Populist Communication in the Context of European Parliament Elections 2014

Over the last decade European democracies have been facing a challenge by the rising force of new populist movements. The emergence of the financial and sovereign debt crisis in Europe created new fertile soil for the strengthening of old-established – and the development of new – populist parties in several EU-member states. José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, emphasized his increased unease concerning these developments when he was speaking at the annual Brussels Think Tank Forum on 22. April 2013: “I am deeply concerned about the divisions that we see emerging: political extremes and populism tearing apart the political support and the social fabric that we need to deal with the crisis; […]” (Barroso 2013). Indeed, European elites seem to be increasingly worried by these recent developments which are perceived as an impending stress test of the Union and the project of European integration as a whole (Hartleb 2013). Sure enough, the results of the recent European Parliament Elections 2014 revealed a great support for populist political parties in many societies of EU-member countries. To understand the success of populist parties in Europe it is crucial to first shed light on the nature of populist party communication itself. Significant communicative differences may explain the varying success of populist parties between and within countries, while a pure demand-side approach (i.e. a focus on the preferences of the electorate) often fails to do so (Mudde 2010). The aim of this study is therefore to analyse what different types of populist communication styles emerge during the EP election campaign 2014 and under which conditions populist communication styles are selected by political parties. So far, the empirical measurement of populism has received only scarce attention (Rooduijn & Pauwels 2011). Besides, most of the existing empirical investigations of populism are single case studies (Albertazzi & McDonnell 2008) and scholars have not yet developed systematic methods to measure populism in a comparative way (Rooduijn & Pauwels 2011). This is a consequence of a lack of conceptual clarity which goes along with populism (Taggart 2000; Barr 2009; Canovan 1999) due to its contextual sensitivity. Hence, populism in Europe should be analysed in a way that clarifies the concept of populism and moreover takes into account that the Europeanization of politics has an influence on the type of populist party communication, which is intended in the course of that study.

Socio-economic atlas of Kenya: Depicting the national population census by county and sub-location

The Socio-Economic Atlas of Kenya is the first of its kind to offer high-resolution spatial depictions and analyses of data collected in the 2009 Kenya Population and Housing Census . The combination of geographic and socio-eco - nomic data enables policymakers at all levels, development experts, and other interested readers to gain a spatial understanding of dynamics affecting Kenya. Where is the informal economic sector most prominent? Which areas have adequate water and sanitation? Where is population growth being slowed effectively? How do education levels vary throughout the country? And where are poverty rates lowest? Answers to questions such as these, grouped into seven broad themes, are visually illustrated on high-resolution maps. By supplying precise information at the sub-location level and summarizing it at the county level, the atlas facilitates better planning that accounts for local contexts and needs. It is a valuable decision-support tool for government institutions at different administrative levels, educational institutions, and others. Three organizations – two in Kenya and one in Switzerland – worked together to create the atlas: the Kenya National Bureau of Statistics (KNBS), the Nanyuki-based Centre for Training and Integrated Research in ASAL Development (CETRAD), and the Centre for Development and Environment (CDE) at the University of Bern. Close cooperation between KNBS, CETRAD, and CDE maximized synergies and knowledge exchange.

The 2011 Swiss Elections: Introduction

Parties, the Green Liberal Party and the Conservative Democratic Party. This election thus marks an end of the trend towards a growing level of party polarization. The introduction to this special issue puts these recent developments in context, discusses some of its consequences, and highlights how the articles in this special issue shed light on understanding the voting behaviour in Switzerland.

Do Ads Add Up? The Impact of Parties' Advertisements on the Stability of Vote Choice at the Swiss National Elections 2011

Our contribution analyses the influence of campaign advertisements on vote choice in the 2011 elections to the Swiss National Council. Concretely, we ask whether and to what extent the relative exposure to party ads of a preferred party exerts a reinforcing effect on an individual's party choice. We make use of the two-wave panel structure contained in the RCS survey data of the Selects 2011 and combine it with data on advertisements in 20 important national and regional newspapers. We find that increasing exposure to the campaign of one's preferred party may reinforce individuals with strong party attachment in their initial vote choice. Yet this effect only materializes with substantial campaign duration and exposure. Additional and exploratory analyses revealed that particularly the two recently emerged parties, the GLP and BDP, might have made a slight difference by potentially persuading defecting voters with the help of their campaign.

The structure of the debate on EU integration issues. A comparative analysis of party communication in the EP 2014 elections

The results of Eurosceptic parties in the recent European parliament election provide further evidence that the “permissive consensus” on European integration blurred. This paper focuses on the structure of the debate on EU integration issues. Which EU integration issues and positions do parties put forward? Can the debate on EU integration issues be subsumed in one or several dimensions? Do they reflect national political conflicts such as the left-right and the ‘new politics’/cultural divide? Or do they form one unique or several EU-specific dimensions, e.g. national sovereignty versus integration? In order to address these questions, this paper departs from the assumption that debate on European integration is multidimensional in its nature and therefore entails a multitude of issue areas. In other words, it does not look at how socio-economic and cultural issues are related to European integration but focuses on its components, i.e. particular EU-specific policies such as EU-wide employment, environment, immigration and monetary policy. The paper departs from the cleavage theory on political di-visions and different approaches transferring them to EU politics. Two points should be noted; first, this paper does not compare the debate on European integration issues between the national level and the EU level, but whether domestic divisions are reflected at the EU level. Second, it is not concerned with the general ideo-logical profile of political parties on EU integration issues, but on EU issues that parties communicated through press releases. By doing this, the paper is concerned with the salient EU issues that parties touch upon.