Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Contextual-level unemployment and support for radical-right parties: a meta-analysis

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Acta Politica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The contextual-level unemployment rate is often adduced to explain radical right support. It has been assessed before that research findings are mixed, but it is unknown why the association is so different across studies. Our meta-analysis examined 162 effects from 49 studies, and indicated a positive overall effect, as predicted by main theories, but it was rather small. The positive effect was predominantly found among studies that theorized the effect, possibly indicating publication bias. The effect was positive in Western and Eastern Europe, but absent in Northern Europe. The positive effect was furthermore evident only after 2008, when the economic crisis hit Europe. Findings on the effect of unemployment being dependent on immigration were mixed as well. Our study calls for more comprehensive studies that bypass the focus on the main effect of unemployment and extend theorizing about the conditions under which unemployment affects support for the radical right.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Only two studies included non-European countries. One study on Australia (Gibson et al. 2002) and one study included Australia, Canada and New Zealand next to some European countries (Norris 2005). Our results did not change when these two studies were excluded from our sample (results available upon request).

  2. We also used other search engines, such as Sociological Abstracts, but this did not result in additional unique hits. We did not use Google Scholar because of the unfeasibility of reviewing the endless number of hits.

  3. Since books are not included in the citation index of Web of Science, books were only retrieved by ancestry approach. Not all books were available, but we included the most relevant books in the field, namely those that were cited 100 times or more in Google Scholar as on March 21, 2016.

  4. We excluded studies that estimated an interaction effect between unemployment and another variable and did not report the direct effect of unemployment in a separate model. An exception is made for Knigge (1998). The interaction effect reported in this study is not significant, and the variables for unemployment and immigration rate are mean-centred. The main effect of unemployment on radical right support would be the same in a model without the interaction term.

  5. These effects sizes are: − 0.84, 0.96, 0.98 (Evans and Ivaldi 2010) and 0.84, 0.86, 0.88 (Baimbridge et al. 1994).

  6. The following countries are included per category. Northern Europe: Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden; Western Europe: Austria, Belgium, France, Germany, The Netherlands, Switzerland, United Kingdom; Eastern Europe: Albania, Bulgaria, Croatia, Czech Republic, Estonia, Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Hungary, Kosovo, Latvia, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Montenegro, Poland, Romania, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Ukraine; Other: Australia, Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Luxembourg, Malta, The Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, United Kingdom.

  7. Whether studies control for other political variables (e.g. disproportionality, other parties’ toughness on immigration issue and turnout) or not did not affect the results. Because we have no clear theoretical reasoning why the effect of unemployment would differ between these studies, we decide not to report the results (results are available upon request).

  8. See Breen (1996) for an introduction to Tobit models.

  9. The number of cases for which the level of unemployment was measured varied markedly between samples, as it ranged from 9 to 5668. Five samples were relatively large, with sample sizes of 5668, 2705, 1836, 1450 and 1245, compared to the sixth-largest sample size, which was 435. Following Pettigrew and Tropp (2006), we capped these former sample sizes to, respectively, 1000, 850, 750, 700, and 650 and tested whether effect sizes from these studies disproportionately affected the mean effect sizes. Neither capping the samples sizes nor deletion of the studies with large sample sizes affected our results.

  10. The ICC for the nesting of effect sizes in studies is 0.635. We consider samples a more relevant second-level than studies, because effect sizes are more likely to correlate if they are based on the same sample than if they are based on different samples, also when those samples are included in the same study. A three-level model will be too demanding regarding the number of cases.

  11. This results was consistent across types of economic variables (results available upon request).

  12. The effect of period appeared significant after combining it with region. Studies after 2008, when there was a relatively strong positive mean effect, were mostly condutcted in Northern European, where there was a no positive mean effect. The effect of period was surpressed by the effect of region, and only became visible when both variables were included in the same model. The effect of controlled for economic variables became significant after including measurement of voting, because studies that controlled for economic variables (with a weak effect) were mostly based on election results (with a strong effect). The significant effect of studied party family disappears after including controlled for economic variables and used measurement. The strong mean effect for radical right was present because almost all these studies were based on election results. The weak effect for studies that employed the anti-immigrant label was present, because almost all these studies did not control for other economic variables.

References

  • Amemiya, T. 1981. Qualitative response models: A survey. Journal of economic literature 19 (4): 1483–1536.

    Google Scholar 

  • American Psychological Association. 2008. Reporting standards for research in psychology: Why do we need them? What might they be? American Psychologist 63: 839–851.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Anderson, C.J. 1996. Economics, politics, and foreigners: Populist party support in Denmark and Norway. Electoral Studies 15 (4): 497–511.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arzheimer, K. 2009. Contextual factors and the extreme right vote in Western Europe, 1980–2002. American Journal of Political Science 53 (2): 259–275. http://doi.wiley.com/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00369.x.

  • Arzheimer, K., and E. Carter. 2006. Political opportunity structures and right-wing extremist party success. European Journal of Political Research 45 (3): 419–443.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baimbridge, M., B. Burkitt, and M. Macey. 1994. The Maastricht treaty: Exacerbating racism in Europe? Ethnic & Racial Studies 17 (3): 420–441.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Berning, C., and B. Weiss. 2016. Publication bias in the German social sciences: An application of the caliper test to three top-tier German social science journals. Quality & Quantity 50 (2): 901–917.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Betz, H.-G. 1994. Radical right-wing populism in Western Europe. London: Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bjørklund, T. 2007. Unemployment and the radical right in Scandinavia: Beneficial or non-beneficial for electoral support? Comparative European Politics 5 (3): 245–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blalock, H.M. 1967. Towards a theory of minority group relations. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, S. 2012. Does a nationalist card make for a weak hand? Economic decline and shared pain. Political Research Quarterly 65 (1): 166–178.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bloom, S. 2013. Minority group size, unemployment, and the extreme right vote: The crucial case of Latvia. Social Science Quarterly 94 (3): 795–810.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Blumer, H. 1958. Race prejudice as a sense of group position. The Pacific Sociological Review 1 (1): 3–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boomgaarden, H.G., and R. Vliegenthart. 2007. Explaining the rise of anti-immigrant parties: The role of news media content. Electoral Studies 26 (2): 404–417.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Borenstein, M. et al. 2009. Chapter 7: Converting among effect sizes. In Introduction to meta-analysis, ed. M. Borenstein, L.V. Hedges, J.P.T. Higgins, H.R. Rothstein. New York: Wiley.

  • Bowyer, B. 2008. Local context and extreme right support in England: The British National Party in the 2002 and 2003 local elections. Electoral Studies 27 (4): 611–620. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261379408000723. Accessed 2 Sept 2014.

  • Breen, R. 1996. Regression models: Censored, sample selected or truncated data. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Budge, I., and D.J. Farlie. 1976. Party identification and beyond. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bustikova, L. 2014. Revenge of the radical right. Comparative Political Studies 47 (12): 1738–1765.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chapin, W.D. 1997. Explaining the electoral success of the new right: The German case. West European Politics 20 (2): 53–72.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Coffé, H., B. Heyndels, and J. Vermeir. 2007. Fertile grounds for extreme right-wing parties: Explaining the Vlaams Blok’s electoral success. Electoral Studies 26 (1): 142–155. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0261379406000060. Accessed 4 Sept 2014.

  • Cooper, H., L.V. Hedges, and J.C. Valentine. 2009. The handbook of research synthesis and meta-analysis, 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dahlström, C., and A. Sundell. 2012. A losing gamble: How mainstream parties facilitate anti-immigrant party success. Electoral Studies 31 (2): 353–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Della Posta, D.J. 2013. Competitive threat, intergroup contact, or both? Immigration and the dynamics of Front National voting in France. Social Forces 92 (1): 249–273.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dinas, E., and J. van Spanje. 2011. Crime story: The role of crime and immigration in the anti-immigration vote. Electoral Studies 30 (4): 658–671.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Duch, R.M., and R. Stevenson. 2008. The economic vote: How political and economic institutions condition election results. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Duch, R.M., H.D. Palmer, and C.J. Anderson. 2000. Heterogeneity in percetions of national economic conditions. American Journal of Political Science 44 (4): 635–652.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dülmer, H., and M. Klein. 2005. Extreme right-wing voting in Germany in a multilevel perspective: A rejoinder to Lubbers and Scheepers. European Journal of Political Research 44 (2): 243–263.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Erlingsson, G.O., K. Loxbo, and R. Öhrvall. 2012. Anti-immigrant parties, local presence and electoral success. Local Government Studies 38 (6): 817–839.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Evans, J., and G. Ivaldi. 2010. Comparing forecast models of Radical Right voting in four European countries (1973–2008). International Journal of Forecasting 26 (1): 82–97.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finseraas, H., and K. Vernby. 2014. A mixed blessing for the left? Early voting, turnout and election outcomes in Norway. Electoral Studies 33: 278–291.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, R., I. McAllister, and T. Swenson. 2002. The politics of race and immigration in Australia: One Nation voting in the 1998 election. Ethnic and Racial Studies 25 (5): 823–844.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Givens, T.E. 2005. Voting radical right in Western Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Golder, M. 2003. Explaining variation in the success of extreme right parties in Western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 36 (4): 432–466. http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0010414003251176. Accessed 11 July 2014.

  • Hooghe, M., and T. Reeskens. 2007. Are cross-national surveys the best way to study the extreme-right vote in Europe? Patterns of Prejudice 41 (2): 177–196.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackman, R.W., and K. Volpert. 1996. Conditions favouring parties of the extreme right in Western Europe conditions favouring parties of the extreme right in Western Europe. British Journal of Political Science 26 (4): 501–521.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jesuit, D.K., P.R. Paradowski, and V. Mahler. 2009. Electoral support for extreme right-wing parties: A sub-national analysis of western European elections. Electoral Studies 28 (2): 279–290.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Johnston, R., et al. 2005. Spatial scale and the neighbourhood effect: Multinomial models of voting at two recent British general elections. British Journal of Political Science 35 (3): 487–514.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kessler, A.E., and G.P. Freeman. 2005. Support for extreme right-wing parties in Western Europe: individual attributes, political attitudes, and national context. Comparative European Politics 3 (3): 261–288.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kestilä, E., and P. Söderlund. 2007a. Subnational political opportunity structures and the success of the radical right: Evidence from the March 2004 regional elections in France. European Journal of Political Research 46 (6): 773–796.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kestilä, E., and P. Söderlund. 2007b. Local determinants of radical right-wing voting: The case of the Norwegian progress party. West European Politics 30 (3): 549–572.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitschelt, H. 1995. The radical right in Western Europe. A comparative analysis. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Knigge, P. 1998. The ecological correlates of right-wing extremism in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research 34: 249–279.

    Google Scholar 

  • Koev, D. 2013. Interactive party effects on electoral performance How ethnic minority parties aid the populist right in Central and Eastern Europe. Party Politics 21 (4): 649–659.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lewis-Beck, M.S., and M. Stegmaier. 2000. Economic determinants of electoral outcomes. Annual Review of Political Science 3 (1): 183–219.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Loxbo, K. 2010. The impact of the radical right: Lessons from the local level in Sweden, 2002–2006. Scandinavian political studies 33 (3): 295–315.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubbers, M., and P. Scheepers. 2000. Individual and contextual characteristics of the German extreme right-wing vote in the 1990s. A test of complementary theories. European Journal of Political Research 38 (1): 63–94.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubbers, M., and P. Scheepers. 2001. Explaining the Trend in Extreme Right-Wing Voting: Germany 1989–1998. European Sociological Review 17 (4): 431–449.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubbers, M., and P. Scheepers. 2002. French Front National voting: a micro and macro perspective. Ethnic and Racial Studies 25 (1): 120–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lubbers, M., P. Scheepers, and J. Billiet. 2000. Individual and Contextual characteristic of the Vlaams blok vote. Acta Politica 35 (4): 363–398.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lubbers, Marcel, Mérove Gijsberts, and P. Scheepers. 2002. Extreme right-wing voting in Western Europe. European Journal of Political Research 41 (3): 345–378. https://doi.org/10.1111/1475-6765.00015.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucassen, G., and M. Lubbers. 2012. Who fears what? Explaining far-right-wing preference in Europe by distinguishing perceived cultural and economic ethnic threats. Comparative Political Studies 45 (5): 547–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mair, P. 2006. Polity-scepticism, party failings, and the challenge to European democracy. Wassenaar, the Netherlands: NIAS.

    Google Scholar 

  • Meguid, B.M. 2005. Competition between unequals: The role of mainstream party strategy in niche party success. American Political Science Review 99 (3): 347–359.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkenberg, M. 2000. The renewal of the radical right: Between modernity and anti-modernity. Government and Opposition 35 (2): 170–188.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minkenberg, M. 2002. The radical right in postsocialist Central and Eastern Europe: Comparative observations and interpretations. East European Politics & Societies 16 (2): 335–362.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mudde, C. 2007. Populist radical right parties in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Muis, J. 2015. The Rise and Demise of the Dutch Extreme Right: Discursive Opportunities and Support for the Center Democrats in the 1990s. Mobilization: An International Quarterly 20 (1): 41–60.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Norris, P. 2005. Radical right: Voters and parties in the electoral market. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Olzak, S. 1992. The dynamics of ethnic competition and conflict. Standford, CA: Stanford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Otto, A.H., and M.F. Steinhardt. 2014. Immigration and election outcomes—Evidence from city districts in Hamburg. Regional Science and Urban Economics 45: 67–79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Petrocik, J.R. 1996. Issue ownership in presidential elections, with a 1980 case study. American Journal of Political Science 40 (3): 825–850.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pettigrew, T.F., and L.R. Tropp. 2006. A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 90 (5): 751–83. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16737372. Accessed 13 July 2014.

  • Pop-Eleches, G. 2010. Throwing out the bums: Protest voting and unorthodox parties after communism. World Politics 62 (2): 221–260.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Poznyak, D., K. Abts, and M. Swyngedouw. 2011. The dynamics of the extreme right support: A growth curve model of the populist vote in Flanders-Belgium in 1987–2007. Electoral Studies 30 (4): 672–688.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rink, N., K. Phalet, and M. Swyngedouw. 2009. The effects of immigrant population size, unemployment, and individual characteristics on voting for the Vlaams Blok in Flanders 1991–1999. European sociological review 25 (4): 411–424.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal, R. 1991. Meta-analytic procedures for social research. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, J. 2007. The sociology of the radical right. Annual Review of Sociology 33 (1): 241–262. http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.soc.33.040406.131752. Accessed 15 Aug 2014.

  • Rydgren, J., and P. Ruth. 2011. Voting for the radical right in Swedish municipalities: social marginality and ethnic competition? Scandinavian Political Studies 34 (3): 202–225.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rydgren, J., and P. Ruth. 2013. Contextual explanations of radical right-wing support in Sweden: Socioeconomic marginalization, group threat, and the halo effect. Ethnic and Racial Studies 36 (4): 711–728.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Savelkoul, M., M. Gesthuizen, and P. Scheepers. 2011. Explaining relationships between ethnic diversity and informal social capital across European countries and regions: Tests of constrict, conflict and contact theory. Social Science Research 40 (4): 1091–1107. http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0049089X11000378. Accessed 6 Feb 2017.

  • Scheepers, P., Merove Gijsberts, and M. Coenders. 2002. Ethnic exclusionism in European countries: Public opposition to civil rights for legal migrants as a response to perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review 18 (1): 17–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schneider, S.L. 2008. Anti-immigrant attitudes in Europe: Outgroup size and perceived ethnic threat. European Sociological Review 24 (1): 53–67.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, J.M. 2010. Does crime pay? Issue ownership, political opportunity, and thepopulist right in western Europe. Comparative Political Studies 43 (11): 1471–1498.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spies, D. 2013. Explaining working-class support for extreme right parties: A party competition approach. Acta Politica 48 (3): 296–325.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Spies, D., and S.T. Franzmann. 2011. A two-dimensional approach to the political opportunity structure of extreme right parties in Western Europe. West European Politics 34 (5): 1044–1069.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stefanovic, D. 2008. The path to Weimar Serbia? Explaining the resurgence of the Serbian far right after the fall of Milosevic. Ethnic and Racial Studies 31: 1195–1221.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Swank, D., and H.-G. Betz. 2003. Globalization, the welfare state and right-wing populism in Western Europe. Socio-Economic Review 1 (2): 215–245.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teney, C. 2012. Space matters: The group threat hypothesis revisited with geographically weighted regression: The case of the NPD 2009 electoral success. Zeitschrift für Soziologie 41 (3): 207–226.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Brug, W., M. Fennema, and J. Tillie. 2005. Why some anti-immigrant parties fail and others succeed: A two-step model of aggregate electoral support. Comparative Political Studies 38 (5): 537–573. http://cps.sagepub.com/cgi/doi/10.1177/0010414004273928. Accessed 2 Sept 2014.

  • van der Eijk, C., and M. Franklin. 2009. Elections and voters. Basingstoke: Palgrave Macmillan.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Van der Waal, J., W. de Koster, and P. Achterberg. 2013. Ethnic segregation and radical right-wing voting in Dutch cities. Urban Affairs Review 49 (5): 748–777.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Van Gent, W.P., E.F. Jansen, and J.H. Smits. 2014. Right-wing radical populism in city and suburbs: an electoral geography of the Partij Voor de Vrijheid in the Netherlands. Urban Studies 51 (9): 1775–1794.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viechtbauer, W. 2010. Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software 36 (3): 1–48.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vlaams Belang. 2014. Verkiezingsprogramma: Uw stok achter de deur, Brussel.

  • Werts, H., P. Scheepers, and M. Lubbers. 2013. Euro-scepticism and radical right-wing voting in Europe, 2002–2008: Social cleavages, socio-political attitudes and contextual characteristics determining voting for the radical right. European Union Politics 14 (2): 183–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Westinen, J. 2014. True Finns: A Shock for Stability? Testing the Persistence of Electoral Geography in Volatile Elections. Scandinavian Political Studies 37 (2): 123–148.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Whiteley, P. 1979. The National Front Vote in the 1977 GLC Elections: An Aggregative Data Analysis. British Journal of Political Science 9 (3): 370–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank Sacha Sillekens for support in locating and coding the studies.

Funding

This research did not receive any specific grant from funding agencies in the public, commercial, or not-for-profit sectors.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Sociology, Radboud University, Postbus 9104, 6500 HE, Nijmegen, The Netherlands

    Take Sipma & Marcel Lubbers

Authors
  1. Take Sipma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Marcel Lubbers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Take Sipma.

Appendices

Appendix A

See Table 5.

Table 5 Results of web search
Full size table

Appendix B: Converting formulas (Borenstein et al. 2009)

Probit to Logit (Amemiya 1981)

$${\text{Logit}} = {\text{Probit}} \times 1.6$$

LogOdds to Cohen’s d

$$d = {\text{LogOdds}} \times \frac{\sqrt 3 }{\pi }$$

Cohen’s d to Pearson’s r

$$r = \frac{d}{{\sqrt {d^{2} + 4} }}$$

Pearson’s r to Cohen’s d

$$d = \frac{2r}{{\sqrt {1 - r^{2} } }}$$

Unstandardized regression coefficient to T-value

$$t = \frac{b}{{SE_{b} }}$$

T-value to Pearson’s r

$$r = \sqrt {\frac{{t^{2} }}{{t^{2} + (N - 2) }}}$$

Variance of Pearson’s r

$$V_{r} = \frac{{(1 - r^{2} )^{2} }}{N - 1}$$

Variance of Cohen’s d

$$V_{d} = \frac{4}{N}$$

Appendix C

See Table 6.

Table 6 Descriptive statistics
Full size table

Appendix D1

See Table 7.

Table 7 Coding included articles—unemployment and radical right support
Full size table

Appendix D2

See Table 8.

Table 8 Change in unemployment
Full size table

Appendix D3

See Table 9.

Table 9 Interaction with immigration rate or ethnic minorities
Full size table

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Sipma, T., Lubbers, M. Contextual-level unemployment and support for radical-right parties: a meta-analysis. Acta Polit 55, 351–387 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0120-2

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41269-018-0120-2

Keywords

Search

Navigation