Residential Constraints and the Political Geography of the Radical Right

• In Event: Status Inequality and Political Preferences

Abstract

Why do populist radical right (PRR) parties perform well in some local settings but not in others? Specifically, if these parties primarily target and appeal to voters concerned about immigration and economic hardships, why are they more successful in localities with low levels of ethnic diversity and areas that are not necessarily de-industrializing or economically depressed? To explain this puzzle, I articulate a theory of residential constraints and immobility as a key driver of PRR support. I argue that PRR parties are particularly successful in areas where access to public services and economic opportunities is increasingly compromised and among individuals whose residential mobility, and thereby capacity to respond to this lack of access, is limited. In a globalized, post-industrial context that demands increasing degrees of mobility and flexibility and incentivizes individuals to (re-)locate closer to larger urban agglomerations, increasing geographic inequality in access to services and opportunities has rendered prosperous areas where they are abundant increasingly out of reach for many individuals. It has also made leaving areas experiencing social and economic decline difficult. Drawing on experimental and ethnographic evidence from Finland and France, I show that these spatial inequalities and constrained mobility deeply affect citizens’ perceptions of their status, social membership, and receptiveness towards PRR parties’ reactionary rhetoric and discourse about “ordinary” populations who are “left behind.”

Author

• Pauliina Patana, Harvard University