The direct and indirect policy influence of radical right populist parties: the Swiss SVP and the French FN in a comparative perspective
Bibliographic record
Abstract
In the last quarter of the 20th Century, radical right populist parties (RRPP) have developed and strengthened their electoral weight in Europe. However, since the end of the 1990s, many of them have been legitimized and have gained access to power. Others face more difficulties to reach power but tend to be considered by mainstream parties as a serious electoral threat. Because of their proximity with power, the policy influence of RRPP becomes a puzzling question. This paper thus aims to investigate the influence of such parties on policy-making, in a comparative perspective. The French Front national (FN) is compared to the Swiss Schweizerische Volkspartei (SVP). Based on the process-tracing method, the policy influence of these contrasted cases in the law and order sector is assessed and the way they try to be influent is analyzed. The findings suggest both parties have a different influence capacity, mainly because of the electoral system. The SVP influence is often major and mostly direct while the FN influence is at best moderate and always indirect. Yet, they both face similar difficulties to influence policy and, consequently, their influence remains limited to the early stages of policy-making.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.008 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".