European nations during the past two decades and that this opposition assumes two main forms – realistic
concerns about immigrants compromising levels of material and physical security (interest-based) and more
symbolic fears about immigrants’ cultural difference and social proximity (identity-based). More significantly,
however, it has shown that these grievance orientations (particularly the latter symbolic type) are directly linked to
increasing support for ERAI parties, along with political dissatisfaction and a context of economic decline and
demographic change.
Such findings are of significance since they show first that both subjective hostility toward immigrants
and the external environment spark support for the extreme right. In addition, they reveal that it is more abstract
cultural fears about immigrants’ presence and proximity that fuels these parties support rather than the more
materialistic concerns about their impact on the economy and jobs. However, beyond this level of explanation it is
the findings about the broader political and social context of debate that are perhaps the most striking. Confirming
the findings of Arzheimer and Carter (2005) the results show that the presence of a weaker mainstream right-wing
alternative does indeed fuel support for the extreme right. In addition, it appears that having a right-wing
government in place generates further political opportunities for such parties. While this finding is counter to our
expectation that a left-wing government would be the stimulus to ERAI voting due to their perceived failure to be
tough on the key issue of immigration, it may well be that such an argument applies equally, if not more
emphatically, to a right-wing government. While right-wing governments’ may be seen as more restrictive over
immigration in general, if they are in power and then fail to take action over immigration and asylum issues then
the effect on ERAI support may be even more pronounced than with a left-wing government in place. Further work
on the role of governing ideology, including examining the effect of a grand coalition on ERAI party support is
clearly required here.
Finally, it is clear that our last set of hypotheses about the echo chamber of opinion do hold some merit in
explaining ERAI parties’ success during the past two decades. As levels of hostility to immigrants rise in society,
so does the level of these parties’ support. In other words, while people are clearly motivated to support these
parties based on a personal or individualized sense of grievance against immigrants, an additional stimulus to such
behavior comes as expression of those sentiments expands and spreads out across society. The legitimacy of such
an act is increased. However, while this effect appears to hold only for identity-based opposition. Wider expression
of interest-based opposition actually appears to lower the level of support for ERAI parties. While such a result
appears at first to be counter-intuitive, a closer examination indicates a more subtle form of echo chamber effect
19
Convention