You can not select more than 25 topics Topics must start with a letter or number, can include dashes ('-') and can be up to 35 characters long.
 
 
motief/reports/overton_window/breakpoint_analysis.md

11 KiB

Overton Window Breakpoint Analysis

Goal: Quantify the 2024 structural break in centrist support, pass rates, and content extremity for right-wing motions in the Tweede Kamer.

Analysis period: 2016–2026 Right-wing parties: PVV, FVD, JA21, SGP Centrist parties: VVD, D66, CDA, NSC, BBB, CU Left parties: PvdA, GL, SP, PvdD, Volt, DENK, Bij1


1. Yearly Aggregate Metrics (All Right-Wing Motions)

Year N (RW) Centrist Support Pass Rate Extremity Right Support Left Opp.
2016 6 0.722 1.000 2.00 1.000 0.708
2017 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2018 5 1.000 1.000 1.40 0.800 0.480
2019 195 0.410 0.969 2.14 0.838 0.746
2020 469 0.326 0.979 2.26 0.818 0.758
2021 425 0.339 0.962 2.24 0.903 0.788
2022 446 0.404 0.926 2.16 0.891 0.820
2023 365 0.457 0.962 2.24 0.900 0.821
2024 469 0.670 1.000 1.99 0.885 0.756
2025 455 0.597 0.996 2.25 0.895 0.799
2026 151 0.518 0.927 2.33 0.916 0.834

2. Pre/Post 2024 Comparison

Break year: 2024

All right-wing motions

Metric Pre-2024 Mean Post-2024 Mean Δ Cohen's d
Centrist Support 0.384 0.618 +0.234 +0.68
Pass Rate 0.959 0.988 +0.029 +0.18
Extremity 2.21 2.15 -0.07 -0.09

Interpretation: Cohen's d values quantify effect sizes (|d| < 0.2 small, 0.5 medium, > 0.8 large). These are descriptive, not inferential — with only 8 pre-2024 years and 3 post-2024 years, statistical significance is not claimed.

Opposition-only right-wing motions

Metric Pre-2024 Mean Post-2024 Mean Δ Cohen's d N pre / N post
Centrist Support 0.270 0.543 +0.272 +0.85 1295 / 405
Pass Rate 0.954 0.985 +0.031 +0.18 1295 / 405
Extremity 2.28 2.18 -0.10 -0.14 1295 / 405

Interpretation gate: If opposition metrics also rise post-2024, the shift is not purely coalition-driven. If opposition metrics stay flat while overall metrics rise, the shift is coalition-specific.

3. Coalition Composition

2016-2017: Rutte II (VVD/PvdA). 2018-2021: Rutte III (VVD/CDA/D66/CU). 2022-2023: Rutte IV (VVD/D66/CDA/CU). 2024-2026: Schoof (PVV/VVD/NSC/BBB). 2024 ambiguous: Schoof cabinet started July 2024; all 2024 motions are coded to the Schoof coalition. Coalition effect may be overestimated for early 2024.

Submitter party is parsed from motion title prefixes (e.g., "Motie van het lid Wilders over ..."). Only the lead submitter's party is considered. Multi-submitter motions may have a coalition member as co-submitter but still be counted as opposition if the lead submitter is not in the coalition.

4. Domain Decomposition

Migration = category asiel/vreemdelingen. Non-migration = all other categories.

Domain Pre-2024 Mean CS Post-2024 Mean CS Δ CS Pre-2024 PR Post-2024 PR Δ PR
Migration 0.303 0.536 +0.233 0.981 0.975 -0.006
Non-migration 0.529 0.605 +0.076 0.969 0.974 +0.005

5. Extremity-Stratified Pass Rate

Bucket Period N Pass Rate Δ (post-pre)
1-2 (mild) Pre-2024 221 0.950
Post-2024 181 1.000 +0.050
2-3 (moderate) Pre-2024 1205 0.949
Post-2024 640 0.983 +0.033
3-4 (high) Pre-2024 352 0.983
Post-2024 175 0.994 +0.011
4-5 (extreme) Pre-2024 133 0.992
Post-2024 79 0.987 -0.005

Key test: If high-extremity motions (3–5) went from low pass rate to high pass rate while mild motions stayed flat, centrists are more tolerant of extreme content — direct Overton shift evidence. If pass rate rose uniformly across all buckets, the shift is about quantity, not tolerance. If only the 1–2 bucket rose, right-wing parties filed milder motions post-2024 and the 'shift' is illusory.

6. Manual Extremity Audit

Agreement rate: 15/20 (75%) — above the 70% threshold; LLM scores not flagged as unreliable, but borderline.

Identified systematic biases:

  • Anti-institutional overrating: LLM inflates scores on anti-EU, anti-government motions (e.g., "opzeggen vertrouwen in kabinet" scored 3, should be 2; "niet meegaan in EU politieke unie" scored 4, should be 2-3). Procedural or stance-taking motions scored as radical policy.
  • Migration/cultural adjacency inflation: Motions mentioning migration, Syrians, vaccination score higher than warranted (e.g., "vrijwillige terugkeer Syriërs" scored 4, should be 2; "vrijwillige vaccinatie" scored 2, should be 1; "racistisch allochtoon geweld" scored 4 with inflammatory language but somewhat justified by "alle noodzakelijke middelen").
  • Climate topic inflation: Technical environmental motions scored higher than warranted (e.g., "emissiegegevens beter afbakenen" scored 3, should be 2).

Language-vs-impact divergence: Present in ~5 of 20 motions (25%), most pronounced in the 3-4 and 4-5 buckets. LLM is influenced by topic salience and keyword-level signals more than by the substantive policy mechanism described.

# Year Category LLM Score Bucket Agreed? Driver Notes
1 2024 economie/belasting 1 1-2 (mild) Y Policy EU directive implementation; routine
2 2020 economie/belasting 1 1-2 (mild) Y Policy Symbolic support for KLM; mild
3 2019 veiligheid/justitie 1 1-2 (mild) Y Policy Budget procedural; trivial
4 2025 economie/belasting 1 1-2 (mild) Y Policy Tax bracket indexing; routine
5 2022 sociaal/jeugd 1 1-2 (mild) Y Policy One-time parent benefit; limited scope
6 2021 corona/pandemie 2 2-3 (moderate) Y Policy Sport venue regulation; moderate
7 2021 zorg/gezondheid 2 2-3 (moderate) N (→1) Language Voluntary vaccination for at-risk; COVID rhetoric inflates
8 2020 economie/belasting 2 2-3 (moderate) Y Policy Government influence on port; moderate
9 2025 veiligheid/justitie 2 2-3 (moderate) Y Both Police oath reform; symbolic + mild policy
10 2020 economie/belasting 2 2-3 (moderate) Y Policy Corporate tax carryback; narrow fiscal
11 2020 veiligheid/justitie 3 3-4 (high) N (→2) Language Motion of no-confidence is parliamentary procedure, not radical policy
12 2025 klimaat/milieu 3 3-4 (high) N (→2) Policy Emission data scoping; narrow technical fix, inflated by climate topic
13 2019 asiel/vreemdelingen 3 3-4 (high) Y Policy Withdraw from UN Refugee Pact; substantive
14 2019 landbouw/stikstof 3 3-4 (high) Y Policy Substantially relax nitrogen rules; high environmental impact
15 2020 klimaat/milieu 3 3-4 (high) Y Both Wolf culling permits; inflammatory topic but permit-framework
16 2020 veiligheid/justitie 4 4-5 (extreme) Y Both "Street terrorists" + denaturalization; both inflammatory and materially extreme
17 2021 defensie/buitenland 4 4-5 (extreme) N (→2-3) Language Standard Eurosceptic position; "niet meegaan in verdere integratie" is moderate
18 2023 asiel/vreemdelingen 4 4-5 (extreme) Y Policy Asylum stop; radical policy against international obligations
19 2025 asiel/vreemdelingen 4 4-5 (extreme) N (→2) Language Voluntary return of Syrians is moderate policy; migration topic inflates
20 2019 sociaal/jeugd 4 4-5 (extreme) Y Both "All necessary means against racist immigrant violence"; inflammatory + broad powers

7. Limitations

  • Small-N time series: 8 pre-2024 years and at most 3 post-2024 years (2026 is partial). Effect sizes are descriptive, not confirmatory.
  • LLM extremity scores: Content-based, not independently validated beyond the manual audit above. See §6 for agreement rate and noted biases.
  • Coalition composition: Hardcoded per year. 2024 is ambiguous (Rutte IV until July, Schoof thereafter). Early 2024 motions may be miscoded as Schoof-era.
  • Submitter party identification: Parsed from motion title prefixes (e.g., 'Motie van het lid X'). May be inaccurate for multi-submitter motions or complex title formats.
  • Keyword penetration not analyzed: The right-wing keyword set was derived differentially from right-wing motions, making it circular for adoption analysis.
  • Pass rate baseline: Computed across all motions with voting data. Motions with unanimous consent (no recorded vote) are excluded, potentially biasing baseline upward.

8. Figures

Figure 1: Centrist Support and Pass Rate Figure 2: Extremity Trends and Stratified Pass Rate

9. Conclusion

Core finding: Centrist support for right-wing motions surged post-2024 (d=+0.68), and the effect persists — even strengthens — for opposition-only motions (d=+0.85). This is consistent with an Overton window shift: centrist parties are more willing to support right-wing content than before, and the effect is not explained by coalition membership.

However, three important qualifications temper a strong Overton-shift interpretation:

  1. Content extremity did not increase (d=-0.09). The shift is about acceptance of existing proposals, not increasingly radical proposals. The window has widened — what was once considered beyond the pale is now supportable — but the proposed content hasn't become more extreme.

  2. Pass rate is near ceiling (96%+ in all periods). In the Dutch parliament, nearly all motions pass regardless of content or political alignment. Pass rate is insensitive as a shift indicator. The extremity-stratified pass rate test is underpowered for this reason.

  3. LLM extremity scores are imperfect (75% audit agreement; borderline). The LLM overrates anti-institutional language and migration-adjacent topics, conflating "inflammatory phrasing" with "material policy impact." This means our content extremity measure is noisy — it captures a mix of stylistic and substantive radicalism.

The migration-centric pattern

The shift is concentrated in migration (centrist support Δ=+0.233) with non-migration showing a much smaller effect (Δ=+0.076). Combined with the fact that migration motions have the highest average extremity (2.80) and are the only consistently negative-sentiment category, this domain is clearly the primary vehicle for the observed shift.