The Party Politics of the EU and Immigration

176 Pages·2014·2.453 MB·English

by  Pontus Odmalm (auth.)

PALGRAVE STUDIES IN
EUROPEAN UNION POLITICS
‘In this insightful contribution, Pontus Odmalm examines the crucial questions
around the transformation of political parties over Europe and immigration. Highly Series Editors: Michelle Egan, Neill Nugent
and William Paterson OBE
topical and at the cutting edge of political science debates, this book benefits from a
cross-national comparative design and starts to offer answers on why and how party
competition is changing in western Europe today.’
— Paul Statham, Sussex Centre for Migration Research, University of Sussex, UK
Why are the EU and immigration issues such complicated questions for political
parties to compete on? And what challenges do they present to parties’ electoral
strategies? By systematically comparing the political mainstream in four West
European countries – Belgium, Britain, the Netherlands and Sweden – this study
explores the changing nature of party competition on two highly salient issues in
contemporary politics. Based on a new way of coding party manifestos, and a large T
H
set of interview data, the author argues that the ideological ambiguity presented
E
by the two issues can crystallize pre-existing tensions within parties. An inability to P
A
negotiate these tensions explains why some parties are more likely than others to R
emphasise their successful track record of delivery and competent handling of EU T
Y
and immigration matters, than they are to offer the electorate a choice between P
O
different societal outcomes.
L
I
T
I
Pontus Odmalm is Senior Lecturer in Politics, University of Edinburgh, UK. PC
oS
nt O
uF
s O TH THE PARTY POLITICS
d
mE
E
a
lU OF THE EU AND
m A
N
D IMMIGRATION
I
M
M
I
G
R
A
T
I
O
N
Pontus Odmalm
Cover image © Stock Photo: 23443337
PalgraveStudiesinEuropeanUnionPolitics
Editedby:MichelleEgan,AmericanUniversity,USA,NeillNugent,VisitingProfessor,Collegeof
Europe,BrugesandHonoraryProfessor,UniversityofSalford,UK,andWilliamPatersonOBE,
UniversityofAston,UK.
EditorialBoard:ChristopherHill,Cambridge,UK,SimonHix,LondonSchoolofEconomics,UK,
MarkPollack,TempleUniversity,USA,KalypsoNicolaïdis,OxfordUK,MortenEgeberg,Univer-
sityofOslo,Norway,AmyVerdun,UniversityofVictoria,Canada,ClaudioM.Radaelli,University
ofExeter,UK,FrankSchimmelfennig,SwissFederalInstituteofTechnology,Switzerland
FollowingonthesustainedsuccessoftheacclaimedEuropeanUnionSeries,whichessentiallypub-
lishesresearch-basedtextbooks,PalgraveStudiesinEuropeanUnionPoliticspublishescutting-edge
research-drivenmonographs.
Theremitoftheseriesisbroadlydefined,bothintermsofsubjectandacademicdiscipline.All
topicsofsignificanceconcerningthenatureandoperationoftheEuropeanUnionpotentiallyfall
withinthescopeoftheseries.Theseriesismultidisciplinarytoreflectthegrowingimportanceof
theEUasapolitical,economicandsocialphenomenon.
Titlesinclude:
CarolynBan
MANAGEMENTANDCULTUREINANENLARGEDEUROPEANCOMMISSION
FromDiversitytoUnity?
GijsJanBrandsma
CONTROLLINGCOMITOLOGY
AccountabilityinaMulti-LevelSystem
EdoardoBressanelli
EUROPARTIESAFTERENLARGEMENT
Organization,IdeologyandCompetition
RamonaComan,ThomasKosteraandLucaTomini(editors)
EUROPEANIZATIONANDEUROPEANINTEGRATION
FromIncrementaltoStructuralChange
VéroniqueDimier
THEINVENTIONOFAEUROPEANDEVELOPMENTAIDBUREAUCRACY
RecyclingEmpire
HeleneDyrhauge
EURAILWAYPOLICY-MAKING
OnTrack?
TheofanisExadaktylosandClaudioM.Radaelli(editors)
RESEARCHDESIGNINEUROPEANSTUDIES
EstablishingCausalityinEuropeanization
JackHaywardandRüdigerWurzel(editors)
EUROPEANDISUNION
BetweenSovereigntyandSolidarity
WolframKaiserandJan-HenrikMeyer(editors)
SOCIETALACTORSINEUROPEANINTEGRATION
ChristianKaunertandSarahLeonard(editors)
EUROPEANSECURITY,TERRORISMANDINTELLIGENCE
TacklingNewSecurityChallengesinEurope
ChristianKaunertandKamilZwolski
TheEUASAGLOBALSECURITYACTOR
AComprehensiveAnalysisbeyondCFSPandJHA
MarinaKolb
THEEUROPEANUNIONANDTHECOUNCILOFEUROPE
FinnLaursen(editor)
DESIGNINGTHEEUROPEANUNION
FromParistoLisbon
PontusOdmalm
THEPARTYPOLITICSOFTHEEUANDIMMIGRATION
DimitrisPapadimitriouandPaulCopeland(editors)
THEEU’sLISBONSTRATEGY
EvaluatingSuccess,UnderstandingFailure
DavidPhinnemore
THETREATYOFLISBON
OriginsandNegotiation
ClaudiaSternberg
THESTRUGGLEFOREULEGITIMACY
PublicContestation,1950–2005
YvesTiberghien(editor)
LEADERSHIPINGLOBALINSTITUTIONBUILDING
Minerva’sRule
LiubomirK.Topaloff
POLITICALPARTIESANDEUROSCEPTICISM
AmyVerdunandAlfredTovias(editors)
MAPPINGEUROPEANECONOMICINEGRATION
RichardG.WhitmanandStefanWolff(editors)
THEEUROPEANNEIGHBOURHOODPOLICYINPERSPECTIVE
Context,ImplementationandImpact
SarahWolff
THEMEDITERRANEANDIMENSIONOFTHEEUROPEANUNION’SINTERNALSECURITY
JanWouters,HansBruyninckx,SudeshnaBasuandSimonSchunz(editors)
THEEUROPEANUNIONANDMULTILATERALGOVERNANCE
AssessingEUParticipationinUnitedNationsHumanRightsandEnvironmentalFora
OzgeZihnioglu
EUROPEANUNIONCIVILSOCIETYPOLICYANDTURKEY
ABridgeTooFar?
PalgraveStudiesinEuropeanUnionPolitics
SeriesStandingOrderISBN978–1–403–99511–7(hardback)and
ISBN978–1–403–99512–4(paperback)
(outsideNorthAmericaonly)
Youcanreceivefuturetitlesinthisseriesastheyarepublishedbyplacingastandingorder.Please
contactyourbookselleror,incaseofdifficulty,writetousattheaddressbelowwithyournameand
address,thetitleoftheseriesandoneoftheISBNsquotedabove.
CustomerServicesDepartment,MacmillanDistributionLtd,Houndmills,Basingstoke,Hampshire
RG216XS,UK.
The Party Politics of the EU
and Immigration
Pontus Odmalm
DepartmentofPoliticsandInternationalRelations,UniversityofEdinburgh,UK
©PontusOdmalm2014
Allrightsreserved.Noreproduction,copyortransmissionofthis
publicationmaybemadewithoutwrittenpermission.
Noportionofthispublicationmaybereproduced,copiedortransmitted
savewithwrittenpermissionorinaccordancewiththeprovisionsofthe
Copyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988,orunderthetermsofanylicence
permittinglimitedcopyingissuedbytheCopyrightLicensingAgency,
SaffronHouse,6–10KirbyStreet,LondonEC1N8TS.
Anypersonwhodoesanyunauthorizedactinrelationtothispublication
maybeliabletocriminalprosecutionandcivilclaimsfordamages.
Theauthorhasassertedhisrighttobeidentifiedastheauthorofthiswork
inaccordancewiththeCopyright,DesignsandPatentsAct1988.
Firstpublished2014by
PALGRAVEMACMILLAN
PalgraveMacmillanintheUKisanimprintofMacmillanPublishersLimited,
registeredinEngland,companynumber785998,ofHoundmills,Basingstoke,
HampshireRG216XS.
PalgraveMacmillanintheUSisadivisionofStMartin’sPressLLC,
175FifthAvenue,NewYork,NY10010.
PalgraveMacmillanistheglobalacademicimprintoftheabovecompanies
andhascompaniesandrepresentativesthroughouttheworld.
Palgrave®andMacmillan®areregisteredtrademarksintheUnitedStates,
theUnitedKingdom,Europeandothercountries.
ISBN 978-1-349-34971-5 ISBN 978-1-137-46251-0 (eBook)
DOI 10.1057/9781137462510
Thisbookisprintedonpapersuitableforrecyclingandmadefromfully
managedandsustainedforestsources.Logging,pulpingandmanufacturing
processesareexpectedtoconformtotheenvironmentalregulationsofthe
countryoforigin.
AcataloguerecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheBritishLibrary.
AcatalogrecordforthisbookisavailablefromtheLibraryofCongress.
Contents
ListofTablesandFigures vi
Acknowledgements vii
1 TheChangingNatureofPartyCompetition 1
2 CompetinginMultidimensionalPartySpaces 8
3 (Almost)ContestingtheEUandImmigration(1945–1990) 30
4 ‘Pulled’or‘Pushed’?IncreasedIdeologicalUncertaintyon
theEUandImmigration‘Issues’ 63
5 TheChangingModesofPartyCompetition(1991–2010) 97
6 TheDeathofIdeology,orWaysofDealingwithan
IncreasedStateofFlux 112
Notes 117
Bibliography 146
Interviews 165
Index 167
v
Tables and Figures
Tables
4.1 Typeofideological‘pull’(groupedbycountry) 65
4.2 EU(confirmedcasesinbold) 95
4.3 Immigration(confirmedcasesinbold) 96
Manifestopositions(EU)
5.1 Belgium–Flanders 98
5.2 Belgium–Wallonia 98
5.3 Britain 99
5.4 TheNetherlands 99
5.5 Sweden 99
Manifestopositions(Immigration)
5.6 Belgium–Flanders 100
5.7 Belgium–Wallonia 100
5.8 Britain 100
5.9 TheNetherlands 100
5.10 Sweden 101
5.11 Manifestopositionsandexpectedmodesof
competition:EU(1991–2010) 101
5.12 Manifestopositionsandexpectedmodesof
competition:immigration(1991–2010) 102
5.13 Defactomodesofcompetition/EU(aggregate%) 104
5.14 Defactomodesofcompetition/immigration
(aggregate%) 104
5.15 Modesofcompetition:party/frequency/totalnrof
elections(EU) 104
5.16 Modesofcompetition:party/frequency/totalnrof
elections(immigration) 105
Figures
4.1 AverageManifestoPositions(1991–2010) 64
vi
Acknowledgements
The precise origins of this book are difficult to trace, but I am fairly
sure that the ideas that underpin it evolved from several discussions
with Paul Taggart on how to classify party positions. These ideas later
developed into a funding proposal to the ESRC’s ‘First Grants’ scheme,
whichIwasveryfortunatetosecureandverygratefulfor(RES-061-25-
0195). The book would not have been possible to write without the
fantastic advice and feedback I got from numerous friends and col-
leagues(ElizabethBomberg,ChristinaBoswell,AilsaHenderson,Charlie
Jeffery, Luke March and Wilfried Swenden). I am also very grateful
for the comments I received from various discussants and workshop
participants over the years (Tim Bale, Gregg Bucken-Knapp, Alexander
Caviedes, James Hampshire, Jonas Hinnfors, Dirk Jacobs, Sarah de
Lange, Charles Lees, Laura Morales, Martin Schain, Andrea Spehar and
RichardWhitaker).SpecialthanksgotoRandallHansenandtheCentre
for European, Russian and Eurasian Studies (University of Toronto) for
the several invitations to present my work and to Betsy Super for her
greatassistanceoverthecourseoftheproject.Theresearchundertaken
for this book owes a lot to the Belgian, British, Dutch and Swedish
MPswhosogenerouslygaveuptheirtimetospeaktoBetsyandmein
2009–2013. And, finally, a world of thanks goes to Sarah and Maya for
theircontinuoussupportandlovethroughoutthisprocess.Thisbookis
dedicatedtothem.
vii
1
The Changing Nature of Party
Competition
Party systems across Europe have become increasingly complex and
volatile (Enyedi and Deegan-Krause, 2010). New questions have
emerged – with the attendant formation of ‘new’ parties – which have
often come to challenge the status quo of party competition (Harmel
and Gibson, 1995; Franklin, 1992). This change is said to manifest
itselfintheincreasedprominenceoflifestyle,valueandenvironmental
questionsthathavetakenthepoliticalconversationsinapost-material
direction over recent decades (Bomberg, 2002; Davis and Davenport,
1999; Knutsen, 1990; Inglehart, 1971). But this volatility also relates
to those novel questions that have entered the party-political agen-
das and which do not always have an obvious dimensional fit or any
equallyobviousmodesofframing(seee.g.ChongandDruckman,2007;
Rydgren,2005;Taggart,1995).Andsimultaneously,theparty-electorate
linkagesshowincreasingsignsofdissonanceandfriction(Walgraveand
Nuytemans, 2009; Hobolt, 2008; Jones and Baumgartner, 2005), and
parties are also said to be increasingly difficult to distinguish from one
another.Thebehaviourofthevotershasinturnechoedthesedevelop-
mentsandpointstohowcompetenceandanabilitytodeliverseemto
bemoreimportantthanideologicalproximityfortheirchoiceofparty
(GreenandHobolt,2008;Holian,2004;vanderBrug,2004).
These changes raise several pertinent questions for the political sci-
entist. Does ideology matter in the political ‘game’ (Fukuyama, 1992)?
Do parties offer a choice between different societal outcomes anymore
(Stokes,1963)?And,ifso,arethesechoicessignificantlydifferentfrom
oneanother(Petrocik,1996)?Ifoneanswerstheseinthenegative,then
this leads to an additional set of queries that need to be addressed.
Should we have entered an era of visionary decline (Elff, 2007), what
isitthatthendrivespartyconflict?Andwhyaresomepartiesstillmore
likelythanotherstoexperienceaninternalideologicalturmoil?
1
2 ThePartyPoliticsoftheEUandImmigration
Electoral competition has previously been explained by the differ-
entspatialpositionsthatpartiesoccupy(Downs,1957),theassumption
beingthattheseideologicallocation(s)wouldtranslateintospecific–and
different – policy solutions. Conflict has therefore tended to revolve
around competing ideas of ‘the good society’. Similarly, the electoral
dynamics that parties are subjected to (Deschouwer, 2013; Adams and
Somer-Topcu, 2009; Adams and Merrill, 1999), and how they have
responded (either pro- or re-actively) to certain exogenous ‘shocks’
(Adamsetal.,2004;Budge,1994),havealsobeenputforwardtoexplain
theidentifiedmodesofpartycompetition.
However, such explanations assume that the party-political land-
scapes have remained relatively stable, and that certain fault lines
continuetoberelevantfor partiesandelectoratesalike.Butas increas-
ingly noted, party systems appear to be in a state of flux (see e.g.
Poguntke, 2012; Broughton and Donovan, 1999; Mair, 1989), and the
politicalmainstreammaythereforefindthattheirtraditionalstances–
and solutions – are no longer viable. These questions are of course
importantforthemoregeneralunderstandingofhowpartycompetition
has evolved and changed over time, and, indeed, ‘parties’, ‘ideologies’
and ‘elections’ continue to be key topics for the comparative scholar
(seee.g.Budgeetal.,2001;InglehartandKlingemann,1987;Budgeand
Farlie, 1983; 1978; Rose, 1964). But they are equally important ques-
tionstoaddresswhentryingtoexplain(andmakesenseof)howparties
engage with, and negotiate, issues that often fall outside of the tradi-
tional dimensions of conflict. While much of the post-war period was
characterised by uni-dimensional types of competition concerning the
distribution,andownership,ofsocietalresources,thismaterialcleavage
is said to be less dominant today and subsequently also less relevant
thanitwas,say,40yearsago(Jansenetal.,2013).Inparallel,however,
anewsetofissueshaveemerged,whicharecharacterisedbytheirmore
post-material nature (Kitschelt, 1988; Inglehart, 1971). One would, per-
haps, expect these changes to have generated more room for conflict,
giventhepluralityofcleavagesthatarenowpresent,yetparadoxically,
therealsoappearstobeanincreasedlevelofagreementoncertainsoci-
etal outcomes (e.g. the continuation of the welfare state or protecting
the environment).Therefore,what is said to have changed is how par-
ties intend to achieve these mutually desirable goals. This suggests that
party competition, at the very least, has been affected by these socio-
political changes but possibly also that it has changed fundamentally.
Wherepartieswerepreviouslymorelikelytoputforwardasetofcom-
peting visions, they can now be described to be more concerned with