The economic cost of populism
aeaweb.org
The economic cost of populism
1–10 of 68 posts
Re: The economic cost of populism
#2> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the
macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents
and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost
of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower
compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic
disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of
institutions typically go hand in hand with populist rule.
It's interesting to take the words in this abstract on face value alone.
Populism is a range of political stances that emphasize the idea of "the people" and often juxtapose this group against "the elite" [0].
An economy is an area of the production, distribution and trade, as well as consumption of goods and services [1].
So, when the people get what they want, they do less work and consume less.
Are we missing something?
Re: The economic cost of populism
#3The ugly truth is that human society is not crisis stable. As in, if there is not a constant economic surplus, society falls apart into little "wartribes" ready to go at each others throat- or one huge wartribe ready to got at a external others throat. Populism, is just the first democratic expression of this falling apart. So embrace eternal surplus providing, embrace ritualistic slaughter, embrace ritualistic civil war or try to hack human nature.
Re: The economic cost of populism
#4Would be interesting to read it but it’s behind membershipwall
Re: The economic cost of populism
#5> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typica…
I don't have access to the article, but do they define "populism" in it?
The same Wikipedia article you linked to also says
> In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politicians who seek to please voters without rational consideration as to the best course of action.
With this definition, it's not about getting people what they want.
Re: The economic cost of populism
#6Long live the philosopher king??
I mean only somewhat in jest this is precisely the debate going on since Plato's not so subtle critiques of Pericles' Athens circa 400 BC
Re: The economic cost of populism
#7> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typica…
I don't have access to the article, but do they define "populism" in it? The same Wikipedia article you linked to also says > In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politician…
I think that's closer to the definition I adhere to as well.
So I think there are two "dirty" words in this abstract, 'populism' and 'economy', both of which assume meanings as the interpreter pleases, hence my distate at the prima facie "woollyness" of the research.
Re: The economic cost of populism
#8Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't have access to the article, but do they define "populism" in it? The same Wikipedia article you linked to also says > In popular discourse—where the term has often been used pejoratively—it has sometimes been used synonymously with demagogy, to describe politicians who present overly simplistic answers to complex questions in a highly emotional manner, or with political opportunism, to characterise politician…
I think that's closer to the definition I adhere to as well. So I think there are two "dirty" words in this abstract, 'populism' and 'economy', both of which assume meanings as the interpreter pleases, hence my distate at the prima facie "woollyness" of the research.
They define what they mean by populism and economy is effectively GDP, if I read it right. Doesn't seem that wooly to me in the paper itself.
A (earlier) version of the paper seems to be here: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Public...
Re: The economic cost of populism
#9> We build a new long run cross- country database to study the macroeconomic history of populism. We identify 51 populist presidents and prime ministers from 1900 to 2020 and show that the economic cost of populism is high. After 15 years, GDP per capita is 10% lower compared to a plausible non-populist counterfactual. Economic disintegration, decreasing macroeconomic stability, and the erosion of institutions typica…
[deleted]
Re: The economic cost of populism
#10Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think that's closer to the definition I adhere to as well. So I think there are two "dirty" words in this abstract, 'populism' and 'economy', both of which assume meanings as the interpreter pleases, hence my distate at the prima facie "woollyness" of the research.
They define what they mean by populism and economy is effectively GDP, if I read it right. Doesn't seem that wooly to me in the paper itself. A (earlier) version of the paper seems to be here: https://www.ifw-kiel.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Public...
Thanks for digging that up!
Ah, the paper itself is much better than I'd expected
It's also unwieldy - looks more like a PhD thesis.
(bloody shame we can't just have an internet that delivers the information concerned rather than having to wait for someone to sleuth down the actual dirt)
They do indeed define "populism" in section 2.1, rather thoroughly, as political "splitting" (I borrow a psych term here).
It's actually filled with rather good analogies.
A keyword they use a lot is "self-destruct". And yes, giving people "what they want" (rather than "what we all need together") is unsustainable short-termism.
Haven't time to read the full 190 pages, but my scepticism about the solidity of the key concepts remains. For example in the methodology:
"For each of the 1,458 leaders in our sample, we assign the value of 1 if the leader is a populist, and 0 if the leader is not a populist (non-populist)."
It's a critique of splitting that is itself predicated on a binary partition.