Residential Constraints, (Im)mobility and Support for the Populist Radical Right

• In Event: The Political Geography of Immigration Attitudes and Populist Voting

Abstract

What explains variation in electoral support for populist radical right-wing (PRR) parties within Western democracies? More specifically, why are these parties increasingly stronger in rural and semi-urban localities relatively untouched by their electorates’ core concerns related to immigration, post-industrial economic decline and growing transnationalism? This paper sheds light on this paradox by investigating the conditions under which PRR parties perform well in some local settings but not in others. I develop and test a theory that argues that the way in which these demographic and economic factors trigger a PRR backlash is contingent upon residential constraints and (im)mobility. Drawing on longitudinal and subnational administrative data and original surveys from Finland and France, I show that PRR parties are particularly successful in areas where access to economic opportunities and basic services are restricted and among residents who have limited means of “voting with their feet” and reacting to the pressures and demands created by growing international economic and political integration in other ways. Paradoxically, in a globalized context that both demands and encourages high degrees of mobility, national governments have pursued policies that increase geographic inequality in economic opportunities and access to services, rendering prospering areas where they are abundant increasingly out of reach for many individuals. Indeed, while the provision of basic welfare services and employment offer are increasingly concentrated around larger urban areas, the high and growing costs of housing, a lack of affordable options, and other barriers to mobility constrain many individuals, forcing them to live at a certain distance from such areas and become “stuck” in places where these resources are increasingly scarce. This (im)mobility, in turn, deeply affects citizens’ (perceived) social membership and receptiveness towards PRR parties’ rhetoric about populations that are “left behind” or “ignored.”

Author

• Pauliina Patana, Cornell University