This article investigates the political consequences of occupational change in times of rapid technological advancement and sheds light on the economic and cultural roots of right-wing populism. A growing body of research shows that the disadvantages of a transforming employment structure are strongly concentrated among semiskilled routine workers in the lower middle class. I argue that individual employment trajectories and relative shifts in the social hierarchy are key to better understand recent political disruptions. A perception of relative economic decline among politically powerful groups—not their impoverishment—drives support for conservative and, especially, right-wing populist parties. Individual-level panel data from three postindustrial democracies and original survey data demonstrate this relationship. A possible interpretation of the findings is that traditional welfare policy might be an ineffective remedy against the ascent of right-wing populism.
AcemogluD.AutorD. (2011). Skills, tasks and technologies: Implications for employment and earnings. In AshenfelterO.CardD. (Eds.), Handbook of labor economics (pp. 1043–1171). Elsevier.
2.
AndersenJ. G.BjørklundT. (1990). Structural changes and new cleavages: The progress parties in Denmark and Norway. Acta Sociologica, 33(3), 195–217.
AntonucciL.HorvathL.KutiyskiY.KrouwelA. (2017). The malaise of the squeezed middle: Challenging the narrative of the “left behind” Brexiter. Competition & Change, 21(3), 211–229.
5.
AresM. (2020). Changing classes, changing preferences: How social class mobility affects economic preferences. West European Politics, 43(6), 1211–1237.
6.
AutorD. H.DornD. (2009). This job is “getting old”: Measuring changes in job opportunities using occupational age structure. American Economic Review, 99(2), 45–51.
7.
AutorD. H.DornD.HansonG. H. (2013). The geography of trade and technology shocks in the United States. The American Economic Review, 103(3), 220–225.
8.
AutorD. H.LevyF.MurnaneR. J. (2003). The skill content of recent technological change: An empirical exploration. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 118(4), 1279–1333.
9.
BacakV.KennedyE. H. (2015). Marginal structural models: An application to incarceration and marriage during young adulthood. Journal of Marriage and Family, 77(1), 112–125.
10.
BeckU. (1986). Risikogesellschaft: auf dem Weg in eine andere Moderne [Risk Society: Towards a New Modernity]. Suhrkamp.
11.
BlackwellM. (2013). A framework for dynamic causal inference in political science. American Journal of Political Science, 57(2), 504–520.
12.
BlackwellM.GlynnA. N. (2018). How to make causal inferences with time-series cross-sectional data under selection on observables. American Political Science Review, 112(4), 1067–1082.
13.
BornschierS.KriesiH. (2013). The populist right, the working class, and the changing face of class politics. In RydgrenJ. (Ed.), Class politics and the radical right (pp. 11–29). Routledge.
14.
BurgoonB.van NoortS.RooduijnM.UnderhillG. (2019). Positional deprivation and support for radical right and radical left parties. Economic Policy, 34(97), 49–93.
15.
ColeS. R.HernánM. A. (2008). Constructing inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. American Journal of Epidemiology, 168(6), 656–664.
16.
CortesG. M. (2016). Where have the middle-wage workers gone? A study of polarization using panel data. Journal of Labor Economics, 34(1), 63–105.
17.
EkbergM. (2007). The parameters of the risk society: A review and exploration. Current Sociology, 55(3), 343–366.
18.
FeldmanS.StennerK. (1997). Perceived threat and authoritarianism. Political Psychology, 18(4), 741–770.
19.
FreyC. B.BergerT.ChenC. (2018). Political machinery: Did robots swing the 2016 US presidential election?Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 34(3), 418–442.
20.
FreyC. B.OsborneM. A. (2017). The future of employment: How susceptible are jobs to computerisation?Technological Forecasting and Social Change, 114, 254–280.
21.
GestJ.RenyT.MayerJ. (2017). Roots of the radical right: Nostalgic deprivation in the United States and Britain. Comparative Political Studies, 51(13), 1694–1719.
22.
GidronN.HallP. A. (2017). The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of the populist right. The British Journal of Sociology, 68, S57–S84.
23.
GidronN.MijsJ. J. B. (2019). Do changes in material circumstances drive support for populist radical parties? Panel data evidence from the Netherlands during the great recession, 2007–2015. European Sociological Review, 35(5), 637–650.
24.
GingrichJ. (2019). Did state responses to automation matter for voters?Research & Politics, 6(1), 1–9.
25.
GoosM.ManningA. (2007). Lousy and lovely jobs: The rising polarization of work in Britain. Review of Economics and Statistics, 89(1), 118–133.
26.
GoosM.ManningA.SalomonsA. (2014). Explaining job polarization: Routine-biased technological change and offshoring. The American Economic Review, 104(8), 2509–2526.
27.
ImZ. J.MayerN.PalierB.RovnyJ. (2019). The “losers of automation”: A reservoir of votes for the radical right?Research & Politics, 6(1), 1–7.
28.
ImaiK.RatkovicM. (2015). Robust estimation of inverse probability weights for marginal structural models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 110(511), 1013–1023.
IversenT.SoskiceD. (2001). An asset theory of social policy preferences. American Political Science Review, 95(4), 875–894.
31.
JahodaM. (1982). Employment and unemployment: A social-psychological analysis. Cambridge University Press.
32.
JostJ. T.GlaserJ.KruglanskiA. W.SullowayF. J. (2003). Political conservatism as motivated social cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 129(3), 339–375.
33.
KüpperB.WolfC.ZickA. (2010). Social status and anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe: An examination from the perspective of social dominance theory. International Journal of Conflict and Violence, 4(2), 205–219.
34.
KurerT.GallegoA. (2019). Distributional consequences of technological change: Worker-level evidence. Research & Politics, 6(1), 1–9.
35.
KurerT.PalierB. (2019). Shrinking and shouting: The political revolt of the declining middle in times of employment polarization. Research & Politics, 6(1), 1–6.
36.
KuziemkoI.BuellR. W.ReichT.NortonM. I. (2014). “Last-place aversion”: Evidence and redistributive implications. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 129(1), 105–149.
37.
LahtinenH.WassH.HiilamoH. (2017). Gradient constraint in voting: The effect of intra-generational social class and income mobility on turnout. Electoral Studies, 45, 14–23.
38.
LeifeldP. (2013). texreg: Conversion of statistical model output in R to LATEX and HTML tables. Journal of Statistical Software, 55(8), 1–24.
39.
MurphyE. C. (2014). Workers’ movement out of declining occupations in Great Britain, Germany and Switzerland. European Sociological Review, 30(6), 685–701.
40.
MutzD. C. (2018). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), E4330–E4339.
41.
NachtweyO. (2016). Die Abstiegsgesellschaft: Über das Aufbegehren in der regressiven Moderne [Germany’s Hidden Crisis Social Decline in the Heart of Europe]. Suhrkamp Verlag.
42.
OeschD. (2008). Explaining workers’ support for right-wing populist parties in Western Europe: Evidence from Austria, Belgium, France, Norway, and Switzerland. International Political Science Review, 29(3), 349–373.
43.
OeschD. (2013). Occupational change in Europe: how technology and education transform the job structure. Oxford University Press.
44.
OeschD.RennwaldL. (2018). Electoral competition in Europe’s new tripolar political space: Class voting for the left, centre-right and radical right. European Journal of Political Research, 57(4), 783–807.
PeriG.SparberC. (2009). Task specialization, immigration, and wages. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 1(3), 135–169.
48.
RehmP. (2009). Risks and redistribution: An individual-level analysis. Comparative Political Studies, 42(7), 855–881.
49.
RennwaldL. (2014). Class (non) voting in Switzerland 1971-2011: Ruptures and continuities in a changing political landscape. Swiss Political Science Review, 20(4), 550–572.
50.
RidgewayC. L. (2014). Why status matters for inequality. American Sociological Review, 79(1), 1–16.
51.
RiekB. M.ManiaE. W.GaertnerS. L. (2006). Intergroup threat and outgroup attitudes: A meta-analytic review. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 10(4), 336–353.
52.
RobinsJ. M. (1999). Association, causation, and marginal structural models. Synthese, 121(1), 151–179.
53.
RobinsJ. M.HernanM. A.BrumbackB. (2000). Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology, 11(5), 550–560.
54.
RodrikD. (2018). Populism and the economics of globalization. Journal of International Business Policy, 1(1–2), 12–33.
55.
RosenstoneS. J. (1982). Economic adversity and voter turnout. American Journal of Political Science, 26(1), 25–46.
56.
RovnyA. E.RovnyJ. (2017). Outsiders at the ballot box: Operationalizations and political consequences of the insider–outsider dualism. Socio-Economic Review, 15(1), 161–185.
57.
Spitz-OenerA. (2006). Technical change, job tasks, and rising educational demands: Looking outside the wage structure. Journal of Labor Economics, 24(2), 235–270.
58.
SteenvoordenE.HarteveldE. (2018). The appeal of nostalgia: The influence of societal pessimism on support for populist radical right parties. West European Politics, 41(1), 28–52.
59.
ThewissenS.RuedaD. (2019). Automation and the welfare state: Technological change as a determinant of redistribution preferences. Comparative Political Studies, 52(2), 171–208.
60.
van der WalW. M.GeskusR. B. (2011). ipw: An R package for inverse probability weighting. Journal of Statistical Software, 43(13), 1–23.
61.
WiertzD.RodonT. (2019). Frozen or malleable? Political ideology in the face of job loss and unemployment. Socio-Economic Review. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1093/ser/mwz024
62.
WilsonG. D. (1973). Psychology of conservatism. Academic Press.
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.
