CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 116Populism, Right-Wing MovementsPolitical Theory and DemocracyElectoral Systems and Political Participation

Populism and Polarization in Comparative Perspective: Constitutive, Spatial and Institutional Dimensions

Open access
Roberts, Kenneth M.·2022·Government and Opposition
DOI 10.1017/gov.2021.14
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

Polarization may be the most consistent effect of populism, as it is integral to the logic of constructing populist subjects. This article distinguishes between constitutive, spatial and institutional dimensions of polarization, adopting a cross-regional comparative perspective on different subtypes of populism in Europe, Latin America and the US. It explains why populism typically arises in contexts of low political polarization (the US being a major, if partial, outlier), but has the effect of sharply increasing polarization by constructing an anti-establishment political frontier, politicizing new policy or issue dimensions, and contesting democracy's institutional and procedural norms. Populism places new issues on the political agenda and realigns partisan and electoral competition along new programmatic divides or political cleavages. Its polarizing effects, however, raise the stakes of political competition and intensify conflict over the control of key institutional sites.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1017/gov.2021.14

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Populism fuels affective or pernicious polarization.

    “As populism (as an ideology) 'considers society to be ultimately separated into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups' (Mudde, 2004, p. 543), it fuels affective/pernicious polarization (Roberts, 2022).”

    From Political polarization and corruption: A theoretical and empirical review (2024) · cites this paper as Roberts, 2022

    In ‘Populism, pluralism and constitutive polarization,’ Roberts describes an affective divide intensified by populist narratives and antipopulist responses. The Conclusion says populism is intrinsically polarizing, but polarization takes pernicious forms only under particular conditions; the claim leaves out that qualification. (LLM, conf=0.86)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 61

  1. Abramowitz AI (2011) The Disappearing Center: Engaged Citizens, Polarization, and American Democracy. New Haven: Yale University Press.
  2. Anria S (2018) When Movements Become Parties: The Bolivian MAS in Comparative Perspective. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  3. Aslanidis P (2017) Populism and Social Movements. In Rovira Kaltwasser C, Taggart P, Ochoa Espejo P and Ostiguy P (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 305-325.
  4. Bartolini S and Mair P (1990) Identity, Competition, and Electoral Availability: The Stabilisation of European Electorates 1885-1985. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  5. Berman S (2016) The Specter Haunting Europe: The Lost Left. Journal of Democracy 27(4), 69-76. https:// doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0063. · DOI
  6. Berman S and Kundnani H (2021) Mainstream Parties in Crisis: The Costs of Convergence. Journal of Democracy 32(1), 22-36. https://doi.org.10.1353/jod.2021.0013. · DOI
  7. Bernhard L and Kriesi H (2019) Populism in Election Times: A Comparative Analysis of 11 Countries in Western Europe. West European Politics 42(6), 1188-1208. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019. 1596694. · DOI
  8. In Mudde C (ed.), The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 338-351.
  9. Binev BS (2018) The Populist Syndrome: Critical Junctures and Parallel Paths in Latin America and Post-Communist Europe. PhD dissertation, Department of Government, Georgetown University.
  10. Blum RM (2020) How the Tea Party Captured the GOP: Insurgent Factions in American Politics. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  11. Bornschier S (2010) Cleavage Politics and the Populist Right: The New Cultural Conflict in Western Europe. Philadelphia, PA: Temple University Press.
  12. Caiani M and Graziano P (2019) Understanding the Varieties of Populism in Times of Crises. West European Politics 42(6), 1141-1158. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1598062. · DOI
  13. Carnes N and Lupu N (2020) The White Working Class Vote and the 2016 Election. Perspectives on Politics, published early online, May. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592720001267. · DOI
  14. Coppedge M (1994) Strong Parties and Lame Ducks: Presidential Partyarchy and Factionalism in Venezuela. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
  15. De Cleen B (2017) Populism and Nationalism. In Rovira Kaltwasser C, Taggart P, Ochoa Espejo P and Ostiguy P (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 342-362.
  16. De Lange SL (2017) A New Winning Formula? The Programmatic Appeal of the Radical Right. In Mudde C (ed.), The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 83-102.
  17. de la Torre C (ed.) (2019) Routledge Handbook of Global Populism. London: Routledge.
  18. della Porta D (2015) Social Movements in Times of Austerity. Cambridge: Polity Press.
  19. della Porta D, Fernandez J, Kouki H and Mosca L (2017) Movement Parties against Austerity. London: Polity Press.
  20. Enyedi Z (2016) Populist Polarization and Party System Institutionalization: The Role of Party Politics in De-Democratization. Problems of Post-Communism 63(4), 201-220. https://doi.org/10.1080/10758216. 2015.1113883. · DOI
  21. Grossman M and Hopkins DA (2016) Asymmetric Politics: Ideological Republicans and Group Interest Democrats. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  22. Grzymala-Busse A (2019) How Populists Rule: The Consequences for Democratic Governance. Polity 51 (4), 707-717. https://doi.org/10.1086/705570. · DOI
  23. Hajnal ZL (2020) Dangerously Divided: How Race and Class Shape Winning and Losing in American Politics. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  24. Handlin S (2017) State Crisis in Fragile Democracies: Polarization and Political Regimes in South America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  25. Harteveld E (2016) Winning the 'Losers' but Losing the 'Winners'? The Electoral Consequences of the Radical Right Moving to the Economic Left. Electoral Studies 44, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. electstud.2016.08.015. · DOI
  26. Hug S (2001) Altering Party Systems: Strategic Behavior and the Emergence of New Political Parties in Western Democracies. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  27. Rovira Kaltwasser C, Taggart P, Ochoa Espejo P and Ostiguy P (eds) (2017) The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  28. Kitschelt H (in collaboration with McGann AJ) (2017) The Contemporary Radical Right: An Interpretive and Explanatory Framework. In Mudde C (ed.), The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 352-385.
  29. Kitschelt H and McGann AJ (1995) The Radical Right in Western Europe: A Comparative Analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
  30. Kriesi H (2008) Contexts of Party Mobilization. In Kriesi H, Grande E, Lachat R, Dolezal M, Bornschier S and Frey T (eds), West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 23-52.
  31. Lee FE (2016) Insecure Majorities: Congress and the Perpetual Campaign. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  32. Lee FE (2020) Populism and the American Party System: Opportunities and Constraints. Perspectives on Politics 18(2), 370-388. https://doi.org/10.1017/S1537592719002664. · DOI
  33. Levitsky S and Loxton J (2013) Populism and Competitive Authoritarianism in the Andes. Democratization 20(1), 107-136. https://doi.org/10.1080/13510347.2013.738864. · DOI
  34. Levitsky S and Roberts KM (eds) (2011) The Resurgence of the Latin American Left. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
  35. In Levitsky S, Loxton J, Van Dyck B and Domínguez JI (eds), Challenges of Party-Building in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press, pp. 1-47.
  36. Lipset SM and Rokkan S (eds) (1967) Cleavage Structures, Party Systems, and Voter Alignments: An Introduction. In Party Systems and Voter Alignments: Cross-National Perspectives. New York: Free Press, pp. 1-64.
  37. Lupu N (2016) Party Brands in Crisis: Partisanship, Brand Dilution, and the Breakdown of Party Systems in Latin America. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  38. Madrid RL (2008) The Rise of Ethno-Populism in Latin America. World Politics 60(3), 475-508. https:// doi.org/10.1017/S0043887100009060. · DOI
  39. Madrid RL (2009) The Origins of the Two Lefts in Latin America. Political Science Quarterly 125(4), 1-23. https://doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-165X.2010.tb00686.x. · DOI
  40. McAdam D and Kloos K (2014) Deeply Divided: Racial Politics and Social Movements in Postwar America. New York: Oxford University Press.
  41. McCarty N, Poole KT and Rosenthal H (2016) Polarized America: The Dance of Ideology and Unequal Riches, 2nd edn. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
  42. McCoy J and Somer M (eds) (2019) Polarizing Polities: A Global Threat to Democracies. Special Issue of The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science 681.
  43. McCoy J, Rahman T and Somer M (2018) Polarization and the Global Crisis of Democracy: Common Patterns, Dynamics, and Pernicious Consequences for Democratic Polities. American Behavioral Scientist 62(1), 16-42. https://doi.org/10.1177/0002764218759576. · DOI · Paper page
  44. Minkenberg M (2017) The Radical Right in Public Office: Agenda-Setting and Policy Effects. In Mudde C (ed.), The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. London: Routledge, pp. 443-457.
  45. Mosca L and Tronconi F (2019) Beyond Left and Right: The Eclectic Populism of the Five Star Movement. West European Politics 42(6), 1258-1283. https://doi.org/10.1080/01402382.2019.1596691. · DOI · Paper page
  46. Mudde C (ed.) (2017) The Populist Radical Right: A Reader. London: Routledge.
  47. Mudde C and Rovira Kaltwasser C (2013) Exclusionary vs. Inclusionary Populism: Comparing the Contemporary Europe and Latin America. Government and Opposition: An International Journal of Comparative Politics 48(2), 147-174. https://doi.org/10.1017/gov.2012. · DOI
  48. Ostiguy P (2017) Populism: A Socio-Cultural Approach. In Rovira Kaltwasser C, Taggart P, Ochoa Espejo P and Ostiguy P (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press. · DOI
  49. Pappas TS (2019) Populism and Liberal Democracy: A Comparative and Theoretical Analysis. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  50. Parker CS and Barreto MA (2013) Change They Can't Believe In: The Tea Party and Reactionary Politics in America. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  51. Pierson P (2017) American Hybrid: Donald Trump and the Strange Merger of Populism and Plutocracy. British Journal of Sociology 68(S1), 105-119. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-4446.12323. · DOI · Paper page
  52. Portos M (2020) Grievances and Public Protest: Political Mobilisation in Spain in the Age of Austerity. London: Palgrave Macmillan.
  53. Roberts KM (2014) Changing Course in Latin America: Party Systems in the Neoliberal Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  54. Roberts KM (2017) Populism and Political Parties. In Rovira Kaltwasser C, Taggart P, Ochoa Espejo P and Ostiguy P (eds), The Oxford Handbook of Populism. Oxford: Oxford University Press, pp. 287-304.
  55. Rooduijn M and Akkerman T (2017) Flank Attacks: Populism and Left-Right Radicalism in Western Europe. Party Politics 23(3), 193-204. https://doi.org/10.1177.1354068815596514.
  56. Rustow D (1970) Transition to Democracy: Towards a Dynamic Model. Comparative Politics 2, 337-363. https://doi.org/10.2307/421307. · DOI
  57. Sartori G (1976) Parties and Party Systems: A Framework for Analysis. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  58. Schaffner BF (2020) The Acceptance and Expression of Prejudice during the Trump Era. New York: Cambridge University Press.
  59. Schickler E (2016) Racial Realignment: The Transformation of American Liberalism, 1932-1965. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  60. Schlozman D (2015) When Movements Anchor Parties: Electoral Alignments in American History. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  61. Schmitter PC and Karl TL (1991) What Democracy Is … and Is Not. Journal of Democracy 2(3), 75-88. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1991.0033. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Roberts, K. M.
Affiliations
Cornell University (US)
Corresponding author
Roberts, Kenneth M.
ORCID
Roberts, Kenneth M.
Venue
Government and Opposition
Publisher
Cambridge University Press (CUP)
Published
2021-06-07
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
680-702
ISSN
  • 0017-257X (ISSN-L)
  • 1477-7053
DOI
10.1017/gov.2021.14
OpenAlex
W3166926658
Cited by
116
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 20 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 30 · 2023: 16 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 3
FWCI
46.52
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
www.cambridge.org/core/terms (unspecified)
Locations
Government and Opposition (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Harvard University
  • Scuola Normale Superiore
  • University of Cambridge
  • University of Oxford
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Populism, Right-Wing Movements
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Political Theory and Democracy
  • Social Sciences › Political Science and International Relations › Electoral Systems and Political Participation
Keywords
populism, political polarization, anti-establishment politics, democratic institutions, institutional contestation, party realignment, electoral competition, political cleavages, regional comparison, Europe, Latin America, United States

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review