Wagner, Markus, and Thomas Meyer. "The Radical Right as Niche Parties? The Ideological Landscape of Party Systems in Western Europe, 1980-2014". Political Studies, Vol.65, No.1 (2017): 84-107.

Wagner, Markus, and Thomas Meyer. "The Radical Right as Niche Parties? The Ideological Landscape of Party Systems in Western Europe, 1980-2014". Political Studies, Vol.65, No.1 (2017): 84-107.

• Since its emergence in the late 1980s, the radical right has become widespread in Europe and a consistent electoral presence, even forming part of coalition governments in Denmark, Netherlands, Austria, Finland, Italy, and Switzerland. Scholars dispute whether this increased inclusion in government has resulted in the moderation of radical right parties or a radicalization of the policy positions of other parties (84-85).
• After analyzing hundreds of party manifestos across Europe, the authors conclude that there has been almost no moderation of radical right views following inclusion in government, but that the policy positions of mainstream patries have been radicalized. Additionally, political discourse has shifted to favour issues central to the radical right's political agenda (86, 92-93, 95). 
• The authors divide European politics along two dichtomies: an economic dichotomy between left and right-wing; and a liberal versus authoritarian dichotomy, between nationalist and law-and-order views of citizenship and libertarian views (86-87).
• The most promient academic argument about the radical right is that the popularity of its views of issues of immigration and integration have forced mainstream political parties to adopt policy positions very similar to those of the radical right parties to prevent these issues from being entirely dominated by the radical right. This observation is disputed, however, by Cas Mudde, who finds that these policy changes occur even in countries without a radical right presence (87).
• The reverse side to this assertion is that when they are included in government, the pressures of mainstream partners force radical right parties to moderate their positions and compromise (88).
• Some scholars have argued that the distinction between mainstream political parties and the radical right has been different issues, with economic issues tending to dominate mainstream politics, whereas the radical right focuses on the liberal-authoritarian dichotomy. Therefore, they expect the moderation or radicalization of political discourse to be reflect in what kinds of issues are discussed (88-89).
• Even though mainstream parties tended to shift both discourse and their policy positions towards those occupied by the radical right, this shift was not accompanied by a moderation in radical right positions. Instead, the radical right became more extreme in response to this shift, presumably to preserve its distinction from mainstream parties and to remain the party with the strongest stance on issues of immigration (95, 98).
• The methodology of this study is discussed on pages 90 and 91.
• Contrary to expectations that the movement of mainstream parties towards the policy positions of the radical right would diminish the vote share of the radical right, its own increasingly radical policy positions have preserve its status as a distinct entity able to compete with mainstream parties. This implies that attempting to incorporate radical right policies by mainstream parties has not only radicalized politics, but also failed to counter the electoral threat of these parties (98-99).