民粹主义者还是本土专制主义者?对激进右翼的跨国分析

IF 1.2 3区 社会学 Q3 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Glenn Kefford, S. Ratcliff
{"title":"民粹主义者还是本土专制主义者?对激进右翼的跨国分析","authors":"Glenn Kefford, S. Ratcliff","doi":"10.1080/10361146.2021.1956431","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Populism is widely considered to be one of the most significant political phenomena of the past decade. Yet for all the scholarly and media attention it receives, how important it is in driving support for populist radical right parties is debatable. Scholars have long theorised that nativism and authoritarianism are likely to be equally if not more important than populism in driving support for populist radical right parties, but the empirical evidence to support this argument has been limited. We conduct a cross-national analysis on a representative sample of voters from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia (n = 4650) to test this proposition. We demonstrate that rather than populism, it is primarily nativism driving support for populist radical right parties. Populism is, therefore, shown to be less important than often suggested.","PeriodicalId":46913,"journal":{"name":"Australian Journal of Political Science","volume":"56 1","pages":"261 - 279"},"PeriodicalIF":1.2000,"publicationDate":"2021-07-03","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"4","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Populists or nativist authoritarians? A cross-national analysis of the radical right\",\"authors\":\"Glenn Kefford, S. Ratcliff\",\"doi\":\"10.1080/10361146.2021.1956431\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"ABSTRACT Populism is widely considered to be one of the most significant political phenomena of the past decade. Yet for all the scholarly and media attention it receives, how important it is in driving support for populist radical right parties is debatable. Scholars have long theorised that nativism and authoritarianism are likely to be equally if not more important than populism in driving support for populist radical right parties, but the empirical evidence to support this argument has been limited. We conduct a cross-national analysis on a representative sample of voters from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia (n = 4650) to test this proposition. We demonstrate that rather than populism, it is primarily nativism driving support for populist radical right parties. Populism is, therefore, shown to be less important than often suggested.\",\"PeriodicalId\":46913,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Australian Journal of Political Science\",\"volume\":\"56 1\",\"pages\":\"261 - 279\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":1.2000,\"publicationDate\":\"2021-07-03\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"4\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Australian Journal of Political Science\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"90\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.1956431\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"社会学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q3\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Australian Journal of Political Science","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/10361146.2021.1956431","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 4

摘要

民粹主义被广泛认为是近十年来最重要的政治现象之一。然而,尽管它受到了学术界和媒体的关注,但它在推动民粹主义极右翼政党获得支持方面有多重要,仍是一个值得商榷的问题。长期以来,学者们一直认为,在推动民粹主义极右翼政党获得支持方面,本土主义和威权主义可能与民粹主义同等重要,甚至更重要,但支持这一论点的经验证据有限。我们对来自美国、英国和澳大利亚的具有代表性的选民样本(n = 4650)进行了跨国分析,以检验这一命题。我们证明,推动民粹主义激进右翼政党获得支持的主要不是民粹主义,而是本土主义。因此,民粹主义并没有人们通常认为的那么重要。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Populists or nativist authoritarians? A cross-national analysis of the radical right
ABSTRACT Populism is widely considered to be one of the most significant political phenomena of the past decade. Yet for all the scholarly and media attention it receives, how important it is in driving support for populist radical right parties is debatable. Scholars have long theorised that nativism and authoritarianism are likely to be equally if not more important than populism in driving support for populist radical right parties, but the empirical evidence to support this argument has been limited. We conduct a cross-national analysis on a representative sample of voters from the United States, United Kingdom and Australia (n = 4650) to test this proposition. We demonstrate that rather than populism, it is primarily nativism driving support for populist radical right parties. Populism is, therefore, shown to be less important than often suggested.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
2.10
自引率
8.30%
发文量
25
期刊介绍: The Australian Journal of Political Science is the official journal of the Australian Political Studies Association. The editorial team of the Journal includes a range of Australian and overseas specialists covering the major subdisciplines of political science. We publish articles of high quality at the cutting edge of the discipline, characterised by conceptual clarity, methodological rigour, substantive interest, theoretical coherence, broad appeal, originality and insight.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信