Political realignment in Western Europe in the twenty-first century: eroding satisfaction and trust in democracy and its institutions?

Figures & data

Figure 1. Trends, political shifts and democratic implications.

Table 1. National vote for PRR parties and the proportion of foreign born population per country.

Country	Right-wing Populist party	Year	Vote ^% in National elections %	Change in percentage points %	Year	Vote ^% in European elections^a %	Change in percentage points %	Foreign born pop 2022^b %
Belgium	Flemish Interest	1999	9.9		1999	9.4		18.2
		2019	12	+2.1	2019	12.0	+2.6
Germany	AFD	2013	4.7		2014	7.1		18.4
		2021	10.3	+5.6	2019	11.0	+3.9
Spain	Vox	2015	0.2		2014	1.6		15.5
		2019	15.1	+14.9	2019	6.2	+4.6
Finland	The Finns Party	1999	1.0		1999	0.8		7.7
		2023	20.0	+18	2019	13.8	+13
France^c	National Rally	2002	11.1		1999	5.7		12.7
		2022	18.7	+7.6	2019	23.3	+17.6
UK	Independence party	1997	1.0		1999	6.5		15.0
		2015	13.0	+12	2014	27.5	+21.0
Ireland	None	/	/	/	/	/	/	17.9
Italy	Brothers of Italy	2013	1.9		2014	3.7		10.4
		2022	26.0	+24.1	2019	6.4	+2.7
Netherlands	Party for Freedom,	2006	5.9		2009	17		14.5
		2021	16	+10.1	2019	3.5	−13.5
Norway	Progress party	2001	14.6		/	/	/	16.7
		2021	11.7	−2.9
Sweden	Sweden democrats	2002	1.4		2004	1.1		20.0
		2022	20.5	+19.1	2019	15.3	+14.2
							Average:	15.2

^a Where possible we provide comparatively similar dates for European elections as National elections. European union elections last occurred in 2019. There are no figures for Norway as it is not a member of the European Union.

^b These figures include both those born in another EU state and those born in a non-EU country.

^c Vote percentage refers to the first round of voting.

Table 2. Comparing changes in the dependent measures in 2002 and 2020.

	Attitudes below/above mid-points^a
	Below the mid-point %			Above the mid-point %
	2002	2020	Change	2002	2020	Change	T-Test^b
Satisfaction with democracy	48	42	−6.5	37	47	+7.7	***
Trust in politicians and political parties^c	66	65	−0.2	23	26	+0.9	ns
Trust in parliament, law and police	27	22	−4.5	62	69	+6.8	***
Interest in politics	54	49	−5.4	46	51	+5.4	***
Allow immigrants in	10	6	−4.8	69.3	83.7	+14.4	***
Impact of immigrants	38	28	−9.6	36.4	52.1	+15.7	***

^a The composite measures of satisfaction with democracy, political trust, trust in institutions, allowing immigrants in and the impact of immigrants have been computed with a 5 as the midpoint.

in the 0–10 scale indicating negative attitudes below 5 and positive attitudes above.

^b T-test scores: P < 0.001.

^c Data only available from the survey round in 2004.

Table

	Political measures	Alpha score
Satisfaction with democracy*	Measured by 2 items: On the whole, how satisfied are you with the way democracy works in your country and how satisfied are you with the way the government is doing its job? Scored from 0 = Very dissatisfied to 10 = Very satisfied.	0.76
Trust politicians and political parties*	Trust in politics is measured by 2 items: How much do you personally trust each of the following: 1. Politicians 2. Political parties. Scored 0 = no trust al all to 10 = complete trust.	0.92
Trust parliament, legal system and police	Trust in institutions is measured by 3 items: How much do you personally trust each of the following 1. Country’s parliament 2. The legal system 3. The police. Scored 0 = no trust at all to 10 = complete trust.	0.75
Interest in politics	How interested would you say you are in politics? Score 1 = Not at all interested; 2 = Hardly interested; 3 = Quite interested; 4 = Very interested.
	Openness to outsiders
Allowing Immigrants into the country	Measured with 3 items: 1. Would you allow many/few immigrants of same race/ethnic group as majority. 2. Allow many/few immigrants of different race/ethnic group from majority. 3. Allow many/few immigrants from poorer countries outside Europe. Scored 1= Allow many to come and live here; 2 = Allow some; 3 = Allow a few; 4 = Allow none. Items are reverse coded to 1 = Allow none to 4 = Allow many.	0.9
Restrictive and liberal views	The responses to the above 3 items (allow many, allow some; allow a few; allow none) have been grouped into Liberal orientedattitudes (allow many/some) and restrictive oriented (allow none/few). A ‘few’ can be taken as consisting of or amounting to only a small number while ‘some’ indicates a larger quantity.
Immigrant impact on economy and culture	Measured with 3 items: 1. Would you say it is generally bad or good for [country]’s economy that people come to live here from other countries? 2. Would you say that cultural life is generally undermined or enriched by people coming to live here from other countries? 3. Is your country made a worse or a better place to live by people coming to live here from other countries? Scored 0 = good to 10 = Bad. Items are reverse scored from 0 = Bad to 10 = Good.	0.9

*The Spearman–Brown coefficient (r = 0.92) is provided as it is the most appropriate reliability statistic for a two-item scale (Eisinga et al., 2013).

Figure 2. Trend in political measures.

Figure 3. Trends in attitudes to immigrants.

Table 3. Mean change in political attitudes in individual countries 2002–2020.

	Mean change in attitudes between 2002 and 2020 – T-tests
Country	Satisfaction with democracy	Trust politicians & political parties^a	Trust parliament law and police	Interest in politics	Allow immigrants	Impact of immigrants
Above mean
Finland	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***
Sweden	− ***	+ ns	− ns	+ ***	− ***	− ***
Ireland	+ ***	+ ns	+ ***	+ *	+ ***	+ ***
Norway	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***
Netherlands	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***
Germany	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ns	+***	+ ***
Below mean
France	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ns	+ ***	+ ***
Spain	− ***	− ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***
UK	− ***	− *	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***
Belgium	− **	− ns	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***	+ ***
Italy	+ ***	+***^b	− ***	− *	+ ns	− ns

^a Data only available from the survey round in 2004.

^b Available only from 2012.

Note: ns = not significant.

P < 0.001 = ***; P < 0.01 = **; P < 0.05 = *.

Table 4. Factors affecting political attitudes (Linear regression method with significant standardised Betas reported).

	Satisfaction with democracy	Trust politicians & parties	Trust parliament Law, police	Interest in politics
Gender – male	0.023***	0.01***	0.02***	0.13***
Over 45 year old	0.022***	−0.01**	−0.02***	0.16***
Over 13 years education	ns	ns	−0.01***	0.17***
Positive generalised trust	0.24***	0.31***	0.3***	0.04***
Left political orientation	−0.15***	−0.1***	−0.1***	ns
Satisfied with income	0.11***	0.09***	0.06***	0.07***
Unemployed for over 3 months	−0.05***	−0.05***	−0.04***	ns
Member of a trade union	0.04***	0.06***	0.06***	0.02***
Restrict immigrants allowed into country	−0.02***	−0.03***	−0.02***	0.08***
Impact of immigrants	0.28***	0.24***	0.2***	0.12***
ESS 2004	0.02***	/	ns	−0.01***
ESS 2006	0.03***	ns	ns	−0.02***
ESS 2008	−0.01**	ns	ns	ns
ESS 20010	−0.01***	−0.02***	0.02***	ns
ESS 20012	0.03***	−0.03***	0.02***	ns
ESS 20014	−0.01***	−0.02***	0.02***	0.02***
ESS 20016	−0.02***	−0.02***	0.03***	0.01**
ESS 20018	−0.01***	−0.02***	0.04***	ns
ESS 2020	0.03***	−0.02***	0.05***	0.02***
Referent round: 2002
R^2	0.23	0.26	0.21	0.14
F statistic	2723***	3030***	2434***	1450***
Durban Watson	1.78	1.8	1.84	1.88
N	170,873	156,949	174,013	175,255

Note: Unweighted.

P < 0.001 = ***; P < 0.01 = **; P < 0.05 = *.

Eisinga, R., teGrotenhuis, M., & Pelzer, B. (2013). The reliability of a two-item scale: Pearson, Cronbach, or Spearman-Brown? International Journal of Public Health, 58(4), 637–642.

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Data availability statement

The data used here is available from the European Social Survey website.