Immigration is one of the most contentious issues across contemporary democracies, but this has not always been the case. What accounts for this development? We study how immigration has evolved in the political debate in Western Europe over five decades by creating and analyzing a comprehensive new data set—Immigration in Party Manifestos (IPM)—of all immigration-related appeals made in preelection manifestos by major parties. Our account focuses on three central debates. First, contra to perceived wisdom, we find no evidence of polarization between left and right. Instead, we document a striking co-movement. Second, we find only modest support for the argument that the success of anti-immigrant parties significantly shapes how centrist parties position themselves on immigration. Finally, our evidence counters the claim that cultural issues have overtaken the debate over immigration. Although the prominence of immigration-related cultural appeals has increased in certain countries and elections, the economic dimension has remained prevalent.
Abou-ChadiT.KrauseW. (2018). The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’s policy positions: A regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science, 1-19. Advance online publication. doi:10.1017/S0007123418000029
2.
AdamsJ.EzrowL.Somer-TopcuZ. (2011). Is anybody listening? Evidence that voters do not respond to European parties’ policy statements during election. American Journal of Political Science, 55, 370-381.
3.
AdidaC. L.LaitinD. D.ValfortM.-A. (2016). Why Muslim integration fails in Christian-heritage societies. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
4.
AkkermanT. (2015). Immigration policy and electoral competition in Western Europe. A fine-grained analysis of party positions over the past two decades. Party Politics, 21, 54-67.
5.
AlarianH.GoodmanS. (2017). Dual citizenship allowance and migration flow: An origin story. Comparative Political Studies, 50, 133-167.
6.
AlonsoS.da FonescaS. C. (2012). Immigration, left and right. Party Politics, 18, 865-884.
7.
BakkerR.de VriesC.EdwardsE.HoogheL.JollyS.MarksG.. . . VachudovaM. (2015). Measuring party positions in Europe: The Chapel Hill expert survey trend file, 1999-2010. Party Politics, 21, 143-152.
8.
BaleT. (2008). Turning round the telescope. Centre-right parties and immigration and integration policy in Europe. European Journal of Public Policy, 15, 315-330.
9.
BaleT. (2014). Putting it right? The labour party’s big shift on immigration since 2010. The Political Quarterly, 85, 296-303.
10.
BaleT.Green-PedersenC.KrouwelA.LutherK. R.SitterN. (2010). If you can’t beat them, join them? Explaining social democratic responses to the challenge from the populist radical right in Western Europe. Political Studies, 58, 410-426.
11.
BeineM.BoucherA.BurgoonB.CrockM.GestJ.HiscoxM.. . . ThielemannE. (2016). Comparing immigration policies: An overview from the IMPALA database. International Migration Review, 50, 827-863.
12.
BenoitK.BräuningerT.DebusM. (2009). Challenges for estimating policy preferences: Announcing an open access archive of political documents. German Politics, 18, 440-453.
13.
BenoitK.LaverM. (2007). Estimating party policy positions: Comparing expert surveys and hand-coded content analysis. Electoral Studies, 26, 90-107.
14.
BeramendiP.HäusermannS.KitscheltH.KriesiH. (2015). The politics of advanced capitalism. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
15.
BudgeI.KlingemannH.-D.VolkensA.BaraJ.TannenbaumE. (Eds.). (2001). Mapping policy preferences: Estimates for parties, electors, and governments 1945-1998. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
16.
CorneliusW. A.MartinP. L.HollifieldJ. F. (1994). Controlling immigration: A global perspective. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
17.
DancygierR. (2010). Immigration and conflict in Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
18.
DancygierR. (2017). Dilemmas of inclusion: Muslims in European politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
DancygierR.DonnellyM. (2013). Sectoral economies, economic contexts, and attitudes toward immigration. Journal of Politics, 75, 17-35.
20.
de VriesC. (2018). The cosmopolitan-parochial divide: Changing patterns of party competition in the Netherlands and beyond. Journal of European Public Policy, 25, 1541-1565.
21.
DuncanF.van HeckeS. (2008). Immigration and the transnational European centre-right: A common programmatic response?Journal of European Public Policy, 15, 432-452.
22.
EllermanA. (2013). When can liberal states avoid unwanted immigration? Self-limited sovereignty and guest worker recruitment in Switzerland and Germany. World Politics, 65, 491-538.
23.
Fernandez-VazquezP. (2014). And yet it moves: The effect of election platforms on party policy images. Comparative Political Studies, 47, 1919-1944.
24.
FreemanG. P. (1995). Modes of immigration policies in liberal democratic states. International Migration Review, 29, 881-902.
25.
GivensT.LuedtkeA. (2005). European immigration policies in comparative perspective: Issue salience, partisanship and immigrant rights. Comparative European Politics, 3, 1-22.
26.
GolderM. (2016). Far right parties in Europe. Annual Review of Political Science, 19, 477-497.
27.
GoodmanS. W. (2014). Immigration and membership politics in Western Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
28.
Green-PedersenC.OtjesS. (2019). A hot topic? Immigration on the agenda in Western Europe. Party Politics, 25, 424-434. doi:10.1177/1354068817728211
29.
GuiraudonV.LahavG. (2000). A reappraisal of the state sovereignty debate: The case of migration control. Comparative Political Studies, 33, 163-195.
30.
HainmuellerJ.HopkinsD. J. (2014). Public attitudes toward immigration. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 225-249.
31.
HelblingM. (2014). Framing immigration to Western Europe. Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies, 40, 21-41.
32.
HelblingM.BjerreL.RömerF.ZobelM. (2017). Measuring immigration policies: The IMPIC database. European Political Science Review, 16, 79-98.
33.
HöglingerD.WüestB.HelblingM. (2012). Culture versus economy: The framing of public debates over issues related to globalization. In KriesiH.GrandeE.DolezalM.HelblingM.HöglingerD.HutterS.WüestB. (Eds.), Political conflict in Western Europe (pp. 229-253). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
HoogheL.MarksG. (2018). Cleavage theory meets Europe’s crises: Lipset, Rokkan, and the transnational cleavage. Journal of European Public Policy, 25, 109-135.
35.
JoppkeC. (1999). Immigration and the nation state. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
36.
KitscheltH.McGannA. J. (1996). The radical right in Western Europe: A comparative analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
37.
KlingemannH.-D.HofferbertR.BudgeI. (1994). Parties, policies, and democracy. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
38.
KriesiH.GrandeE.LachatR.DolezatM.BornschierS.FreyT. (2008). West European politics in the age of globalization. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
39.
LahavG. (2004). Immigration and politics in the New Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
40.
LaverM. (2014). Measuring policy positions in political space. Annual Review of Political Science, 17, 207-223.
41.
LehmannP.ZobelM. (2018). Positions and saliency of immigration in party manifestos: A novel dataset using crowd coding. European Journal of Political Research, 57, 1056-1083.
42.
MalhotraN.MargalitY.MoC. (2013). Economic explanations for opposition to immigration: Distinguishing between prevalence and magnitude. American Journal of Political Science, 57, 391-410.
43.
MaxwellR. (2012). Ethnic minority migrants in Britain and France: Integration trade-offs. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
44.
McLarenL. (2003). Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: Contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants. Social Forces, 81, 909-936.
45.
MeguidB. M. (2008). Party competition between unequals: Strategies and electoral fortunes in Western Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
46.
MessinaA. M. (1989). Race and party competition in Britain. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
47.
MinkenbergM. (2001). The radical right in public office: Agenda-setting and policy effects. West European Politics, 24(4), 1-21.
48.
MuddeC. (2007). Populist radical right parties in Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
49.
MuddeC. (2013). Three decades of populist radical right parties in Western Europe: So what?European Journal of Political Research, 52, 1-19.
50.
OdmalmP.BaleT. (2015). Immigration into the mainstream: Conflicting ideological streams, strategic reasoning and party competition. Acta Politica, 50, 365-378.
51.
Pardos-PradoS. (2015). How can mainstream parties prevent niche party success? Center-right parties and the immigration issue. Journal of Politics, 77, 352-367.
52.
PetersM. E. (2017). Trading barriers: Immigration and the remaking of globalization. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
53.
RuedinD.MoralesL.PiletJ.-B.ThomasP. (2013, August). Immigration in the party political agenda: A comparative analysis of party manifestos in six European countries. Presented at the ECPR General Conference, Bordeaux, France.
54.
SchainM. (2006). The extreme-right and immigration policy-making: Measuring direct and indirect effects. West European Politics, 29, 270-289.
55.
ScheveK.SlaughterM. J. (2001). Labor market competition and individual preferences over immigration policy. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 83, 133-145.
56.
van der BrugW.D’AmatoG.BerkhoutJ.RuedinD. (Eds.). (2015). The politicization of migration. London, England: Routledge.
57.
van SpanjeJ. (2010). Contagious parties: Anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties’ immigration stances in contemporary Western Europe. Party Politics, 16, 563-586.
58.
VolkensA.LehmanP.MerzN.RegelS.WernerA.LacewellO. P.SchultzeH. (2014). The manifesto data collection. Manifesto project (MRG/CMP/MARPOR). Version 2014a. Berlin, Germany: Wissenschaftszentrum Berlin für Sozialforschung.
59.
WendtC. (2009). Migration, nativism, and party system change in Western Europe (Doctoral dissertation). Department of Political Science, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Cambridge.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
