![Sample our Humanities journals, sign in here to start your FREE access for 14 days]({"type":"image" , "src" : "/sda/5939/TOC-Subject-Sample-2021-Humanities.jpg"})
ABSTRACT
In most countries, men are more likely to vote for parties of the populist radical right (PRR) than women. The authors argue here that there are two mechanisms that might potentially explain this gender gap: mediation (women's attitudes and characteristics differ from men's in ways that explain the PRR vote) and moderation (women vote for different reasons than men). They apply these two mechanisms to general theories of support for PRR parties—the socio-structural model, the discontent model, and the policy vote model—and test these on a large sample of voters in seventeen Western and Eastern European countries. The study shows that the gender gap is produced by a combination of moderation and mediation. Socio-structural differences between men and women exist, but the extent to which they explain the gender gap is limited, and primarily restricted to post-Communist countries. Furthermore, women generally do not differ from men in their level of nativism, authoritarianism or discontent with democracy. Among women, however, these attitudes are less strongly related to a radical-right vote. This suggests that men consider the issues of the radical right to be more salient, but also that these parties deter women for reasons other than the content of their political programme. While the existing research has focused almost exclusively on mediation, we show that moderation and mediation contribute almost equally to the gender gap.
Notes
1 Terri E. Givens, ‘The radical right gender gap’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 37, no. 1, 2004, 30–54 (32); Pippa Norris, Radical Right: Voters and Parties in the Electoral Market (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2005), 145.
2 Elisabeth Gidengil, Matthew Hennigar, André Blais and Neil Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right: the case of Canada’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 38, no. 10, 2005, 1171–95.
3 Marie-Christine Fontana, Andreas Sidler and Sibylle Hardmeier, ‘The “New Right” vote: an analysis of the gender gap in the vote choice for the SVP’, Swiss Political Science Review, vol. 12, no. 4, 2006, 243–71; Givens, ‘The radical right gender gap’; Tim Immerzeel, Hilde Coffé and Tanja van der Lippe, ‘Explaining the gender gap in radical right voting: a cross-national investigation in 12 Western European countries’, Comparative European Politics (Advanced Online Publication), 1 July 2013, doi:10.1057/cep.2013.20; Phyllis L. F. Rippeyoung, ‘When women are right: the influence of gender, work and values on European far-right party support’, International Feminist Journal of Politics, vol. 9, no. 3, 2007, 379–97.
4 Cas Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press 2007), 113.
5 Wouter van der Brug and Meindert Fennema, ‘The support base of radical right parties in the enlarged European Union’, Journal of European Integration, vol. 31, no. 5, 2009, 589–608; Niels Spierings and Andrej Zaslove, ‘Gendering the vote for populist radical-right parties’, in these pages.
6 Gidengil, Hennigar, Blais and Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right’.
7 Norris, Radical Right; Immerzeel, Coffé and Lippe, ‘Explaining the gender gap in radical right voting’; Spierings and Zaslove, ‘Gendering the vote for populist radical-right parties’.
8 Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe.
9 Ronald Inglehart and Pippa Norris, ‘The developmental theory of the gender gap: women's and men's voting behavior in global perspective’, International Political Science Review, vol. 21, no. 4, 2000, 441–63.
10 Niels Spierings, Andrej Zaslove, Liza M. Mügge and Sarah L. de Lange, ‘Gender and populist radical-right politics: an introduction’, in these pages.
11 This can also be understood as a composition effect; see Tyler J. Vanderweele and Stijn Vansteelandt, ‘Conceptual issues concerning mediation, interventions and composition’, Statistics and Its Interface, vol. 2, no. 4, 2009, 457–68.
12 The only exception is the Canadian Alliance, in which case the gap could be completely explained by differences in views on law and order, and anti-statism.
13 See, for example, Gidengil, Hennigar, Blais and Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right’; and Fontana, Sidler and Hardmeier, ‘The “New Right” vote’.
14 Marcel Lubbers, Mérove Gijsberts and Peer Scheepers, ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 41, no. 3, 2002, 345–78; Jens Rydgren (ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right (London and New York: Routledge 2012).
15 Hans-Georg Betz, Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe (New York: St Martin's Press 1994).
16 We acknowledge that this formulation implies that women rather than men are the exception that needs to be explained. An alternative (though equivalent) approach would be to describe how men are more likely to vote for the populist radical right. However, because men are the largest group among the PRR electorate, we follow the bulk of previous literature in taking the former approach (for a similar discussion, see Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, n12).
17 Kai Arzheimer and Elisabeth Carter, ‘Christian religiosity and voting for West European radical right parties’, West European Politics, vol. 32, no. 5, 2009, 985–1011.
18 Betz, Radical Right-Wing Populism in Western Europe; Kai Arzheimer, ‘Electoral sociology: who votes for the extreme right and why—and when?’, in Uwe Backes and Patrick Moreau (eds), The Extreme Right in Europe: Current Trends and Perspectives (Göttingen and Oakville, CT: Vanderhoeck & Rupprecht 2012), 35–50; Gidengil, Hennigar, Blais and Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right’.
19 Norris, Radical Right; Arzheimer, ‘Electoral sociology’; Elisabeth Ivarsflaten, ‘The vulnerable populist right parties: no economic realignment fuelling their electoral success’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 44, no. 3, 2005, 465–92.
20 Sarah L. de Lange, ‘A new winning formula? The programmatic appeal of the radical right’, Party Politics, vol. 13, no. 4, 2007, 411–35.
21 Nonna Mayer, ‘From Jean-Marie to Marine Le Pen: electoral change on the far right’, Parliamentary Affairs, vol. 66, no. 1, 2013, 160–78.
22 Rippeyoung, ‘When women are right’; Gidengil, Hennigar, Blais and Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right’; Givens, ‘The radical right gender gap’; Fontana, Sidler and Hardmeier, ‘The “New Right” vote’.
23 Hilde Coffé, ‘Gender, class, and radical right voting’, in Rydgren (ed.), Class Politics and the Radical Right, 138–55 (138).
24 Carole Kennedy Chaney, R. Michael Alvarez and Jonathan Nagler, ‘Explaining the gender gap in U.S. presidential elections, 1980–1992’, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 51, no. 2, 1998, 311–39; Susan Welch and John Hibbing, ‘Financial conditions, gender, and voting in American national elections’, Journal of Politics, vol. 54, no. 1, 1992, 197–213.
25 Coffé, ‘Gender, class, and populist radical right voting’.
26 Eric Bélanger and Kees Aarts, ‘Explaining the rise of the LPF: issues, discontent, and the 2002 Dutch election’, Acta Politica, vol. 41, no. 1, 2006, 4–20; Nonna Mayer and Pascal Perrineau, ‘Why do they vote for Le Pen?’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 22, no. 1, 1992, 123–41.
27 Herbert Kitschelt with Anthony J. McGann, The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis (Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press 1995); Lubbers, Gijsberts and Scheepers, ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’; Peter Söderlund and Elina Kestilä-Kekkonen, ‘Dark side of party identification? An empirical study of political trust among radical right-wing voters’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, vol. 19, no. 2, 2009, 159–81.
28 Angus Campbell, Philiip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller and Donald E. Stokes, The American Voter (New York: John Wiley 1960).
29 Inglehart and Norris, ‘The developmental theory of the gender gap’.
30 Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, 115.
31 Gidengil, Hennigar, Blais and Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right’.
32 Kitschelt, The Radical Right in Western Europe; Van der Brug and Fennema, ‘The support base of populist radical right parties in the enlarged European Union’; Lubbers, Gijsberts and Scheepers, ‘Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe’; Anthony Mughan and Pamela Paxton, ‘Anti-immigrant sentiment, policy preferences and populist party voting in Australia’, British Journal of Political Science, vol. 36, no. 2, 2006, 341–58; David Cutts, Robert Ford and Matthew J. Goodwin, ‘Anti-immigrant, politically disaffected or still racist after all? Examining the attitudinal drivers of extreme right support in Britain in the 2009 European elections’, European Journal of Political Research, vol. 50, no. 3, 2011, 418–40; Spierings and Zaslove, ‘Gendering the vote for populist radical-right parties’.
33 Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, 23.
34 Jim Sidanius, Shana Levin, James Liu and Felicia Pratto, ‘Social dominance orientation, anti-egalitarianism and the political psychology of gender: an extension and cross-cultural replication’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 30, no. 1, 2000, 41–67; Ann M. Beutel and Margaret Mooney Marini, ‘Gender and values’, American Sociological Review, vol. 60, no. 3, 1995, 436–48.
35 Nazar Akrami, Bo Ekehammar and Tadesse Araya, ‘Classical and modern racial prejudice: a study of attitudes toward immigrants in Sweden’, European Journal of Social Psychology, vol. 30, no. 4, 2000, 521–32; Timur Kuran and Edward J. McCaffery, ‘Sex differences in the acceptability of discrimination’, Political Research Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, 2008, 228–38.
36 Lincoln Quillian, ‘Prejudice as a response to perceived group threat: population composition and anti-immigrant and racial prejudice in Europe’, American Sociological Review, vol. 60, no. 4, 1995, 586–611.
37 Peer Scheepers, Mérove Gijsberts and Marcel Coenders, ‘Ethnic exclusionism in European countries: public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic threat’, European Sociological Review, vol. 18, no. 1, 2002, 17–34; Lauren M. McLaren, ‘Anti-immigrant prejudice in Europe: contact, threat perception, and preferences for the exclusion of migrants’, Social Forces, vol. 81, no. 3, 2003, 909–36; Spierings and Zaslove, ‘Gendering the vote for populist radical-right parties’.
38 Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, 113.
39 Marcel Coenders, Mérove Gijsberts and Peer Scheepers, ‘Resistance to the presence of immigrants and refugees in 22 countries’, in Mérove Gijsberts, Louk Hagendoorn and Peer Scheepers (eds), Nationalism and Exclusion of Migrants: Cross-National Comparisons (Aldershot, Hants and Burlington, VT: Ashgate 2004), 97–120.
40 Richard Lippa and Sara Arad, ‘Gender, personality, and prejudice: the display of authoritarianism and social dominance in interviews with college men and women’, Journal of Research in Personality, vol. 33, no. 4, 1999, 463–93 (and the research cited therein); Bart Duriez and Alain Van Hiel, ‘The march of modern fascism: a comparison of social dominance orientation and authoritarianism’, Personality and Individual Differences, vol. 32, no. 7, 2002, 1199–213.
41 Van der Brug and Fennema, ‘The support base of radical right parties in the enlarged European Union’.
42 Inglehart and Norris, ‘The developmental theory of the gender gap’.
43 Chaney, Alvarez and Nagler, ‘Explaining the gender gap in U.S. presidential elections, 1980–1992’; Elisabeth Gidengil, ‘Economic man—social woman? The case of the gender gap in support for the Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement’, Comparative Political Studies, vol. 28, no. 3, 1995, 384–408; Karen M. Kaufmann and John R. Petrocik, ‘The changing politics of American men: understanding the sources of the gender gap’, American Journal of Political Science, vol. 43, no. 3, 1999, 864–87; Rosie Campbell and Kristi Winters, ‘Understanding men's and women's political interests: evidence from a study of gendered political attitudes’, Journal of Elections, Public Opinion and Parties, vol. 18, no. 1, 2008, 53–74.
44 Wouter van der Brug, Mark Franklin and Gábor Tóka, ‘One electorate or many? Differences in party preference formation between new and established European democracies’, Electoral Studies, vol. 27, no. 4, 2008, 589–600; Stefan Dahlberg, Jonas Linde and Sören Holmberg, ‘Democratic discontent in old and new democracies: assessing the importance of democratic input and governmental output’, Political Studies (Early View), 28 October 2014, doi: 10.1111/1467-9248.12170.
45 Lenka Bustikova and Herbert Kitschelt, ‘The radical right in post-Communist Europe: comparative perspectives on legacies and party competition’, Communist and Post-Communist Studies, vol. 42, no. 4, 2009, 459–83.
46 Michael Minkenberg, ‘The radical right in postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe: comparative observations and interpretations’, East European Politics and Societies, vol. 16, no. 2, 2002, 335–62.
47 Separate analyses of East and West are provided at the end of the empirical section.
48 Marcel H. van Egmond, Eliyahu V. Sapir, Wouter van der Brug, Sara B. Hobolt and Mark N. Franklin, EES 2009 Voter Study Advance Release Notes (Amsterdam: University of Amsterdam 2010).
49 For an overview of the selected parties, see .
50 A list of descriptive statistics of all variables, as well as the distribution of key variables, can be found in Appendix A.
51 The word ‘ever’ was included in the survey question to ensure that voters who were already certain about which party they would vote for in the upcoming election could give a high score to their second or third choice of party. When this measure was employed as a dependent variable in a multivariate model, it was found to provide valid estimates of the determinants of party choice.
52 Cees van der Eijk, Wouter van der Brug, Martin Kroh and Mark Franklin, ‘Rethinking the dependent variable in voting behavior: on the measurement and analysis of electoral utilities’, Electoral Studies, vol. 25, no. 3, 2006, 424–47.
53 We have no reason to believe that this measure itself is gendered, that is, that men report different propensities than women, even with similar voting preferences: an aggregation of men's and women's PTV scores for all parties, not only those for the PRR, shows that men and women report almost equal propensities in terms of means and standard deviations. So we believe this measure to be equivalent for men and women, which makes the sex differences we find for PRR parties meaningful.
54 It has been argued that the gender gap is a methodological artefact rather than a real finding because social desirability would lead women to underreport PRR support more often than men. We admit this possibility, although we think it is not likely that the entire gap—which is a consistent finding over time and place—can be attributed to this phenomenon. An analysis of a subsample of German ballot papers that bore marks of gender and age showed that the gap existed in actual voting, at least in that case (Arzheimer, ‘Electoral sociology’, 44). Furthermore, the gender gap is also noticeable among actual PRR memberships and party elites (Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, 97–108). Even when the gender gap is overestimated in the data, the analyses here can still explain the mechanisms behind it.
55 As an alternative operationalization, we used education in years. This had comparable, though slightly less strong, effects.
56 As an alternative operationalization, we used a five-point scale of socio-economic status as an interval measure. Again, this yielded comparable but less strong results.
57 Norris, Radical Right, 155.
58 In a principal component analysis, the variance explained by the underlying component was 0.69, with factor loadings of 0.71.
59 A principal component analysis of the nativism and authoritarianism resulted in an explained variance of 0.70 and 0.69, respectively; factor loadings were 0.71 for both. Analysis of the separate items yielded similar results to the analysis using the scale; because moderation could more easily be assessed using a single scale, we reported the latter.
60 Mudde, Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, ch. 5; but also Anthony J. McGann and Herbert Kitschelt, ‘The radical right in the Alps: evolution of support for the Swiss SVP and Austrian FPÖ’, Party Politics, vol. 11, no. 2, 2005, 147–71.
61 We performed five imputations, filling in missing values on the basis of multivariate regression using all other independent variables, as well as the dependent variable. See J. L. Schafer, Analysis of Incomplete Multivariate Data (Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC 1997).
62 Gidengil, Hennigar, Blais and Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right’.
63 T. A. B. Snijders and Roel Bosker, Multilevel Analysis: An Introduction to Basic and Advanced Multilevel Modeling (London: Sage 1999).
64 The EU-member states that joined the EU in 2004 and 2007, except Malta and Cyprus.
65 Inglehart and Norris, ‘The developmental theory of the gender gap’.
66 It could be argued that, to avoid cognitive dissonance, voters who are less likely to vote for a party will also position that party further away from their own position (also known as assimilation and contrast effects, see Donald Granberg, ‘Political perception’, in Shanto Iyengar and William J. McGuire (eds), Explorations in Political Psychology (Durham, NC and London: Duke University Press 2012), 70–112), resulting in an endogenous relation between these variables. However, although this might boost the correlation between propensity to vote for, and left-right distance to, a PRR party, it does not explain why this would be more robustly so for women.
67 We transformed women's scores on all indicators by 1) adding the average difference between men and women (resulting in equal means) and 2) dividing women's scores by women's standard deviation and multiplying by men's standard deviation (resulting in equal variances).
68 Inglehart and Norris, ‘The developmental theory of the gender gap’.
69 Van der Brug, Franklin and Tóka, ‘One electorate or many?’.
70 The results of the jack-knife analyses are available on request.
71 The data in the Comparative Study of Electoral Systems (CSES) modules 1, 2 and 3 were collected in 1996–2001, 2001–4 and 2006–11, respectively, during post-election surveys. Data can be downloaded from www.cses.org.
72 See, for example, Coenders, Gijsberts and Scheepers, ‘Resistance to the presence of immigrants and refugees in 22 countries’.
73 Gidengil, Hennigar, Blais and Nevitte, ‘Explaining the gender gap in support for the New Right’.
Additional information
Notes on contributors
Eelco Harteveld
Eelco Harteveld is a doctoral candidate political science at both the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands and the University of Gothenburg in Sweden. His research interests are comparative in nature and focus on political behaviour, right-wing populism, Euroscepticism, gender and social stigmatization. Email: [email protected]
Wouter Van Der Brug
Wouter van der Brug is Professor in the Department of Political Science at the University of Amsterdam. He has published widely on topics in the field of comparative electoral behaviour, party system change and right-wing populism in various international journals, such as the European Journal of Political Research, the British Journal of Political Science, Electoral Studies, Party Politics, Comparative Political Studies and West European Politics. Email: [email protected]
Stefan Dahlberg
Stefan Dahlberg is Assistant Professor and Data Manager at the Quality of Government Institute in the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. His recent research on voting behaviour, democratic representation, quality of government, political legitimacy and survey methodology has been published in journals such as Electoral Studies, Political Studies and West European Politics. Email: [email protected]
Andrej Kokkonen
Andrej Kokkonen is a Post Doc in the Department of Political Science at the University of Gothenburg. His recent research on autocratic survival, ethnic relations and prejudice formation has been published in journals such as American Political Science Review, Journal of Ethnic and Migration Studies and Scandinavian Political Studies. Email: [email protected]