Right-wing parties are on the rise, in Europe as well as in the USA. And their political influence does not only begin upon entering government. In a recently published study, the Humboldt Governance Lab examines how the parliamentary presence of right-wing opposition parties affects government policy. The result is as clear as it is explosive: as soon as radical right-wing parties are represented in parliament, governments tighten their stance on migration.

Political scientists Heike Klüver and Fabio Ellger analyzed 165 coalition formations in 24 European democracies between 1980 and 2015. Using a unique dataset, they compared the discrepancies between parties’ election manifestos and the positions actually agreed upon in coalition agreements. This allowed them to precisely track when and where parties shift their political lines. The result: mainstream parties often adopt different positions in coalition agreements than those they advocated in their manifestos. According to the researchers, coalition negotiations offer the best time to shift positions, as these changes can be justified to citizens as necessary compromises. In this way, parties try to avoid being perceived as opportunistic by the electorate.

The study shows that established parties react strongly to changes in public mood. If support for right-wing parties grows, they adapt their policies in the hope of winning back lost voters. Right-wing parties, on the other hand, remain remarkably constant. They orient themselves toward their core electorate and stick to their positions.

The result is paradoxical and has significant political consequences: mainstream parties lose a substantial share of their votes in subsequent elections because they are perceived as lacking credibility. Right-wing parties, by contrast, benefit from their consistency and perform equally well or better. Adaptation thus proves to be a risky strategy. Minority governments that have already suffered losses in votes are particularly vulnerable to this dynamic. Interestingly, neither the size of right-wing parties nor the timing of their entry into parliament is decisive. Their mere presence is enough to trigger political shifts.

The study thus raises an uncomfortable question: should established parties resist the pressure and stick to their positions even in coalition negotiations to remain credible in the long term and take the wind out of right-wing parties’ sails? There is no simple answer. But one thing is clear: right-wing parties often change politics before they even govern.

Der Beitrag How right-wing parties reshape politics before even taking power erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

What effects do state-sponsored anti-LGBTQ measures have on voting behavior?
This question lies at the center of the new Humboldt GovLab study “The Electoral Effects of State-Sponsored Anti-LGBTQ Measures” (2025) by Violeta Ines Haas, Konstantin Bogatyrev, Tarik Abou-Chadi, Heike Klüver, and Lukas Stoetzer. Against the backdrop of the growing prevalence of anti-gender and anti-LGBTQ policies in many countries, the study addresses a dimension of these developments that has received little scholarly attention to date: their effects on individual electoral choices.

In countries such as Russia, Hungary, or Poland as well as in parts of the United States repressive anti-gender and anti-LGBTQ measures have become a common feature of political practice. Right-wing radical parties and religious groups in Western Europe and Latin America also increasingly oppose the LGBTQ movement. There are therefore strong reasons to examine more closely how these developments affect voting behavior.

While the cultural and institutional consequences of such rhetoric and policies have been extensively studied, far less is known about their political effects. To address this gap, the researchers from Humboldt GovLab and their partners employ a synthetic difference-in-differences design, a method particularly suited to estimating causal effects in quasi-experimental settings. The quasi-experiment underlying the study is the adoption of so-called “LGBT-free zones” by Polish municipalities. These resolutions were passed in some regions roughly seven months before the nationwide elections in 2019 and were actively promoted by the then-governing Law and Justice party (PiS).

The results show that voter turnout declined significantly in municipalities that adopted such resolutions. The drop was particularly pronounced among supporters of opposition parties. At the same time, PiS achieved higher vote shares in these municipalities. In geographically adjacent municipalities where no such resolutions were adopted, these patterns did not emerge. Regional factors can therefore be ruled out as an explanation for the observed electoral outcomes.

The authors conclude that anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies strengthen the electoral base of the parties that promote them. They trace these effects back to two central mechanisms. First, through anti-LGBTQ measures, political elites send normative signals that communicate which behaviors are socially desirable and which are not. This encourages citizens who already hold negative attitudes toward the LGBTQ community to express these views more openly, thereby mobilizing voters who support incumbent parties. Second, anti-LGBTQ measures shape perceptions of political efficacy. Citizens with hostile attitudes toward LGBTQ people experience state repression as confirmation of their political influence. By contrast, individuals with liberal values feel politically disempowered, leading to lower levels of electoral participation. This pattern was clearly evident in the 2019 Polish elections.

Overall, the study demonstrates that anti-LGBTQ rhetoric and policies have measurable effects on voting behavior. Supporters of such policies are more likely to turn out to vote, while opponents increasingly withdraw from the electoral process. The answer to the initial question is therefore clear: Yes, homophobia can contribute to electoral victory. The researchers therefore express concern that this dynamic may lead to a further increase in queer-hostile policies in the future.

Der Beitrag Winning Elections with Homophobia? erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Over the past few decades, populist parties have been on the rise. While around the year 2000 they received only about 12% of the vote in European democracies, by 2018 they had already convinced 28% of voters across Europe.

But how can the ideology of these parties be defined? What is meant by populism remains a matter of debate among researchers. However, the definition proposed by populism scholar Cas Mudde has gained wide acceptance. From a populist perspective, society is divided into two homogeneous and antagonistic groups: the “ordinary people” on one side and the elites on the other. The elites are seen as arrogant, lazy, irresponsible, and corrupt, while the ordinary people are viewed as innocent and at the mercy of the elites. According to populists, the general will of the people should be directly reflected in politics.

Political science research shows that support for parties with this populist ideology tends to be higher the greater the economic inequality within a society. In their new study, HU professors Heike Klüver and Johannes Giesike, along with Lukas F. Stötzer, professor at the University of Witten/Herdecke, have taken a closer look at this relationship, which has so far not been sufficiently explained. In addition to her professorship, Heike Klüver is the director of the Humboldt Governance Lab, of which Lukas F. Stötzer is also a member.

The researchers argue that it is not so much actual economic disparities that drive the rise of populism. Rather, the perception that society is unequal leads to the spread of populist attitudes and, consequently, to increased support for populist parties.

Perceptions of inequality can vary greatly between individuals and often do not align with the actual level of social inequality. People tend to underestimate how unequal their society really is. Nevertheless, there is a clear positive correlation between perceived and actual inequality.

The researchers’ study, which draws on data from the International Social Survey Programme (ISSP), shows that support for populist parties is also linked to perceived inequality. Individuals who view society as more unjust are 2.7 percentage points more likely to vote for a populist party than those who consider their society relatively fair. The effects are particularly pronounced for major right-wing populist parties such as Norway’s Progress Party, the Danish People’s Party, and Austria’s Freedom Party.

With their study, the researchers make an important contribution to answering key political science questions about the rise of populism. In contrast to previous research, their findings show that the perception of society as unequal may be a crucial explanatory factor for the growing support of populist parties.

Der Beitrag Inequality in the Mind – Fuel for Populism? erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

The journey of AI start-up Noah Labs began in 2021, when Oliver Piepenstock (34) and Marcus Hott (28) met at the Entrepreneur First incubator in Berlin during a start-up speed dating session. Both had applied to the organization of the same name, which invests six-figure sums in talented people right from the start out of conviction, without program participants having to present a business idea. This was also the case for Oliver and Marcus, who subsequently joined forces in the incubator and founded their company, the heart of which is the medical device “Noah Labs Ark”. This is an AI-based cardiovascular telemonitoring platform and is now to be expanded to include “Noah Labs Vox”, a voice-based AI software for detecting decompensated heart failure in an early stage.

The medical sector was not new territory for Oliver and Marcus when they founded the company, as they had both worked in this field before: Marcus had worked as a software developer with machine learning and AI at Harvard Medical School and recognized the potential of these technologies for the healthcare sector. At the time, Oliver, an economist, already had his own healthcare company in the field of elderly care called Mecasa.
Oliver and Marcus received support from the Berlin Startup Scholarship (BSS) from December 2021 to April 2023 to further develop the business idea for their new company. In addition, the founders also took part in the Humboldt-Innovation GmbH mentoring program between 2022 and 2023.

Until then, the founders were still a duo, but this changed in 2024 when Dr. Leonhard Riehle (31), who had completed his medical studies at the Charité hospital in Berlin and had led clinical studies on voice and also worked in the field of cardiology, joined and completed the founding team.
A promising constellation of an economist, software developer and doctor, whose Noah Labs Ark software was quickly approved as a Class IIa medical device. The telemonitoring platform is already being used successfully in numerous medical practices. The Noah Labs team takes care of setting up all the devices, other technical tasks and also offers medical staff training on how to use them correctly. As a result, doctors are able to concentrate fully on treating their patients’ cardiovascular diseases, monitor the effectiveness of treatment in real time and intervene medically in good time if vital signs and symptoms deteriorate. In this way, patients are cared for even if they have to wait months for their next appointment with a cardiologist. At this point, Noah Labs closes a gap in the healthcare system.

AI-based cardiovascular telemonitoring platform “Noah Labs Ark” (c) Noah Labs

But that is not all: Noah Labs is currently developing the voice-based AI software Noah Labs Vox which is to be used for detecting decompensated heart failure early. As part of the “AI-Based Voice Analysis for Monitoring Patients Hospitalized with Acute Decompensated Heart Failure” study, or “VAMP-HF” for short, the German Heart Center at Charité and the Mayo Clinic in the USA are investigating the extent to which patients with advanced heart failure can be monitored telemedically via the sound of their voice, using AI from Noah Labs.

But how can the condition of the heart be determined from the voice? To answer this, it is necessary to explain what happens in the body of people with heart failure with “hydropic decompensation”: Due to the severely reduced pumping function of the heart, sufficient fluid can no longer be transported from the tissues to the excretory organs, so that the fluid accumulates in the body, such as in the lungs, leading to a life-threatening deterioration in general condition. Doctors then administer medication to strengthen the heart and drugs to improve the elimination of fluid. It is essential that the effectiveness of the therapy is closely monitored and adjusted. This is where voice monitoring by Noah Labs Vox is helpful, as a greater accumulation of fluid in the body leads to a change in the propagation of sound waves, resulting in a temporary change in the voice. In contrast to human hearing, which cannot perceive these changes, Noah Labs Vox makes them measurable.
The software analyzes hundreds of parameters in patient voice samples and identifies the smallest changes. The AI records the amount of fluid excreted and can thus predict the effectiveness of the therapy so that doctors can adjust the treatment before symptoms occur.

Noah Labs Ark enables detecting heart failure early so that reduce cardiovascular events, hospitalizations and mortality are reduced. If Noah Labs Vox is also approved as a medical device, these events will presumably occur even less frequently. Noah Labs Vox may also be used for other cardiovascular diseases in the future. This is currently being tested.
With its products, Noah Labs is demonstrating a further facet of the possible applications of AI and motivating people to continue exploring the potential of the technology.

Der Beitrag Detecting heart failure based on voice erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

In recent decades, right-wing populist parties have achieved success worldwide with anti-immigration campaigns, attracting many voters away from established mainstream parties. These parties now face the challenge of winning back their supporters.

Research has so far offered two common strategies for dealing with right-wing populist anti-immigration campaigns. On the one hand, established parties could adapt and adopt these issues themselves. However, this carries the risk of alienating remaining voters. On the other hand, they could try to suppress the issue and make it less prominent.

Researchers led by Prof. Dr. Heike Klüver from the Humboldt-Governance Lab have now investigated whether so-called “wedge issues” could represent a new strategy for mainstream parties. Wedge issues are issues that appeal to both pro-immigration and anti-immigration voters, thus taking into account the diverse interests of the electorate.

The research group tested this hypothesis with a panel survey experiment during the 2021 federal elections, focusing on the CDU/CSU. Through hypothetical election posters, the perceived agenda of the Union was manipulated to increase the importance of certain wedge issues.

The results of the study show that wedge issue strategies are not effective on average. However, exploratory analyses suggest that some anti-immigration voters could be won back through strategically targeted messages.

The research group emphasizes that wedge issue strategies could be particularly suitable for mainstream parties, which, unlike right-wing parties, cover a broad range of topics. Mainstream parties should therefore exploit “cracks” and “breaks” in the opposition’s electorate while strengthening their own base. This would allow them to win over supporters of right-wing parties as well as retain their core voters.

However, for these strategies to be successful, careful alignment of the wedge issues is crucial. “Through clearly formulated messages, there is potential to win back voter votes,” the researchers conclude.

The study by the Humboldt-Governance Lab thus offers new insights into the challenges and potential of voter recovery for mainstream parties. Whether wedge issues actually represent a promising strategy remains to be seen in the future.

Get read the study: Can wedge strategies by mainstream parties cross-cut the anti-immigration far right vote? – ScienceDirect

Other articles on current GovLab’s projects:

Der Beitrag Countering AfD with wedge issue strategy erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Humboldt University and Humboldt Innovation are participating in the monitoring of the LIFE Multi Peat project by NABU, promoting its accelerated implementation, and providing necessary equipment. The aim of the project is the restoration and, in parts, the transition to wet peatland management of project fields in Poland, Germany, Belgium, the Netherlands, and Ireland. Functional peatlands significantly contribute to climate and species protection. From 2021 to 2026, with the support of the LIFE Climate Change Mitigation Programme, researchers will work to restore the natural functioning of peatlands. The project area in Germany is the “Häsener Luch” in Löwenbergerland, Brandenburg.

The restoration of peatlands is of enormous importance for climate protection because healthy peat landscapes store greenhouse gases, thus contributing to climate regulation, fulfilling important ecosystem functions, providing flood protection, filtering groundwater, and providing a habitat for threatened animal and plant species. It has catastrophic consequences when peatlands lose their function, mainly due to drainage for agricultural and forestry purposes, leading to microbial degradation of peat. In Germany, about 95% of peatlands are drained. As a consequence, peat areas can no longer store organic carbon and release it in massive amounts. For instance, the drained mainly agricultural peatland “Häsener Luch” emits an estimated 1290 tons of CO2 equivalent per year on an area of about 50 hectares.
For Europe, the figures indicate that the EU, globally, is the second-largest emitter of greenhouse gases from peatlands. In Germany, seven percent of greenhouse gases are attributable to drained peatlands.

The reduction of greenhouse gases is intended to be achieved within the framework of LIFE Multi Peat through peatland rewetting and consequent raising of the water table. Specifically, this means restoring 689 hectares of peatland, reducing the global warming potential of the affected peat landscapes by up to 50%, developing strategies for paludiculture (wet peatland management) in Germany and Belgium, enabling improved communication and coordinated cooperation among EU peatland projects, and developing recommendations for expanding peatland restoration and an EU-wide decision support system for authorities and the private sector.

Humboldt University and Humboldt Innovation support the project in monitoring, playing an important role in the implementation of LIFE Multi Peat by NABU. Through HI, accelerated processing and procurement of necessary equipment, such as specialized measuring devices or gas analyzers, are possible. The research team can also utilize university laboratories through them to conduct specific measurements. As part of the project, the progress and success of the targeted reduction of greenhouse gas emissions are documented through monitoring. Under the leadership of HU Acting Professor Dr. Kathlin Schweitzer from the Department of Soil Science and Site Science, students and graduates of the department are involved in the NABU team. The faculty has a long tradition in peat soil research and is where a significant number of researchers currently working in the peat sector were trained

Der Beitrag Humboldt-Innovation supports NABU in moorland renaturation erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

Two devastating world wars shaped the first half of the 20th century, leaving Europe and other parts of the world in ruins. Seven years after the end of the war, in 1952, France, Germany, Italy, and the Benelux countries laid the crucial foundation for a new European beginning by founding the European Coal and Steel Community. This later evolved into the European Union in 1993 through the Maastricht Treaty. Today, the EU comprises 27 countries and is globally regarded as the most successful example of regional integration: EU citizens can travel through neighboring countries without a visa, work or live there, and member states benefit from close economic ties within the single market, along with numerous other advantages.

Given all these benefits, wouldn’t it seem far-fetched to reject the EU and return to fully sovereign nation-states? While many indeed consider this idea absurd, others still long for exactly that: the abolition of the EU. For several years now, criticism of the supranational organization has been growing: citizens complain about a democratic deficit and tend to identify more strongly with their national identity than as EU citizens. Many also criticize the EU as a project driven solely by elites, failing to adequately represent the interests of ordinary people. Within these critical voices, a clear divide emerges: social democratic, green, left-leaning parties, and much of the political center support the grand political project, while conservative and right-wing parties tend to take a Euroskeptic or outright hostile stance.

As an unprecedented supranational institution, the EU is a constant subject of political science research. At the Humboldt Governance Lab of Humboldt University in Berlin, the organization is also regularly examined. Professor Dr. Heike Klüver, head of the HGL and lecturer at HU, together with Dr. Asli Unan from the University of Amsterdam, studied how EU citizens’ attitudes toward the EU have been influenced by Russia’s war of aggression. For their research project, the scholars used data from the Eurobarometer, collected between February and April 2022 from over 26,000 EU citizens (aged 15 and older, representative sample). Thanks to the large sample size, the researchers were able—unlike other scholars who only captured public opinion in countries bordering Russia—to assess the war’s impact on citizens’ views across all EU member states.

So, what are the results of the study? They show that support for the EU among citizens has increased since the Russian invasion. On average, the war led to an increase of about 4 percent in support, which continued in the weeks following the invasion. Interestingly, support for the EU rose not only in states that border Russia and are therefore more directly threatened, but across all EU member states.

Thus, the study could be seen as evidence of the “rally around the flag” effect, where regional conflicts foster greater unity within supranational organizations. This is also supported by theories from social identity research, which suggest that external threats enhance group identity (Tajfel and Turner, 1979; Hogg, 2016). In addition to a stronger identification as Europeans, more people now appear to view the EU as a vital security actor during times of conflict.

While overall support has increased, the study also notes a rise in critical voices from left-leaning citizens—traditionally among the EU’s core supporters—since the Russian-Ukrainian war. As a result of both developments, the ideological gap between left- and right-leaning Europeans has narrowed somewhat. Fundamentally, the researchers conclude that attitudes toward the EU are strongly influenced by political ideology and age, with the youngest age groups showing the highest levels of support.

Since public opinion is crucial for the survival of supranational organizations like the EU, it is particularly important to regularly examine EU citizens’ views. It appears that war on European soil has led to greater unity among the European population. People have realized that they benefit significantly from the EU in terms of security and may now be more inclined to identify with their status as EU citizens.

Read the full study here: Europeans’ attitudes toward the EU following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine | Political Science Research and Methods | Cambridge Core

More articles on current GovLab’s projects:

Der Beitrag Threat unites erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

How much do you actually know about the Humboldt-Innovation Academy?
It is one of the business areas of Humboldt-Innovation GmbH and a key element within the company’s ecosystem. The HI Academy focuses on bringing knowledge from the university closer to professionals, executives, researchers, and organizations. Its goal is to keep the exchange between research and society vibrant, promote forward-looking topics, and strengthen the innovation potential in business and society.

The Academy is led by Dr. Katrin Schütz, a social scientist and alumna of Humboldt-Universität, with whom we spoke about this diverse area of business.

The Humboldt-Innovation Academy is the continuing education institution of Humboldt-Innovation GmbH. It offers practical, research-based qualification formats specifically designed for professionals, executives, researchers, and organizations looking to develop in a future-oriented way.

At its core is the transfer of excellent university knowledge through certificate courses, seminars, and workshops. Participants learn in a compact, application-oriented manner at an academic level. Current research findings are connected with real-world challenges.

A distinctive feature of the Academy is its flexibility and customization: in addition to open courses, it also develops tailor-made formats that are precisely aligned with the needs of companies, public institutions, or international partners.

The Academy sees itself as a transfer channel for innovation and knowledge—an environment where lifelong learning, interdisciplinary exchange, and societal progress are actively promoted. Whether the topic is digitalization, sustainability, or leadership skills, the Academy offers inspiration for the challenges of tomorrow.

The Humboldt-Innovation Academy combines academic depth, practical application, and customized formats at a level rarely reached by traditional training providers. It is particularly attractive for organizations and professionals who not only want to understand innovation but actively shape it.

Thanks to its direct connection to Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin, the latest scientific findings flow directly into its programs. Courses are led by professors, researchers, and experts who work at the intersection of academia and practice. Participants receive certificates issued at a university level—a quality hallmark with high recognition.

In cooperation with university partners, the Humboldt-Innovation Academy offers certificate courses in a wide range of fields. These range from German Sign Language, training in field botany, “AI for Everyone,” and “GreenEnergy” to management courses for NGO staff (SLE). In addition to these certificate programs, the Academy organizes tailor-made courses, for example, for delegations from Asia, as well as campus tours.

Der Beitrag Humboldt-Innovation Academy erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

A recent study titled “The Youth Gender Gap in Support for the Far Right” (2025) conducted by researchers from Humboldt University Berlin – Ðorđe Milosav, Heike Klüver and others as Zachary Dickson, Sara B. Hobolt, Theresa Kuhn, and Toni Rodon – demonstrates a growing ideological divide between young men and women across Europe. The research highlights how this emerging political gender gap could shape the continent’s future.

By analyzing data from the 2024 European Election Studies (EES), which comprise data of approximately 25,000 voters across all 27 EU member states, the research team uncovered an unprecedented trend: far-right parties are gaining historically high levels of support among young voters aged 16 to 29. This marks a significant shift, as progressive parties have traditionally dominated youth voting blocs in European elections.

The study’s most striking finding reveals a pronounced gender disparity in far-right support. Among young voters, 21% of men endorse right-wing parties compared to just 14% of women in the same age group. This 7-point gender gap stems from fundamental differences in political attitudes, with young European women consistently exhibiting more progressive social views than their male counterparts.

Longitudinal analysis of European election data from 1989 to 2024 shows this gender gap is particularly acute among Millennials and Generation Z voters. While Baby Boomers show nearly identical political preferences across genders, younger generations display rapidly diverging political trajectories. Notably, the divide appears to widen faster within Generation Z as they age compared to previous generations.

The research underscores the lasting impact of early political socialization. As lead researcher Ðorđe Milosav explains: “Young people are very impressionable during their early years, and the habits they form during that time tend to stick with them. They grow up influenced by family, friends, school, and social media, and these settings shape the way they think and behave. So, when a young person votes for the first time, that experience can set a habitual pattern for the future, often influencing how they vote in later elections.” This phenomenon makes the 16-29 age range particularly crucial for understanding long-term political trends.

The study identifies several factors contributing to this emerging divide. Educational attainment, attitudes toward gender equality, and positions on social issues all correlate strongly with political preferences. Young voters with higher education levels and progressive social views show markedly lower support for far-right parties. Conversely, those prioritizing economic concerns over climate policy and expressing authoritarian leanings demonstrate greater affinity for right-wing platforms.

Interestingly, while general attitudes toward migration show limited correlation with far-right voting, support for restrictive immigration policies does predict right-wing preference. The researchers emphasize that these differences reflect broader value systems and socioeconomic conditions rather than gender alone.

The study engages with the concept of European Parliament elections as “second-order” contests, where voters often express dissatisfaction rather than make carefully considered choices. However, the researchers caution that these elections still hold substantial importance, as strong far-right performances can translate into increased support in subsequent national elections.

The research team warns that this growing political polarization could have profound social consequences. As ideological differences harden, they may manifest in personal relationships, potentially affecting dating patterns, marriage stability, and even birth rates. The study suggests that without intervention, these trends could exacerbate existing social fractures.

Addressing this divide will require multifaceted approaches. The researchers highlight the need to tackle underlying socioeconomic inequalities while reexamining contemporary conceptions of masculinity. They also stress the importance of political education and civic engagement initiatives targeted at young voters.

The full study is available through the Humboldt Governance Lab, directed by Professor Heike Klüver. The lab specializes in translating academic research into actionable insights for policymakers and civil society.

Study reference:
Milosav, Ð., Klüver, H., et al. (2025). The Youth Gender Gap in Support for the Far Right. Berlin: Humboldt Governance Lab. Full article: The youth gender gap in support for the far right

Der Beitrag Gender gap: Young men leaning more to the right? erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.

The warnings from scientists are clear: the climate catastrophe is unfolding at a rapid pace. In 2023, a temperature increase of 1.5 degrees Celsius compared to the period between 1850 and 1900 was recorded. According to scientists, this 1.5-degree threshold will be exceeded in the coming years. Extreme weather events such as prolonged droughts, storms, heavy rainfall, and floods are becoming increasingly frequent, even in Germany.

Yet, we continue to live in a society where energy sources are largely fossil-based, further fueling climate change (Diekmann, 2024).

Current climate policy measures are insufficient to curb the devastating developments. Both the general public and politicians often respond to the issue with cognitive dissonance, effectively ignoring it. The fact is, policymakers frequently fail to give this existential issue the necessary attention (Hiss, 2021).

Researchers from the Humboldt Governance Lab have explored whether extreme weather events lead European political parties to become more aware of the need for climate policy leadership and adjust their political agendas accordingly. In their 2024 study, “Extreme weather events do not increase political parties’ environmental attention,” researchers Wappenhans, Valentim, Klüver, and others investigated whether extreme weather events lead to increased environmental policy action and communication.

To do so, the research team analyzed 260,000 press releases from 68 political parties across nine EU countries, published between 2010 and 2020. The scientists focused on publications related to environmental issues. The number of press releases served as a measure of the attention politicians paid to environmental topics. The occurrence of extreme weather events was determined using data on storms, floods, wildfires, and temperature extremes.

The study’s findings are alarming: extreme weather events, which often claim many lives, do not lead to a significant increase in political parties’ attention to environmental issues. Only Green parties are an exception, as they tend to communicate more about such events during the week they occur. However, even they reduce this communication a week later.

Not only is the low frequency with which parties engage with climate policy issues concerning, but the communicative focus in the context of environmental disasters is also questionable. During extreme weather events, the primary focus is often not on the root cause—climate change—but rather on providing information aimed at offering relief to the population.

The study by the Humboldt University researchers clearly shows that European political parties do not prioritize environmental issues, even when the consequences of extreme weather events are particularly devastating.

At least, voting behavior after environmental disasters indicates that such events influence people’s decisions, albeit to a moderate extent.

This behavior suggests that environmental protection is important to the public, which could incentivize parties to focus more on climate issues. The researchers suspect that politicians underestimate the potential public support for such topics. Studies on parties in the UK, for example, show that discussing climate issues can help parties attract more voters. This phenomenon could likely be applied to other European countries, although this is not the case in the US.

Nevertheless, climate policy measures in Europe remain inadequate and disheartening, especially considering that Europe is a continent where the population has been sensitized to environmental issues for decades. One would have expected a greater awareness of the need for climate policy leadership.

Sources:

Extreme weather events do not increase political parties‘ environmental attention | Nature Climate Change

Hiss, D. (2021, July). Hitze, Extremwetter und kognitive Dissonanz. In Climate Action-Psychologie der Klimakrise (pp. 141-158). Psychosozial-Verlag. (9783837978018-141.pdf). 

Diekmann, A. (2024). Klimakrise. Nomos Verlagsgesellschaft mbH & Co. KG. (Einleitung – Nomos eLibrary)

Der Beitrag Extreme weather – a driver for climate protection? erschien zuerst auf Humboldt-Innovation Insights.