Abstract
This article is focusing on radical right-wing populist voting in Eastern Europe, and shows that neither the mass society thesis nor the theory of social capital, in Putnam's tradition, has much explanatory value for explaining the support for radical right-wing populism. Individuals with low participation in civil society are shown not to be significantly more right-wing populist than others, so that participation in civil society organizations is not a shield against populism. That means, that claims that radical right-wing populism has risen in Eastern Europe over the past one and a half decades because of a weakly developed civil society, that is, because of a legacy of lack of civic virtues being born through participation in civil society organizations, must be questioned. Such claims are not finding support in the empirical results presented in this article.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
As acknowledged by Putnam (2000, p. 19), his conception of social capital comes close to what earlier was usually discussed in terms of civic virtues (for example, Almond and Verba, 1963).
However, as has been increasingly noted within the literature on social capital, the link between membership in social associations and these outcomes is often not very well specified. This is in particular the case with trust (and, as a corollary, tolerance): although it is plausible that repeated social interaction leads to increased trust (and tolerance) for the people within the group, it is unclear how this trust is generalized to people outside the group or association (Stolle, 1998; Paxton, 2007, p. 50). Moreover, most studies do not deal satisfactorily with the problem of (reverse) causality. As Stolle (1998, p. 498) noted, it is always possible that ‘people who are more trusting will self-select into associations’.
For readers who are unfamiliar with logistic regressions, the tables should be read in the following way: Instead of displaying coefficients (b), as is common in OLS regressions, odds ratios (eb) are used. The odds ratio shows how the odds of the ‘event’ are influenced by changes in the independent variables. For example, an odds ratio of 2 means that the odds of the event are doubled by a one-unit increase in the independent variable. A value of 1 means that the change in the independent variable has no effect on the odds, and an odds ratio of 0.5 means that the odds of the event is halved as the independent variable increases by 1. Odds ratios greater than 1 thus signify positive relationships, odds ratios less than 1 negative relationships, and odds ratios equal to 1 no relationship at all. Log likelihood is a value for the overall fit of the model, whereas pseudo-R2 provides a way to describe or compare the fit of different models for the same dependent variable (cf. Pampel, 2000). Here and in the following models the dependent variable will be ‘voted for the radical right in the last national election’.
The following parties are deemed to belong to the radical right (cf. Mudde, 2007): Liga Polskich Rodzin (LPR), Partidul Romãnia Mare (PRM), Liberal’no-demokraticheskoi Rossii (LDPR) and Slovenská národná strana (SNS).
For more information about the European Social Survey, see www.euopreansocialsurvey.org.
However, since I do not control for religiosity, we cannot know if it is organization membership that has an effect here, or if it is religion per se.
References
Adorno, T.W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D.J. and Sanford, R.N. (1969) The Authoritarian Personality. New York: W.W. Norton & Company.
Almond, G.A. and Verba, S. (1963) The Civic Culture: Political Attitudes and Democracy in Five Nations. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Arendt, H. (1973) The Origins of Totalitarianism. New York: Harcourt Brace & Cole.
Bourdieu, P. (1986) The forms of capital. In: J.G. Richardson (ed.) Handbook of Theory and Research for the Sociology of Education. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.
Coffé, H., Heyndels, B. and Vermeir, J (2007) Fertile grounds for extreme right-wing parties: Explaining the Vlaams Blok's electoral success. Electoral Studies 26: 142–155.
Coleman, J.S. (1988) Social capital in the creation of human capital. American Journal of Sociology 94: S95–S121.
Coleman, J.S. (1990) Foundations of Social Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Coser, R.L. (1991) In Defense of Modernity: Role Complexity and Individual Autonomy. Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press.
Dahrendorf, R. (1990) Reflections of the Revolution in Europe. London: Chatto & Windus.
Delhey, J. and Newton, K. (2003) Who trusts? The origin of social trust in seven countries. European Societies 5 (2): 93–137.
Fennema, M. and Tillie, J. (1998) Social isolation: Theoretical concepts and empirical measurement. In: M. Fennema, H. Schijf and C. van der Eijk (eds.) In search of Structure: Essays in Social Science Methodology. Amsterdam, the Netherlands: Het Spinhuis.
Fromm, E. (1990) The Sane Society. New York: Owl Books.
Fromm, E. (1994) Escape From Freedom. New York: Owl Books.
Gusfield, J.R. (1962) Mass society and extremist politics. American Sociological Review 27 (1): 19–30.
Herreros, F. (2004) The Problem of Forming Social Capital: Why Trust? New York: Palgrave.
Hirschman, A.O. (1970) Exit, Voice, and Loyalty. Responses to Decline in Firms, Organizations, and States. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Kornhauser, W. (1959) The Politics of Mass Society. New York: Free Press.
Leighley, J.E. (1995) Attitudes, opportunities, and incentives: A field essay on political participation. Political Research Quarterly 48: 181–209.
Letki, N. (2004) Socialization for participation? Trust, membership, and democratization in East-Central Europe. Political Research Quarterly 57 (4): 665–679.
Lin, N. (2001) Social Capital: A Theory of Social Structure and Action. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Mayer, N. and Perrineau, P. (1992) Why do they vote for le pen? European Journal of Political Research 22: 55–81.
Mills, C.W. (1956) The Power Elite. New York: Oxford University Press.
Minkenberg, M. (2001) The radical right in public office: Agenda-setting and policy effects. West European Politics 24 (4): 1–21.
Mudde, C. (2007) Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Nisbet, R.A. (1970) The Quest for Community. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Pampel, F.C. (2000) Logistic Regression: A Primer. London: Sage.
Paxton, P. (2002) Social capital and democracy: An interdependent relationship. American Sociological Review 67: 254–277.
Paxton, P. (2007) Association membership and generalized trust: A multilevel model across 31 countries. Social Forces 86 (1): 47–76.
Portes, A. (1998) Social capital: Its origins and applications in modern sociology. Annual Review of Sociology 22: 1–24.
Portes, A. (2000) The two meanings of social capital. Sociological Forum 15: 1–12.
Putnam, R.D. (1993) Making Democracy Work: Civic Traditions in Modern Italy. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Putnam, R.D. (2000) Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community. New York: Simon & Schuster.
Rothstein, B. (2005) Social Traps and the Problem of Trust. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Rydgren, J. (2005) Is extreme right-wing populism contagious? Explaining the emergence of a new party family. European Journal of Political Research 44: 413–437.
Rydgren, J. (2007) The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology 33: 241–262.
Rydgren, J. (2009) Social isolation? Social capital and radical right-wing voting in Western Europe. Journal of Civil Society 5 (2): 129–150.
Shils, E.A. (1996) The Torment of Society: The Background and Consequences of American Security Policies. Chicago, IL: Ivan R Dee.
Simmel, G. (1955) Conflict & the Web of Group-Affiliations. New York: The Free Press.
Stolle, D. (1998) Bowling together, bowling alone: The development of generalized trust in voluntary associations. Political Psychology 19 (3): 497–525.
Stolle, D. and Rochon, T.R. (1998) Are all associations alike? Member diversity, associational type, and the creation of social capital. American Behavioral Scientist 42 (1): 47–65.
Sztompka, P. (1999) Trust: A Sociological Theory. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
van der Brug, W. and Fennema, M. (2007) What causes people to vote for a radical-right party? A review of recent work. International Journal of Public Opinion 19 (4): 474–487.
Van Oorschot, W., Arts, W. and Gelissen, J . (2006) Social capital in Europe. Measurement and social and regional distribution of a multifaceted phenomenon. Acta Sociologica 49 (2): 149–167.
Verba, S. and Nie, N. (1972) Participation in America: Political Democracy and Social Equality. New York: Harper and Row.
Veugelers, J. (2005) Ex-colonials, voluntary associations, and electoral support for the contemporary far right. Comparative European Politics 3: 408–431.
Welch, M.R., Sikkink, D. and Loveland, M.T. (2007) The radius of trust: Religion, social embeddedness and trust in strangers. Social Forces 86 (1): 23–46.
Wollebaek, D. and Selle, P. (2007) Origins of social capital: Socialization and institutionalization approaches compared. Journal of Civil Society 3 (1): 1–24.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Rydgren, J. A legacy of ‘uncivicness’? Social capital and radical right-wing populist voting in Eastern Europe. Acta Polit 46, 132–157 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2011.4
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/ap.2011.4