In 2018, the first wave of the Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey (POPPA) introduced a new approach for measuring populism among political parties. Wave 1 captured positions and attitudes of 250 parties on their key attributes related to populism, political style, party ideology, and party organization in 28 European countries. Wave 1 has been downloaded more than 6700 times (from the Harvard Dataverse in October 2024) and the accompanying Comparative Political Studies article has been cited more then 250 times (according to Google Scholar). Given the importance of POPPA as a core sources for populism scholars, we have expanded the original dataset. The 2023 wave of POPPA contains similar core feature and builds on the 2018 wave.

The principal motivation for the expert survey is to provide a better understanding of key party characteristics related to populism and political representation. POPPA 2023 follows the methodological approach of the first wave, building on the multidimensional, continuous, and comprehensive approach for capturing populism. The multidimensional approach refers to the use of five sub-dimensions of populism to produce an aggregate measure of populism. These sub-dimensions operationalize the ideational approach of populism. The continuous approach refers to the use of a continuous scale which measures degrees of populism. Measuring populism along a continuous scale implies that political parties are more or less populist and that they cannot be classified as simply populist or not populist. The comprehensive approach of POPPA provides a measure for every relevant party in parliament across European democracies, not only those that are widely considered to be populist. The comprehensive nature of the data allows researchers to derive populism scores for all relevant parties in these European countries in 2018 and 2023. Whereas wave 1 covers of 249 parties in 28 countries, wave 2 provides a measure of populism for 312 parties in 31 countries.¹ Wave 2 was fielded between January 25, 2023 and May 25, 2023.

The POPPA expert survey was conducted by Maurits Meijers (Radboud University) and Andrej Zaslove (Radboud University), and Prof. Robert A. Huber (University of Salzburg) joined the team for the second wave of the POPPA expert survey. We are grateful for the research assistance of Margot Daris, Loran de Hollander and Lars Stevenson (in the first wave; all at Radboud) and Sanne Van Helmondt, Puck Overhaart (both at Radboud) and Grace Steffens (at the University of Salzburg) in the second wave. We could not have completed the project without their assistance. In addition, we would also like to thank Victor Ellenbroek and Benthe van Wanrooij for their research assistance. We would like to thank Annika Püschner (University of Salzburg) for her help with creating the STATA file. The POPPA team gratefully acknowledges funding from the Dutch Research Council (NWO) [Grant: M. Meijers, VI.Veni.191R.018].

We provide the following data files:

poppa_integrated.rds: This file contains both waves of POPPA in a single dataset as an RDS file.
poppa_integrated.csv: This file contains both waves of POPPA in a single dataset as a csv file. (Please note: The abbreviation for National Alliance (Latvia, POPPA ID: 3104) is “NA”. Consider this when loading the data.)
poppa_integrated.dta: This file contains both waves of POPPA in a single dataset as a dta file.
poppa1.rds: This file contains the first wave of POPPA.
poppa2.rds: This file contains the second wave of POPPA.
poppa2_expert.rds: This file contains the second wave of POPPA on an expert level.

Important changes between wave 1 (2018) to wave 2 (2023)

When drafting wave 2 of POPPA, ensuring consistency with wave 1 was of utmost importance. Hence, the populism items and the core items measuring party positions appear in wave 1 and in wave 2. However, several items from the wave 1 were not included in wave 2, specifically those measuring conceptions of populism other than the ideational approach and party organization. In wave 2 new items measuring issue salience, conceptions of the people and the elite, items on climate change, on democracy and representation were included. For more details, please see the full codebook below.

Populism is aggregate differently in POPPA 2023 than in the orginal 2018 dataset. The first wave used a exploratory factor analysis (EFA) to aggregate party scores on the five sub-dimensions of populism. The factor scores were rescaled to the original scale (from 0 – 10; see page 383 in Meijers and Zaslove 2021 CPS for more details). The POPPA 2023 datasets includes three measures of populism:

The mean of the five populism items, calculated over both waves (populism_mean)
Factor scores from a CFA, conducted over both waves (populism_cfa),
A rescaled variable from the CFA factor scores conducted over both waves (populism_cfa_rescaled), and rescaled to the original 0 –- 10 scale.

Please note that rescaling the CFA factor scores slightly alters the populism values, stretching them along the scale. The accompanying paper provides further details on the aggregation process, CFA construction, the covariances used in the model, and fit statistics. Importantly, the paper also demonstrates invariance of the populism items across both waves.²

POPPA 2023 Integrated also has a Website and and interactive Shiny app.

If you use the data, please cite the following paper:

Zaslove, A., Meijers, M. J., & Huber, R. A. (2024, November 19). The State of Populism: Introducing the 2023 Wave of the Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey. https://doi.org/10.31235/osf.io/9wmjb

Countries Included

Use the dropdown menu to select the number of countries you want to select.

Parties Included

Use the dropdown menu to filter the data.

Expert Survey Items

We asked experts to evaluate the parties in their respective countries on the following items. All continuous items are measured on a 0 – 10 scale.³ When the items are included in both the 2023 and the 2018 wave the descriptive information is based on both waves; otherwise, the information pertains only to the individual waves.

Dimensions of Populism

manichean = Some parties see politics as a moral struggle between good and bad. This is often described as a Manichean worldview.

Please tick the box that best describes the degree to which each party holds a Manichean worldview.

0 = Not at all Manichean : 10 = Very Manichean

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
manichean	554	1.2	5.39	1.96	1.17	5.09	9.70

indivisible = Some parties consider the ordinary people to be indivisible (i.e. the people are seen as homogenous).

Please tick the box that best describes each party in this respect.

0 = Not at all indivisible : 10 = Very indivisible

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
indivisible	554	1.2	4.55	1.95	0.73	4.22	9.62

generalwill = Some parties consider the ordinary people’s interests to be singular (i.e. one can speak of a general will).

Please tick the box that best describes each party in this respect.

0 = Not at all singular : 10 = Very singular

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
generalwill	546	2.7	4.95	2.03	0.64	4.56	9.75

peoplecentrism = Some parties are very people-centred and believe that sovereignty should lie exclusively with the ordinary people (i.e. the ordinary people, not the elites, should have a final say in politics).

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party considers the ordinary people to be sovereign.

0 = Not at all people-centred : 10 = Very people-centred

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
peoplecentrism	552	1.6	5.07	2.11	0.89	4.75	9.90

antielitism = Some parties can be characterized by their attitudes toward the establishment and toward elites. This is often referred to as anti-elitism.

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party can be considered to be anti-elitist

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party can be considered to be anti-elitist.

0 = Not at all anti-elitist : 10 = Very anti-elitist

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023); This question was asked in a slightly different way in 2018. See footnote for question wording for 2018.⁴

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
antielitism	556	0.9	4.71	2.58	0.43	4.25	9.89

populism_mean = Variable based on the mean of the following items: ‘manichean’, ‘indivisble’, ‘generalwill’, ‘peoplecentrism’, and ‘antielitism’.

0 = Not at all populist : 10 = Very populist

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
populism_mean	541	3.6	4.93	1.96	1.24	4.39	9.24

populism_cfa = Variable based on the factor scores from the CFA of the following items: ‘manichean’, ‘indivisble’, ‘generalwill’, ‘peoplecentrism’, and ‘antielitism’.⁵

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
populism_cfa	541	3.6	0.00	1.66	-3.54	-0.46	3.57

populism_cfa_rescaled = Variable based on the rescaled factor scores CFA of the following items: ‘manichean’, ‘indivisble’, ‘generalwill’, ‘peoplecentrism’, and ‘antielitism’. The variable is rescaled from 0 – 10.

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
populism_cfa_rescaled	541	3.6	4.97	2.33	0.00	4.33	10.00

complex = Some parties portray political decision-making as a complex process, while others advocate common-sense solutions to political problems.

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party portrays political decision-making as complex.

0 = Not at all complex : 10 = Highly complex

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 1 (2018)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
complex	241	3.2	4.83	1.82	0.22	5.20	8.44

emotional = Some parties appeal to emotions in their political communication with the voter (i.e fear, hope, anger, happiness).

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party appeals to emotions.

0 = Not at all 10 = Very much

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 1 (2018)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
emotional	241	3.2	6.09	1.92	1.50	5.90	9.91

People Elite Definition

peopleimm = Please select the box which best describes the degree to which the party includes or excludes citizens with a migration background, where 0 means “fully excludes”, 5 means “neither excludes, nor includes”, and 10 means “fully includes”.

0 = Fully excludes : 10 = Fully includes

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
peopleimm	302	3.2	5.72	2.52	0.00	6.24	9.89

peoplewealthy = Please select the box which best describes the degree to which the party includes or excludes very wealthy citizens, where 0 means “fully excludes”, 5 means “neither excludes, nor includes”, and 10 means “fully includes”.

0 = Fully excludes : 10 = Fully includes

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
peoplewealthy	301	3.5	5.55	2.13	0.11	5.60	9.67

elitepol = Please select the box which best describes the degree to which the party includes or excludes politicians in their conception of ‘elites’, where 0 means “fully excludes”, 5 means “neither excludes, nor includes”, and 10 means “fully includes”.

0 = Fully excludes : 10 = Fully includes

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
elitepol	305	2.2	6.27	1.13	3.43	6.29	9.50

elitemedia = Please select the box which best describes the degree to which the party includes or excludes journalists in their conception of ‘elites’, where 0 means “fully excludes”, 5 means “neither excludes, nor includes”, and 10 means “fully includes”.

0 = Fully excludes : 10 = Fully includes

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
elitemedia	300	3.8	5.76	1.13	2.40	5.60	8.75

eliteecon = Please select the box which best describes the degree to which the party includes or excludes executives of large corporations in their conception of ‘elites’, where 0 means “fully excludes,” 5 means “neither excludes, nor includes,” and 10 means “fully includes.”

0 = Fully excludes : 10 = Fully includes

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
eliteecon	301	3.5	6.41	1.18	3.14	6.43	10.00

elitecult = Please select the box which best describes the degree to which the party includes or excludes academics in their conception of ‘elites’, where 0 means “fully excludes”, 5 means “neither excludes, nor includes”, and 10 means “fully includes”.

0 = Fully excludes : 10 = Fully includes

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
elitecult	301	3.5	5.83	1.27	2.42	5.83	9.80

Economic Issues

lrecon = Parties can be classified in terms of their stance on economic issues such as privatization, taxes, regulation, government spending, and the welfare state. Parties on the economic left want government to play an active role in the economy. Parties on the economic right want a reduced role for government.

Please tick the box that best describes each party’s stance on economic issues.

0 = Economic left : 10= Economic right

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023); The wording is different in the 2018 survey. See footnote for the wording of the question in 2018.⁶

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
lrecon	552	1.6	4.88	2.21	0.12	5.00	9.89

salienceecon = Some parties place a stronger emphasis on economic issues than others (i.e. issue salience). Please indicate how important (i.e. salient) economic issues are in general for the following parties.

Please tick the box that best describes the salience of economic issues for each party.

0 = Not important at all : 10 = Very important

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
salienceecon	307	1.6	6.55	1.47	3.12	6.60	9.60

Cultural Issues

immigration = Some parties are strongly in favour of immigration, while others are strongly opposed to immigration.

Please tick the box that best describes each party’s position on immigration.

0 = Strongly opposed to immigration : 10 = Strongly in favour of immigration

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
saliencecult	301	3.5	6.41	1.55	3.00	6.25	9.75

nativism = Some parties have an exclusive idea of who can and should belong to the nation-state (nativism).

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party regards non-native elements (persons or ideas) in society as a threat to the nation’s culture, well-being, or sovereignty.

0 = Not at all nativist : 10 = Very nativist

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
nativism	553	1.4	4.64	2.72	0.10	4.33	10.00

lifestyle = Parties can be classified in terms of their stance regarding social lifestyle. Some hold a traditional view on moral values (such as conventional notions of the family: i.e. marriage and child-rearing), while others hold more liberal views on moral values (i.e. acceptance of homosexuality, same-sex marriage, etc.).

Please tick the box that best describes each party’s stance regarding social lifestyle.

0 = More traditional : 10 = More liberal

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
lifestyle	550	2.0	5.37	2.82	0.00	5.65	9.62

laworder = Parties can be classified in terms of their stance regarding civil liberties (i.e. personal freedoms) and law and order (i.e. stricter policing, harsher sentencing).

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party prioritizes civil liberties or law and order.

0 = Strongly promotes civil liberties : 10 = Strongly supports law and order

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
laworder	542	3.4	4.96	2.38	0.78	4.81	10.00

saliencecult = Some parties place a stronger emphasis on cultural issues than others (i.e. issue salience). Please indicate how important cultural issues (i.e. immigration, nativism, social lifestyle, and civil liberties/law and order) are in general for the following parties.

Please tick the box that best describes the salience of cultural issues for each party.

0 = Not important at all : 10 = Very important

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
saliencecult	301	3.5	6.41	1.55	3.00	6.25	9.75

Party Ideology

lroverall = Now please place the party on a general left-right scale.

Please select the box which best describes each party’s overall ideology on a scale ranging from 0 (left) to 10 (right) (i.e. the general left-right scale).

0 = Left 10 = Right

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Waves 1 (2018) and 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
lroverall	558	0.5	5.31	2.45	0.17	5.57	10.00

eu = Some parties are strongly in favour of the EU and European integration, while others are strongly opposed to the EU and European integration.

Please tick the box that best describes each party’s position on the EU and European integration.

0 = Strongly opposed to the EU : 10 = Strongly in favour of the EU

-99 = Don’t know

Included in Waves 1 (2018) and 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
eu	552	1.6	6.01	2.75	0.00	6.75	9.80

Climate Change

climatepolicy = Some parties prioritize securing the long-term gains of climate policy over its short-term socio-economic costs. Others prioritize minimizing the short-term socio-economic costs of climate policy over the long-term gains of climate policy.

Please tick the box that best describes each party’s position best in this respect.

0 = Priortize minimizing short-term socio-economic costs : 10 = Prioritize long-term gains of climate policy

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
climatepolicy	294	5.8	4.96	2.49	0.11	4.88	9.83

climatescience = Some parties support a stronger role for climate science in climate policy, whereas other parties oppose such a stronger role of climate science.

Please tick the box that best describes each party’s position on climate science.

0 = Strongly opposed : 10 = Strongly support

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
climatescience	266	14.7	5.98	2.53	0.30	6.41	9.88

Dimensions of Democracy and Representation

democracy = Political parties can differ in their commitment to democratic rules and norms. While some parties would always prioritize democratic rules and norms over their own political gain, other parties are more likely to sacrifice democratic rules and norms for their own political gain. Political gain refers to the party’s own policy agenda and/or its electoral fortune.

Please tick the box that best describes each party.

0 = Prioritize own political gain : 10 = Prioritize democratic rules and norms

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
democracy	298	4.5	5.10	2.20	0.29	5.33	9.00

positionchange = For various reasons, political parties sometimes change their positions on policy issues.

Please indicate on a 0 to 10 scale, how often you think the following political parties have changed their policy positions in the last five years. 0 means that the party has not changed its positions at all, 10 means that the party has constantly changed its positions.

0 = Party hasn’t changed its positions at all : 10 = Party has constantly changed its positions

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
positionchange	293	6.1	3.80	1.52	0.00	3.71	9.18

compromise = Political decision-making often requires compromises. Some parties are more willing to accept compromise than others. Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party is willing to accept compromises, or the extent to which they are unwilling to accept compromises.

Please tick the box that best describes the extent to which each party is willing to accept compromises, or the extent to which they are unwilling to accept compromises.

0 = Never willing to compromise : 10 = Almost always willing to compromise

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
compromise	297	4.8	5.07	2.01	0.36	5.40	8.80

intradem = Some political parties practice more intra-party democracy than others (i.e. party members play a role in decision making, there is room for internal debate, decision-making is inclusive of various factions and organizational layers within the party).
Please tick the box that best describes each party’s practice of intra-party democracy.

0 = No intra-party democracy at all : 10 = Very high level of intra-party democracy

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 1 (2018)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
intradem	229	8.0	4.83	1.93	0.15	5.00	9.27

personalized = Parties can be characterized by more or less personal leadership.
Please tick the box that best describes each party’s degree of personalized leadership.

0 = Not at all personalized : 10 = Very personalized

-99 = Don’t know

Included only in Wave 1 (2018)

	N	Missing Pct.	Mean	SD	Min	Median	Max	Histogram
personalised	238	4.4	6.31	1.93	1.50	6.30	10.00

Expert-level questions (only in expert-level dataset)

gender = What is your gender?

0 = Male
1 = Female
2 = Non-binary
-99 = Prefer not to say

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and 2 (2023). The answer categories were different for 2018. See footnote.⁷

self_left right = Where would you place yourself on the general left-right scale?

0 = Left : 10 = Right 99

-99 = Prefer not to say

Included in Wave 1 (2018) and Wave 2 (2023)

party pref = If you had to choose, which of the following parties would you vote for in the upcoming national elections? Please also answer this question if you are not eligible to vote in this country.

-99 = Prefer not to say
-88 = I would not vote
Political parties are tailored to each country

Included only in Wave 2 (2023)

discipline = Please designate your primary academic discipline.

1 = Political Science
2 = Public Administration (Public Management)
3 = Communication Science
4 = Sociology
5 = Law and Legal Studies
6 = History
7 = Other

Included only in Wave 1 (2018)

expertise = Please indicate your research expertise (multiple answers are possible).

1 = Party Politics
2 = Populism Studies
3 = Radical Right / Left and/or Political Extremism
4 = Voting Behavior
5 = Area Studies
6 = Public Policy
7 = EU Politics
8 = Interest Groups
9 = Political Economy
10 = Social Movements and Protest Politics
11 = International Relations
12 = Political Theory
13 = Political Communication
14 = Law and Politics
15 = Other

Included only in Wave 1 (2018)

Number of Experts

Summary of Experts by Country and Wave

This table displays the minimum, maximum, and mean number of experts per party for each country for each wave. The values are calculated based on the number of experts for each item for each party, with the minimum representing the lowest item-specific expert count and the maximum representing the highest.

Summary of Experts by Per Party Per Wave

This table presents the minimum, maximum, and mean number of experts for each item across individual parties in each of the two waves. Each party’s values represent the expert count per item, with the minimum indicating the lowest expert count for a single item for a party, and the maximum indicating the highest.

Footnotes

The survey for wave 1 (2018) originally contained 250 parties and the survey for wave 2 (2023) originally contained 313 parties. We removed one party from each wave since they did not have a sufficient number of experts for all items, based on our criteria of a minimum of 4 experts per party per item. In wave 1 this was People-Animals-Nature (PAN) in Portugal and in wave 2 this was Patient Focus (PF) in Norway.↩︎
Please note the following. 1. We fielded a snap survey which only included the New Social Contract (NSC) in the Netherlands, since the party did not exist at the time of fielding the main survey. 2. Due to an oversight, The Democratic Rally (Δημοκρατικός Συναγερμός) was omitted from wave 2 (2023) of the survey. A follow-up survey is planned to collect information on this party. Both the dataset and the codebook with be updated accordingly.↩︎
The data for Sweden from the 2018 survey was unfortunately erroneously asked on a 1-10 scale. In the means and median datasets this has been rescaled to 0-10. Be aware that this might affect the interpretation of the Swedish items for the 2018 survey.↩︎
The question wording in 2018 was as follows: “Some parties can be characterized by their anti-elitism.”↩︎
The CFA uses three covariances. We covary general will and indivisible, people-centrism and anti-elitism, and manichean and anti-elitism. These three convariances are based upon model fit, modification indices and theoretical considerations. For a more detailed explanation of the CFA see the paper: “The State of Populism: Introducing the 2023 Wave of the Populism and Political Parties Expert Survey”.↩︎
The question wording in 2018 was as follows: “Parties can be classified in terms of their stance on economic issues. Parties on the economic left want government to play an active role in the economy. Parties on the economic right emphasize a reduced economic role for government: privatization, lower taxes, less regulation, less government spending, and a leaner welfare state.”↩︎
These were the answer categories for 2018: 0 = Male; 1 = Female; 2 = Other↩︎