a change in the reference salary for the calculation of pensions (from the best 15 to the best 20 years), cuts for people retiring before the mandatory age, a new adjustment formula, and an extension of pension coverage (Schludi, Reference Schludi2005: 175). After vivid opposition from the unions again, only a substantially watered-down version of the reform was passed in 1997. By the late 1990s, it had become clear for the ÖVP that the kind of far-reaching reforms they wanted to pass could simply not be pushed through in a grand coalition with the SPÖ and their links with the unions. In this context, an alliance with the FPÖ could be an opportunity to curtail the power of unions. Even if the FPÖ had a strong working-class base and claimed to represent the ‘little man’, it also advocated lower taxes and deregulation in a way that could appeal to the ÖVP. In the run-up the 1999 elections, Haider increasingly sought to appear as a credible coalition partner for the ÖVP (Luther, Reference Luther2011: 458). Hence, he could potentially act as a support force for retrenchment for the ÖVP.

After the 1999 elections, the ÖVP negotiated a coalition agreement with the FPÖ, who had even outvoted the ÖVP by a few votes. The ÖVP–FPÖ coalition that entered office in 2000 adopted a resolutely more adversarial stance in the domain of welfare reform, and put cost containment at the forefront of its social policy agenda (Obinger and Talos, Reference Obinger and Talos2006). The coalition agreement present by the ÖVP and the FPÖ notably contained an increase of 1.5 years in the age of early retirement for men and women, an increase in the statutory age of retirement for public employees, increased penalties for people retiring sooner than the statutory age of 60 for women and 65 for men, and reforms of widows’ pensions which would remove the lower threshold for benefits (Regierungsprogramm, 2000: 23–24; Schludi, Reference Schludi2005: 178). For the FPÖ, an important point was to curtail the traditional system of corporatist concertation between the two big parties and the social partners, from which it had been completely excluded (Interview 7; Interview 8). The FPÖ notably tried to condition its support to the pension reform to a 40% reduction in the compulsory levy for the chamber of labour, a demand eventually refused by the ÖVP (Schludi, Reference Schludi2005: 180). Finally, an extension of entitlement to severance pay, with the option for all employees to convert it into an individual pension, was a first step towards a fully funded capitalized pension scheme (Schludi, Reference Schludi2005: 182).

While the coalition between the ÖVP and the FPÖ managed to overcome the power of trade unions and pursue a number of retrenchment reforms which would have been impossible in a grand coalition, the electoral impact of these reforms would be significant for the FPÖ. The party lost a string of regional elections after it came to power, which could be interpreted as the consequence of the series of retrenchment reforms it had supported and which hit directly its own electoral clientele of blue-collar workers, many of which returned to the social democrats (Heinisch, Reference Heinisch2003: 110). This caused significant internal strife which would eventually lead many ministers to resign, and the fall of the government. New elections were called in November 2002. These did not change the coalition in power (although its majority was reduced by seven seats), but did change the power configuration therein: the ÖVP jumped from 3rd to 1st place and increased its score by 15%. It gained 27 seats whereas the FPÖ lost 34 seats and two-thirds of its votes. Faced with a harsh defeat, the FPÖ sought to appeal to working-class voters by calling for a 1000 euro minimum wage and tax reductions for low-income earners (Muller et al., Reference Muller, Plasser and Ulram2004: 164).

In April 2003, another far-reaching pension reform was initiated by the cabinet. Retrenchment measures this time included the staged abolition of the early retirement scheme, increased financial penalties for each gap year in contributions, a lower conversion rate for each year of contribution, and a change in the mode of calculation whereby pensions would no longer be determined by the best 20 years of employment, but by the whole working career (Eironline, 2003). As could be expected, these measures yielded formidable protests from trade unions, who organized the biggest wave of strikes since the Second World War, but also within the FPÖ itself, which had become aware of the potential damage of retrenchment reforms for its own electoral standing (DerStandard.at, 2003b). In May 2003, Jörg Haider, who was no longer the party leader but still counted on a number of trustworthy MPs, threatened to withdraw support for the coalition if adaptations to the government pension plans were not made, notably to spare pensions below 1000 EUR (Der Standard, 2003b; Wirtschaftsblatt, 2003). In an interview with Der Standard, he notably argued that the series of electoral defeats that the party had undergone were due to the neoliberal policies pushed by the Minister of Finance from his own party, Karl-Heinz Grasser, and his ‘zero-deficit fetishism’. Retrenchment measures such as the taxation of accident benefits or the pension reform, Haider argued, were too much for the ‘little people’ who constituted the party’s electoral base (DerStandard.at, 2003a). The FPÖ Minister for social affairs, and Vice-Chancellor, Herbert Haupt, also proposed to hold a popular referendum on the reform, which was a way to undermine it in the light of its strong unpopularity (Der Standard, 2003c). Haider even started negotiations with the SPÖ leader Alfred Gusenbauer to block the reform (Der Standard, 2003a). Eventually, the reform went though with a number of slight adaptations and was supported by both parties (Schludi, Reference Schludi2005: 188). However, during this process, the FPÖ used a number of blockade strategies to temper it, MPs in both the lower and upper chamber threatening to block the reform if a softening of cuts was not achieved (Luther, Reference Luther2011: 464–465).

After that, Haider advocated the possibility for workers in strenuous jobs to retire before 60 (Der Standard, 2004). In 2005, internal conflicts with the FPÖ led to the creation of the BZÖ, whose members stayed in government while the remaining FPÖ, now led by H.-C. Strache, joined the opposition. Haider, now leader of the BZÖ, advocated an increase in pensions in spite of the harsh cuts that his party had supported until then (Der Standard, 2006). In the light of the internal struggles which had taken place within its coalition partner and its new opposition against retrenchment, the ÖVP ruled out another coalition with the BZÖ or FPÖ, and chose to engage in a new grand coalition with the social democrats instead after the 2006 elections. Since then, the FPÖ has reoriented its agenda towards a more interventionist agenda ‘targeted at blue-collar workers and welfare recipients’ in terms of welfare policies, along welfare chauvinist lines (Luther, Reference Luther2009: 1052), re-labelling itself the ‘social-national party’ (Soziale Heimatpartei). It notably advocated policies such as payments to compensate pensioners for inflation or reducing VAT on fuel, medication and food (FPÖ, 2008: 7–8).

The Netherlands: defending ‘Henk and Ingrid’ (2010–12)

In October 2009, the Dutch CDA/PvdA/ChristenUnie cabinet led by Jan-Pieter Balkenende announced that it had reached an agreement about an increase in the retirement age from 65 to 66 in 2020, and then to 67 in 2025 (NRC Handelsblad, 2009c). Meanwhile, the right-wing populist PVV was now perceived as a possible government party in the light of its very good score in the 2009 European parliament elections (17%). A poll conducted in 2010 showed that 86% of PVV voters were opposed to an increase of the retirement age to 67, while 41% of CDA and 43% of VVD voters supported it. In an interview with the Telegraaf, the PVV leader Geert Wilders described this measure as ‘asocial’, and retiring at 65 was a ‘non-negotiable’ issue for the PVV should the party take part in future coalition talks (De Telegraaf, 2009). Eventually, the increase in the age of retirement proved to be a much disputed issue even within government parties, and especially the PvdA. As two-thirds of its voters were unconvinced, some backbenchers followed the lead of trade unions in opposing the reform (NRC Handelsblad, 2009b). Internal controversies led to a standstill.

In February 2010, the CDA-PvdA-ChristenUnie cabinet fell due to disagreements on the Dutch engagement in Afghanistan, triggering new elections to be held in June and blocking pension reforms further. As the prospect of its participation in government was reinforced by very favourable polls, Wilders showed a renewed readiness to cooperate with other parties in a number of domains, and sought to demonstrate that the PVV could be a credible coalition partner. While presenting its electoral programme for the Reference Nai, Lloren and Gavilanes2010 elections, Wilders declared that the party was ready to support a minority right-wing cabinet should the PVV not be able to agree on a government programme, and possibly make concessions on a number of policy issues (NRC Handelsblad, 2010e, h). However, the party stated explicitly in its electoral programme that only one issue remained a ‘breaking point’ in eventual cabinet talks: the preservation of the retirement age at 65 (PVV, 2010: 21). Interview partners pointed out that poll results, and the increasing perception that the PVV was competing for votes with the radical-left Socialistische Partij, were the primary driver of this stance (Interview 12; Interview 13). Wilders himself, as a former VVD member, was more of a classical-liberal orientation, and the position of the PVV on welfare was clearly part of a vote-seeking strategy. In the party programme, it showed a resolute ambition to defend the main features of the Dutch welfare state, potentially threatened by mass immigration. Hence, it aimed to change a situation where ‘Henk and Ingrid pay for Ali and Fatima’ (PVV, 2010: 5) by restricting the payment of social transfers, especially child benefits, to people living abroad (PVV, 2010: 23). Besides, it opposed the flexibilization of employment protection and the retrenchment of unemployment benefits (PVV, 2010: 21).

Mark Rutte’s Liberal VVD was the rising force in the run-up to the elections. The Christian-Democratic CDA, who had led the government under the three previous cabinets, was substantially weakened. The question of fiscal consolidation was one of the leading issues of the electoral campaign, and the VVD strongly profiled itself as the champion of deficit reduction, with an electoral programme titled ‘putting the business in order’ (VVD, 2010). Its socio-economic programme was in sharp contrast with that of the PVV. In particular, the spending cuts provided for in the VVD programme were about ten times bigger than those of the PVV, a significant part of which being accounted for by the increase in the age of retirement (CPB, 2010: 23). In spite of these divergences, it also advocated a tightening in immigration policy which could be reconciled with the PVV agenda (VVD, 2010: 6).

At the elections held in June 2010, the VVD came first with 31 seats in the lower chamber, one seat ahead of Job Cohen’s PvdA. The CDA lost 20 seats, while the PVV gained 15, coming third with the best score in its history. As the leader of the first party, Mark Rutte was charged with forming a new government. The day after its electoral triumph, Wilders interestingly announced that the PVV’s only ‘breaking point’ in coalition negotiations was no longer a breaking point, and that he would be ready to abandon retirement at 65 if this was a condition for the participation of the PVV in government (NRC Handelsblad, 2010a). While a number of coalition options with other parties were explored, these were ruled out because of major disagreements about the extent of budget cuts. While the direct participation of the PVV in government was first considered possible, internal opposition within the CDA, the other likely coalition partner, made this solution unviable. Wilders himself was sceptical about leaving the opposition, but there was strong internal pressure to deliver on electoral promises (Interview 12). A particularly tricky issue within the negotiations was the wide differences between the extent of budget cuts that the VVD and the CDA wanted to push through in relation to the PVV agenda. The PVV had based its socio-economic programme on the defence of acquired rights, and its socio-economic agenda was not far apart from the SP. In this context, some commentators argued that the PVV was the only ‘hope for the left’ in dampening the austerity drive pushed by the VVD (NRC Handelsblad, 2010d). After a number of long and protracted negotiation rounds, however, it became clear that the PVV would have to ‘throw its socio-economic agenda overboard’ to take part in government (NRC Handelsblad, 2010b). As pointed out by a member of the PVV coalition negotiation team (Interview 13), the PVV did not seek large concessions in the area of welfare, partly because welfare was not its most important issue, and partly because Wilders himself did not support welfare protection in the first place. It was essentially an electoral strategy (Interview 12; Interview 13). However, it did not commit to support an increase in the age of retirement in the light of its previous electoral promises.

Eventually an agreement was found between the CDA and the VVD about a government programme, and a ‘support programme’ (gedoogakkoord) was agreed between the PVV and the other parties. As a whole, this was considered a fragile arrangement from the start. Together, the VVD, the CDA, and the PVV commanded the minimum possible majority in the lower chamber, with 76 seats, and only a minority in the Eerste Kamer, where the agreement of other parties was necessary. The support programme included a series of detailed measures about immigration, public safety, health care for the elderly, and a short general statement about budget balance, but with no explicit commitment on the part of the PVV towards socio-economic policy (Rijksoverheid, 2010a). The age of retirement only figured in the coalition agreement between the VVD and the CDA, whereby it would be raised not to 67 but to 66 years in 2020, following the guidelines of an agreement that social partners had found in the run-up to the elections (Rijksoverheid, 2010b: 43). Thereafter, the government committed to elaborate a solution to tie the age of retirement to life expectancy. The amount of basic pension benefits was to be linked to real wages and no longer to collectively labour agreements, resulting in a real increase in pensions for low wages (NRC Handelsblad, 2010c). In the light of the promises made by Wilders about this non-negotiable issue, this was a concession made to the PVV, since both the CDA and the VVD supported the increase to 67 (NRC Handelsblad, 2010f).

The tensions between the cabinet and the PVV about pensions emerged soon after. The PVV announced that it did not see the need for a reform of the pension system beyond 66, while the VVD Minister for Social Affairs argued that the further adaptation of the system, notably with an increase of the age of retirement to 67, was unavoidable. In the Spring of 2011, the cabinet submitted a law proposal to increase the retirement age to 66 by 2020 while social partners were again negotiating on this issue. It announced that it would seek support from other parties if the PVV stuck to its position (NRC Handelsblad, 2010g). In June 2011, the cabinet signed an agreement (pensioenakkoord) over the increase of the pension age with the leadership of trade unions and employers. The agreement was disputed within the trade unions, and the PVV heavily criticized it (NRC Handelsblad, 2011b). Despite forcefully criticizing the agreement as based on ‘ignorance and wishful thinking’, the PVV was challenged by the SP to withdraw its support for the government if the retirement age was increased, but it did not (Debat Tweede Kamer, 2011: min. 67). In this context, the cabinet started negotiating support with the main opposition party, the PvdA, with some concessions for early retirement and low incomes (NRC Handelsblad, 2011a). Negotiations were protracted, however.

In late 2011, the Dutch economic context worsened as the country officially entered a recession. The cabinet sought to pursue further budget cuts of about 14 billion EUR to compensate for the loss of revenues and conform to the EU 3% deficit rule. Accordingly, it initiated negotiations between the coalition parties and the PVV to agree on a package of austerity measures. Conflicts within the PVV erupted, and one MP left the parliamentary group, undermining the very tight majority that the PVV provided for the government. As the cabinet was determined to pursue budget cuts more quickly than anticipated, the idea to increase the age of retirement before 2020 was discussed in budget negotiations (NRC Handelsblad online, 2012). Wilders could not support this measure in the light of his electoral promises. As disagreements within the PVV could not be overcome, this eventually led Wilders to pull out of budget negotiations in April 2012, triggering the fall of the government (Interview 12). Wilders justified withdrawal from the negotiations by the severe cuts that pensioners would have to bear, arguing that he ‘could look his voters in the eye’ because ‘this [austerity] package is not in the interest of the PVV voter’ (NRC Handelsblad online, 2012). In the following elections, the PVV lost nine seats and went down to 5.3%, losing a third of its vote share. Eventually, the VVD and the CDA reached an agreement on the increase of the retirement age with smaller centre parties (ChristenUnie, D66, GroenLinks, and SGP) and with the opposition of the PVV, SP, and PvdA in June 2012. This agreement would be taken over by the following VVD–PvdA coalition after the 2012 elections.

Switzerland: having one’s cake and eating it

In June 1995, a reform of the pension system was accepted by 60.7% of Swiss voters (Vox, 1995). This 10th reform of the law on old-age pensions (AHV) provided for an increase in the age of retirement for women from 62 to 64 on the one hand, and a number of measures promoting gender equality on the other, notably the principle of ‘splitting’ whereby pension benefits would be split equally among couples so that one partner, usually women, were no longer dependent on their partner for their pension. As analysed by Häusermann et al. (Reference Häusermann, Mach and Papadopoulos2004: 44) this successful compromise was a result of a ‘social-liberal coalition’ between social democrats and modernizing sections within right-wing parties (the Liberal FDP and the Christian-Democratic CVP). The reform divided the social democrats and trade unions, but only the latter decided to challenge the law in a referendum (Le Nouveau Quotidien, 1994a). At first, the Swiss people’s Party opposed the principle of splitting (Le Nouveau Quotidien, 1993a), and championed the same age of retirement for men and women at 65 (Le Nouveau Quotidien, 1993b). In its 1993 party assembly, the President of the Swiss People’s Party had declared that it would oppose any further extension of the welfare system; welfare had ‘introduced a culture of assistance’ and the country needed to re-learn to save (Le Nouveau Quotidien, 1994b). Eventually, however, it supported the reform with the other parties on account of the fiscal consolidation measures it achieved (Nationalrat, 1994, 1961). At the time, the party was still in line with other right-wing parties, but the more hardliner stance championed by the Zurich-based leader Christoph Blocher – regarding immigration, the relationship with the European Union and fiscal retrenchment – were starting to emerge. Hence, in 2000, the party assembly approved the general principles of a far-reaching programme of reform providing for a phasing out of the pay-as-you-go system down to a basic level and the expansion of individualized personal pensions, coupled with an increase in the mandatory age of retirement to 68 (Le Temps, 2000a). This agenda represented a substantial shift in relation to the party’s previous positions in this domain, and was surely a risky strategy vis-à-vis its own clientele of pensioners. After these proposals were vividly criticized in the press, the party tried to temper them substantially (Le Temps, 2000b).

In the federal elections of 1999, the SVP increased its parliamentary representation in the lower chamber by 15 seats (out of 200), thereby becoming the largest parliamentary fraction after the social democrats. It outvoted the FDP by two seats for the first time. For centre-right parties, the SVP was emerging as a strong competitor. This not only involved competition for votes, but also competition for funding by firms and business groups, which play an important role in Swiss politics (Le Temps, 2001). In many ways, this led centre-right parties, and particularly the FDP, to move further to the right and assume a less accommodating stance towards the left and trade unions (Interview 4; 5; 9).

It is in this context that the 11th revision of the law on state pensions took place, and it would yield a clearly different outcome from the previous one. The initial project of the government provided for an equalization of the retirement age for men and women to 65, combined with the increase in VAT to fund pensions and the earmarking of 400 million Swiss francs for the flexibilization of early retirement, allowing for people on low incomes, and possibly in manual jobs, to retire earlier (Curia Vista, 2004). This was understood as a compromise which could rally left and right. Right wing parties, however, supported the increase in the age of retirement but categorically opposed the facilitation of early retirement, which they presented as yet another expansion of spending. They championed the idea that early retirement should imply linear cuts in benefits instead. Parliamentary negotiations were long and protracted, and extended until the 2003 elections, in which the CVP and especially the PRD lost a substantial share of their voters (respectively 7% and 14%) to the SVP (Selb and Lachat, Reference Selb and Lachat2004: 15). After the elections, the SVP managed to place Blocher as the second SVP member in the Federal Council in place of the Christian Democrats. The SVP and Blocher in particular were very opposed to both the increase in VAT and the facilitation of early retirement ‘for the rich or for the poor’ which would create further costs (Bulletin Officiel du Conseil National, 2003: 1513). The party displayed the most intransigent position vis-à-vis social adaptations to the reform (Interview 1; Interview 9). Eventually, the reform was accepted without the early retirement part with the support of all right-wing parties and opposed by the left and trade unions, which challenged it at referendum. In the referendum held in May 2004, the reform was massively rejected by voters, with only 32.1% accepting it. Interestingly, while 56% of FDP voters supported it, 59% of SVP voters refused the reform in spite of the fact that the party leadership had been the most determined to retrench (Engeli, Reference Engeli2004: 2). A similar pattern could be observed in a subsequent popular vote on a change in the conversion rate of occupational pensions in 2010, where the SVP championed retrenchment on the grounds of fiscal consolidation but only 27% of its own voters supported the change (Nai et al., Reference Nai, Lloren and Gavilanes2010: 2).

In the following 2007 elections, the SVP made substantial electoral gains, achieving 29% of votes. Advances were especially significant among low-income voters (Lutz, Reference Lutz2008: 13). After the SVP had become the most powerful parliamentary group in the lower chamber, a new attempt to reform pensions was initiated. Similar issues were on the table, namely the increase in the age of retirement to 65 for both sexes, the flexibilization of the age of retirement, and adjustments in the indexation modalities to inflation, which would be tied to the financial situation of the pension fund. As the government was conscious that a reform involving only cuts would stand little chance in a referendum, the facilitation of early retirement with smaller penalties for low incomes was supposed to buy off support from the left and trade unions to the increase in the age of retirement. While the left opposed the increase in the age of retirement, the SVP and the Liberals categorically opposed more spending to facilitate early retirement of low incomes.

After a protracted negotiation process where a fragile compromise combining the increase of the age of retirement with the creation of a fund to facilitate early retirement was found by centre-right parties, the project was eventually buried in the lower Chamber, where both the SVP and the Social Democrats voted it down. Social democrats denounced the weakness of compensation for the increase in the age of retirement, and the SVP officially denounced an ‘irresponsible’ extension of the welfare state through early retirement (Pressedienst SVP, 2010). As indicated by interview partners, however, the refusal of the reform by the SVP was also the result of concerns regarding its electoral consequences. Party elites were conscious that the electoral base rarely followed the positions of the party in the domain of welfare (Interview 10; Interview 11). As new elections were looming the following year, it was dangerous for the party to position itself once gain in favour of retrenchment and possibly to lose another referendum. The riskiness of welfare issues was clearly explained by a former MP:

There is the policy, where we work in commissions in all these domains [of social policy reform]. We are well organised, we have scientific collaborators, who study these domains, and we have contacts with different organised interests. And then there is electoral politics, where there is a strategy to emphasise the subjects in which we are strong, not the ones in which we lose. In welfare state reform we have invested a lot of energy, but one has to admit that we have often lost [in referendums]. This is why we don’t really put forward health policy reform, in which we have often lost, or the welfare system in general. This does not mean that we don’t fight for it [in parliament] with the same state of mind. But when it comes to leading an electoral campaign, it is clear that we have a strategy to lead the battle where it suits us, that is, immigration and public safety issues. (Interview 9)

In the 2011 federal elections, the SVP lost eight seats after its split from the PBD. However, it did not alter its position on welfare reform in a substantial manner.

Synthesis and conclusion

The empirical evidence presented here generally supports the argument that PRWPs face a trade-off between office and votes in the area of welfare. This does not mean that they are always electorally sanctioned for their support for retrenchment, as the Swiss case indicates, but internal tensions between the welfare preferences of the electorate and the welfare policies that these parties have to support or champion while in office are present in all three cases. In Austria, the FPÖ enabled a number of retrenchment reforms which hurt the core working-class electorate of the party (betraying voters) and led to internal splits and opposition to the retrenchment plans of its coalition partner. The participation of the FPÖ in government certainly facilitated retrenchment, as the ÖVP was able to push through reforms which had been impossible to implement with the SPÖ and its links with the unions, but it also led to heavy electoral losses for the FPÖ. The party then shifted to a more pro-welfare stance.

In the Netherlands, Geert Wilders’s PVV sought to find a balance between votes and office, first by presenting the retirement age as a ‘non-negotiable issue’, then arguing it was negotiable after all (betraying voters), and eventually refusing to sign off on retrenchment and pulling out of government (betraying its coalition partners). While the VVD in particular thought it could enjoy more leeway for retrenchment with the support of the PVV (as the ÖVP had done), these hopes were undermined by the vote-seeking strategy of the PVV which caused a policy deadlock on pension reform. In Switzerland, the main political tension has consisted in the strong pro-retrenchment stance of SVP party elites and the systematic anti-retrenchment position of SVP voters (betraying voters). Even if the SVP has not been directly electorally sanctioned for its stance on welfare which differs from its voters, it has faced systematic defeats in referendums about pensions, which can be interpreted as a form of specific sanction as opposed to the diffuse sanctions in elections faced by the other parties in Austria and the Netherlands. The ambiguous stance of the SVP in the last pension reform studied here, however, can be considered equivalent to ‘betraying’ its coalition partners driven by vote-seeking concerns. As a whole, the strengthening of the SVP has led to deadlock in Switzerland because the kind of pro-outsider quid-pro-quo that enabled pension reforms in the 1990s no longer enjoys a sufficient base of support with a pro-insider party yielding much more power. Moreover, the legislative support of the SVP for retrenchment is not really effective because its electoral base does not follow the elite. In all cases, there is a clear trade-off between office or policy on the one hand, and votes on the other.

While I did not produce explicit hypotheses about when parties prioritize office over votes, the tentative pattern which emerges is that PRWPs predictably privilege pro-welfare vote-seeking strategies during electoral campaigns (with the exception of the SVP), office-seeking strategies during coalition formation and at the beginning of their tenure, and then turn to vote-seeking strategies again (and a more welfare chauvinist stance) when they realize the potential electoral costs of their choices. It is difficult to explain when changes occur, partly because party strategies within PRWPs depend to a larger extent than other parties on – sometimes erratic – individual choices by a charismatic leader (Mudde, Reference Mudde2007: 271). PRWPs tend to have more centralized decision-making structures than other parties (Bornschier, Reference Bornschier2010: 3). In general, however, a greater emphasis on vote-seeking strategies in the area of welfare seems to emerge, either by emphasizing welfare protectionism (in Austria and the Netherlands) or continuing to conceal their position on this issue (in Switzerland), thereby making it more difficult to pursue office-seeking strategies in a credible way. In many ways, this is in line with De Lange’s (Reference De Lange2007) idea of a ‘move to the centre’, also corroborated by interview partners in the Netherlands (Interview 12, 2013).

It is important to outline the limits and caveats of the analysis with respect to the policy sector and the countries covered. Pensions were a case in point to outline the trade-off because of their typical pro-insider orientation. However, further research would be needed to see whether this trade-off applies in other areas of welfare protection such as unemployment benefits. Preliminary evidence shows that the stance of PRWPs about unemployment benefits varies: both elites and voters of the SVP have supported retrenchment in Swiss unemployment protection in recent years because it was framed as a source of abuse by ‘undeserving’ recipients, while the PVV has opposed reductions in unemployment benefits. Similarly, further research is needed to assess whether the type of welfare state regime is really a scope condition for the existence of the trade-off: patterns observed in Scandinavian countries such as Denmark or Norway tend to indicate similar developments. Context matters here, because defending the welfare status quo in Norway is different from doing so in Switzerland. With respect to the external validity of the argument, it is also striking to note that the gap between ‘grassroots’ and ‘elite’ preferences about welfare emphasized here is also pointed out by Williamson et al. (Reference Williamson, Skocpol and Coggin2011: 32–33) in their analysis of the Tea Party in the United States, a feature that is similar to the Swiss case. Hence, there is a large scope to assess the relevance the trade-off analysed here for right-wing populist organizations beyond the contexts discussed.

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank Johan Davidsson, Jane Gingrich, Philippe Gottraux, Silja Hausermann, Johannes Lindvall, Yannis Papadopoulos, Thomas Paster, Gijs Schumacher, Hanna Schwander, Menno Soentken, Pieter Vanhuysse, Barbara Vis, Timo Weishaupt, Jonathan Zeitlin, and three anonymous reviewers for useful comments on previous versions of this article.

Supplementary material

To view supplementary material for this article, please visit http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S1755773914000125

Footnotes

1 I do not engage here in an extensive discussion of the definition of PRWPs, which I am aware is a fairly elusive concept. Here, I use Mudde’s (Reference Mudde2007) widely used definition of PRWPs as parties combining authoritarianism (in values), nativism (a preference for natives and concern for national identity) and populism (a critique of the traditional political establishment as opposed to ‘the people’). The three parties analysed in this article have commonly been labelled under this heading in the literature (see e.g., De Lange, Reference De Lange2012).

2 Counting the FPÖ and Stronach.

3 See online methodological appendix for details.

References

Akkerman, T. (2012), ‘Comparing radical right parties in government: immigration and integration policies in nine countries (1996–2010)’, West European Politics 35(3): 511529.Google Scholar
Akkerman, T. and De Lange, S. (2012), ‘Radical right parties in office: incumbency records and the electoral cost of governing’, Government and Opposition 47(4): 574596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arzheimer, K. (2012), ‘Working-class Parties 2.0?’, in J. Rydgren (ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right, London: Routledge, pp. 7590.Google Scholar
Bale, T. (2003), ‘Cinderella and her ugly sisters: the mainstream and extreme right in Europe’s bipolarising party systems’, West European Politics 26(3): 6790.Google Scholar
Bornschier, S. (2010), Cleavage Politics and the Populist Right: The New Cultural Conflict in Western Europe, Philadelphia: Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Bulletin Officiel du Conseil National (2003), Session D’automne 2003, Bern: Parlamentsdienste.Google Scholar
CBS (2011), ‘Stemgedrag Stemgerechtidigen Tweede Kamerverkiezingen’. Retrieved 11 April 2014 from http://statline.cbs.nl/StatWeb/publication/?VW=T&DM=SLNL&PA=81107NED&LA=NL Google Scholar
CPB (2010), Keuzes in Kaart 2011–2015. Effect Van Negen Verkiezingsprogramma’s Op Economie En Milieu, Den Haag: Centraal PlanBureau.Google Scholar
Curia Vista (2004), ‘Note De Synthèse: 0.014 11ème Révision De l’AVS’. Retrieved 11 April 2014 from http://www.parlament.ch/f/suche/pages/legislaturrueckblick.aspx?rb_id=20000014 Google Scholar
Debat Tweede Kamer (2011), ‘Regeling Van Werkzaamheden En Het Debat Over Het Pensioenakkoord’. Retrieved 11 April 2014 from http://debatgemist.tweedekamer.nl/debatten/regeling-van-werkzaamheden-en-het-debat-over-het-pensioenakkoord Google Scholar
De Lange, S. (2007), ‘A new winning formula? The programmatic appeal of the radical right’, Party Politics 13(4): 411435.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
De Lange, S. (2012), ‘New alliances: why mainstream parties govern with radical right‐wing populist parties’, Political Studies 60(4): 899918.Google Scholar
De Lange, S. and Art, D. (2011), ‘Fortuyn versus Wilders: an agency-based approach to radical right party building’, West European Politics 34(6): 12291249.Google Scholar
Der Standard (2003a), ‘Können Bei Pensionen Nicht an Fpö Vorbei’, 26 May 2003: 6.Google Scholar
Der Standard (2003b), ‘Ausschuss Soll Koalition Voranbringen’, 4 June 2003: 4.Google Scholar
Der Standard (2003c), ‘Pensions-volksabstimmung Sorgt Für Schwarz-blaue Turbulenzen’, 7 April 2003: 6.Google Scholar
Der Standard (2004), ‘Haider: Volle Pension Nach 45 Jahren – “da Fährt Der Zug Drüber”’, 28 August 2004: 1.Google Scholar
Der Standard (2006), ‘Kurz Im Blick’, 6 November 2006: 7.Google Scholar
Der Standard (2013), ‘FPÖ Bei Arbeitern, SPÖ Bei Pensionisten Vorne’, 29 September 2013.Google Scholar
DerStandard.at (2003a), ‘Haider: “Debakel Für Die Koalition”’. Retrieved 11 April 2014 from http://derstandard.at/1434951 Google Scholar
DerStandard.at (2003b), ‘Pensionslotto Mit Vielen Verlierern’. Retrieved 11 April 2014 from http://derstandard.at/1254264 Google Scholar
De Telegraaf (2009), ‘Wilders Zweert Bij AOW op 65’, 6 September 2009.Google Scholar
Eironline (2003), ‘Austria: Major Industrial Action Planned Over Pensions Reform’, European Industrial Relations Observatory online 2003 (5). Retrieved 11 April 2014 from http://www.eurofound.europa.eu/eiro/2003/05/inbrief/at0305201n.htm Google Scholar
Engeli, I. (2004), Analyse Des Votations Fédérales Du 16 Mai 2004, Geneva: Vox.Google Scholar
FPÖ (2008), Österreich Im Wort. Wahlprogramm 2008, Vienna: FPÖ.Google Scholar
Giger, N. and Nelson, M. (2011), ‘The electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment’, European Journal of Political Research 50(1): 123.Google Scholar
Hakhverdian, A. and Koop, C. (2007), ‘Consensus democracy and support for populist parties in Western Europe’, Acta Politica 42(4): 401420.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Häusermann, S. (2010), The politics of welfare state reform in Continental Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S. and Walter, S. (2010), ‘Restructuring Swiss welfare politics: post-industrial labour markets, globalization and attitudes towards social policies’, in H. Kriesi and S. Hug (eds.), Value Change in Switzerland, Lanham: Lexington Books, pp. 143168.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S., Mach, A. and Papadopoulos, I. (2004), ‘From corporatism to partisan politics: social policy making under strain in Switzerland’, Swiss Political Science Review 10(2): 3359.Google Scholar
Häusermann, S., Picot, G. and Geering, D. (2013), ‘Rethinking party politics and the welfare state’, British Journal of Political Science 43(1): 221240.Google Scholar
Heinisch, R. (2003), ‘Success in opposition-failure in government: explaining the performance of right-wing populist parties in public office’, West European Politics 26(3): 91130.Google Scholar
Immerzeel, T., Coffé, H. and Van der Lippe, T. (2013), ‘Explaining the gender gap in radical right voting’, Comparative European Politics, advance online publication 1 July 2013; doi:10.1057/cep.2013.20.Google Scholar
Ivarsflaten, E. (2005), ‘The vulnerable populist right parties’, European Journal of Political Research 44(3): 465492.Google Scholar
Kitschelt, H. and McGann, A.J. (1995), The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis, Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.Google Scholar
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S. and Frey, T. (2008), West European Politics in the Age of Globalization, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Le Nouveau Quotidien (1993a), ‘Les Femmes Travailleront Deux Ans de Plus’, 11 March 1993: 7.Google Scholar
Le Nouveau Quotidien (1993b), ‘Vers l’égalité Devant l’AVS’, 10 March 1993: 9.Google Scholar
Le Nouveau Quotidien (1994a), ‘Les Socialistes Refusent l’épreuve De Force Sur l’AVS’, 10 October 1994: 9.Google Scholar
Le Nouveau Quotidien (1994b), ‘L’avenir De l’Etat Social Durcit Le Clivage Gauche-droite’, 24 January 1994: 9.Google Scholar
Le Temps (2000a), ‘L’UDC Lance l’offensive contre l’AVS au risque de heurter sa base’, 6 March 2000: 1.Google Scholar
Le Temps (2000b), ‘Accusée de brader l’AVS, l’UDC esquisse une prudente marche arrière’, 8 March 2000.Google Scholar
Le Temps (2001), ‘Christoph Blocher Vise le Talon D’achille Des Radicaux: Leurs Échecs Économiques’, 21 March 2001.Google Scholar
Luther, K.R. (2009), ‘The revival of the radical right: the Austrian Parliamentary Election of 2008’, West European Politics 32(5): 10491061.Google Scholar
Luther, K.R. (2011), ‘Of goals and own goals: a case study of right-wing populist party strategy for and during incumbency’, Party Politics 17(4): 453470.Google Scholar
Lutz, G. (2008), Selects 2007, Lausanne: FORS.Google Scholar
Lutz, G. (2012), Eidgenössische Wahlen 2011. Wahlteilnahme Und Wahlentscheid, Lausanne: Selects.Google Scholar
Mudde, C. (2007), Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Mudde, C. (2013), ‘Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: so what?’, European Journal of Political Research 52(1): 119.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muller, W.C., Plasser, F. and Ulram, P.A. (2004), ‘Party responses to the erosion of voter loyalties in Austria’, in P. Mair, W. Muller and F. Plasser, et al. (eds.), Political Parties and Electoral Change, London: Sage, pp. 145178.Google Scholar
Nai, A., Lloren, A. and Gavilanes, A. (2010), Analyse Vox des Votations Fédérales du 7 Mars 2010, Bern: GFS.Google Scholar
Nationalrat (1994), Sitzung 7. Oktober 1994: Schlussabstimmungen.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2009a), ‘We wilden AOW zachte landing geven’: PvdA-fractieleider Hamer over AOW’, 3.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2009b), ‘AOW-akkoord Zet PvdA Op Scherp’, 1.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2009c), ‘Kabinet Ontziet De Kwetsbare Groepen’, 17 October 2009: 15.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010a), ‘Wilders Laat AOW-eis Vallen’, 10 June 2010: 1.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010b), ‘Wat Telt Zwaarder Voor De PVV: Hoofddoekjes of De Huren?’, 11 August 2010: 3.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010c), ‘Werk En Sociale Zekerheid’, 14 October 2010: T22.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010d), ‘Rond Sociale Zekerheid is PVV De Hoop Van Links’, 19 August 2010: 3.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010e), ‘De PVV Heeft Nu Een Positieve Boodschap’, 24 April 2010: 2.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010f), ‘Harde Opties Immigratie En Asiel Onderzocht’, 29 September 2010: 1.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010g), ‘Kabinet Botst Met PVV Over Pensioenen’, 11 November 2010: 15.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2010h), ‘PVV Wil Rechts Kabinet Gedogen’, 23 April 2010: 1.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2011a), ‘Laagste Inkomens Eerder Met Pensioen’, 6 December 2011: 2.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2011b), ‘Kamp Kan in Pensioendebat Kritische Kamer Verwachten’, 28 June 2011: 22.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad (2012), ‘Gevaarlijk Spel Met Pensioenakkoord’, 6 April 2012: 26.Google Scholar
NRC Handelsblad online (2012), ‘Wilders Wil Nieuwe Verkiezingen – “hoe Eerder, Hoe Beter”’. Retrieved 21 April 2012 from http://www.nrc.nl/nieuws/2012/04/21/wilders Google Scholar
Obinger, H. and Talos, E. (2006), Sozialstaat Österreich Zwischen Kontinuität Und Umbau. Eine Bilanz Der ÖVP/FPÖ/BZÖ Koalition, Wiesbaden: VS Verlag.Google Scholar
Oesch, D. (2008), ‘Explaining workers’ support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe’, International Political Science Review 29(3): 349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Papadopoulos, I. (2005), ‘Populism and the other side of consociational democracies’, in D. Caramani and Y. Mény (eds.), Challenges to Consensual Politics. Democracy, Identity and Populist Protest in the Alpine Region, Brussels: Peter Lang, pp. 7182.Google Scholar
Pressedienst SVP (2010), ‘Unverantwortlichen Sozialausbau Verhindert’. Retrieved 11 April 2014 from http://www.svp.ch/aktuell/medienmitteilungen/unverantwortlichen-sozialausbau-verhindert/ Google Scholar
PVV (2010), De Agenda Van Hoop En Optimisme: PVV Verkiezingsprogramma 2010–2015, Den Haag: PVV.Google Scholar
Regierungsprogramm (2000), Regierungsprogramm. Zukunft Im Herzen Europas. Österreich Neu Regieren, Wien: Federal Chancellery.Google Scholar
Rijksoverheid (2010a), Gedoogakkoord VVD-PVV-CDA, Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.Google Scholar
Rijksoverheid (2010b), Regeerakkoord VVD-CDA, Den Haag: Rijksoverheid.Google Scholar
Rovny, J. (2013), ‘Where do radical right parties stand?’, European Political Science Review 5(1): 126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rueda, D. (2005), ‘Insider–outsider politics in industrialized democracies: the challenge to social democratic parties’, American Political Science Review 99(1): 6174.Google Scholar
Schain, M.A. (2006), ‘The extreme-right and immigration policy-making: measuring direct and indirect effects’, West European Politics 29(2): 270289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schludi, M. (2005), The Reform of Bismarckian Pension Systems, Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.Google Scholar
Schwarz, D. (2009), Zwischen Fraktionszwang Und Freiem Mandat: Eine Untersuchung Des Fraktionsabweichenden Stimmverhaltens Im Schweizerischen Nationalrat Zwischen 1996 Und 2005, Bern: Books on Demand GmbH.Google Scholar
Selb, P. and Lachat, R. (2004), Elections 2003 (Selects: Swiss Electoral Studies Vol. 8), Zurich: Institut für Politikwissenschaft.Google Scholar
Strom, K. (1990), ‘A behavioral theory of competitive political parties’, American Journal of Political Science 34(2): 565598.Google Scholar
Swank, D. and Betz, H.G. (2003), ‘Globalization, the welfare state and right-wing populism in Western Europe’, Socio-Economic Review 1(2): 215245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van Oorschot, W. (2006), ‘Making the difference in social europe: deservingness perceptions among citizens of European welfare states’, Journal of European Social Policy 16(1): 2342.Google Scholar
Van Spanje, J. (2010), ‘Contagious parties’, Party Politics 16(5): 563.Google Scholar
Van Spanje, J. (2011), ‘Keeping the rascals in: anti-political-establishment parties and their cost of governing in established democracies’, European Journal of Political Research 50(5): 609635.Google Scholar
Vox (1995), Analyse Des Votations Fédérales Du 25 Juin 1995, Bern: GFS.Google Scholar
VVD (2010), Orde Op Zaken: Verkiezingsprogramma 2010–2014, Den Haag: VVD.Google Scholar
Williamson, V., Skocpol, T. and Coggin, J. (2011), ‘The tea party and the remaking of republican conservatism’, Perspectives on Politics 9(1): 2543.Google Scholar
Wirtschaftsblatt (2003), ‘Dem Ersten Streiktag Folgen Durchhalteparolen’, 7 May 2003.Google Scholar
Zaslove, A. (2004), ‘Closing the door? The ideology and impact of radical right populism on immigration policy in Austria and Italy’, Journal of Political Ideologies 9(1): 99118.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Afonso Supplementary Material

Appendix

Download Afonso Supplementary Material(File)
File 25.2 KB