AbstractWhen faced with organised racism, liberal democracies attempt to strike a balance between combating extremism and protecting core values such as freedom of association. Earlier research has argued that states that have experienced nondemocratic regime control in the twentieth century—either through a domestic takeover or a foreign occupation—are more likely to take a repressive approach to racist associations. In this study, I show that the previously overlooked Nordic region speaks against this explanation. Finland, which managed to avert a domestic authoritarian threat, is more repressive of racist associations than are the Scandinavian countries. The latter, two of which faced Nazi occupation, take a more liberal approach, which targets illegal actions rather than associations. These findings lead me to argue that the explanatory power of historical legacies cannot be reduced to a binary indicator such as nondemocratic regime control. I conclude by proposing a direction for future research on state repression of organised racism.
AbstractThis article tests the claim that government cooperation between mainstream parties and radical right parties can be explained by coalition theory. It does so by analysing three Swedish cases of coalition formation where the radical right Sweden Democrats (SD) have remained excluded despite holding a pivotal position in the parliament. It argues that, with the right analytical tools, this exclusion can be explained by coalition theory: cooperation with the SD has been unattractive in terms of policy, and unnecessary because the mainstream parties have been able to form viable minority governments. This argument requires three things: first, that we consider the two-dimensional nature of Swedish politics; second, that we shift the focus from majority government to viable government; and third, that we acknowledge strategic time horizons that extend well into the future. The findings contribute to our understanding of coalition formation and of how mainstream parties respond strategically to the radical right.
When faced with organised racism, liberal democracies attempt to strike a balance between combating extremism and protecting core values such as freedom of association. Earlier research has argued that states that have experienced nondemocratic regime control in the twentieth century—either through a domestic takeover or a foreign occupation—are more likely to take a repressive approach to racist associations. In this study, I show that the previously overlooked Nordic region speaks against this explanation. Finland, which managed to avert a domestic authoritarian threat, is more repressive of racist associations than are the Scandinavian countries. The latter, two of which faced Nazi occupation, take a more liberal approach, which targets illegal actions rather than associations. These findings lead me to argue that the explanatory power of historical legacies cannot be reduced to a binary indicator such as nondemocratic regime control. I conclude by proposing a direction for future research on state repression of organised racism.
In recent decades, established political parties across Europe have become increasingly challenged by a new party family: the radical right. In terms of how mainstream parties respond to this challenge, Sweden has been a puzzling case both in a comparative European perspective and in light of established theories of party competition. Rather than co-opting the restrictive immigration policies of the radical right party the Sweden Democrats, the Swedish mainstream parties jointly converged on liberal policies. In addition, rather than being included as a coalition partner or support party to the government, the Sweden Democrats have been excluded from government formation despite a pivotal position between the established left and right blocs in the parliament. In order to explain these puzzling outcomes, this dissertation combines two bodies of scholarly literature that have tended not to communicate much: coalition theory and research on mainstream party reactions to the radical right. It uses a multi-method research design to analyse party behaviour at both the local and the national level, and in both the electoral and the parliamentary arena. In doing so, it identifies aspects of established theories and concepts in need of refinement. The dissertation argues that despite the apparently puzzling nature of the Swedish case, the isolation of the Sweden Democrats can be explained in terms of the strategic pursuit of policy, office, and votes. The key to the strategic explanation lies in considering three things: first, that different kinds of party strategies interact, within and across arenas; second, that the choice of strategy is constrained, between different levels of a party and over time; and third, that we need to reconsider how some commonly used concepts – such as anti-pacts, winning coalitions, and policy dimensions – are operationalised. Rather than relying on the idea of qualitatively different 'pariah' or 'anti-system' parties, the findings of this thesis show how the isolation of a radical right party can be explained in terms of the strategic incentives of rival parties. The results also show that the transition from isolation to cooperation can, under certain conditions, be a rapid process. The dissertation is a contribution to research on coalition formation, spatial party competition, and mainstream party reactions to the radical right. ; Den här avhandlingen behandlar frågan om hur etablerade politiska partier agerar när de utmanas av nya partier från den högerradikala partifamiljen. Studien fokuserar på Sverige och hur de svenska etablerade partierna har bemött det högerradikala partiet Sverigedemokraterna. Sverige har varit ett avvikande fall i jämförelse med många andra länder i Europa, där etablerade partier har tenderat både att bilda regeringar med stöd av högerradikala partier, och att ta över deras politiska positioner – framförallt i invandringsfrågan – för att försöka vinna tillbaka väljare. I Sverige valde de etablerade partierna istället (inledningsvis) att förflytta sina positioner bort från Sverigedemokraternas politik. Vidare har partiet trots sin starka position i riksdagen uteslutits från regeringssamarbete. I syfte att förklara det svenska fallet kombinerar denna avhandling teorier om regeringsbildning med teorier om hur etablerade partier bemöter högerradikala partier. Studien kombinerar kvalitativ och kvantitativ metod för att analysera partibeteende på både lokal och nationell nivå, samt på väljararenan och den parlamentariska arenan. Genom att analysera ett avvikande fall vidareutvecklar avhandlingen etablerade teorier och koncept. Analysen visar att det svenska fallet, trots att det delvis skiljer sig från andra länder, kan förklaras i termer av hur partierna försöker uppnå tre strategiska mål: att vinna röster, att få genomslag för sin politik, och att sitta i regeringsställning. Den strategiska förklaringen består av tre delar. För det första måste vi beakta att olika partistrategier – t.ex. valet av sakpolitiska positioner och valet att misskreditera ett annat parti – kan påverka varandra. För det andra måste vi ta hänsyn till att partier inte alltid är fria i sina val. De kan förhindras från att tillämpa en viss strategi, antingen på grund av meningsskiljaktigheter inom partiet eller på grund av att det kan vara väljarmässigt riskabelt att alltför snabbt byta strategi. För det tredje behöver vi ompröva vissa av de koncept som vanligen används inom koalitionsforskningen – t.ex. vad som gör en koalition "vinnande", vilka politiska konfliktdimensioner som är de viktigaste, och hur vi bäst mäter förekomsten av "anti-pakter" mellan partier. Det strategiska perspektiv som presenteras i avhandlingen visar att isoleringen av högerradikala partier kan förklaras utan att hänvisa till att vissa partier är väsensskilda "paria"- eller "anti-system"-partier. Resultaten visar också att ett skifte från isolering till samarbete kan ske snabbt, givet att de strategiska förutsättningarna förändras. Avhandlingen är ett bidrag till koalitionsforskning, till forskning om partibeteende på väljararenan, samt till forskning om hur etablerade partier bemöter högerradikala partier. ; From the margins to the mainstream: Populist radical right parties and government formation in Europe
Why are some radical right parties included in government coalitions, while others are isolated from political cooperation through a cordon sanitaire? This book addresses this question through a study of how mainstream parties in Sweden have responded to the challenge of a radical right party: the Sweden Democrats. Sweden has been a puzzling case both in a comparative European perspective and in light of established theories of party competition. Rather than co-opting the restrictive immigration policies of the Sweden Democrats, the Swedish mainstream parties jointly converged on liberal policies. Despite their infuential position in parliament, moreover, the Sweden Democrats have been systematically excluded from government formation. This book argues that we need not invoke the idea of qualitatively different ?pariah? parties in order to make sense of such isolation of the radical right. Instead, it can be explained in terms of the strategic incentives of rival parties engaged in the pursuit of policy, office, and votes. To make this argument, the book highlights how a party?s strategic choices are constrained, between diferent levels of the party and over time. It also proposes theoretical and conceptual refinements that travel beyond the Swedish setting. The findings show that the transition from isolation to cooperation with the radical right can, under certain conditions, be a rapid process, and they challenge the perception of Sweden as a deviant case. Anders Backlund is a political scientist. This study is his doctoral thesis, completed at the Department of Political Science at Södertörn University, Sweden
Within political science, there are numerous methodological approaches to estimating the policy positions of political actors. Such methods are often used to examine party systems as a whole, but little research has been done on testing them in the context of parties that deviate from the political mainstream, such as populist radical right (PRR) parties. This study evaluates four common approaches, (1) expert surveys, (2) manual content analysis, (3) dictionary-based content analysis, and (4) Wordfish, by applying them to the PRR party the Sweden Democrats. Election manifestos, being considered the most authoritative statements of official party policy, are used as the empirical basis of the content analyses. Results show an overall high degree of convergent validity along economic and socio-cultural policy dimensions, but also suggest an advantage for the more qualitative methods 1 and 2, as the frequency-based methods (3 and 4) face problems with the context-dependence of words, linguistic volatility and data scarcity on issues of low salience, difficulties that are related to the characteristics of the Sweden Democrats. Manual content analysis and expert surveys do not face these issues, but instead need to deal with reliability and bias. If the former compensates by averaging multiple codings and the latter focuses on clearly defined policy-specific dimensions, these two methods – ideally in combination – are more appropriate than frequency-based approaches in the analysis of parties similar to the Sweden Democrats.
Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine corporate social responsibility (CSR) content in the context of four differing national institutional arrangements for welfare. An analysis is presented on how self-reported CSR differs in content across two western welfare states (the UK and Sweden) and two emerging economies in southern Africa (South Africa and Mauritius).
Design/methodology/approach This paper is based on a qualitative content analysis of the CSR self-reporting of 40 companies. This involved 10 of the largest companies incorporated in four countries, namely, Sweden, the UK, South Africa and Mauritius. The content is categorised into community involvement, socially responsible production and socially responsible employee relations. For each category, an analysis is provided of the reported issues (the question of what), the geographic focus of reported issues (the question of where) and ways of working with these issues (the question of how), as well as the extent of reporting and level of reporting (the question of how much).
Findings The study shows that companies place focus on aspects, issues and localities in ways that differ between countries and can be understood in relation to current institutional arrangements for welfare. The content of self-reported CSR can be both complementing and mirroring the welfare arrangements. Differences in self-reported CSR agendas are particularly evident between the two western welfare states on the one hand and the two emerging economies on the other, as these represent two distinct contexts in terms of welfare arrangements.
Originality/value This paper contributes to research on the institutional embeddedness of CSR in three ways: first, by going beyond measures of country differences in terms of extent of CSR to consider differences in CSR content; second, by focusing on the social aspects of CSR and placing these differences in relation to welfare configurations; and third, by contributing with empirical findings on how CSR content differs across national settings and across the established/emerging economy divide.
