Populist is a term
like neoliberalism: vaguely defined and used as a derogatory term. A
key aspect of populism involves attacks against elites, and as
Jan-Werner
Müller stresses
this goes with populists identifying with ‘the people’. The
populist does not want any kind of direct democracy, but instead
argues that they (and only they) are uniquely qualified to ensure
that the will of the people prevails. This ties in both with identity
politics, but also an emphatic denial of the importance of different people
with different interests.
But populist is a
term used about policies as well as certain political leaders, and is
often applied to policies proposed by conventional (not populist)
leaders. Is this simply a term of abuse, or is there some systematic
logic behind such claims? I do not think those that use the idea of a populist policy simply mean a policy that might be invoked by a populist politician.
I can think of two meanings, beyond the
obvious that populist policies have to be popular. The first is that
a populist policy is harmful to society on average, even though it
might be beneficial to a significant sub-group within society. The
second is stronger: a policy that will be harmful to almost everyone.
Economists will see the parallel with Kaldor Hicks and Pareto welfare
measures. I want to suggest that in practice only the second, stronger version
has any teeth.
One set of policies
that are frequently called populist in the first sense are specific
trade barriers, designed to protect a particular domestic industry
against foreign competition. These are obviously popular with those
whose jobs are threatened. Using populist in the first sense notes
that the economy as a whole gains from cheaper imports, and these
gains are large enough to compensate the losers in the domestic
industry such that everyone could be better off. But to use populist
as a derogatory term in this context only really makes sense if the
transfers that would compensate the losers are sufficient to do so,
and fairly certain to be enacted. If they are not, then maybe trade
protection measures are popular because people really do want to
avoid the pain caused by domestic job losses, and are prepared to
forgo any gains to see that happen.
Brexit would seem to
be a good example of a populist policy in the second sense,
where the number of people who will actually gain from the measure
are pretty small. Its popularity comes from people incorrectly
thinking they will be no worse off as a result of Brexit, when in
truth they will be (or indeed they already are, as the Brexit induced
depreciation feeds into higher prices and, almost certainly, lower
real wages). Before the vote, polls showed that a large proportion of
those intending to vote to leave the EU were not expecting to be
worse off as a result, and more importantly they would vote
differently if they thought they would be worse off, a result
recently confirmed by a YouGov poll reported
in the Guardian. In my view that was what made the media’s trashing
of the economic case against leaving so crucial: it is what made
Brexit a populist policy in the sense that I want to use the term.
Is Brexit an example
of a populist policy promoted by non-populist politicians? Only in
part. Major drivers behind Brexit were the right wing tabloid press
and UKIP. They are clearly populist using Müller's criterion, as they show every time they
invoke the ‘will of the people’ to attack judges who are simply
trying to uphold the rights of parliament.
A clearer UK example
of a populist policy driven by non-populist politicians might be
austerity. This was popular, in the sense that most people thought
the government ought to tighten its belt because it had maxed out its
credit card, but it also did most people a lot of harm. I calculated
that UK austerity lost the average UK household at least £4,000, and
the true figure could easily be two or three times that, and it is
difficult to see a large section of the population who gained.
Do populist policies
promoted by conventional (non-populist) politicians have anything to
do with the rise of populist politicians? Perhaps they do, when it
turns out that populist policies do in reality make people worse off.
That can discredit conventional politicians and open the doors to
populists. I provide one example of that in this SPERI post,
which links Brexit to austerity.
