This article examines what explains the performance of Dutch local party branches in the recruitment of candidates for municipal councils. Fielding a list of candidates is the most basic function of political parties. In the Netherlands, party branches are under pressure from the low number of party members. To analyse how branches fulfil their role in recruitment, we employ our own survey of the secretaries of party branches held in the run-up to the 2018 municipal election. We find that party membership drives the successful fulfilment of the recruitment function but that, more than the absolute number of members, the crucial factors are how these party members cooperate, the number of active members and the development of this number.

This article examines the economic agenda of the Dutch Freedom Party. It finds that this party mixes left-wing and right-wing policy positions. This inconsistency can be understood through the group-based account of Ennser-Jedenastik (2016), which proposes that the welfare state agenda of radical right-wing populist parties can be understood in terms of populism, nativism and authoritarianism. Each of these elements is linked to a particular economic policy: economic nativism, which sees the economic interest of natives and foreigners as opposed; economic populism, which seeks to limit economic privileges for the elite; and economic authoritarianism, which sees the interests of deserving and undeserving poor as opposed. By using these different oppositions, radical right-wing populist parties can reconcile left-wing and right-wing positions.

This article shows that the economic left/right dimension does not always suffice to understand the social-economic policy positions of political parties. It focuses on social-economic decision-making in the Netherlands in 2012. The increase of the government pension age, which was championed by parties of the left and the right and opposed by parties of the left and the right, is taken as a prime example of an issue where decision-making did not follow the left-right line of conflict. The article continues to show that party policy positions on a number of more important welfare state reforms do not follow the left/right line of conflict, but rather a reform line of conflict that divides parties from the left and the right into pro-European reformers and Eurosceptic defenders of the existing welfare state.

This article studies how the presence of the supported minority government Rutte-I affected patterns of legislative behaviour. Based on the literature on minority cabinets one would expect that during supported minority cabinets parliamentary parties cooperate more often across the division between coalition and opposition than under multiparty majority cabinet rule. Examining almost 30,000 parliamentary votes between 1994 and 2012, this study finds that on a host of indicators of coalition-opposition-cooperation, there was less cooperation ‘across the aisle’ during the Rutte-I cabinet than during any cabinet before it. We explain this with reference to the comprehensive nature of the support agreement as well as the impact of the cabinets’ ideological composition.

Downs (1957) has proposed that new political parties may be formed in order to change the policy positions of established parties. Rather than seeking to implement their own manifestos directly from government office, some new parties may seek to influence the manifestos of established parties in order to see their policy goals realized. While the notion is old, it has not been studied extensively. This paper seeks to find out under what conditions established parties take over policy positions specific to new parties. It looks at two points in time when an established party can do so: in anticipation, i.e., before a new party enters parliament, and in reaction, i.e., after a new party has entered parliament. To this end, the paper will study the anticipatory behaviour and reactions of all established parties to all new parties entering the Dutch political system since 1946.