Episode 10: The Reshaping of Western European Politics with Christopher Green-Pedersen

Hi, everyone, this is Brooke Shannon coming out July from artist Denmark. I’m here with Christopher

Green Peterson, professor of political science at our whose university here in our house, who

has a new book coming out this year by our on Oxford University Press. The book is

called The Reshaping of West European Party Politics in Comparative Perspective. Welcome,

Christopher. Thanks, Roland. Thanks for being here. So let’s just dove right in to

some questions about the book, which is really exciting. So can you talk a little bit about

the data that you used for this project? Yeah, the primary data source is kept coding

off party manifestos in seven European countries back to 1980. A few countries have

that bit further back, but that’s the core dataset as to I mean, party manifesto is a well-established

data source for studying political parties. But what’s new here is that reappropriate the capital

is being true to the party manifestos. And that’s the primary day. And some say yes. Yeah. So you’ve got

to know that I’m excited about the cap coding scheme. Can you explain just a little bit

about what cap versus the PSP, which our listeners might be a little bit more

familiar with, how it compares? Yeah, I mean, the

cap coding forces more so the tailor to true west European countries. So there’s a bit more. CORNISH

Scheme is a bit developed, George covering some of the issues that are important to or which different parties call. So

it’s very like policy issue. Yeah, and the big differences probably compared

to the competitive manifesto project. Some people might know which a coded party manifesto for decades

and have a very useful and then well-established dataset. But what’s really important is that unlike

the cap coding scheme, this was never really an issue based coding scheme. There was a current scheme set up to capture

different positions of parties, which means that they have some issues, but there are also many issues

that are not really covered. So there was a deliberate choice that that to really study agendas

and issue competition that should be in party politics. You need something more than this. MP

Krolinsky So that was some really important starting point for the project. Awesome. And so

in the book you really set up the party manifestos as a great way to study party competition,

analyze policy issues and then issue UNASUR. So the US analogous to

party manifestos would of course be party platforms just for listeners. But my question

is how in terms of policy mechanisms, I suppose,

how are party manifestos set up in this really great way to study these three? Yeah, I think

it’s really from what you get out of parliament. The first is on what you don’t get often. I mean these are documents that

parties produce around an election typically. It varies some somewhat by countries, but most

countries rather extensive. So that campaign programs are also the more

ideological expressions of what what the issues that parties find important. So they’re really good as

in a starting more long term than that mix of party politics. So we get a chance for parties to step a little

bit back from day-To-Day politics and say, what are the important issues that we want to focus

on in a campaign? So I think and really useful to study for the politics over decades.

So if you really want to study an election campaign, you probably start immediate aid and go crash. It goes

on in election campaign, but it’s a really good chance to study showed that the involvement of party politics

over decades and used the elections is just that, an opportunity to study the issues that parties find important.

And then they’re right. I mean, they’re easily available and then and then produced over decades. But it’s really

that the end of the captures something that is a little bit I mean, it is connected with the everyday politics,

but it’s not sort of produced by everyday considerations, which I think would could you have a more short

term picture of party politics? So the book is really about medium long term development of issue competition,

Western Europe. I think the party manifesto should at that promise we will compare to other data

sources. Awesome. Cool. So I

my first substantive question for you is actually just the title of your first chapter, which

is really great. What has happened to party politics in Western Europe? And I’m wondering, how has

it changed and how has is this topic changing now? I think that the way the recent past on

the book with a chapter on that is probably that, you know, it sounds like a really straightforward, simple question. It’s

not actually being studied that intensively. And one of the reasons actually did. Because if you look at this

data and so on. There are some issues that you can study, but you can really study detail issues. And

so with the cap coding, I wish reducing it will to ask this question. So how does the whole polish it look

like? Not just how is one specific issue develop, but what’s actually the whole

picture? That wasn’t anything important. probablility. Well, the editor actually asked this question and actually

studied. And also what’s really important is to study a number of issues compared

to each other because a lot of studies which look at like immigration or the EU and how that

I mean now that Israel. All by itself. But if you don’t, you’re not able to compare to what you’re going to

do sometimes or state to change it and forget some of the broader picture. I don’t think

are all. Finally, I find it probably. I mean, there are elements of the buildings and elements of change.

Well, isn’t it? I mean, there’s a big literature on the new what you call new policies, new second dimensional voice to create

politics and the rise of immigration, European integration, the environment, these type of issues. And I think

the story is that it is true on a general level, but there’s much more course issue, of course,

national variation in which issues actually get attention to that. That’s one

empirical good conclusion. The other one is that there are some in a way so traditional

economic welfare state related issues still play a role, but it’s been a huge change in the issues that play

a role. Right. So it’s the rise of health care, education, these type of issues

and expensive issues like depression, macro economic issues that there’s some other big tension. And then

we should be in party politics. Yeah, that was fascinating to me that while

these traditional issues like macro economics and business regulation and things like

this have decreased, they still take up large share of the agenda. Certainly does disappear.

I mean, but right. Especially if you are the starting point for the progress of the 80s. And if you look at many of the countries,

then macro economic issues where really what’s possible about the economic crisis after

the oil price and so on. So micro economics was really the cause of

politics. And that has changed. But it’s not that these issues have disappeared. And you can also see that they

do come they do rise again a little bit after the financial crisis, but not but not to the level that

you saw index needs. And it’s interesting. It was as these issues decrease,

the amount of attention for emergent issues begins as almost

like a very small piece. And then then by decades as you look at it, it’s like the triple

in importance and things like that. And while they may still be 20 to 25

percent of what parties are talking about or this many, this percentage of parties discussing the issue,

it really emerges as a huge change in shift in party politics. That’s

really cool. Yeah. Okay, cool. So moving on to the more

issue based chapters of the book, you look at five big ones which are immigration,

environment, EU integration, education and healthcare. And I think they’re split up really interesting

through like a reflective quality almost how immigration and environment reflect each other as to

education and healthcare. Meaning like these first two are owned

almost by babies like traditional left right sides, but

they’re sort of forced on the agenda by these minority parties, which really speaks to your previous

work, I think of how minority parties shape agendas with Peter Martinsson. Here are his.

So about immigration. How have well, I guess backing up about

immigration. So ownership is really strong on this issue in the US

context as well. And I’m thinking that it’s really emerged in recent years with the

West sort of international shifts that we see also occurring in in parts of Europe,

Western Europe included. But how are these international trends? And I guess I’m sort of sub texting

like Trump and on the right, I mean, but how has this affected

issues like immigration in the Western European agenda? Know, I think there are two things. One is that, I

mean, the increasing number of immigrants, I mean, you can see that in the funding it does affect. I mean, this is doesn’t

come out of nothing. I mean, the refugee crisis in Europe and so starved of developments to

affect the level of attention to. You can see it’s rising in all countries, but it’s also substantial

variation in how this actually gets taken into poll party politics. And of course,

the emergence of radical right wing parties is important. But there’s a chapter as it does start and really

matters how more traditional and mainstream both parties affect this. And one way to draft

them is especially coalition consideration showing you’re seeing about this big mainstream policy

in Europe. We are in the torch winning government poll. Then a lot of what shapes our interest is

it does. This is due to the emergence of radical right wing parties offer possibility of winning government power

in new ways. And if this is the case, they’re actually also willing to try to push this issue

much harder than there are other countries where they they don’t want to form coalitions. And

it’s not possible to win government majorities, radical right wing parties, then then they’re much less interested

in really playing this immigration card. William emphasizing the issue. So I think one one thing that comes

off the chapter is really how important these coalition dynamics actually is for how. I mean, it’s an

issue with I think that gets more attention and has a lot of potential. But there’s potential. How this is

used by politics really depends on the coalition dynamics. And the large part parties

are really the focus of the book as we. All right. Is sort of ancillary parties are treated as such, which tell me that there’s a lot

of leadersand. The rise of new parties in the role, which I think is a obviously important policy. What’s really

what I’m going to try to bring forward in the book is that it really also depends how they interact with the mainstream

parties and interact. Also really means coalition politics. There was a lot of studies of how major parties

were actually these new parties to the move left, right out with their decrees increase issue attention

policy. What has been missing is to think this through in terms of coalition dynamics would

mean none of that is simply based on broad consideration. So do we get more or less work from moving left, right

and so on? But he is on the move when and want to win government power holders. These issues should no opportunities

or sometimes we avoid issues because there are coalitions reasons why these issues are problematic.

Sure. Do you? Do you expect or.

Yeah. Do you expect with the data and with these coalition relationships, which of course have cross-national variation,

I know Denmark was really strong in this coalition relationship. Do you expect that this

that there’s a tension in the party manifestos is a bit of lip service to these,

or is it? Does it transfer into policy outcomes that are specific on immigration?

I think it does translate into I mean, especially if you see that these case, which is pretty pronounced on immigration. You can also trace

the positive. I mean, the studies that look more well detailed, that positive just concluded

find that once parties I mean, parties can just talk about these issues out. Just just in general, they’ve

all come up with specific proposals. Maybe when they emphasize issues, they will say, okay, we want to do this, we want to do

that. And then they’re winning. When government poll, they actually tried to implement these policies. I mean, it’s

it joke. So it turns out this really was policy and content, right? You can’t. Mean of course you can. Someone

talk very generally about issues. But but to convince voters, you need to be specific, saying we want to limit

immigration, that we want Trump wants to build a wall and do other things. They actually tried

to push this and tried to implement it. If they can, they will do it. Yeah. So it is really consequential. Once

you you know, it’s not just lip service. It has implications. Once they wouldn’t comment.

Sure. And there’s a few other explanations people have offered for this

type of thing, party competition being one. And in your in your book, it really shows

that the driving factor is this coalition building. Can you speak a little bit about about

the theory of party competition and maybe why were you surprised that it didn’t come through a strong.

I mean, I worked with this before, so in a way. I mean, was

that the story I wanted to tell about the policy? BUSH Well, I mean, a lot of that comes down to the

motive to attribute to parties. And I think it’s clear when you work with these more traditional

mainstream parties than winning government power is actually quite a central driving force for these parties.

So I think what’s really important is to think this through until the how how it has implications for how

they compete with other parties. And of course, they compete for votes, but they also compete for

a fair go for winning government office. And that’s actually quite a strong driving force for many of these parties.

So I think that what’s really important to recognize, it’s too true. True?

Yeah, the institutional forces seem very strong, especially across nations

and how they end up working together sort of in the international EU context,

which is pretty fascinating, especially for an issue like immigration that has these international,

national and even down to local politics implications. Yeah, yeah, it’s great.

Okay, cool. So as one thing I was wondering, especially

as I got to the later chapters in the book, is these new emergent issues sort

of the left version of immigration almost being environmental policy and environmental issues.

Do you expect through coalition building as they continuously get on the agenda

and maybe become more adapted or adopted into these pop into these manifestos?

Do you expect these policies will become more like education and health care, which

affect everybody and are on all of these party issues? Well,

I mean, I think that they they all of the parties pay some

attention to them, but there’s much more. So traditional ownership around some of these issues.

And so I think in terms of the electoral profile as on, there’s still a huge difference. And they’re also substantially

different issues. And one of the things that the book wants to bring forward is also that there’s a lot

of liberal blogs out and likes to talk about conflict lines. And that makes sense or which makes

a lot of sense. But they sometimes underestimate how issues are different and also how this affects

competition. And I think that’s really important once you get to the competition between the health care, education,

but also the environment, immigration perhaps. I mean, substantially different when you get to policies and that

actually has an implication for how parties can compete around them. Sure. Were there any

surprises whenever you are looking at the policy policy specific, especially

when comparing like the seven Western European countries say one

thing a lot of direction. I mean, there are, of course, national differences, but they also take relatively

strong coach national similarities. I think there was one thing that came out in the book. There are some pronounced Rorish

of some issues behaving differently. But it was a lot of similarities in the way these go agendas

have developed. And I think that that’s also an important lesson, that sometimes the motivation,

of course, issues is even bigger than the course national regulation. I think that that’s also some of the one of

the points I want to make in the book and that the issues really matter. And there are some

large national general tendencies and some ranch, some of the issues that do. I mean, if you look at the environment, I mean,

there’s been I mean, there was some environmental issues that were big in all countries back in the 70s,

much more. But now climate change and these type of pictures are pretty general. And the general forces

that hit on these policies, when you get through like health care, the whole technological change around

health care is really important role of politics around this issue.

Are any of these issues, do any of them experience like patterns of diffusion?

Yeah, that’s a good question. I think that I haven’t looked that much into the book. I think

it’s a little bit different tradition, tangled diffusion from just the fact that these countries actually experienced quite

similar pressures of problem challenges. I mean, that that they do actually.

I mean, the environmental problems and then and health care problems in Toronto. Of course, they’re told to each of them.

But it’s also very much as though the similarities and challenges they face. So she want a health care system.

The pressure you face from this ever increasing number of new possibilities,

new treatments, and then then then a new technology. And in health goes. I mean, there’s only diffusion of

on policy solutions. But in terms of the fundamental pressure on these countries, I think that’s not such

a story of too much sort of diffusion. That’s more so the similarities and the challenges you face. Yeah.

And the problems and the problem definitely on TV and things like this. Absolutely. So I think that the fusion discussion

is much more relevant once you come through policy solutions and you dig more into what two countries actually

do show in terms of policies. But if you look at the DNA and then the

selling face and initial competition, I think that I mean, it’s different forces than diffusion.

So that will be the next book, maybe a couple. So one

issue I think that’s been as a short term issue in the news a lot because of Brexit and

things, but has really experienced a downturn as a trend when all these

countries excuse me and cross nationally as well is EU integration.

And it makes sense that it would increase in the 90s and then sort of taper off in terms of attention

just because the policies had been made and it happened.

And I think the book makes a really cool point that national parties

put EU integration in their manifestos less just because the deliverables

are harder. Do you find that across across countries?

And then contrasting with the other issues which are markedly easier

to make a case that there are more national or domestic issues? Do you find any type

of differences, especially EU integration as a whole, rather than EU skepticism, which is sort

of like owned by these French Somalia? I think it definitely matters. I mean, there are many reasons

why mainstream parties are reluctant to drop to talk about issues. But one thing

I think it’s actually really, really hard to deliver on this. You should. I mean, think about the May government

and in the UK, I mean, how difficult is this actually to to promise anything and then get it to through

the EU’s system? And again, this is an issue aspect of the European integration that you really have

to think about. And I think, of course, there’s a lot of religions on EU integration. But one thing that it does

is to compare the EU to other issues is to sing about through the EU integration as a policy

issue that you can emphasize and what you get out of this as a party compared to draw other issues like

immigration place. So I think there’s a there’s a pronounced difference in how

mainstream right parties have been when you get these fringe parties. So radical right wing parties to emphasize

immigration, European integration. I think there’s a big difference in how you react to them because European integration.

I think they’ve been in a way much less influential in most countries because it’s really hard to

follow major to take up European integration. It’s much easier to take up immigration and promise

policy measures that you can actually implement. And to West European integration, especially if you want to be in government,

then it’s really tricky to come out with a promise of when a reformed European Union only one. Isn’t

that because of the chance that you can deliver really, really small on that? So I think that that’s a

big. And I think it’s really it’s really interesting to compare to to look at the EU as a policy issue and then compare

to two other issues. I think that that helps a lot in terms of explaining ways he has has had surprisingly

little party competition. It’s Tokyo combustion. This is I mean, that plays

a huge role. But I think Brexit, it was a result of a very unique dynamic of this

British referendum. I mean, yeah. And especially because in the book, it’s really interesting going

back to the CAP scheme that EU integration is really within a few

codes, but it has implications and consequences across major topics. So

it’s really hard to narrow down without doing a control of like these mass data

that’s still out there. Yeah, yeah, yeah. I think that that’s one of the I mean,

I mean that’s a challenge for the capturing directly handle an issue like the EU. But

I think for the for the manifestos is maybe less of a problem because parties rarely

talk so much in policy detail. Role of European integration. Show more wanted to show why Europeans creativity

rose a bit general above serenity or that a general future to your opinion so

that it’s more China. If we look at different type of data, which are closer to the policy process here, that’s

more tricky to to disentangle the European integration. Yeah, definitely. Okay.

So that wraps it up for the substantive questions about the book. Before I let you go, we have one last question

for you and ask if you can give us a recommend, a recommendation for a work in political science

that our listener should should read. It doesn’t have to be a new or just out book, but it can be something

that left a lasting impression, etc. as intolerable judicial process for people to read

it. Then this is the process in the US, but not Jones again. I think it’s I mean, if you

still think there’s a lot of inspiration for the book I wrote, it’s not so different in the set up. And then then,

then, then then the question takes up. There’s a lot of exploration how you could do a book and then then use the data

sources like the cut quoted officials in a lot of new ways. So I think there’s a lot of inspiration for me

looking at this book. In a way. My book is it’s very different. There’s still there’s still a lot of inspiration shows

to recommend people to take a look at that book again. Great. Yeah. Actually, as our last note

while I was reading the book just up the setup and the way the chapters are outlined, I definitely

was thinking of as I read and not wow, great theoretical chapters, the

data, the empirical questions over these policy issues and really feels like a like a perfect

complement to agendas. But I think that’s to the project in the thinking that, you know, that book doesn’t

test any of the arguments. Don’t make this laugh, inspiration, how to sing about politics in terms

of a deposit into thinking the same. But that’s been one of the ambitions of the book. Cool.

Well, thank you so much again, Dr. GREENE Peterson. This has been a great conversation. sanclemente.