How the Overpopulation Frame Increases Support for the Radical Right
I a recent Youtube video, Robert Reich gave an explanation for Trump’s victory. He pointed to systematic problems in American society, such as economic inequality, and said that Trump “gave voice to the anger” of the American people. I agree with many things that Reich said, as I generally do. But to say that Trump gave voice to the anger of the people while the Democrats failed to do that, may not be accurate, or at least not complete. Let me explain.
Immigration and the rise of the radical right
In many European countries, electoral support for radical right, anti-immigration parties is growing. Political commentators often assume that these parties simply name what many citizens experience as problems with immigration, such as cultural tensions, economic disadvantages or security risks. According to this reading, the left cannot address these concerns well, while the right does.
An alternative explanation, however, is that radical right politicians do not so much articulate existing fears, but create such concerns themselves by strategically using anti-immigration narratives. Which explanation is closer to the truth?
Research by Alrababah et al. (2024) in Switzerland provides an answer.
How can the rise of the radical right be explained?
Within Europe, free movement of people has expanded significantly, leading to more intensive economic, social and cultural exchanges between neighboring countries. As a result, immigration has increased significantly in border regions.
The researchers wanted to know whether the increase in immigration led to more support for radical right, anti-immigration parties because voters actually experienced more problems, or whether these parties gained support by introducing new political frames that portrayed immigration negatively.
Research design and methods
The researchers used a difference-in-differences approach: municipalities close to the border (within 15 minutes of travel time) were compared with municipalities slightly further away (15-30 minutes of travel time). By using data from 1991-2019, they were able to map the electoral effects before and after the gradual opening of the labour market to EU migrants. This created a natural experiment to investigate the impact of increasing immigration on support for radical right parties.
The data sources included election results, demographics, socio-economic indicators (employment, income, wages), traffic intensity and parliamentary bills on immigration. This broad mix allowed for a careful analysis of the impact of immigration on political preferences.
The gradual opening of the Swiss labor market thus formed a natural experiment in which the effects of immigration inflows on electoral support for the radical right could be evaluated step by step. The researchers looked at factors that are often cited as causes of anti-immigration sentiment: economic uncertainty (unemployment, income and wage developments) and security concerns (crime, feelings of insecurity). This allowed them to investigate whether objective deterioration in these indicators explained the electoral shifts, or whether other mechanisms played a role.
Special attention was paid to safety. By repeatedly checking for crime and insecurity, the researchers were able to assess the extent to which real safety problems caused the increase in support for radical right-wing parties.
Findings: The Power of the Overpopulation Frame
The opening of the border led to a significantly higher share of immigrants in Swiss border regions than in areas further away from the border. In parallel, support for radical right, anti-immigration parties increased significantly in these border regions. However, these electoral shifts could not be explained by deteriorating economic conditions, higher unemployment rates, falling wages, or increased crime or feelings of insecurity.
Instead, it was the political framing of immigration that made the difference. Political elites introduced a narrative in which the increased numbers of immigrants were presented as a form of “overpopulation” or “density stress”. According to this frame, the influx of foreigners would lead to increased traffic, greater pressure on infrastructure and amenities, and thus to a decrease in the overall quality of life.
Although the measurable effects on infrastructure and traffic were limited, the repeated propagation of this “overpopulation frame” was sufficient to influence the perceptions of the local population. These perceptions then translated into electoral gains for radical right parties, which positioned themselves as guardians of order, tradition and quality of life.
Conclusion: Populists create fears for political gain
The research by Alrababah et al. shows that it is not so much objective problems, but rather the creation and dissemination of negative narratives that can determine the success of radical right, anti-immigration parties. The traditional assumption that these parties simply express the concerns of citizens is not supported by the data.
Instead, it is clear that political rhetoric and framing play a powerful role. By repeating a frame of overpopulation and existing and future problems, these parties are able to rally voters behind them without any factual evidence for the disaster scenarios they portray.
► It is therefore not the giving voice to of existing fears and discontent, but the creation of fears and discontent that explains the electoral support for the radical right.
Comments