Suchergebnisse

Denna studie riktar intresset mot lokala listor (valmansföreningar och gemensamma listor) i finländska kommunalval. Syftet är företa en översiktlig granskning av dessa listor, med särskilt fokus på tidsperioden 1984–2017. Studien har inalles tre huvuduppgifter; att erbjuda en kartläggning av de lokala listornas förekomst och framgång, att presentera en tentativ taxonomi över deras ideologiska särdrag och att empiriskt pröva en rad faktorer som kan bidra till att förklara variationer i deras förekomst och framgång. Studiens resultat indikerar att de lokala listorna är ett etablerat inslag i finländsk lokalpolitik, men att det inte är fråga om någon ideologiskt enhetlig grupp. Vidare antyds att lokala listor bäst kan förklaras med hänvisning till kulturella faktorer (tradition).

Abstract
Existing studies on the coalitionability of radical and—oftentimes—populist (right or/and left) parties have concluded that government inclusion of these parties follows a complex and multi-causal pattern, and that the explanatory power of the conventional "size and ideology"-framework is limited. Starting from this observation, the present study sets out to further strengthen our understanding of radical government participation. First, the paper seeks to substantiate the relationships observed in a previous configurational cross-case analysis focusing on factors related to size and ideology: How is size and ideology related to radical government participation? The second aim of the paper is to further improve our understanding of why and when radical parties participate in coalition governments: If well-known factors related to electoral and parliamentary strength and ideological aptitude are—as recent cross-case evidence indicate—able to explain radical government participation only partly, which are the additional components that should be included in an enhanced explanatory framework?

AbstractDespite their alleged anti-systemness and 'non-coalitionability', radical right and radical left parties have, since the early 1990s, both supported and entered coalition governments in a number of European liberal democracies. Using the classical 'size and ideology' framework, this study sets out to examine how – or, put differently, under what circumstances – radical right and radical left parties are able to overcome the obstacles associated with governing and enter coalition governments. Inspired by previous observations regarding the complex and multicausal nature of radical government participation, the study relies on a configurational method. By means of a fuzzy-set qualitative comparative analysis (fsQCA) of 37 radical parties at 207 coalition formation instances in 22 (Western and Central and Eastern) European countries, the article sheds light on different paths that lead to government inclusion (and exclusion) of radical actors. The empirical evidence indicates that electoral success in combination with a fairly similar policy position to a weak prime minister party is sufficient for government inclusion. The paths to government exclusion, by contrast, underline the importance of ideological distance in combination with size-related factors.

AbstractParties that defend the interest of one or a few ethnic groups and/or regions are, despite their differences, recurrently grouped together into a single party family. This article systematically applies the multidimensional framework offered by Mair and Mudde in order to provide an up‐to‐date inventory of the universe of ethnic and regionalist parties in Western Europe and assess whether they form a family. The evidence indicates that although the ethnic and regionalist family appears to be somewhat less coherent than more established families, there are clear similarities between the proposed (core) member parties. More specifically, the common denominators that distinguish the members of the ethnic and regionalist party family are their rather similar origins, sociologies, and policy orientations.

This article summarises the rapidly increasing number of studies dealing with parties' positional changes. After a short introduction and a brief discussion of a number of elementary definitions and delimitations, the second section evaluates eight factors commonly associated with party policy change. Here, the proposition that parties tend to respond systematically to changes in public opinion seems to be the most studied and, similarly, the most supported explanation. The third and final section identifies a number of research gaps and recommends topics for future research.