The ambiguous nature of the left/right dimension
An empirical analysis providing new insights in the divergence of the
underlying issue basis of ideological identification
Written by Iris Weerdenburg (10719792) under the guidance of Mr. M. Medeiros.
iris.weerdenburg@student.uva.nl
Bachelor thesis Political Science, Faculty of Social and Behavioral Sciences,
University of Amsterdam
Submitted on June 25th, 2018
Abstract
The distinction between the political ‘left’ and ‘right’ is the core method by which people describe their political identities nowadays. However, the substance of this dimension is ambiguous. Previous studies have shown that the left/right dimension is a collection of attitudes towards a variety of issues which are salient in politics during the adolescence of a certain generation, whereby cultural and economic issues are mostly dominant. However, this thesis goes a step further by stating that the issue basis of the often-used left/right distinction is even more ambiguous in nature than has been proven before. Using cross-sectional data from the Netherlands from the period around the latest elections (2017), nine multiple regression models with interaction effects show that (1) the left/right dimension does not only entail an economic and cultural axis, since it reflects on other salient kinds of issues in politics too; and (2) it does not only differ per period or generation concerning what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’, since people from different educational backgrounds have different interpretations on what issues in politics are salient at a certain moment, which translates to their interpretations of the left/right axis.
Index
Introduction ...6
Theoretical framework ...9
State of the art ...9
Limitations...11
A multidimensional approach ...11
Education level ...12
Issue bundling in recent politics ...13
Healthcare ...14 Redistribution ...14 Refugees ...15 Secularism ...15 Environment ...16 European Union ...17 Safety ...17
Political trust: specific and diffuse support ...18
Data and methods ...19
Dataset ...19
Variables ...20
Methods ...23
Results ...24
Conclusion and discussion ...27
References ...29
Introduction
“Politics, it seems to me, for years, or all too long, has been concerned with ‘right’ or ‘left’ instead of ‘right’ or ‘wrong’”, thus spoke the American poet Richard Armour (1946). This famous quote illustrates the opinion of many, in which the dominance of the distinction between the ideological ‘left’ and ‘right’ in politics has been criticised for several different reasons (Otjes 2013). But despite these critical commentaries, ever since the 18th century, the left/right axis has developed into the core method by
which people describe their political identities, which is still the case today (De Vries et al. 2013: 223).
The fact that these terms are used so often makes it worth noting that there isn’t an unambiguous description for the substantive component of this distinction. Originally, the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ descend from the seating arrangement of the National Assembly during the French Revolution, whereby supporters of the ancient regime were seated on the right and revolutionaries were seated on the left (ibid). From this moment in time, left-wing politics became mostly associated with a more progressive and redistributive view of the role of the state, while rightists advocate for a more conservative and market-oriented state outlook (ibid). In other words, the distinction between left- and right-wing politics used to be mostly associated with an economic approach of these terms.
Over the last decades, research has shown that the left/right dimension is based on a variety of issues together that define what it means to be either ‘left’ or ‘right’. Therefore, the traditional economic view turned into a two-dimensional array whereby culturally rooted issues, such as traditional lifestyles, immigration, and Islam, arose as the second component within these terms (Kriesie et al. 2008: 31). Also within this cultural dimension, the left represents a more progressive view whereby rightists are more conservative (ibid). Therefore, whereas the left/right distinction used to be approached from a well-nigh one-dimensional perspective based on economic values, it could nowadays be seen as a two-dimensional superissue with cultural issues as a second component (Pierce 1999: 23).
Ever since research has given evidence for the two-dimensionality of these terms, research has expended knowledge on this topic. Taking this two-dimensional axis to another level, research by De Vries et al. (2013) points out that the ratio of importance of these components differs over time. The underlying mechanism of these dynamics entails the rise of a new issue on the political agenda, which will be accompanied by a gradual integration into the existing left-right distinction (De Vries et al. 2013: 228). In other words, the two-dimensional array is dynamic and reflects salient issues in politics at a certain moment in time. Therefore, De Vries et al. state that since economic issues became less dominant with respect to recent politics and cultural issues grew in importance, this translates to the underlying issue basis of left/right identification in the sense that economic issues became a less explanatory factor in peoples’ determination on the left/right axis while cultural issues became more dominant (ibid).
Follow-up research by Rekker (2016) shows that the predomination of certain issues within the left/right dimension not only differs from time to time, but also from generation to generation (Rekker 2016: 120). The underlying cause for this assumption is the principle of political socialisation, which is the manner by which we learn about politics and develop political opinions in our adolescent years (Clawson and Oxley 2017: 46). Rekker states that the most salient political issues during this stage of life are mostly dominant in people’s interpretation of the left/right dimension (Rekker 2016: 121).
Considering these theories together, the overall assumptions within this topic are that (1) the left/right dimension is based on people’s vision on a variety of issues together; (2) this issue basis entails a two-dimensional distinction based on economic and cultural values (Pierce 1999: 23; Kriesie et al. 2008: 31); (3) the ratio of importance between these two axes differs over time because it runs parallel with the salience of issues in politics in a certain period in time (De Vries et al. 2013: 228); and (4) voters from different generations have different interpretations of the left/right dimension because the issues that are most salient during their adolescence determine what issues are the most dominant underlying issues within left/right identification (Rekker 2016: 121).
Still, the state of the art concerning this topic raises questions about the ambiguousness of the left/right identification. The first question entails that if the underlying issue basis co-exists with salient issues in the politics of a certain period, why would there only be room for cultural and economic issues? Secondly, isn’t the assumption that a whole generation bases its left/right identification on the same issues too simplified? Since, within a generation, people from different educational backgrounds have divergent views on what issues are salient in politics in a certain period, this could translate to the assumption that people from different educational backgrounds have different issues in the multidimensional approach of the issue basis of left/right identification (Clawson and Oxley 2017: 267).
With the aim of giving insight to the questions described above, this thesis will take the state of the art around this topic to another level. It sheds a light on the different perceptions of what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’ from the insight that (1) salient issues in general, not only culturally and economically rooted issues, integrate into the existing left/right dimension and (2) for people on various educational levels, it differs regarding what issues are salient for them. Therefore, the following question will be answered in this thesis: to what extent do people with different educational backgrounds deviate in their vision on what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’ in a political way?
To answer this question, the remainder of this research is organised as follows. In the next section, a theoretical framework will be given in which the state of the art concerning the substantive component of the left/right identification by Ingelhart and Klingeman (1976), De Vries et al. (2013) and Rekker (2013) will be the main focus. Based on assumed limitations of these theories, two hypotheses will be
formulated. After this, a theoretical substantiation of the salience of issues in recent politics will be discussed, whereby a conceptualisation of these variables is given. In the next section, an outline of the dataset, methods and operationalisations is offered. Following that, the empirical results of a multiple regression will be presented and explained. Finally, these results lead to the conclusion that the interpretation of the left/right dimension is indeed more multifaceted than has been proven in previous studies.
Theoretical framework
In this section, the basal theory concerning the three components of left/right identification by Inglehart and Klingemann (1976) will be explained. Following this, the principles of issue bundling and issue crowding out by De Vries et al. (2013) will be described. Furthermore, the theory of Rekker (2013) regarding generational effects is given. Based on the limitations of the above-named theories, two hypotheses will be formulated. After this, the salience of a variety of issues will be argued based on different theoretical perspectives, which will be considered in the following regression.
State of the art
Following Inglehart and Klingemann (1976), left/right identification can be separated into three core components: a social-, partisan- and value-component (Inglehart and Klingemann 1976: 244-245). The social component means that a person who identifies as either ‘left’ or ‘right’ is likely to have specific features that usually fit one of those identities (ibid). Therefore, identification with a specific social group influences someone’s political ideology (Joireman 2003: 2). For example, people who see themselves as rightist are more likely to belong to a higher social class than people who see themselves as leftist (Rekker 2016: 4). The partisan component suggests that left/right identification mirrors voters’ loyalty to political parties, which means that voters are more likely to vote for parties that fit within the framework of their own ideological direction (Inglehart and Klingemann 1976: 244-245). Finally, the value component entails that a person who identifies with either ‘left’ or ‘right’ is likely to have certain views on political issues that also fit this ideological placement (ibid).
This last component of values has been studied by multiple researchers (Huber 1989; Kitschelt and Hellemans 1990). The conclusions from these studies assume the implication that a variety of issues together define what it means to be either ‘left’ or ‘right’, and that there is a specific consistency in positioning towards these issues (De Vries et al. 2013: 226-228).
However, research by De Vries et al. (2013) points out that the predominant issues within this distinction can differ from time to time (ibid). Issue bundling and issue crowding out are the core mechanisms underlying the dynamics within the left/right axis because they summarize the fact that the rise of a new issue on the political agenda will be accompanied by a gradual integration into the existing left/right distinction (ibid). Issue bundling entails a certain pressure for parties and voters to link new policy issues to their existing positions in the left/right dimension so that they can guarantee ideological consistency (ibid). In other words, when a new issue remains high on the political agenda, parties and voters will both tend to integrate the new issue into their existing ideological profile to ensure ideological consistency. As a result, the issue becomes increasingly associated with the existing profiles of parties. In addition, voters subsequently sort their left/right self-placements in accordance with the new salient
issue. The process of issue bundling can therefore be defined as ‘the process in which new policy issues become more and more integrated into the left/right dimension over time’ (ibid). Therefore, the core of this mechanism is that as a new salient policy issue is bundled into the left/right dimension, it redefines what it means to be on the left or right. As a by-product, however, other issues become less salient because of the limited space on the political agenda. When the importance of a new issue occurs, other issues will be given less attention and space in popular discourse. As a result, traditionally more prominent issues within left/right identification become less important for voters’ left/right identification, which is named as the process of issue crowding out (ibid).
Specifically, ever since the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ were used, the underlying issue basis of left/right identification used to be mostly associated with economic issues (Krisie et al. 2008: 31). However, because of the rise of cultural issues on the political agenda since the 1980s, these became the second component within this dimension, which turned into a two-dimensional array over time. Therefore, issues such as traditional lifestyles, immigration, and Islam became integrated into the left/right dimension (ibid). In other words, the culturally rooted issues were labelled under the principle of issue bundling, while the economic issues fit within the mechanism of issue crowding out (ibid).
Going one step further, follow-up research by Rekker (2016) shows that these changes can be seen within the light of generational effects, which occur when the opinions of an entire generation of people are influenced by the nature of time (Rekker 2016: 121; Clawson and Oxley 2017: 46-60). The underlying cause of this effect is the principle of political socialisation, which is defined as the manner by which we learn about politics and acquire relatively enduring orientations toward politics in general and towards our own particular political system during childhood and adolescent years (Rekker 2016: 120; Clawson and Oxley 2017: 46-60).
Specifically, for generations who came into adolescence during the period of pillarisation (1917-1960), ‘secularism’ and ‘redistribution’ were the most important underlying issues of left/right identification (Rekker 2016: 120-122). The follow-up generation experienced ‘civil liberties’ as the most salient issue associated with left/right identification. For generations who reached adolescence after the 1980s, ‘immigration’ is most strongly associated with left/right identification. By all means, the issue(s) on which a person bases his or her left/right identification seem to be dependent on the political context during a person’s adolescent years (ibid).
Concludingly, based on previous studies concerning the value component of left/right identification, a few assumptions can be drawn (Inglehart and Klingemann 1976: 244-245). Firstly, a variety of issues define what it means to be either ‘left’ or ‘right’ (De Vries et al. 2013: 226-228). Secondly, the salience of specific issues within this dimension is dynamic because the rise of a new issue on the political agenda
will be accompanied by a gradual integration into the existing left/right distinction (De Vries et al. 2013: 229). Therefore, the distinction could be composed of an economic and a cultural axis (Kriesie et al. 2008: 31). Specifically, the culturally rooted issue of ‘immigration’ is labelled under the principle of issue bundling, while the economic issue of redistribution fits within the mechanism of issue crowding out (ibid). Fourth, an addition by Rekker (2016) within this topic is that voters from different generations have different interpretations of the left/right dimension because the issues that are most salient during their adolescence determine what issues are the most dominant underlying issues within left/right identification because of the principle of political socialisation (Rekker 2016: 120-122). The culturally rooted issues of ‘secularism’ and ‘civil liberties’ and the economically based issue of ‘redistribution’ became less important for younger generations, while the cultural issue of ‘immigration’ became more dominant.
Limitations
Still, the theory as described above raises questions about the ambiguousness of the left/right identification. First, if the underlying issue basis co-exists with salient issues in the politics of a certain period, why would there only be room for cultural and economic issues? Couldn’t it be that left/right identification is multidimensional instead of only two-dimensional? And secondly, isn’t the assumption that a whole generation bases its left/right identification on the same issues too simplified? Since, within a generation, people from different educational backgrounds have divergent views on what issues are salient in politics at a certain period, this could translate to the assumption that people from different educational background have different issues regarding the multidimensional approach of the issue basis of left/right identification (Clawson and Oxley 2017: 267).
A multidimensional approach
As has been stated, the salience of issues within the left/right dimension is dynamic because the rise of a new issue on the political agenda will be accompanied by a gradual integration into the existing left/right distinction (De Vries et al. 2013: 229). Therefore, the one-dimensional approach whereby economic issues were dominant made room for a two-dimensional approach because of the rise of cultural issues on the political agenda (Kriesie et al. 2008: 31).
However, the theory by De Vries et al. (2013) of issue bundling and issue crowding out concerning these dynamics in general doesn’t particularly imply that the underlying issue basis can only be culturally or economically based. Because of the salience in politics of these kinds of issues, they were the main focus in previous research. However, since there are multiple issues that are dominant in politics nowadays, but that don’t particularly fit into one of these axes, like environmental issues, this thesis leaves the two-dimensional approach aside. In other words, since the left/right dimension is based on salient issues in recent politics, and there are several salient issues that don’t fit into the two-dimensional approach but
could be integrated into the underlying issue basis of left/right identification because of its salience, the first hypotheses of this thesis is:
H1: The underlying issue basis of left/right identification does not only entail culturally and economically rooted issues but entails salient issues in recent politics in general.
Education level
In the table below, it becomes clear that for people of different educational backgrounds, it differs to what extent that an issue is seen as actually important. In other words, even though certain issues could be seen as salient in politics in general nowadays, the importance of this issue differs for people from different educational backgrounds. In the figure below, it seems that higher educated people weight more importance to issues as ‘economy / financial situation’, ‘environment’, ‘European integration’ and ‘politics’ than lower-educated people, while ‘healthcare’, ‘minorities’ and ‘social security’ are more important for lower-educated people.
The underlying reason for this phenomenon is that there are significant differences in how people with different educational backgrounds have different attitudes towards political issues and have different comprehensions of politics in general, which fits the results as presented above (Clawson and Oxley 2017: 267; Nie et al. 1991: 1). Following these authors, the underlying reasons for this statement are that higher-educated people are more knowledgeable about and more interested in politics, and that they have more opportunities to be informed (ibid). In other words, schooling is linked to a person’s level of political knowledge, interest and sophistication (ibid). As a result, higher-educated people are more aware of what goes on in politics, and they are more aware of the public interest instead of limiting their focus to personal interest (ibid).
Figure 1: Perceptions of what issues are most important differs for people from different educational backgrounds (source: NKO 2017)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Healthcare Economy / Financial situation
Minorities Norms and values Environment European integration Social security Politics
Elementary / primary Secondary lower vocational Secondary higher vocational Tertiary vocational Higher secondary Tertiary higher vocational University Bachelor University Master
Overall, this would imply that higher-educated people have another vision regarding what issues are important in the political agenda. Combining this insight with the principle of issue bundling, which entails that salient policy issues become integrated into the left/right dimension, the second hypothesis occurs. Since the principle of issue bundling entails that people base their interpretations on what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’ on issues that are important in society, and it differs for people from different educational backgrounds concerning what issues are actually seen as salient in politics because they have another comprehension of politics in general, my hypothesis reads:
H2: The underlying issue basis of left/right identification differs for people from different educational backgrounds.
Issue bundling in recent politics
Because an issue is bundled into the left/right dimension when it is a salient issue in today’s politics, it is necessary to examine what issues are seen as dominant in politics. Therefore, in the figure below, people’s visions regarding what is the most important, second-important and third-important national problem are given. However, because there is no space to examine the integration of all of these issues into the left/right dimension, this thesis focusses on a selection of nine issues that all fit into the top 15 most important subjects as given in the figure below. These issues are: (1) healthcare; (2) redistribution; (3) refugees; (4) secularism; (5) environment; (6) European Union; (7) safety; (8) political trust: specific support and (9) political trust: diffuse support. In the next section, the theoretical substantiation of the salience- and a conceptualisation of these issues is given.
Figure 2: Perceptions of what issues are most important in Dutch politics (source: NKO 2017)
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 P er ce n ta g e 1st 2nd 3rd
Healthcare
Looking at the quality of health systems, the Netherlands offers one of the best systems on a global level (Health Consumer Powerhouse 2018). Moreover, the Netherlands has the best healthcare system in Europe based on 48 different quality-indicators, including information provision, quality of hospital care, accessibility and medication use (ibid). However, the costs of healthcare in the Netherlands are very high and keep increasing every year (ibid). For people with lower incomes, healthcare is hard to afford nowadays, which makes it a very salient issue in politics nowadays (CBS 2018b). Specifically, as the figure above shows, 58,9% of the people think that the issue of ‘healthcare’ is in the top 3 most important issues in Dutch politics nowadays.
Keeping the demand- and supply side of politics in mind, the issue of ‘healthcare’ was a dominant factor in the campaigning of political parties at the latest national elections in the Netherlands. Since the health system is relatively high in quality but also high in costs, the focus of this debate was primary on the financial side of medical aid. Therefore, the issue of ‘own risk’ was much debated within this subject, because this regards the extent to which people pay for their own health care. Looking at the attitudes of the biggest Dutch political parties, only two parties, the liberal VVD and democratic D66, want to keep the issue of ‘own risk’ organized the way it is nowadays (Independer.nl 2017). All the other parties either want to reduce or abolish the own risk in healthcare. However, since the VVD and D66 are both in the coalition, the own risk stays the same for at least three more years, a measurement that often gets criticized by the opposition.
Redistribution
‘Redistribution’ is a set of measurements that are taken to reduce economic inequality by limiting income differences, for example, by the implementation of taxes (Kremer et al. 2014: 31). Rekker (2016) and De Vries et al. (2013) both measured the influence of people’s attitudes towards this issue on their interpretation of the left/right dimension. Their research shows that the dominant economic approach to left/right identification is untenable, knowing that economic issues became less salient within the determination of left/right identification over time, which makes the principle of issue crowding out applicable to this issue (De Vries et al. 2013: 228-229). Also, ‘redistribution’ is less dominant in the underlying issue basis of left/right identification for younger generations, since the issue is less important in politics during their adolescence (Rekker 2016: 120-122).
However, the data in previously mentioned studies only go up to 2008, just before the Global Financial Crisis really made an impact on people’s financial situations (Bijl et al. 2011: 13). Ever since the GFC occurred in Western Europe, economic issues have again become very dominant in the political agenda (Hobolt and Tilley 2016: 971). Hobolt and Tilley (2016) noted that the working middle class was hit the hardest by the crisis, which made the economically based differences between the rich and poor even
larger than before (ibid). Therefore, economic inequality has increased in the last few years, which made ‘redistribution’ a more salient issue on the political agenda again (ibid). In other words, the issue crowding out mechanism became less applicable to economic issues, and therefore, ‘redistribution’ could be seen in light of issue bundling again. Therefore, it will be included as a variable in my research.
Refugees
Ever since the 1980s, Dutch politics have been increasingly characterised by a mobilisation of anti-immigrant issues (Adams et al. 2012: 83). Following the definition of the CBS, ‘immigration’ involves the settling of persons from abroad in the Netherlands (CBS 2012). This is a very broad term, because ‘immigrants’ are a very large and diverse group of people with many different migration motives. For example, both expats and asylum seekers fall under this umbrella term, while these groups are very divergent in their migration motives. Also, the original citizens of the countries these immigrants settle in, have very divergent attitudes towards these different groups (ibid).
One specific group of immigrants that became a very widely discussed subject in the political debate is the group of ‘refugees’. This is a group of immigrants who were forced to cross the borders of their home country because they cannot return home safely anymore (ibid). In the first nine months of 2015, more than 487.000 refugees arrived in Southern European countries, running away from unsafeness in their homeland. This is the highest number of immigrants in Western Europe since record-keeping of this subject began (Banulescu-Bogdan and Fratzke 2015). Accommodating all these refugees in Western European countries was a very large challenge. Therefore, halfway through 2015, this influx of refugees into Europe was being referred to as the ‘European Migrant Crisis’ (ibid).
The debate about the accommodation of refugees became a very salient issue in the political agenda of these Western European countries, where opinions are divided and emotions can be strong (Kloosterman 2018: 3). On one hand, there have been several protest actions against the reception of refugees in asylum centers, while at the same time, many citizens want to offer help (ibid). By all means, this issue should be included in this thesis in the light of issue bundling, because it became a very salient issue in the political agenda in the last few years since the EMC occurred.
Secularism
‘Secularism’ defines the separation of church and state (Taylor 2010: 23). However, this term is often associated with the pillarisation phase, whereby the Catholic religion is the point of focus, as shown in research by Rekker (ibid). However, in this thesis, the focus will be on ‘secularism’ in a broader sense because the role of religions in politics other than the Catholic belief, like Islam, has a more dominant position within today’s political debate (Vermeulen et al. 2018).
‘Secularism’ was the most important underlying issue basis of left/right identification for voters who were adolescents during the era of pillarisation from 1917 to 1960 (Rekker 2016: 127). Rekker points out that this issue is less important for younger generations in defining what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’, because the dominance of this issue on the political agenda became less (ibid). In other words, following Rekker, this issue could be seen in light of issue crowding out.
However, several recent studies have shown opposite results. For example, Tilley (2015) shows that religion in politics did not increase but has been consistently important in predicting voters’ party choices over time (Tilley 2015: 907). Taking it one step further, one could say that the (debate over) the role of religion actually increased in the political arena when considering recent political developments. On one hand, there has been a rise of seats in national parliaments for political parties that base their attitudes on Western- and non-Western religious-based norms and values. In the Netherlands, for example, in the most recent general election in 2017, the Christian Democratic Party as well as DENK, a party that enjoys great popularity under Muslims, both won many votes in comparison to the election of 2012, which gave them 20% of the seats in parliament (Kiesraad 2017, Vermeulen et al. 2018). On the other hand, most European countries have joined in the rise of Populist Radical Right Parties, which are increasingly mobilised around the issue of Muslim minorities (Fukuyama 2006: 6). For example, the Party of Freedom (PVV), the second-largest party in the Netherlands, illustrates this other side of the debate, since, looking at the PVV’s party program of the last election, ‘de-Islamizing the Netherlands’ is the number one priority of this party (PVV 2017). By all means, the role of religion in politics has become a more salient issue in the political debate nowadays, which means that the culturally rooted issue of ‘secularism’ should be included in this research.
Environment
In 1989, CDA politician Lubbers started a campaign with the aim to reduce CO2 emissions. He was one of the first politicians to introduce this topic to the Netherlands (Mommers 2017). Ever since the debate began, environmental issues have had a raised dominance in the political arena. In the last few years, multiple intergovernmental organisations took measures to reduce CO2 levels on a regional or global level. For example, in 2015, during the 21st Climate Conference of the United Nations held in Paris,
nearly 200 participating countries settled on a binding agreement, which should reduce the emissions of CO2 and limit global warming (Europa-nu.nl 2015). From that moment forward, these countries are obligated to take certain measurements on a national level to comply with the binding measurements on a global scale. Still, in the last few years, many records concerning global warming have been broken. For example, in 2015, the CO2 concentration made the biggest jump ever, and 2016 was the warmest year ever measured (The Guardian 2017; NOAA 2016).
The debate on environmental issues is present in recent politics, whereby differences in the extent to which the government should do something about CO2 emissions is the core of the debate (Mommers 2017). “For the forthcoming elections, one of the most important questions is therefore: which parties dare to use all the means the government has at its disposal to prevent further warming?” asked the journalist in his article in De Correspondent. Clearly, many voters agreed with him. At the latest national and municipality elections, the Dutch niche party that stands for the importance of environmental issues, GroenLinks, gained many votes and became one of the biggest parties in the country (NOS.nl 2017). Concludingly, environmental issues are a very dominant component of the political debate. Therefore, this variable should be considered in this research, even though it is not directly an economic or culturally rooted issue.
European Union
In the mid-1980s, criticism regarding the state of affairs within the European Union arose among the British population (Harmsen and Spiering 2004: 15-16). Results of the Eurobarometer survey, which is presented every six months, show that support for and confidence in the EU has steadily declined since then. As a result, Euroscepticism, the criticism of (the way things are going on within) the EU, is increasing among citizens (Lubbers and Scheepers 2005: 224).
Evidence for this trend in Western Europe is that around two years ago, Euroscepticism became such an issue in the United Kingdom that citizens chose to leave the EU via a referendum, the Brexit. And in other countries, like the Netherlands, the debate on the legitimacy of the EU is becoming more and more prominent within the political debate (ibid). Whereas the Netherlands has served as one of the pioneers of transnational cooperation, a negative stigma concerning the EU has grown in the last twenty years (Harmsen and Spiering 2004: 13). Ever since the Maastricht Treaty was signed in the early 1990s, the Netherlands has experienced the largest increase in Euroscepticism among all EU member states and, especially in the last decade, this was decisive (Lubbers and Scheepers 2005: 223). A recent study by TNS NIPO (2016) showed that more than 28% of the Dutch population wants 'Nexit', whereby the Netherlands would leave the EU. By all means, the debate concerning the state of affairs within the EU and even membership of the EU are topics that are high on the Dutch political agenda today, which is why they should be included in this research.
Safety
Safety is a top priority for all political parties (Standaert 2016: 79-94). However, the meaning of ‘safety’ is subjective. Standaert distinguished five interpretations of safety: (1) the protection of human rights; (2) social safety; (3) criminality, fraud and terrorism; (4) nature and health and (5) social-economic safety (ibid). An analysis of party programs shows that there are major differences between the subjects that parties relate to safety, whereby the differences are related to the ideological views of parties.
However, in most cases, the third theme is the most common, not only for parties whose main focus relates to this topic, like the PVV, but also for parties in which one would expect less significant results, like GroenLinks and the Labour Party (PvdA) (ibid).
The debate concerning the issue of safety mostly focusses on how this can be reached (ibid). In her conclusion, Standaert states that there is an increasing emphasis on the repressive regulation of society and less emphasis on supporting and encouraging citizens to develop themselves. Most parties increasingly emphasize powerful intervention and come up with many proposals on how to combat citizens’ unwanted behaviour and how to punish violators (ibid). There is a clear shift from the nurturing parent morality, which encourages and rewards good behaviour, towards a strict father-morality, which regulates, enforces, maintains and punishes (ibid). People’s attitudes towards these opinions should therefore be included in this research.
Political Trust: specific and diffuse support
Clawson and Oxley (2017) separate two components of political trust, namely ‘diffuse support’, which implies trust in the political system and its institutions in general, and specific support, which entails trust in politicians within the system (Clawson and Oxley 2017: 314-343). Within this topic, research has shown that for both of these components, there is a lack in trust, which is increasing (ibid).
The party program of the PVV illustrates both the above-named components whereby the party fits perfectly within the definition of Populist Radical Right Parties by Mudde (2007: 19). The ‘radical’ part of this term refers to the dissatisfaction vis-a-vis the traditional political system, whereby one of the characteristics of these niche parties is that they drop off against the traditional values of the liberal system (Mudde 2007: 20-30). For example, the party program of the PVV entails the following statements, which fit with the lack of diffuse support: ‘direct democracy: introducing a binding referendum, citizens should get power’ (PVV 2017). The ‘populist’ component of this term refers to the ideology that involves a division between ‘ordinary’ citizens and a ‘corrupt’ elite. Hereby, populist parties claim to stand up for the volonté generale, the interest of the people, just like the PVV does by rebelling against the established parties (Mudde 2008: 20-30). Keeping the demand- and supply-side of politics in mind,the fact that the PVV is the second-largest party in the Netherlands underlines the lack of trust in politics and politicians and the salience of these issues in politics nowadays.
Data and methods
In this section, the dataset that has been used for the regression will first be explained and reviewed. Next, the variables will be operationalised. Finally, the method of this research is explained.
Dataset
The dataset that was used for the regression is the most recent version of the Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek (2017) conducted by the Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek (CBS 2018a). This is a large-scale survey held once every four years in the period around the elections of national parliament in the Netherlands, whereby the aim is to gain insight into the voting behaviour of Dutch citizens (ibid). For this reason, the research not only includes questions to measure general trends in politics, but also focusses on salient issues in politics from the period in which the survey is conducted (Van der Meer et al. 2017: 99). Because this thesis particularly focusses on attitudes towards salient issues due to the issue bundling principle, the kinds of questions asked in this questionnaire fit this research well. However, there are some drawbacks to every dataset, since it is almost impossible to conduct a sample that perfectly represents the entire population (ibid).
To conduct the NKO 2017, CBS used two methods. First, it sent field workers to the respondents’ houses to ask questions. Second, respondents completed the survey online (ibid). A limitation of this first method could be that having an interviewer ask questions face-to-face could influence the answers respondents give. For example, respondents could take personal characteristics of the interviewer into account, such as skin colour, or give socially desirable answers in general. Also, the way the questions are asked could cause different interpretations of the questions and therefore different answers. The second method prevents these limitations, but it could still cause a bias in the respondents because not everyone has access to the internet.
In addition to the methods used to interview the respondents, the sample itself has some distortions too (ibid). In the NKO 2017, 61% of the respondents’ questions and answers were conducted through a random probability sample, which is the best way to conduct a representative sample. However, the remainder of the sample comes from the LISS panel, in which households are selected with a view on national representativeness. Altogether, the limitations of this sample are that people who drop out of the LISS panel or don’t respond to the request for participation at all (response rate = 59,7%) often have particular characteristics. To limit the distortion of this panel, CBS replaced unit non-responses with respondents with similar characteristics and applied the principle of post hoc weighing, which means that a greater weight is attributed to respondents who have underrepresented characteristics in proportion to the population (ibid). A problem with these strategies, however, is that it is hard to decide a priori on what characteristics to look at and to what extent they should be considered.
Looking at the broader picture of this sample, a positive note is that the NKO has a high reliability because of the high number of respondents (N = 3323), which makes random errors have less influence (ibid). Also, the external validity is relatively high because most of the sample is representative; only the weighting and selection as well as the methods used could give some bias. Altogether, the NKO’s types of questions suit my research very well. The dataset has a high reliability, but the external validity remains questionable (ibid).
Variables
The dependent variable in this thesis consists of the respondents’ self-placement on a 10-point left/right scale. The survey item reads: ‘Left-right self-rating of respondent’ (0=left; 10=right). This corresponds to traditional questionnaire items on ideological self-placement like European surveys (Kroh 2007: 3).
The independent variable is an interaction between the respondents’ education level and their attitudes on nine different salient issues, starting with ‘education level’, whereby the implications of CBS in the distinction of the different levels will be used (CBS 2008). This implies that the first three educational levels in the NKO (elementary/primary; secondary lower- and secondary higher vocational) will together be named as ‘lower education levels’ in the rest of this thesis. The ‘medium education level’ consists of the fourth and fifth level in NKO (tertiary vocational and higher secondary). Finally, ‘higher education level’ consists of the upper three levels in NKO (tertiary higher vocational, university bachelor and master).
Secondly, the interaction will be done with respondents’ attitudes towards the issues as described in the theoretical framework: (1) healthcare; (2) redistribution; (3) refugees; (4) secularism; (5) environment; (6) European Union; (7) safety; (8) political trust: specific support and (9) political trust: diffuse support. The first variable, regarding the issue of ‘healthcare’, is measured by respondent’s attitudes towards the abolishment of own risk (1=fully agree; 4=fully disagree). This variable hits the core of the debate on healthcare in recent, since it is about the costs individuals carry for health care. Secondly, people’s attitudes on ‘redistribution’ are taken along, which is measured by people’s position regarding income differences (1=bigger; 10=smaller). This indicator represents the issue of ‘redistribution’ very well, because redistribution is a measurement to decrease income differences, as was mentioned in the theoretical framework (Kremer et al. 2014: 34). In other words, if people think income differences should be smaller, they are automatically pro-redistribution and vice versa. Next, attitudes towards the issue of ‘refugees’ will be measured by the respondents’ position towards the main question in the debate within this subject as described in the theoretical framework: whether we should allow more refugees into the Netherlands (1=fully agree; 4= fully disagree). Fourthly, ‘secularism’ is measured by the respondents’ view on the question whether religion is a good guide in politics (1=fully agree; 4=fully disagree). This indicator fits my conceptualisation because it includes the role of all religions in politics.
Fifth, people’s attitudes towards environmental issues will be measured based on people’s positions on the question whether the Netherlands should do more to reduce CO2 emissions (1=fully agree; 4= fully disagree), which ideally could have been broader instead of only looking at this specific environmental issue. However, the rise of CO2 is a very large and dominant component of the debate around this topic, so it will still give representative results. Up next, attitudes towards the European Union are measured by people’s vision on European unification (1=should go further; 7=has gone too far). There was also a dummy variable within this subject (1=a good thing; 2=a bad thing), but the chosen indicator means that the question is considered in a less black-or-white perspective, because opinions within this question could be more nuanced than wanting to be in or out of the EU. The seventh attitude is on ‘safety’, measured by people’s attitudes towards the extend in which the Netherlands should raise defence spending (1=fully agree; 4=fully disagree). In the conceptualisation of the term ‘safety’, it seemed that most parties associate it with criminality, fraud and terrorism. Since this kind of safety gets provided by defence institutions, which makes this indicator fitting the variable. Next, the issue of ‘specific support’ is the main focus, which entails trust in politicians within the political system, as explained in the theoretical framework. Because of the rise of the populist movement, which asserts that politics are only for elites nowadays, the indicator of this variable is whether people would rather be represented by an ordinary person than a career politician (1=strongly agree; 5=strongly disagree). The last variable is about attitudes towards diffuse support, which means that there is a lack of trust in governmental institutions. Since one of the central questions within this subject is whether citizens should have more direct power, this variable will be measured by the question whether citizens should make important decisions for the country by referendum (1=fully agree; 5=fully disagree).
The control variables used in this research are gender (dummy: 0=male; 1=female), social class (1=upper class; 5=working class) and age (interval/ratio). This last variable will almost definitely have a significant influence on the dependent variable, looking at previous research by De Vries et al. (2013) and Rekker (2016), since the age, and specifically the period of the respondents’ adolescent years, are crucial in people’s interpretation of the left/right dimension.
Table 1: Descriptive statistics of the variables
Variable Description Scale Mean Stand.
dev. N Left-right identification “Left-right self-rating of respondent” 0 = left 10 = right 5,17 2,394 3060
Education level “Highest education
(completed) of respondent”
Lower education level: 1 = Elementary / primary 2 = Secondary lower vocational 3 = Secondary higher vocational 4,79 1,798 2909
Medium education level: 4 = Tertiary vocational 5 = Higher secondary Higher education level: 6 = Tertiary higher vocational 7 = University Bachelor 8 = University Master Attitude on healthcare
“Issue: Own risk in healthcare expenses should be abolished” 1 = fully agree; 4 = fully disagree 2,23 0,909 3163 Attitude on redistribution “Income differences - position of respondent” 1 = bigger; 7 = smaller 4,96 1,609 3068 Attitude on refugees
“Issue: No new refugees in the Netherlands” 1 = fully agree; 4 = fully disagree 2,65 ,883 1886 Attitude on secularism
“Religion good guide in politics” 1 = fully agree; 4 = fully disagree 3,09 ,884 1888 Attitude on environment “Issue: Netherlands should do more to reduce CO2 emission”
1 = fully agree; 4 = fully disagree
1,90 ,709 3102
Attitude on EU “European unification - position of respondent”
1 = should go further; 7 = has gone too far
4,42 1,878 2963
Attitude on safety
“Issue:
Netherlands should raise defence spending”
1 = fully agree; 4 = fully disagree 2,22 ,798 3013 Attitude on specific support “Rather represented by ordinary person than career politician”
1 = strongly agree; 5 = strongly disagree
3,35 ,987 2882
Attitude on diffuse support
“The citizens should make important
decisions for the country by referendum”
1 = fully agree; 5 = fully disagree
2,65 1,286 2954
Gender “Gender” 0 = male
1 = female
0,5 0,5 3427
Social class “Social class – self-image”
1 = Upper class; 5 = Working class
3,08 0,985 2958
Methods
The hypotheses of this research will be examined based on the results of nine multiple linear regressions with ordinary least squares (OLS). By using this form of quantitative method, the effect of the interaction between education level and a person’s attitude towards an issue on people’s left/right identification can be confirmed and checked on possible moderation effects.
For each issue, there will be a separate model. Within these models, the influence of ‘education level’ and the respondents’ attitudes towards that particular issue on people’s left/right identification will first be given. After this, these variables will be combined into an interaction, which will be the guideline for my conclusions. Finally, the control variables ‘gender’, ‘social class’ and ‘age’ are considered in the regression. Overall, the regression can be expressed in the following formula:
Left/right identification = b0 + b1 Education + b2 Attitude + b3 Education*Attitude + b4 Gender + b5
Results
In this section, the results of the regressions will be presented and discussed. Based on these results, both the hypotheses as formulated in the theoretical framework of this thesis will be accepted.
Table 2: The underlying issue basis of left/right identification Dependent variable: left-right identification
Note: *** p < 0,01, ** p < 0,05, * p < 0,1
Source: Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2017 (CBS)
Looking at the interaction between education level and attitude and its influence on the dependent variable ‘left/right placement’, the models of ‘redistribution’, ‘refugees’, ‘environment’ and ‘diffuse support’ show significant results. In case of ‘healthcare’, ‘religion’, ‘EU’, ‘safety’ and ‘specific support’, this is not the case.
Starting with the model of ‘redistribution’. First, the Adjusted R2 is pretty high, namely 0,261, which
means that the model explains the outcome for 26,1%. Looking at the outcome itself, combining Issues
Healthcare
Redistri-bution Refugees Secularism
Environ-ment European Union Safety Specific support Diffuse support Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Model 4 Model 5 Model 6 Model 7 Model 8 Model 9 Education -0.708*** 0.667** 0.879*** -0.766** -1.340*** -0.383*** -0.276 -0.337 -0.337 (0.247) (0.264) (0.272) (0.310) (0.259) (0.102) (0.263) (0.337) (0.337) Attitude -0.190 -0.295** 0.0652 -0.733*** -0.306 0.00105 -0.635** -0.197 0.00498 (0.241) (0.116) (0.227) (0.228) (0.294) (0.00150) (0.261) (0.215) (0.177) Education* Attitude -0.109 -0.207*** -0.408*** 0.137 0.538*** -0.000408 -0.0474 0.107 -0.129* (0.102) (0.0484) (0.0954) (0.0970) (0.123) (0.000694) (0.110) (0.0939) (0.0726) Gender 0.226 0.0576 0.220* 0.268** 0.164 0.222 0.233* 0.250* 0.250* (0.138) (0.120) (0.130) (0.136) (0.132) (0.138) (0.133) (0.136) (0.136) Social Class -0.239*** 0.00665* -0.00268 -0.00675 -0.00520 -0.00464 -0.0100** -0.00239 -0.00239 (0.0840) (0.00365) (0.00393) (0.00412) (0.00399) (0.00417) (0.00402) (0.00418) (0.00418) Age -0.00284 0.00652* -0.00330 -0.00730* -0.00552 -0.00531 -0.00917** -0.00323 -0.00585 (0.00417) (0.00369) (0.00396) (0.00415) (0.00402) (0.00421) (0.00410) (0.00417) (0.00423) N 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 1,202 R² 0.261 0.261 0.129 0.045 0.103 0.019 0.101 0.044 0.044
education level with the attitudes toward an interaction, the results are extremely significant (p < 0,001). This means that the estimate of the effect has been determined with a whole variance, or a high precision. Looking at the graphs on the next page, the attitude towards ‘redistribution’ becomes less influential on people’s left/right identification when their educational level becomes higher, even though this is a weak relationship. When X rises with 1 unit, which means that you go to a higher education level, Y (the interaction) declines with 0,207. In other words, economic inequality is more important for people from lower education backgrounds in determining their left/right identification than it is for higher-educated people.
The model on attitudes towards ‘refugees’ also gives very significant results (p < 0,001), even though the explaining variance of this model is lower, namely 12,9%. The effect is bigger than for the previous model, because when education level goes up with 1 unit, the interaction declines with 0,408. Therefore, the results show that the issue regarding refugees is a more important factor for lower-educated people in describing their left/right identification than it is for higher-educated people.
Concerning the environmental issue, the effect is again very significant (p < 0,001), but the effect goes in the opposite direction. This means that for every step to a higher education level, the interaction goes up 0,538. In other words, for people with a higher education level, environmental issues weigh heavier in their interpretation of the left/right dimension. This is the strongest effect found in this result, but the R2 is only 0,103, so the explanation variance is not very high.
Jumping to the ninth model of ‘diffuse support’, interesting results are shown, even though the results are less significant as the results discussed above, and the explaining variance is just 4,4%. Still, this model tells us that issues about diffuse support count as heavier in the interpretation of the left/right dimension for lower-educated people than for people from higher educational backgrounds. But the effect (-,129) and the significance (p < 0,1) are both not so strong.
For all of the other models counts, based on attitudes on ‘healthcare’, ‘secularism’, the ‘European Union’, ‘safety’ and ‘specific support’, the results are insignificant. This means that there is no significant difference in the extent to which people base their interpretation of the left/right dimension on their opinions towards these issues, moderating for their level of education. Also, looking at the R2
of these models, the explaining variances are very low, since they are all between 1,9% and 10,1%.
The first hypothesis (H1) as formulated in the theoretical framework implies that the underlying issue basis of the left/right dimension is not only two-dimensional, but that it entails a multidimensional substance based on various salient issues in recent politics. This hypothesis can be accepted, since the results imply that environment is a dominant factor for higher-educated people in their left/right
identification, and lower-educated people also think in terms of attitudes towards diffuse support. Both of these issues don’t particularly fit into the two-dimensional model of the cultural-economic approach. These results automatically lead to acceptance of the second hypothesis (H2), because they confirm the implication that the underlying issue basis of left/right identification differs for people from different educational backgrounds.
Figure 3: The effect of a two-way interaction (education*attitude) on left/right identification
Note: *** p < 0,01, ** p < 0,05, * p < 0,1 Source: Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2017 (CBS)
-0,8 -0,7 -0,6 -0,5 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Redistribution *** -0,8 -0,7 -0,6 -0,5 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 0,1 0,2 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Refugees *** -0,8 -0,7 -0,6 -0,5 -0,4 -0,3 -0,2 -0,1 0 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Secularism -0,4 -0,2 0 0,2 0,4 0,6 0,8 1 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Environment *** 0 0,0002 0,0004 0,0006 0,0008 0,001 0,0012 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated EU -0,74 -0,72 -0,7 -0,68 -0,66 -0,64 -0,62 -0,6 -0,58 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Safety -0,25 -0,2 -0,15 -0,1 -0,05 0 0,05 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Specific support -0,3 -0,25 -0,2 -0,15 -0,1 -0,05 0 0,05 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Diffuse support * 0,00 0,05 0,10 0,15 0,20 0,25 0,30 0,35 0,40 0,45 Lower educated Medium educated Higher educated Healthcare
Conclusion and discussion
Ever since the 18th century, the left/right dimension has been the core method by which people describe
their political identities (De Vries et al. 2013: 223). However, the substantive component of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ are ambiguous. Previous studies have given insights that the substantiation of this dimension is based on people’s attitudes towards specific issues (ibid). These issues used to be mostly economic, but this has changed into a two-dimensional approach with cultural issues as the second component. The ratio of importance between these issues changes over time since the substantiation of these terms run parallel with the salience of issues in politics at a certain moment. Also, people from different generations have different issue basis of left/right identification because their main focus is on issues that are salient during their adolescence because of the principle of political socialisation.
However, based on these existing theories as described above, some questions about the ambiguousness of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ arose. First, if the underlying issue basis co-exists with salient issues in the politics of a certain period, why would there only be room for cultural and economic issues? Secondly, isn’t the assumption that a whole generation bases its left/right identification on the same issues too simplified? Since people from different educational backgrounds have different interpretations of what issues are salient in politics, and a combination of salient issues together define what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’, isn’t there a difference in the underlying issue basis for people within generations too?
To give a more complete insight in this subject, this thesis entailed the following research question: To what extent do people with different educational backgrounds deviate in their vision of what it means to be ‘left’ or ‘right’ in a political way? To give a well-founded answer to this question, a multiple linear regression with ordinary least squares was done to test the following hypotheses: (H1) the underlying issue basis of left/right identification does not only entail culturally and economically rooted issues but salient issues in recent politics in general; (H2) the underlying issue basis of left/right identification differs for people from different educational backgrounds.
In the result section, both hypotheses were confirmed. This means that the often-used left/right dimension is more ambiguous than already proven in previous studies in two ways. First, the left/right dimension does not only entail an economic and cultural axis because it reflects on salient issues in politics in general. For example, peoples’ attitudes towards issues concerning diffuse support and environment also play a part in peoples’ left/right identification. In other words, the ideological distinction is broader than assumed from the two-dimensional perspective. Going a step further, the ratio of importance of these issues within peoples’ left/right determination not only differs in time or for people from different generations; it also differs for people with different educational backgrounds. For example, for people from higher-educated backgrounds, environmental issues are more important, while lower-educated people focus more on attitudes towards redistribution, secularism and diffuse support.
Nevertheless, a nuance for the acceptance of H1 must be made, since the salience of several issues is not integrated into the issue basis of left/right identification, with ‘healthcare’ as the most evincive example. From Figure 1, it seemed that ‘healthcare’ was seen as the most important national problem by many lower educated people, which decreased steadily when someone’s education level became higher (from 39% to 10,5%). The fact that the interaction between education level and attitudes towards this issue isn’t significant is therefore surprising, since the theory of issue bundling assumes that people’s perception of what issues are salient at a certain moment translates into the underlying issue basis of left/right identification. The same counts for the issues of ‘European Union’, ‘Safety’ and ‘Specific support’, since the interaction effects of these issues weren’t significant. Concludingly, it is not the case that the more important an issue is seen in politics, the more it is integrated into the left/right dimension. Why the issues of ‘environment’ and ‘diffuse support’ are integrated into the axes, but other issues like ‘healthcare’ aren’t, could be examined in further research.
Still, in conclusion, this thesis provides an insight in the diverseness of the underlying issue bases of left/right identification in two ways: First, by stating that the two-dimensional approach does not cover the diversity of the underlying issue basis because it has to be seen from a multidimensional perspective, and second, by assuming that the interpretation of this multidimensional array differs for people with different educational backgrounds, instead of only looking at the differences in time or generation.
However, this thesis only provides a stepping stone toward further research on this subject since there are certain limitations within this research. The first limitation arises from considering the way the issues included in this research were chosen. In the theoretical framework, a figure was presented which entailed people’s interpretations on the most important issues in recent politics. Since there was no room to examine the effect of all of these issues on left/right identification, the importance of nine specific issues was further explained based on separate literature. However, to give a more complete insight in this subject, follow-up research should include attitudes on all of the issues since they could all be influential. The second limitation comes from the fact that this research only focusses on issues that are salient in Dutch politics and thus only includes Dutch respondents. This could mean that this research might not be generalisable into a universal conclusion. Therefore, follow-up research should examine issues from a broader perspective than merely Dutch data, for example, by testing these results on a European or global level. In this way, a universal conclusion could be drawn. However, despite the fact that these results have limitations, this research can still provide insight in the diverseness of the terms ‘left’ and ‘right’ to a certain extent, because there were some very significant results that illustrated this statement.
References
Adams, J., De Vries, C.E. and Leiter, D. (2012). “Subconstituency reactions to elite depolarization in The Netherlands: an analysis of the Dutch public's policy beliefs and partisan loyalties”, Political Science 42 (1), 81: 105.
Bijl, R., Boelhouwer, J., Cloïn, M. and Pommer, E. (2011). De sociale staat van Nederland. Den Haag: Sociaal en Cultureel Planbureau.
Banulescu-Bogdan, N. and Fratzke, S. (2015). “Europe’s Migration Crisis in Context: Why Now and What Next?”, Migration policy institute, via https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/europe% E2%80%99s-migration-crisis-context-why-now-and-what-next. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
CBS (Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek) (2008). “Bijna evenveel hoogopgeleide als laagopgeleide Nederlanders”, via https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2008/16/bijna-evenveel-hoogopgeleide-als-laagop geleide-nederlanders. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
CBS (Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek) (2012). “Migranten, vreemdelingen en vluchtelingen: begrippen op het terrein van asiel en buitenlandse migratie”, via https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/achtergrond /2012/43/migranten-vreemdelingen-en-vluchtelingen-begrippen-op-het-terrein-van-asiel-en-buitenland se-migratie. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
CBS (Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek) (2018a). Nationaal Kiezersonderzoek 2017. Leidschenveen: CBS.
CBS (Centraal Bureau van de Statistiek) (2018b). “Zorguitgaven stijgen in 2017 met 2,1 procent”, via https://www.cbs.nl/nl-nl/nieuws/2018/22/zorguitgaven-stijgen-in-2017-met-2-1-procent. Retrieved June 23, 2018.
Clawson, R.A. and Oxley, Z.M. (2017). Public Opinion. Democratic Ideals, Democratic Practice. California: CQ Press.
De Vries, C., A. Hakhverdian, and Lancee, B. (2013). “The Dynamics of Voters’ Left/Right Identication: The Role of Economic and Cultural Attitudes”, Political Science Research and Methods Vol 1 No. 2, pp. 223–238.
Europa.nu (2015). “Klimaatconferentie in Parijs”, via https://www.europa-nu.nl/id/vjmhg41ub7pp /klimaatconferentie_parijs_2015_cop21. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
Fukuyama, F. (2006). “Identity, immigration, and liberal democracy”, Journal of Democracy 17 (2): pp. 5-20.
Harmsen, R., and Spiering, M. (2004). “Euroscepticism and the Evolution of European political debate”, European Studies: A Journal of European Culture 20(1): pp. 13-35.
Hobolt, S.B. and J. Tilley (2016). “Fleeing the centre: the rise of challenger parties in the aftermath of the euro crisis”, West European Politics 39(5): pp. 971-991.
Huber, John. 1989. “Values and Partisanship in Left–Right Orientations: Measuring Ideology”, European Journal of Political Research 17: pp. 599–621.
Independer.nl (2017). “Verkiezingen 2017: verplicht eigen risico. Afschaffen, verminderen of behouden?”, via https://www.independer.nl/zorgverzekering/info/verkiezingen-2017/eigen-risico. Retrieved June 23, 2018.
Inglehart, R. and Klingemann, H. (1976). “Party Identification, Ideological Preference and the Left– Right Dimension Among Western Mass Publics”. In: Budge, I. et al. Party Identification and Beyond: Representations of Voting and Party Competition. London: John Wiley: pp. 243–76.
Health Consumer Powerhouse (2018). “Euro Health Consumer Index 2017”, via https://healthpowerhouse.com/media/EHCI-2017/EHCI-2017-report.pdf. Retrieved June 23, 2018. Joireman, S. (2003). Nationalism and political identity. London: Bloomsbury Publishing.
Kiesraad (2017). “Officiële uitslag Tweede Kamerverkiezing 15 maart 2017”, via https://www.kiesraad. nl/actueel/nieuws/2017/03/20/officiele-uitslag-tweede-kamerverkiezing-15-maart-2017. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
Kitschelt, H. and Hellemans, S. (1990). “The Left-Right Semantics and New Politics Cleavage”, Comparative Political Studies 23(2): pp. 210–38.
Kloosterman, R. (2012). Opvattingen over vluchtelingen in Nederland. Leidschenveen: CBS.
Kremer, M., Bovens, M., Schrijvers, E. and Went, R. (2014). “Hoe ongelijk is Nederland? Een verkenning van de ontwikkeling en gevolgen van economische ongelijkheid”, WRR Verkenningen. Amsterdam: Amsterdam University Press.
Kriesi, H., Grande, E., Lachat, R., Dolezal, M., Bornschier, S., Frey, T. (2008). West European Politics in the Age of Globalization. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Kroh, M. (2007). “Measuring left-right political orientation: the choice of response format”, Public Opinion Quarterly, 71 (2): pp. 204-220.
Lubbers, M. and Scheepers, P. (2005). “Political versus instrumental euro-scepticism: Mapping scepticism in European countries and regions”, European Union Politics 6(1), pp. 223–242.
Mommers, J. (2017). “Dit zijn de partijen die klimaatverandering serieus tegengaan”, via https://decorrespondent.nl/6353/dit-zijn-de-partijen-die-klimaatverandering-serieus-tegengaan/700157 777-a3614274. Retrieved June 6, 2018.
Mudde, C. (2007). Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Nie, N.H., Junn, J. and Stehlik-Barry, K. (1996). Education and Democratic Citizenship in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
NOAA (2016). “Record annual increase of carbon dioxide observed at Mauna Loa for 2015”, via http://www.noaa.gov/news/record-annual-increase-of-carbon-dioxide-observed-at-mauna-loa-for2015. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
NOS.nl (2017). “Bekijk hier alle uitslagen van de verkiezingen”, via https://nos.nl/artikel/2223623-bekijk-hier-alle-uitslagen-van-de-verkiezingen.html. Retrieved June 9, 2018.
