The Parroting the Pariah Effect: Theoretical Framework

Part of the Political Campaigning and Communication book series (PCC)


Chapter Two focused on parroted parties and Chapter Three on pariah parties. This chapter concentrates on parroted pariah parties. It is the first of three chapters in which we argue and demonstrate empirically that parroting the pariah can be an effective weapon in the hands of established parties. This chapter outlines the analytical framework on which the parroting the pariah hypothesis is based.


  1. Adams, James, Samuel Merrill III, and Bernard Grofman. 2005. A Unified Theory of Party Competition: A Cross-national Analysis Integrating Spatial and Behavioral Factors. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  2. Albæk, Erik. 2003. Political Ethics and Public Policy: Homosexuals between Moral Dilemmas and Political Considerations in Danish Parliamentary Debates. Scandinavian Political Studies 26 (3): 245–267.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Ansolabehere, Stephen, and Shanto Iyengar. 1994. Riding the Wave and Claiming Ownership Over Issues: The Joint Influence of Advertising and News Coverage in Campaigns. Public Opinion Quarterly 58: 335–357.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Art, David. 2006. The Politics of the Nazi Past in Germany and Austria. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  5. Art, David. 2011. Inside the Radical Right. The Development of Anti-Immigrant Parties in Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brennan, Geoffrey, and Alan Hamlin. 1998. Expressive Voting and Electoral Equilibrium. Public Choice 95: 149–175.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Downs, William M. 2001. Pariahs in their Midst: Belgian and Norwegian Parties React to Extremist Threats. West European Politics 24 (3): 23–42.Google Scholar
  8. Enelow, James M., and Melvin J. Hinich. 1990. Advances in the Spatial Theory of Voting. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Greene, Kenneth V., and Phillip J. Nelson. 2002. If Extremists Vote How do They Express Themselves? An Empirical Test of an Expressive Theory of Voting. Public Choice 113 (3–4): 425–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kedar, Orit. 2009. Voting for Policy, Not Parties: How Voters Compensate for Power Sharing. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Mayer, Nonna. 2007. Comment Nicolas Sarkozy a rétréci l’électorat Le Pen. Revue française de science politique 57 (3–4): 429–445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Meguid, Bonnie M. 2005. Competition between Unequals: The Role of Mainstream Party Strategy in Niche Party Success. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 435–452.Google Scholar
  13. Meguid, Bonnie M. 2008. Party Competition between Unequals: Strategies and Electoral Fortunes in Western Europe. New York: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  14. Minkenberg, Michael. 2013. From Pariah to Policy-Maker? The Radical Right in Europe, West and East: Between Margin and Mainstream. Journal of Contemporary European Studies 21 (1): 5–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pauwels, Teun. 2011. Explaining the Strange Decline of the Populist Radical Right Vlaams Belang in Belgium: The Impact of Permanent Opposition. Acta Politica 46 (1): 60–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Petrocik, John R. 1996. Issue Ownership in Presidential Elections, with a 1980 Case Study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–850.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Rabinowitz, George, and Stuart E. Macdonald. 1989. A Directional Theory of Issue Voting. American Political Science Review 83 (1): 93–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Rummens, Stefan, and Koenraad Abts. 2010. Defending Democracy: The Concentric Containment of Political Extremism. Political Studies 58: 649–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Sartori, Giovanni. 1976. Party and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  20. Shepsle, Kenneth A. 1991. Models of Multiparty Electoral Competition. London: Routledge.Google Scholar
  21. Shields, Jim. 2010a. Support for Le Pen in France: Two Elections in Trompe l’œil. Politics 30 (1): 61–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shields, Jim. 2010b. The Far-Right Vote in France: From Consolidation to Collapse? French Politics, Culture and Society 28 (1): 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Van der Brug, Wouter, and Joost H. P. van Spanje. 2009. Immigration, Europe, and the ‘New’ Cultural Dimension. European Journal of Political Research 48 (3): 309–334.Google Scholar
  24. Van der Brug, Wouter, Meindert Fennema, and Jean Tillie. 2005. Why Some Anti-Immigrant Parties Fail and Others Succeed. A Two-Step Model of Aggregate Electoral Support. Comparative Political Studies 38 (5): 537–573.Google Scholar
  25. Van Spanje, Joost H. P., and Wouter van der Brug. 2007. The Party as Pariah: The Exclusion of Anti-immigration Parties and its Effect on their Ideological Positions. West European Politics 30 (5): 1022–1040.Google Scholar
  26. Tillie, Jean. 2008. Gedeeld land. Het multiculturele ongemak van Nederland. Meulenhoff: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  27. Tomz, Michael, and Robert P. Van Houweling. 2010. Candidate Repositioning. Unpublished manuscript.Google Scholar
  28. Westholm, Anders. 1997. Distance Versus Direction: The Illusory Defeat of the Proximity Theory of Electoral Choice. American Political Science Review 91: 865–883.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Widfeldt, Anders. 2004. The Diversified Approach: Swedish Responses to the Extreme Right. In Western Democracies and the Right Extremist Challenge, ed. R. Eatwell, and C. Mudde. London: Routledge.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations