Radical Weakness—Do Radical Parties Receive Fewer Ministries?

Radical parties’ electoral surge has intensified debates about their inclusion in government coalitions. This article presents the most extensive analysis of ministry allocation to date, covering data from 555 coalitions from 33 OECD countries since World War II. While Gamson’s Law suggests coalition participants receive ministries proportional to their parliamentary seats, both coalition formation theory and ministry allocation theory imply that radicalism weakens bargaining power. Additionally, empirical research links radical parties to prioritisation of policy payoffs. I propose a theoretical model distinguishing between types of radicalism, identifying distinct mechanisms leading to ministry undercompensation. My findings show that radical parties systematically receive fewer ministries, primarily due to reduced bargaining power rather than because of payoff preferences. Moreover, I demonstrate that the factors facilitating coalition entry are closely linked to those shaping ministry allocation. Using selection bias-robust modeling, this study offers new insights into the constraints radical parties face in government formation.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Comparative Political Studies
Published
2025-06-11
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00104140251349670
Primary Topic
Populism, Right-Wing Movements
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Radical Weakness—Do Radical Parties Receive Fewer Ministries?

Timo Sprang
Comparative Political Studies
Populism, Right-Wing Movements
article

Radical Weakness—Do Radical Parties Receive Fewer Ministries?

Timo Sprang
article en

Abstract

Radical parties’ electoral surge has intensified debates about their inclusion in government coalitions. This article presents the most extensive analysis of ministry allocation to date, covering data from 555 coalitions from 33 OECD countries since World War II. While Gamson’s Law suggests coalition participants receive ministries proportional to their parliamentary seats, both coalition formation theory and ministry allocation theory imply that radicalism weakens bargaining power. Additionally, empirical research links radical parties to prioritisation of policy payoffs. I propose a theoretical model distinguishing between types of radicalism, identifying distinct mechanisms leading to ministry undercompensation. My findings show that radical parties systematically receive fewer ministries, primarily due to reduced bargaining power rather than because of payoff preferences. Moreover, I demonstrate that the factors facilitating coalition entry are closely linked to those shaping ministry allocation. Using selection bias-robust modeling, this study offers new insights into the constraints radical parties face in government formation.

Comparative Political Studies
Goethe University Frankfurt (DE)
Openalex Percentile: Top 84%
Populism, Right-Wing Movements
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.