‘Exclusionary welfarism’: a new programmatic agenda for populist right-wing parties?

ABSTRACT

This article introduces a novel analytical framework to compare the changing positions of five populist right-wing parties in the field of welfare policies. Results outline that a novel programmatic approach on the socio economic dimension materialised, which clearly departs from traditional right wing ideologies. We call it ‘exclusionary welfarism’, characterised by (i) high salience of welfare issues, (ii) strong support for welfare state expansion, (iii) low support for the role of the market in welfare provision and (iv) the adoption of a chauvinistic stance in social policies. Furthermore, different profiles of exclusionary populist parties emerge. In fact, if both the salience of welfare issues and welfare chauvinism are shared across all parties’ manifestos considered here, the analysis shows high heterogeneity and varieties of exclusionary populist approaches among populist right-wing parties for what concerns the roles of the two main institutional spheres in welfare provision: state and market.

KEYWORDS:

• Welfare state
• welfare agenda
• exclusionary populism
• right parties

Disclosure statement

No potential conflict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Correction Statement

This article has been corrected with minor changes. These changes do not impact the academic content of the article.

Notes

1 See Section 3 and the Online Appendix for detailed information on the coding process.

2 For an excellent overview of the relationship between populist right parties and social policy in late industrialising ‘peripheral’ countries, see Fischer 2020.

3 Importantly, in this article the focus of our analysis is not on outcomes – such as decommodification or de-stratification – but rather on the main institutional welfare and labour market arrangements in the various countries, thus considering parties’ preferences on (i) the relative role of ‘state’ and ‘market’ – that is, of private actors – in welfare benefit/service provision and (ii) labour market deregulation and flexibilisation.

Additional information

Notes on contributors

Matteo Jessoula

Matteo Jessoula is Full Professor of Political Science at the University of Milan, Director of the Welfare Laboratory at Centro Einaudi, Turin and coordinator of the European Social Policy Network. Among his publications, the volumes: Fighting poverty and Social Exclusion in the EU. A Chance in Europe 2020, Routledge, 2018 (co-edited with I. Madama), Labour Market Flexibility and Pension Reforms. Flexible Today, Secure Tomorrow?, Palgrave, 2012 (co-edited with K. Hinrichs); and the articles: ‘Selective flexicurity’ in segmented labour markets: the case of Italian mid-siders (with P. Graziano and I. Madama) in ‘Journal of Social Policy’, 2010; ‘Europe 2020 and the Fight against Poverty: Beyond Competence Clash, Towards ‘Hybrid’ Governance Solutions?’, in ‘Social Policy & Administration’, 2015.

Marcello Natili

Marcello Natili is an assistant professor of Political Science at the Department of Social and Political Sciences of the University of Milan and a member of the European Social Policy Network. His publications include the book ‘The Politics of Minimum Income. Explaining Path Departure and Policy Reversal in the Age of Austerity’, Palgrave MacMillan, 2019 and articles appeared in journals such as the Journal of European Social Policies, Journal of Social Policy, Social Policy & Administration, European Societies and Journal of International and Comparative Social Policy.

Emmanuele Pavolini

Emmanuele Pavolini is a Full Professor of Economic Sociology and Social Policy at the University of Macerata and member of the European Social Policy Network. Among his most recent publications: ‘The Matthew effect in childcare use: a matter of policies or preferences?’ (with Van Lancker, W) in Journal of European Public Policy, 25(6), 2018, ‘Comparing Occupational Welfare in Europe: The Case of Occupational Pensions’, (with Seeleib-Keiser, M.), in Social Policy & Administration, 52(2), 2018. ‘Female employment and elderly care: the role of care policies and culture in 21European countries’, (with Naldini, M. and Solera, C.) in Work, employment and society; ‘From austerity to permanent strain? The EU and welfare state reform in Italy and Spain’, (with León, M., Guillén, A.M. and Ascoli, U.), in Comparative European Politics, 13(1), 56–76, 2015; ‘Not all that glitters is gold: Long-term care reforms in the last two decades in Europe’, (with Ranci, C.), in Journal of European Social Policy, 25(3), 2015.