Search results

A reply to Nick Turnbull & Shaun Wilson's critique of the article, "One Nation's Electoral Support" (2001), contends that their arguments "are marred by errors of logic, fact, &/or interpretation." It is maintained that Turnbull & Wilson focus on three things: the finding that the vote for One Nation was impelled by insecurity; the difference between explaining the One Nation vote & distinguishing it from the votes of other parties; & the refusal to accept comparative evidence about neopopulist parties. Each criticism is rebutted, arguing that Turnbull & Wilson do not understand the analytical techniques that were used in the analysis. Their claim of "two faces" of economic insecurity, or at least an "interplay" between economic insecurity & anti-immigrant values, overlooks the reality that the 1998 Australian Election Study, upon which the findings in "One Nation's Electoral Support" were based, in no way supports such a contention. It is emphasized that the fact economic insecurity is separate from other attitudes does not weaken its importance. J. Lindroth

Die öffentliche Meinung über die Einwanderung und die Einwanderungspolitik in den USA wird zum Großteil von Stereotypen bestimmt. So werden zum Beispiel wirtschaftliche Interessen als Gründe der Einwanderer von vielen Bürgern als vorrangig angesehen, erst dann folgen Menschenrechtsverletzungen oder ethnische Faktoren als Einwanderungsgründe. Die amerikanische Politik hat versucht, diesen Stereotypen entgegenzuwirken, bisher jedoch ohne viel Erfolg. Es bleibt die Aufgabe der Politik, darzustellen, daß nicht ausschließlich wirtschaftliche Faktoren Gründe für die Einwanderung Fremder darstellen (SWP-Fnk)

Murray Goot & Ian Watson's article on One Nation (2001) represents a considerable advance on other studies of One Nation, its electoral support, & its social foundations. They correctly identify the importance of conservative social attitudes among One Nation supporters. However, we take issue with the strong conclusion reached by the authors, which more or less rejects the argument that One Nation has emerged out of the growing economic insecurity of its supporters. We do not agree that this conclusion is either the unambiguous finding of their own analysis or a conclusion that can be reached without considering a wider range of factors. Our criticisms fall into four areas, detailed here. Adapted from the source document.

The existing literature on economic voting concentrates on egocentric and sociotropic evaluations of short-term economic performance. Scant attention is paid to other economic concerns people may have. In a neo-liberal economy characterized by global economic competition and a down-sized labour market, one widely-publicized economic concern - and one whose consequences political scientists have largely ignored - is job insecurity. Data from a survey conducted after the 1996 US presidential election show that job insecurity is a novel form of economic discontent that is distinctive in its origins and electoral impact from retrospective evaluations of short-term economic performance. In a multinomial probit model of electoral choice, performance measures offer little explanation of the Perot vote, but sociotropic job insecurity helps to explain why Americans rejected both major-party candidates, as well as abstention, in favour of the third-party alternative, Ross Perot. (British Journal of Political Science / FUB)

Maintains that cooperation between Northeast Asian nations within the energy sector, and multilateral energy regimes, such as those adopted by ASEAN and in Europe, will result in mutual benefits and regional security. Includes Japan's cost figures for trans-Asian natural gas pipelines.