The success of anti-immigration parties (AIPs) in many European democracies poses a strategic problem for established actors: Immediate policy impact of AIPs can be averted by ostracizing them (i.e. refusing any cooperation), but this strategy may sway public opinion further in their favour. A comparative review shows large variation in the electoral trajectories of ostracized parties. We therefore propose a model of the context conditions that shape the repercussions of ostracism in public opinion. Under conditions that suggest substantial policy impact of an AIP were it to join a coalition government, ostracism should decrease the party’s electoral support. Vice versa, if context suggests strong “signaling” potential of an AIP if in opposition, ostracism should increase its support. To avoid apparent endogeneity of political context and party competition, the model is tested with a survey-embedded experiment on a representative sample from the Netherlands. Results confirm that ostracism is a double-edged strategy.
Abou-ChadiT (2016) Niche party success and mainstream party policy shifts – how green and radical right parties differ in their impact. British Journal of Political Science46(2): 417–436.
2.
AlbækE (2003) Political ethics and public policy: homosexuals between moral dilemmas and political considerations in Danish Parliamentary Debates. Scandinavian Political Studies26(3): 245–267.
3.
AndewegRBIrwinGA (2014) Government and Politics of the Netherlands.Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.
4.
ArtD (2007) Reacting to the radical right: lessons from Germany and Austria. Party Politics13(3): 331–349.
5.
ArtD (2011) Inside the Radical Right: The Development of Anti-Immigrant Parties in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
6.
ArzheimerK (2009) Contextual factors and the extreme right vote in Western Europe, 1980-2002. American Journal of Political Science53(2): 259–275.
7.
Austen-SmithDBanksJS (1988) Elections, coalitions, and legislative outcomes. American Political Science Review80(2): 405–422.
8.
BaleTChristofferGPAndréK, et al. (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 Studies58(3): 410–426.
9.
BargstedMAKedarO (2009) Coalition-targeted duvergerian voting: how expectations affect voter choice under proportional representation. American Journal of Political Science53(2): 307–323.
10.
BirenbaumGVillaM (2003) The media and neo-populism in France. In: MazzoleniGStewartJHorsfieldB (eds), The Media and Neo-Populism: A Contemporary Comparative Analysis. Westport: Praeger, pp. 45–70.
BosLVan der BrugW (2010) Public images of leaders of anti-immigration parties: perceptions of legitimacy and effectiveness. Party Politics16(6): 777–799.
13.
DahlRA (1971) Polyarchy, Participation, and Opposition. New Haven, NJ: Yale University Press.
14.
DahlströmCAndersS (2012) A losing gamble. How mainstream parties facilitate anti-immigrant party success. Electoral Studies31: 353–363.
15.
DamenS (2001) Strategieën tegen extreem-rechts: Het cordon sanitaire onder de loep. Tijdschrift Voor Sociologie22(1): 89–110.
16.
De SwaanA (1973) Coalition Theories and Cabinet Formations: A Study of Formal Theories of Coalition Formation Applied to Nine European Parliaments after 1918. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
17.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York, NY: Harper.
18.
DownsW (2001) Pariahs in their Midst: Belgian and Norwegian parties react to extremist Threats. West European Politics24(3): 23–42.
19.
DownsW (2002) How effective is the cordon sanitaire? Lessons from efforts to contain the far right in Belgium, France, Denmark and Norway. Journal Für Konflikt - Und Gewaltforschung4(1): 32–51.
20.
DownsW (2012) Political Extremism in Democracies: Combating Intolerance. New York, NY: Palgrave Macmillan.
21.
EnelowJMHinichMJ (1990) Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
22.
FennemaM (2000) Legal repression of extreme right parties and racial discrimination. In: KoopmansRStathamP (eds), Challenging Immigration and Ethnic Relations Politics. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 119–144.
23.
GallagherMMichaelLPeterM (2011) Representative Government in Modern Europe. Maidenhead: McGraw Hill.
24.
GamsonWA (1961) A theory of coalition formation. American Sociological Review26(3): 373–382.
25.
Green-PedersenCKrogstrupJ (2008) Immigration as a political issue in Denmark and Sweden. European Journal of Political Research47(5): 610–634.
26.
GrofmanB (1985) The neglected role of the status quo in models of issue voting. Journal of Politics47(1): 231–237.
27.
HanKJ (2015) The impact of radical right-wing parties on the positions of mainstream parties regarding multiculturalism. West European Politics38(3): 557–576.
28.
HarrisG (1994) The Dark Side of Europe: The Extreme Right Today. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
29.
HermanV (ed) (1976) Parliaments of the World. Berlin: De Gruyter.
30.
JesseE (2001) Soll die Nationaldemokratische Partei Deutschlands verboten werden?Politische Vierteljahresschrift42(4): 683–697.
31.
JupskåsAR (2015) Institutionalised right-wing populism in times of economic crisis: a comparative study of the Norwegian progress party and the Danish People’s Party. In: KriesiHPappasTS (eds), European Populism in the Shadow of the Great Recession. Colchester: ECPR Press, pp. 23–40.
32.
KarpJAHoboltSB (eds) (2010) Voters and coalition governments. Symposium of Electoral Studies29(3): 299–391.
33.
KedarO (2009) Voting for Policy, Not Parties: How Voters Compensate for Power Sharing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
34.
KselmanDNiouE (2011) Protest voting in plurality elections: a theory of voter signaling. Public Choice148(3): 395–418.
35.
LeisersonMA (1970) Game theory and the study of coalition behavior. In: GroenningsSKelleyEWLeisersonMA (eds), The Study of Coalition Behavior. New York, NY: Holt, Rinehart and Winston, pp. 255–272.
36.
MayerN (2013) From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: electoral change on the far right. Parliamentary Affairs66(1): 160–178.
MeffertMFHuberSGschwendT, et al. (2011) More than wishful thinking: causes and consequences of voters’ electoral expectations about parties and coalitions. Electoral Studies30: 804–815.
39.
MeguidB (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
40.
MeguidB (2008) Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
41.
MuddeC (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
42.
MuddeCvan HolsteynJJM (2000) The Netherlands: explaining the limited success of the extreme right. In: HainsworthP (ed) The Politics of the Extreme Right: From the Margins to the Mainstream. London and New York: Pinter, pp. 144–171.
43.
NohlenDStöverP (eds) (2010) Elections in Europe: A Data Handbook. Baden-Baden: Nomos.
44.
NordsieckW (2017) Parties and elections: the database about parliamentary elections and political parties in Europe. Available at: http://www.parties-and-elections.eu/ (accessed 10 March 2017).
45.
PauwelsT (2010) Explaining the strange decline of the Vlaams Belang in Belgium: the impact of permanent opposition. Acta Politica46(1): 62–80.
46.
PikettyT (2000) Voting as communicating. Review of Economic Studies67(1): 169–191.
47.
SartoriG (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
48.
ShepsleKA (1991) Models of Multiparty Electoral Competition. Chur: Harwood.
49.
SjöblomG (1968) Party Strategies in a Multiparty System. Lund: Berlingska Boktryckeriet.
50.
StaudT (2006) Moderne Nazis: Die neuen Rechten und der Aufstieg der NPD. Cologne: Kiepenheuer & Witsch.
51.
TillieJ (2008) Gedeeld land. Het multiculturele ongemak van Nederland. Amsterdam: Meulenhoff.
52.
TillieJFennemaM (1998) A rational choice for the extreme right. Acta Politica33(3): 223–249.
53.
Van der BrugW (2003) How the LPF fuelled discontent: empirical tests of explanations of LPF support. Acta Politica38: 89–106.
54.
Van der BrugWFennemaM (2003) Protest or mainstream? How the European anti-immigrant parties have developed into two separate groups by 1999. European Journal of Political Research42(1): 55–76.
55.
Van der BrugWFennemaMTillieJ (2000) Anti-immigrant parties in Europe: ideological or protest vote. European Journal of Political Research37: 77–102.
56.
Van der BrugWFennemaMTillieJ (2005). Why some anti-immigrant parties fail and others succeed. A two-step model of aggregate electoral support. Comparative Political Studies38(5): 537–573.
57.
Van der BrugWvan der EijkCFranklinMN (2007) The Economy and the Vote: Economic Conditions and Elections in Fifteen Countries. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
58.
Van der EijkCFranklinMN (eds) (1996) Choosing Europe?Ann Arbor, MI: University of Michigan Press.
59.
Van der EijkCNiemöllerB (1984) Het potentiele electoraat van de Nederlandse politieke partijen. Beleid en Maatschappij11: 192–204.
60.
Van der EijkCvan der BrugWKrohM, et al. (2006) Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: on the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities. Electoral Studies25(3): 424–447.
61.
Van SpanjeJHP (2010a) Parties beyond the pale. Why some political parties are ostracized by their competitors while others are not. Comparative European Politics8(3): 354–383.
62.
Van SpanjeJHP (2010b) Contagious parties. Anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties’ immigration stances in contemporary Western Europe. Party Politics16(5): 563–586.
63.
Van SpanjeJHP (2011) The wrong and the right. A comparative analysis of ‘anti-immigration’ and ‘far right’ parties in contemporary Western Europe. Government and Opposition46(3): 293–320.
64.
Van SpanjeJHP (2017) Controlling the Electoral Marketplace: How Established Parties Ward off Competition. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan, in press.
65.
Van SpanjeJHPde GraafND (2017) How established parties reduce other parties’ electoral support: the strategy of parroting the pariah. West European Politics: in press, 1–27. DOI: 10.1080/01402382.2017.1332328.
66.
Van SpanjeJHPde VreeseC (2015) The good, the bad, and the voter. The impact of hate speech prosecution of a politician on electoral support for his party. Party Politics21(1): 115–130.
67.
Van SpanjeJHPVan der BrugW (2009) Being intolerant of the intolerant. The exclusion of Western European anti-immigration parties and its consequences for party choice. Acta Politica44(4): 353–384.
68.
WeberT (2011) Exit, voice, and cyclicality: a micrologic of midterm effects in European Parliament elections. American Journal of Political Science55(4): 907–922.
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.
