Suchergebnisse

AbstractWhile the structure of party competition evolves slowly, crisis-like events can induce short-term change to the political agenda. This may be facilitated by challenger parties who might benefit from increased attention to issues they own. We study the dynamic of such shifts through mainstream parties' response to the 2015 refugee crisis, which strongly affected public debate and election outcomes across Europe. Specifically, we analyse how parties changed their issue emphasis and positions regarding immigration before, during, and after the refugee crisis. Our study is based on a corpus of 120,000 press releases between 2013 and 2017 from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. We identify immigration-related press releases using a novel dictionary and estimate party positions. The resulting monthly salience and positions measures allow for studying changes in close time-intervals, providing crucial detail for disentangling the impact of the crisis itself and the contribution of right-wing parties. While we provide evidence that attention to immigration increased drastically for all parties during the crisis, radical right parties drove the attention of mainstream parties. However, the attention of mainstream parties to immigration decreased toward the end of the refugee crisis and there is limited evidence of parties accommodating the positions of the radical right.

AbstractAlthough attention to populism is ever-increasing, the concept remains contested. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of populism research and identifies tendencies to a conflation of host ideologies and populism in political science through a two-step analysis. First, we conduct a quantitative review of 884 abstracts from 2004 to 2018 using text-as-data methods. We show that scholars sit at "separate tables," divided by geographical foci, methods, and host ideologies. Next, our qualitative analysis of 50 articles finds a common conflation of populism with other ideologies, resulting in the analytical neglect of the former. We, therefore, urge researchers to properly distinguish populism from "what it travels with" and engage more strongly with the dynamic interlinkages between thin and thick ideologies.

Zusammenfassung
Die Corona-Krise hat Fridays for Future (FFF) – wie auch andere soziale Bewegungen – mit nicht absehbaren und einschneidenden Einschränkungen konfrontiert. Inwiefern kam es aufgrund dieser radikal veränderten Situation zu einer Anpassung des Handlungsrepertoires von FFF? Und ermöglichen online bzw. hybride Protestaktionen eine Ausweitung des Mobilisierungspotentials durch die Einbindung von geographischen Einheiten, die bisher nicht an die Bewegung angeschlossen waren? Diesen Fragen nähern wir uns in diesem Beitrag mittels neuer online-generierter Datenquellen. Dabei greifen wir auf Informationen zu den Teilnehmer*innen und Protestformen des Online-Streiks vom 24. April und des Klimastreiks vom 25. September 2020 zurück. Unsere deskriptiven Analysen zeigen regionale Varianzen in der Protestintensität und Innovationen in den Protestformen. Darauf aufbauend nutzen wir die geographisch kleinteilige Struktur der Daten, um in Regressionsanalysen etablierte Erklärungsfaktoren für die Mobilisierungskraft von FFF zu testen. Generell weisen die Ergebnisse auf keine deutliche Erweiterung der Mobilisierung hin: FFF konnte während der Pandemie besonders stark in urbanen, grün wählenden Gebieten mit hohem Bildungsniveau und Frauenanteil in Bevölkerung und Politik mobilisieren.

Die Corona-Krise hat Fridays for Future (FFF) – wie auch andere soziale Bewegungen – mit nicht absehbaren und einschneidenden Einschränkungen konfrontiert. Inwiefern kam es aufgrund dieser radikal veränderten Situation zu einer Anpassung des Handlungsrepertoires von FFF? Und ermöglichen online bzw. hybride Protestaktionen eine Ausweitung des Mobilisierungspotentials durch die Einbindung von geographischen Einheiten, die bisher nicht an die Bewegung angeschlossen waren? Diesen Fragen nähern wir uns in diesem Beitrag mittels neuer online-generierter Datenquellen. Dabei greifen wir auf Informationen zu den Teilnehmer*innen und Protestformen des Online-Streiks vom 24. April und des Klimastreiks vom 25. September 2020 zurück. Unsere deskriptiven Analysen zeigen regionale Varianzen in der Protestintensität und Innovationen in den Protestformen. Darauf aufbauend nutzen wir die geographisch kleinteilige Struktur der Daten, um in Regressionsanalysen etablierte Erklärungsfaktoren für die Mobilisierungskraft von FFF zu testen. Generell weisen die Ergebnisse auf keine deutliche Erweiterung der Mobilisierung hin: FFF konnte während der Pandemie besonders stark in urbanen, grün wählenden Gebieten mit hohem Bildungsniveau und Frauenanteil in Bevölkerung und Politik mobilisieren. ; The Corona crisis confronted Fridays For Future (FFF) – like many other social movements – with unforeseeable and drastic restrictions. How did the activists deal with hygiene restrictions, the collapse of media attention, and the general slogan to #stayathome? Did online and hybrid forms of protest even help to increase the FFF's mobilization potential? We approach these questions using new online data sources. Specifically, we draw on information on the participants and protest forms of the climate strikes in April and September 2020. Our descriptive analyses show regional variances in protest intensity and innovations in protest forms. Building on this, we use the spatially detailed structure of the data to test established explanatory factors for ...

While attention to populism is ever-increasing, the concept remains contested. This article provides a comprehensive overview of populism research and identifies tendencies to a conflation of host ideologies and populism in political science through a two-step analysis. First, we conduct a quantitative review of 884 abstracts from 2004 to 2018 using text-as-data methods. We show that scholars sit at 'separate tables', divided by geographical foci, methods, and host ideologies. Next, our qualitative analysis of 50 articles finds a common conflation of the populism with its host ideologies resulting in the analytical neglect of populism. We therefore urge researchers to properly distinguish populism from 'what it travels with' and engage more strongly with the dynamic interlinkages between thin and thick ideologies.

Although attention to populism is ever-increasing, the concept remains contested. This paper provides a comprehensive overview of populism research and identifies tendencies to a conflation of host ideologies and populism in political science through a two-step analysis. First, we conduct a quantitative review of 884 abstracts from 2004 to 2018 using text-as-data methods. We show that scholars sit at "separate tables," divided by geographical foci, methods, and host ideologies. Next, our qualitative analysis of 50 articles finds a common conflation of populism with other ideologies, resulting in the analytical neglect of the former. We, therefore, urge researchers to properly distinguish populism from "what it travels with" and engage more strongly with the dynamic interlinkages between thin and thick ideologies.

While the structure of party competition evolves slowly, crisis-like events can induce short-term change to the political agenda. This may be facilitated by challenger parties who might benefit from increased attention to issues they own. We study the dynamic of such shifts through mainstream parties' response to the 2015 refugee crisis, which strongly affected public debate and election outcomes across Europe. Specifically, we analyse how parties changed their issue emphasis and positions regarding immigration before, during, and after the refugee crisis. Our study is based on a corpus of 120,000 press releases between 2013 and 2017 from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. We identify immigration-related press releases using a novel dictionary and estimate party positions. The resulting monthly salience and positions measures allow for studying changes in close time-intervals, providing crucial detail for disentangling the impact of the crisis itself and the contribution of right-wing parties. While we provide evidence that attention to immigration increased drastically for all parties during the crisis, radical right parties drove the attention of mainstream parties. However, the attention of mainstream parties to immigration decreased toward the end of the refugee crisis and there is limited evidence of parties accommodating the positions of the radical right.

While the structure of party competition evolves slowly, crisis-like events can induce short-term change to the political agenda. This may be facilitated by challenger parties who might benefit from increased attention to issues they own. We study the dynamic of such shifts through mainstream parties' response to the 2015 refugee crisis, which strongly affected public debate and election outcomes across Europe. Specifically, we analyse how parties changed their issue emphasis and positions regarding immigration before, during, and after the refugee crisis. Our study is based on a corpus of 120,000 press releases between 2013 and 2017 from Austria, Germany, and Switzerland. We identify immigration-related press releases using a novel dictionary and estimate party positions. The resulting monthly salience and positions measures allow for studying changes in close time-intervals, providing crucial detail for disentangling the impact of the crisis itself and the contribution of right-wing parties. While we provide evidence that attention to immigration increased drastically for all parties during the crisis, radical right parties drove the attention of mainstream parties. However, the attention of mainstream parties to immigration decreased toward the end of the refugee crisis and there is limited evidence of parties accommodating the positions of the radical right.

Wo haben sich am 24. April Menschen zum #NetzstreikFürs Klima engagiert? Besonders "grün" war Deutschland in Städten und dort, wo junge und gut gebildete Menschen leben.

AbstractWhen mainstream parties accommodate radical-right parties, do citizens grow more concerned about immigration? Based on a rich literature, we argue that challenger parties' ability to affect mainstream party positions, particularly on immigration, is associated with greater public salience of immigration and voter positivity towards challengers exists. We use Comparative Manifesto Project and Comparative Study of Electoral Systems data in order to show that challenger issue entrepreneurship, and mainstream accommodation are associated with greater public concern for challenger issues. These factors do not result in greater public positivity towards challengers. Our findings thus support the argument that a mainstream party accommodative strategy might not be as beneficial for them as often expected by pundit and political scientists alike. This has implications for understanding the effect of indirect party strategies on public attitudes, since mainstream accommodation changes public concern regarding issues, which may bolster challengers' positions, including radical-right parties.

What to expect from the political fallout of the ongoing coronavirus pandemic? Three lessons learned from the Great Recession hit Europe in 2008.