The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Cultural Backlash? How (Not) to Explain the Rise of Authoritarian Populism
Open accessAbstract
This book review examines the theory of populism advanced by Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart in Cultural Backlash. The authors offer a distinct explanation of the rise of authoritarian populism in advanced democracies. As societies become more liberal over time, older, more conservative cohorts feel under threat of losing majority status and allegedly turn towards authoritarian-populist parties that promise to stop the tide of liberalism. However, this theory of populism finds little empirical support. In contrast to what the authors argue, there is no polarization of attitudes between younger and older cohorts, and younger cohorts are more likely to vote for authoritarian-populist parties. To substantiate this claim, I replicate many of the analyses in Cultural Backlash and add additional ones with the newest wave of the European Social Survey and the Chapel Hill Expert Survey. I conclude by observing that while the cultural backlash theory of populism does not hold, this does not invalidate cultural approaches more generally.
Overview
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
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.
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?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“there is little proof of one between authoritarianism and populist support per se”
From Post-Populism: Transitions from Populist to Personalist Authoritarian Rule (2023) · cites this paper as Schäfer, 2022
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“One likely driver of increasing affective polarization, and thus misinformation, is the rise of authoritarian populism in many Western countries, which itself may arise from economic insecurities or backlash to progressive cultural change (Inglehart & Norris, 2016; but see Schäfer, 2022).”
From Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media. (2024) · cites this paper as Schäfer, 2022
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 35
- 10.1111/j.1467-9248.1982.tb00559.x · DOI
- Engler, 2020, The threat of social decline: income inequality and radical right support, Journal of European Public Policy, 6, 1
- 10.1177/0010414011427851 · DOI
- 10.9783/9780812293784 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1177/0010414006294168 · DOI
- 10.1080/13569317.2015.1075264 · DOI
- Goodhart, 2017, The Road to Somewhere: The Populist Revolt and the Future of Politics
- Inglehart, 1977, The Silent Revolution. Changing Values and Political Styles Among Western Publics
- Schwartz, 1992, Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 1
- 10.1177/0032321719842768 · DOI
- 10.1093/actrade/9780190234874.001.0001 · DOI · Paper page
- Hawkins, 2019, The Ideational Approach to Populism: Concept, Theory, and Analysis
- 10.1111/j.1475-6765.1992.tb00303.x · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139152365 · DOI
- 10.1177/0010414013512600 · DOI · Paper page
- 10.1017/9781108595841 · DOI · Paper page
- Levitsky, 2018, How Democracies Die
- 10.1177/0192512107088390 · DOI
- 10.1111/1477-7053.00022 · DOI
- 10.2307/422034 · DOI
- 10.1017/CBO9781139152365 · DOI
- Iversen, 2019, Democracy and Prosperity: Reinventing Capitalism Through a Turbulent Century
- 10.1177/0010414003251176 · DOI
- Hawkins, 2012, Measuring populist attitudes, Committee on Concepts and Methods Working Paper Series, 55, 1
- Runciman, 2019, How Democracy Ends
- Gidron, 2019, Populism as a problem of social integration, Comparative Political Studies, 53, 1
- Manow, 2018, Die Politische Ökonomie Des Populismus
- 10.1093/epolic/eiy017 · DOI
- 10.1016/j.electstud.2016.02.001 · DOI
- Hochschild, 2016, Strangers in Their Own Land: Anger and Mourning on the American Right
- Kitschelt, 1997, Developments in West European Politics, 131, 10.1007/978-1-349-25341-8_8 · DOI
- 10.1111/j.1477-7053.2004.00135.x · DOI · Paper page
- Bornschier, 2019, The Ideational Approach to Populism, 202
- Mutz, 2018, Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 115, E4330
- 10.1177/0192512112455443 · DOI
Cited by
Social Drivers and Algorithmic Mechanisms on Digital Media.
Metzler, H., & Garcia, D. (2024) · Perspectives on Psychological Science · doi:10.1177/17456916231185057 · Cited by 204
“One likely driver of increasing affective polarization, and thus misinformation, is the rise of authoritarian populism in many Western countries, which itself may arise from economic insecurities or backlash to progressive cultural change (Inglehart & Norris, 2016; but see Schäfer, 2022).”
BackgroundPost-Populism: Transitions from Populist to Personalist Authoritarian Rule
Balta, E., Baturo, A., & Kenny, P. (2023) · doi:10.33774/apsa-2023-zpppw · Cited by 2
Metadata
- Authors
- Schäfer, A.
- Affiliations
- University of Münster (DE)
- Corresponding author
- Schäfer, Armin
- ORCID
- Schäfer, Armin
- Venue
- British Journal of Political Science
- Publisher
- Cambridge University Press (CUP)
- Published
- 2021-09-24
- Volume
- 52
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 1977-1993
- ISSN
- 0007-1234 (ISSN-L)
- 1469-2112
- OpenAlex
- W3203511308
- Cited by
- 126
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 28 · 2025: 28 · 2024: 29 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 57.32
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Locations
- British Journal of Political Science (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
- 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
- authoritarian populism, Inglehart, generational differences, liberalization, advanced democracies, replication, European Social Survey, Chapel Hill Expert Survey
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.
