Origins and Effects of Populism

National Institute Economic Review, 2022

Much of the media coverage in relation to populism has focused either on populist moments like the Brexit vote or on populist leaders such as Donald Trump or Boris Johnson. Meanwhile, the academic literature on populism is divided between two broad approaches. First, an emphasis in economics on policy (e.g. Dornbusch and Edwards, 1992) and, second, an accentuation in political science on ideology (e.g. Mudde and Rovira Kaltwasser, 2017). Both approaches capture important aspects, including the rejection of orthodox monetary and fiscal policy positions and a repudiation not only of established elites but also of pluralism and some of the key institutions on which the rule of law and democracy depend. However, these perspectives risk under-exploring some of the long-term structural patterns that are political, economic and social all at once. They include the decline in voter turnout, the collapse of centreleft and centre-right political traditions, the rise in popular support for populist parties or candidates, the effects of deindustrialisation on long-term unemployment and of low wages on falling living standards as well as a sense of powerless and a loss of both community cohesion and identity. The roots of populism go deep and stretch back in time-the economic recessions in the 1980s and early 1990s and the structural upward shift in joblessness, the social crises of the 2000s and 2010s linked to fiscal retrenchment as well as cultural change and the resurgence of extremes such as nationalism and xenophobia (e.g. Aiginger, 2020). The electoral success of populists tends to be a symptom rather than the cause of populism, while the consequences of populist politics (and technocratic responses) are often further to divide countries along both older cultural and class lines as well as newer cleavages of education, age and assets. It is also the case that populist methods, such as the use of demagogic speech in public discussion and political debate, can be deployed by established elites and emerging insurgents alike. Establishment leaders from Margaret Thatcher to Tony Blair and David Cameron resorted to populist rhetoric in ways that were not entirely dissimilar to right-wing populist leaders from Silvio Berlusconi to Donald Trump and Boris Johnson or left-wing ones such as Venezuela's late President Hugo Chavez or the leaders of Syriza and Podemos in Europe. The demon of demagoguery besets democracy that is variously more liberal or more authoritarian (Pabst, 2019). This NIER Special Issue explores the complex phenomenon of populism and popular support for populists from a broad perspective of political economy (Guriev and Papaioannou, 2021). The twin focus is on the drivers of populism and the implications for democracy and the market economy. Although the various contributions differ in terms of their methodology or findings, they share a number of closely connected arguments. One argument is the importance of both formal structures and informal norms to support a functioning democracy, economy and society. Another argument relates to the need for existing political and economic systems to address the grievances underpinning the appeal of populists. A third argument is that populism claims to defend democracy against 'corrupt' and 'unaccountable' elites, but, in reality, it tends to advance authoritarianism, undermines the institutions of representative government and fails to help the most vulnerable groups in society.

The article will review several works on populism, namely those contributions that concern the relation between populism and democracy. Our aim is to discuss the main theoretical issues on defining and conceptualizing populism. The overview of the academic literature shows that, in the first decade of the 21st century, populism was seen as a threat to representative democracy, while recent works consider this view debatable.

This is a review article of the following five recent studies on populism: 1) Ruth Wodak’s The Politics of Fear: What Right Wing Populist Discourses Mean(Sage,2015); 2) Benjamin Moffitt’s The Global Rise of Populism: Performance, Political Style and Representation (Stanford University Press, 2016); 3) Cas Mudde and Cristóbal Rovira Kaltwasser’s Populism: A Very Short Introduction (OxfordUniversity Press, 2017); 4) Jan-Werner Müller’sWhat is Populism? (University of Pennsylvania Press, 2016); and 5) John B. Judis’ The Populist Explosion: How the Great Recession Transformed American and European Politics (Columbia GlobalReports,2016).The review argues for a return to early Frankfurt School Critical Theory to address some of the shortcomings of these studies.

Political Studies Review, 2009

With Populist Radical Right Parties in Europe, Cas Mudde (2007) may have written a true classic in political science. He combines a clear and coherent conceptual framework with a broad and critical survey of the literature in four languages-few significant titles will have escaped his attention-and a thorough understanding of the political systems of both Western and Eastern Europe. This is a rare combination indeed. Moreover, he writes in a clear and transparent style, and sine ira et studio. Obviously, here is a political scientist who honours and loves his trade!

Sociologia, 2019

In this short essay, I will try to define contemporary populism in a “neutral” fashion; and to explore its virtues, as well as its (much better known) vices. To conclude, I shall attempt to draw up a balance sheet between its contrasting contributions to contemporary political life in Europe. To accomplish this, I will have to speak “generically” and, therefore, to ignore or set aside the traits populism has had and the outcomes it has produced in specific cases. I begin with the (hazardous) position that it can be good or bad for democracy… depending. And I will finally try to address the issue of the conditions under which it is more likely to harm or benefit the polity in which it has emerged.

Annual Review of Sociology, 2021

Studies of populism have shifted from substantive to discursive/performative and institutional perspectives in recent decades. This shift resolved some long-standing problems but insulated the analysis of populism from theoretical and methodological debates in the social sciences. Theoretical restrictions have gone hand in hand with geographical neglect: The near-exclusive focus on the United States, Europe, and Latin America reinforces the blind spots of these existing approaches. An integration of overlooked regions holds the potential for theoretical reconstruction, even though such comparative broadening could as well simply reproduce the persistent impasses. Moreover, post-2016 developments have induced a return to substantive issues, throwing into sharp relief what populism studies have been missing during the past decades. The main challenge today is synthesizing socioeconomic analyses with institutionalist and discourse-theoretical advances without falling into eclecticism. Breaking away from the entrenched regional orientations to embrace a more global-historical methodology could help such an endeavor.

Vox Populi, 2020

2013