ABSTRACT
This chapter assesses how policy-makers with different frames influence the outcome of measures against right-wing radicalism. In accordance with Scharpf’s model, great attention is paid to the interactions between actors along the policy process. The hypothesis is that the nature of these interactions explains the policy outcomes. The French-German comparison helps examine the conditions of decision-making. It also allows me to answer the following questions: under which conditions do actors make decisions regarding the regulation of the radical right? Who really does govern? What difference does it make to compare two country cases where one country defines political radicalism as a policy matter while the other does not? The argument is that the ideational factor, or whether right-wing radicalism is framed as a policy matter or not, is essential to understand how this phenomenon is regulated. It explains why German decision-making is shared between a greater number of policy-makers, while greater compartmentalisation is used for decision-making in France. Institutional differences, such as the opposition between German consensus democracy and the French majoritarian system, accentuate this trend. By contrast, the internal organisation of the radical right does not appear to have much of an impact on policy-making.
