Some of the material in is restricted to members of the community. By logging in, you may be able to gain additional access to certain collections or items. If you have questions about access or logging in, please use the form on the Contact Page.
The incredible rise of so-called "anti-establishment" parties in Europe has left scholars scrambling to define and classify the movement. Much scholarly attention has been paid to radical right wing parties, and the sources of their electoral support. While important and intriguing, the current literature has yet to develop a cohesive definition of the anti-establishment, and has too heavily used terms such as "populist," "anti-establishment," and "radical right-wing" interchangeably. Further, extant research has based theories of these parties' electoral support largely with the radical right-wing in mind, potentially ignoring theories that could explain support for these parties from the left, right, and center of the political spectrum. Finally, current research has not substantially explored how these parties, traditionally excluded from policy-making, behave once they are seated in parliaments. This dissertation aims to remedy these three shortcomings. First, I develop a conceptual definition and measurement scheme that encapsulates both ideological positioning and anti-establishment sentiment. Then, I explore how political trust in influences electoral support for anti-establishment parties positioned at all areas of the classic left-right spectrum. Finally, I analyze their parliamentary behavior, assessing their level of activity and their preferred policy domains. My findings underscore the importance of conceiving anti-establishment parties as existing along a unique dimension, separate from ideology, whose electoral viability can be explained via a unified theory, and who behave uniquely in parliament.