scholarly journals How populist attitudes scales fail to capture support for populists in power

PLoS ONE ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (12) ◽  
pp. e0261658
Author(s):  
Sebastian Jungkunz ◽  
Robert A. Fahey ◽  
Airo Hino

Populist attitudes are generally measured in surveys through three necessary and non-compensatory elements of populism, namely anti-elitism, people-centrism, and Manicheanism. Using Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 5 (2016–2020) data for 30 countries, we evaluate whether this approach explains voting for populist parties across countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas. We show that the existing scales of populist attitudes effectively explain voting for populists in countries where populist leaders and parties are in opposition but fail to explain voting for populist parties in countries where they are in power. We argue that current approaches assume “the elite” to mean “politicians”, thus failing to capture attitudes towards “non-political elites” often targeted by populists in office—in particular, journalists, academics/experts, bureaucrats, and corporate business leaders. The results reveal limits to the usefulness of existing survey batteries in cross-national studies of populism and emphasize the need to develop approaches that are more generalizable across political and national contexts.

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Sebastian Jungkunz ◽  
Robert Andrew Fahey ◽  
Airo Hino

Surveys of the attitudes of voters for populist parties generally measure three non-compensatory factors of populism: anti-elitism, people-centrism, and Manicheanism. Using Comparative Study of Electoral Systems Module 5 data for 23 countries, we evaluate whether this approach explains voting for populist parties across countries in Asia, Europe and the Americas. We show that the existing scale of populist attitudes effectively explains voting for populists in countries where populist leaders and parties are in opposition but fails to ex- plain voting for populist parties in countries where they are in power. We argue that current approaches assume ‘the elite’ to mean ‘politicians’, thus failing to capture attitudes towards ‘non-political elites’ often targeted by populists in office – journalists, academics, bureaucrats, etc. The results reveal limits to the usefulness of existing survey batteries in cross-national studies of populism and emphasize the need to develop approaches that are more generalizable across political and national contexts.


2018 ◽  
Vol 113 (1) ◽  
pp. 248-253 ◽  
Author(s):  
SHANE P. SINGH ◽  
JUDD R. THORNTON

It has long been argued that elections amplify partisan predispositions. We take advantage of the timing of the cross-national post-election surveys included in the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems to explore the effects that elections have on individuals’ attachments to political parties. Within these surveys, under the assumption that the dates on which respondents are interviewed are assigned independent of factors known to affect partisanship, we are able to identify the causal effects of election salience on partisan attachments. We find strong evidence that election salience increases the probability of one having a party attachment, increases the strength of attachments, and heightens the relationship between partisanship and evaluations of political actors. Empirical explorations of our identifying assumption bolster its validity. Our results substantiate the causal role that elections play in activating partisanship.


Author(s):  
Jeffrey A. Karp ◽  
Jack Vowles

This chapter examines the development of cross-national survey research in political science and the challenges that it brings. Cross-national surveys have proliferated across the globe and arguably now form one of the most important frontiers in the development of survey research in political science. Cross-national comparison allows researchers to investigate the importance of institutional and cultural contexts that shape public opinion and political behavior. The chapter traces the development of such instruments for the purposes of comparative analysis in political science, in the context of more general developments in polling and survey research. As an example, it focuses on the case of the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES), an international collaboration active since 1996, examining the development of the project and evaluating issues such as cross-cultural equivalence in questionnaire design, survey mode and response rates, and case selection.


Author(s):  
David P. Farrington ◽  
◽  
Patrick A. Langan ◽  
Michael Tonry

2021 ◽  
pp. 003232172110261
Author(s):  
Richard Nadeau ◽  
Jean-François Daoust ◽  
Ruth Dassonneville

Citizens who voted for a party that won the election are more satisfied with democracy than those who did not. This winner–loser gap has recently been found to vary with the quality of electoral democracy: the higher the quality of democracy, the smaller the gap. However, we do not know what drives this relationship. Is it driven by losers, winners, or both? And Why? Linking our work to the literature on motivated reasoning and macro salience and benefiting from the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems project—covering 163 elections in 51 countries between 1996 and 2018, our results show that the narrower winner–loser gap in well-established electoral democracies is not only a result of losers being more satisfied with democracy, but also of winners being less satisfied with their victory. Our findings carry important implications since a narrow winner–loser gap appears as a key feature of healthy democratic systems.


1963 ◽  
Vol 37 (3) ◽  
pp. 182-199 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alvin J. Silk ◽  
Louis William Stern

Significant changes in the process of business innovation are suggested in this comparative study of nineteenth- and twentieth-century leaders in marketing.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document