The Structural Logic of Radicalisation A Cross-National Test of Institutional Contingency in Four European Societies

This article asks whether generous welfare states protect minorities from radicalisation better than leaner ones. Using survey data from over 5,500 people across Britain, the Netherlands, Norway and Denmark, we tested whether Nordic welfare states would weaken the link between feeling excluded and endorsing political violence. The answer is no: that link is equally strong everywhere. What differs between countries is how much political alienation people feel overall, not how quickly exclusion turns into radical views. We call this the Uniform Logic of Exclusion. Minorities do score slightly higher on radical potential, but the gap is biggest in Denmark, not Britain. Muslim identity effectively appears protective rather than risky. Women report lower radical potential than men. And crucially, in every country about four in five people at the highest end of radical potential are white majority members. The implication is stark: European counter-extremism policies focused on Muslim minorities are targeting the wrong population. Radicalisation is driven by perceived structural exclusion everywhere, and the real threat pool is majority-dominated in all four societies.