To save content items to your account,
please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies.
If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account.
Find out more about saving content to .
To save content items to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org
is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings
on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part
of your Kindle email address below.
Find out more about saving to your Kindle.
Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations.
‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi.
‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.
This chapter studies the electoral repercussions of the refugee crisis, tentatively showing that in elections close to the epicenter of events, either the right or the radical right were the grand winners from this turbulence. First, we examine the politicization of the issue of migration generally in European party-systems, exploring whether the European crises made the issue of migration more salient, polarizing, or both. Additionally, we track the agents responsible for any shift in migration, the parties who might have augmented their focus on migration issues or shifted their positions considerably on it. Finally, the chapter aims to identify the links between these changes in the supply side, with some parties paying more attention to the migration issue, and the electoral response to it, as voters also became more attuned to it. Overall, we see that a rise in attention to migration seems to have led to a rise of the right across Europe, concluding that the refugee crisis had a lasting impact on political balance.
Is the quality of democracy undermined or enhanced by party-system fragmentation? Addressing this question would help us better assess normative claims about electoral reforms. Yet, doing so is difficult because of endogeneity issues: party systems are endogenous to many other dynamics in a polity. We overcome this problem by putting forward an instrument for the number of parties in a system, based on the level of fragmentation added by parties that narrowly make it to parliament. We then test the effect of party-system fragmentation on the quality of democracy, drawing upon an extensive battery of outcomes. Against previous literature, we find that a higher number of parties leads to more fractionalized governments, but has no impact on other democratic outcomes. Subsample analyses suggest that fragmentation may have some effect in contexts of very high polarization, but we find no effect in other theoretically meaningful subsamples. Our results indicate that party-system fragmentation may have fewer normative implications than previously assumed.
Recommend this
Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this to your organisation's collection.