How to explain parties' positions on EU membership and immigration

This data collection consists of calculations of party positions on the EU and immigration (1991 - 2010 using seven indicators per area) and transcripts of semi-structured interviews. The project analyses reasons why the EU and immigration are such complicated issues for mainstream parties to engage with. Through manifesto analyses and semi-structured interviews (with political elites in four West European countries (Belgium; Britain; the Netherlands and Sweden), the project investigates whether different ideological constellations can help explain those challenges parties have had to come up with clear and consistent positions on two of the most contested issues in contemporary European politics.

<p>This project addresses a set of questions regarding party competition and how to explain parties’ positions in certain policy areas. Focus is on two issues that give rise to conflicting explanatory responses in the scholarly debate: immigration and EU membership. Previous applications of ‘old’ (Left-Right) and ‘new’ politics (GAL/TAN) dimensions to explain party positions on these issues have not adequately been able to do so. Therefore there is a need to explore further explanations. A working hypothesis is that parties are constrained/facilitated by two key institutional dimensions – electoral systems and state division of
power - when pursuing particular policy stances.
The project compares national and regional parties in Belgium, Britain, Sweden and the Netherlands using a mix of quantitative (nation-wide representative surveys) and qualitative methods (semi-structured interviews; party manifesto analysis).

The project aims to: (1) Analyse changes in party competition using immigration and EU membership as indicative examples of new areas of political contestation. (2) Assess the effect and impact of different electoral systems and division of power on parties’ positions. (3) Compare the positions adopted by parties in opposition to those in government and whether any differences can be explained by the institutional set-up exemplified in 2.</p>