3 ms·

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) versi

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-Publications/Manuel_Funke/KWP_2169.pdf https://www.ifw-kiel.de/fileadmin/Dateiverwaltung/IfW-Public...

nonrandomstring 3y ago
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.
- Fluorescence 3y ago
  Do they control for the fact that populists will have more electoral success during financial crises and such? AEA is the economic establishment so hardly the people I would trust to fairly judge those that challenge the status quo.
  - RandomLensman 3y ago
    Is that even true on populist and financial crises?
    - Fluorescence 3y ago
      I'd be curious about what the data shows. I would describe it as the "conventional wisdom" account of how populism functions e.g. the Great Depression is described as a necessary context for Hitler's popularism to be effective i.e. economic grievance fuels anti-establishment / anti-elite narratives. You get the Occupy Wallstreet movement after a crash/recession, not during a boom.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Yes, it would indeed be interesting to see a proper analysis on timing of populism vs the economy.
    - pydry 3y ago
      https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289741 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289741 Yes. It appears that Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick and Christoph Trebesch may not have been as conscientious as they could have been about reviewing prior literature.
      - RandomLensman 3y ago
        Well, for starters this is newer than their initial work. Also, isn't this looking at the issue the other way around and at a single example? Edit: post changed the paper linked, but generally my point stands.
        pydry 3y ago
        This paper was just released.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        Yes and no. This is work a few years old. And as I said, the paper you cite is looking at the situation from the other end, i.e., economic effects on governments.

nonrandomstring 3y ago

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.

Fluorescence 3y ago
Do they control for the fact that populists will have more electoral success during financial crises and such? AEA is the economic establishment so hardly the people I would trust to fairly judge those that challenge the status quo.
- RandomLensman 3y ago
  Is that even true on populist and financial crises?
  - Fluorescence 3y ago
    I'd be curious about what the data shows. I would describe it as the "conventional wisdom" account of how populism functions e.g. the Great Depression is described as a necessary context for Hitler's popularism to be effective i.e. economic grievance fuels anti-establishment / anti-elite narratives. You get the Occupy Wallstreet movement after a crash/recession, not during a boom.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Yes, it would indeed be interesting to see a proper analysis on timing of populism vs the economy.
  - pydry 3y ago
    https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289741 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3289741 Yes. It appears that Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick and Christoph Trebesch may not have been as conscientious as they could have been about reviewing prior literature.
    - RandomLensman 3y ago
      Well, for starters this is newer than their initial work. Also, isn't this looking at the issue the other way around and at a single example? Edit: post changed the paper linked, but generally my point stands.
      - pydry 3y ago
        This paper was just released.
        RandomLensman 3y ago
        Yes and no. This is work a few years old. And as I said, the paper you cite is looking at the situation from the other end, i.e., economic effects on governments.