This paper investigates whether populism, independent of its substantive policy correlates, diffuses within party systems as a rhetorical strategy. Building on theories of political contagion, I argue that populism’s simplicity and flexibility make it an attractive tool for parties seeking to mobilize voters, disrupt competitors, and respond to systemic pressures. Using the V-Party dataset, which provides expert-coded estimates of populist rhetoric across a global sample of parties, I construct a leave-one-out (LOO) Index to capture systemic populist signals. Time-series cross-sectional regression models with fixed effects reveal that higher levels of systemic populism significantly increase the likelihood of parties adopting populist rhetoric in subsequent electoral cycles. The effect is most pronounced for anti-elitism and people-centrism, while pluralistic norms and non-violence remain stable. Right-leaning parties exhibit stronger responsiveness, reflecting the natural alignment between populist themes and conservative platforms.
AbadieAAtheySImbensGW, et al. (2023) When should you adjust standard errors for clustering?Quarterly Journal of Economics138(1): 1–35.
2.
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.
3.
Abou-ChadiTKrauseW (2020) The causal effect of radical right success on mainstream parties’ policy positions: a regression discontinuity approach. British Journal of Political Science50(3): 829–847.
4.
AdamsJ (2012) Causes and electoral consequences of party policy shifts in multiparty elections: theoretical results and empirical evidence. Annual Review of Political Science15(1): 401–419.
5.
AdamsJSomer-TopcuZ (2009) Policy adjustment by parties in response to rival parties’ policy shifts: spatial theory and the dynamics of party competition in twenty-five post-war democracies. British Journal of Political Science39(4): 825–846.
6.
AdcockRCollierD (2001) Measurement validity: a shared standard for qualitative and quantitative research. American Political Science Review95(3): 529–546.
7.
AlganYGurievSPapaioannouE, et al. (2017) The european trust crisis and the rise of populism. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity2017(2): 309–400.
8.
AngristJDPischkeJ-S (2009) Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist’s Companion. Princeton university press.
9.
BaumannMDebusMGrossM (2021) Strategic issue emphasis in parties’ election campaign statements. Party Politics27(3): 515–527.
10.
BayerleinM (2021) Chasing the other “populist zeitgeist”? mainstream parties and the rise of right-wing populism. Politische Vierteljahresschrift62(3): 411–433.
11.
BélangerM-ÈWunschN (2022) From cohesion to contagion? populist radical right contestation of eu enlargement. Journal of Communication and Media Studies: Journal of Common Market Studies60(3): 653–672.
12.
BenczesISzabóK (2023) An economic understanding of populism: a conceptual framework of the demand and the supply side of populism. Political Studies Review21(4): 680–696.
13.
BrownKMondonA (2021) Populism, the media, and the mainstreaming of the far right: the guardian’s coverage of populism as a case study. Politics41(3): 279–295.
14.
BrubakerR (2020) Populism and nationalism. Nations and Nationalism26(1): 44–66.
15.
CameronACGelbachJBMillerDL (2011) Robust inference with multiway clustering. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics29(2): 238–249.
16.
CerulliG (2022) Methods based on selection on observables. In: Econometric Evaluation of Socio-Economic Programs: Theory and Applications. Springer, 47–152.
17.
CinelliCHazlettC (2020) Making sense of sensitivity: extending omitted variable bias. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society - Series B: Statistical Methodology82(1): 39–67.
18.
CinelliCHazlettC (2022). An omitted variable bias framework for sensitivity analysis of instrumental variables. Biometrika. 112(2025): asaf004.
19.
CinelliCForneyAPearlJ (2024) A crash course in good and bad controls. Sociological Methods & Research53(3): 1071–1104.
20.
DavisBGoodliffeJHawkinsK (2025) The two-way effects of populism on affective polarization. Comparative Political Studies58(1): 122–154.
21.
De CleenBStavrakakisY (2017) Distinctions and articulations: a discourse theoretical framework for the study of populism and nationalism. Javnost - The Public24(4): 301–319.
22.
DownsA (1957) An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper and Brothers.
23.
DüpontNKavasogluYBLührmannAReuterOJ (2022) A global perspective on party organizations. Validating the varieties of party identity and organization dataset (V-Party). Electoral Studies75: 102423.
24.
EzrowLDe VriesCSteenbergenM, et al. (2011) Mean voter representation and partisan constituency representation: do parties respond to the mean voter position or to their supporters?Party Politics17(3): 275–301.
25.
Fortin-RittbergerJ (2015) Time-series Cross-Section. The Sage Handbook of Regression Analysis and Causal Inference. London: Sage.
26.
FunkeMSchularickMTrebeschC (2023) Populist leaders and the economy. The American Economic Review113(12): 3249–3288.
27.
GidronNZiblattD (2019) Center-right political parties in advanced democracies. Annual Review of Political Science22(1): 17–35.
28.
GolderM (2016) Far right parties in europe. Annual Review of Political Science19(1): 477–497.
29.
GurievSPapaioannouE (2022) The political economy of populism. Journal of Economic Literature60(3): 753–832.
30.
HalikiopoulouDVlandasT (2019) What is new and what is nationalist about europe’s new nationalism? explaining the rise of the far right in europe. Nations and Nationalism25(2): 409–434.
31.
HanKJ (2015) The impact of radical right-wing parties on the positions of mainstream parties regarding multiculturalism. West European Politics38(3): 557–576.
32.
HawkinsKAKaltwasserCR (2017) The ideational approach to populism. Latin American Research Review52(4): 513–528.
33.
HawkinsKACarlinRELittvayL, et al. (2018) The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis. Routledge.
34.
HoboltSBDe VriesCE (2015) Issue entrepreneurship and multiparty competition. Comparative Political Studies48(9): 1159–1185.
35.
HungerSPaxtonF (2022) What’s in a buzzword? a systematic review of the state of populism research in political science. Political Science Research and Methods10(3): 617–633.
36.
Huntington-KleinN (2021) The Effect: An Introduction to Research Design and Causality. Chapman and Hall/CRC.
37.
HutchinsonJ (1983) On the locus of range effects in judgment and choice. Advances in Consumer Research10(1): 305–308.
38.
KeeleLStevensonRTElwertF (2020) The causal interpretation of estimated associations in regression models. Political Science Research and Methods8(1): 1–13.
39.
KlüverHSagarzazuI (2016) Setting the agenda or responding to voters? political parties, voters and issue attention. West European Politics39(2): 380–398.
40.
KollmanKMillerJHPageSE (1992) Adaptive parties in spatial elections. American Political Science Review86(4): 929–937.
41.
MacKinnonJGNielsenMØWebbMD (2023) Cluster-robust inference: a guide to empirical practice. Journal of Econometrics232(2): 272–299.
42.
MeguidBM (2005) Competition between unequals: the role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review99(3): 347–359.
43.
MeijersMJ (2017) Contagious euroscepticism: the impact of eurosceptic support on mainstream party positions on european integration. Party Politics23(4): 413–423.
44.
MeijersMJZasloveA (2021) Measuring populism in political parties: appraisal of a new approach. Comparative Political Studies54(2): 372–407.
45.
MuddeC (2004) The populist zeitgeist. Government and Opposition39(4): 541–563.
46.
MuddeC (2014) Fighting the system? populist radical right parties and party system change. Party Politics20(2): 217–226.
47.
MuddeCKaltwasserCR (2017) Populism: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford University Press, Vol. 510.
48.
MuddeCRovira KaltwasserC (2018) Studying populism in comparative perspective: reflections on the contemporary and future research agenda. Comparative Political Studies51(13): 1667–1693.
49.
NorrisP (2019) Varieties of populist parties. Philosophy & Social Criticism45(9-10): 981–1012.
50.
ParducciA (1968) The relativism of absolute judgments. Scientific American219(6): 84–93.
51.
PemsteinDMarquardtKLTzelgovE, et al. (2020) The V–Dem Measurement Model: Latent Variable Analysis for Cross–National and Cross–Temporal Expert–Coded Data. V–Dem Working Paper No. 21. 5th edition. University of Gothenburg: Varieties of Democracy Institute. Available at: https://www.v-dem.net/en/working-papers/
52.
RooduijnM (2015) The rise of the populist radical right in western europe. European view14(1): 3–11.
53.
RooduijnMDe LangeSLVan Der BrugW (2014) A populist zeitgeist? programmatic contagion by populist parties in western europe. Party Politics20(4): 563–575.
54.
RooduijnMVan Der BrugWDe LangeSL (2016) Expressing or fuelling discontent? the relationship between populist voting and political discontent. Electoral Studies43: 32–40.
55.
RosenbaumPR (1984) The consequences of adjustment for a concomitant variable that has been affected by the treatment. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A147(5): 656–666.
56.
Schulte-CloosJLeiningerA (2022) Electoral participation, political disaffection, and the rise of the populist radical right. Party Politics28(3): 431–443.
57.
SchumacherGRooduijnM (2013) Sympathy for the ‘devil’? voting for populists in the 2006 and 2010 Dutch general elections. Electoral Studies32(1): 124–133.
58.
SchumacherGVan KersbergenK (2016) Do mainstream parties adapt to the welfare chauvinism of populist parties?Party Politics22(3): 300–312.
59.
SchwörerJ (2021) The Growth of Populism in the Political Mainstream. Springer.
60.
SekhonJS (2009) Opiates for the matches: matching methods for causal inference. Annual Review of Political Science12(1): 487–508.
61.
SimonovitsG (2017) Centrist by comparison: extremism and the expansion of the political spectrum. Political Behavior39: 157–175.
62.
SinghP (2021) Populism, nationalism, and nationalist populism. Studies in Comparative International Development56(2): 250–269.
63.
Somer-TopcuZ (2009) Timely decisions: the effects of past national elections on party policy change. The Journal of Politics71(1): 238–248.
64.
SpoonJ-JKlüverH (2014) Do parties respond? how electoral context influences party responsiveness. Electoral Studies35: 48–60.
65.
StankovP (2018) The political economy of populism: an empirical investigation. Comparative Economic Studies60: 230–253.
66.
StanleyB (2008) The thin ideology of populism. Journal of Political Ideologies13(1): 95–110.
67.
StavrakakisYKatsambekisG (2014) Left-wing populism in the european periphery: the case of syriza. Journal of Political Ideologies19(2): 119–142.
68.
StavrakakisYKatsambekisG (2019) The populism/anti-populism frontier and its mediation in crisis-ridden Greece: from discursive divide to emerging cleavage?European Political Science18: 37–52.
69.
StokesDE (1963) Spatial models of party competition. American Political Science Review57(2): 368–377.
70.
Surdea-HerneaV (2024). Changing the guard: the role of leadership elections in the populist era. Available at SSRN.
71.
UrbinatiN (2019) Me the People: How Populism Transforms Democracy. Harvard University Press.
72.
ValentimV (2021) Parliamentary representation and the normalization of radical right support. Comparative Political Studies54(14): 2475–2511.
73.
ValentimV (2024) The Normalization of the Radical Right: A Norms Theory of Political Supply and Demand. Oxford University Press.
74.
van KesselS (2025) Populism, the far right and eu integration: beyond simple dichotomies. Journal of European Integration47(1): 127–133.
75.
Van SpanjeJ (2010) Contagious parties: anti-immigration parties and their impact on other parties’ immigration stances in contemporary western europe. Party Politics16(5): 563–586.
76.
WagnerMMeyerTM (2014) Which issues do parties emphasise? salience strategies and party organisation in multiparty systems. West European Politics37(5): 1019–1045.
77.
WestreichDGreenlandS (2013) The table 2 fallacy: presenting and interpreting confounder and modifier coefficients. American Journal of Epidemiology177(4): 292–298.
78.
WuttkeASchimpfCSchoenH (2020) When the whole is greater than the sum of its parts: on the conceptualization and measurement of populist attitudes and other multidimensional constructs. American Political Science Review114(2): 356–374.
79.
YeungCWSomanD (2005) Attribute evaluability and the range effect. Journal of Consumer Research32(3): 363–369.
