> I didn't see any clear definition of populism anywhere here. For reference this is what the paper says. Seems like they are taking a broad approach. > The m

> I didn't see any clear definition of populism anywhere here. For reference this is what the paper says. Seems like they are taking a broad approach. > The most conventional approach in the literature identifies populism as a ‘thin-centred ideol- ogy’ that frames the fundamental political cleavage between the elite and the pure people (Mudde 2007). The strengths of this approach are that it is agnostic about the causes and the specific pol- icy content of populism; is broad enough to capture a wide range of the phenomenon, such as left- and right-wing; inclusionary or exclusionary populism; and specific enough to exclude non- populism. Despite the ubiquity of this definition, empirical researchers often include parties influenced by the notion of anti-establishment politics, a term closely related to populism (Barr 2009; Mudde 2007).1 Our aim is not to clarify the concept of populism or decide between different approaches but to capture a wide variety of populist outcomes to reflect the heterogeneity of the literature. Thus, our definition includes the radical left, the radical right, and historical pre- cedents of populism, such as fascism in Europe or Latin-American import-substitution populism, such as Peronism (Guriev and Papaioannou 2022, 11–13).