LIST OF PANELS

Populism is on the rise and populist leaders and parties have come to power in several countries all around the globe, while studies on their governance and policy making is in short supply. The reason is that populism has been mostly considered and analysed as a phenomenon stemming from politics with little or no relevance for policy making. For instance, Mudde (2004) argues that as a ‘thin ideology’ populism can be compatible with either left-wing or right-wing ideas thus it does not imply any specific policy content.

Populism may be thin in terms of classical, left or right political ideologies, but it still represents a distinct approach to politics and policy. The substantive emptiness and the chameleonic nature of populism also means an ideational flexibility. In addition, apart from the content of policies, populism may have an effect on the policy process, policy discourses, as well as on actors, venues and institutions of policy making. Constitutive features of populism are anti-elitism, radical majoritarianism, glorification of popular will, anti-pluralism, anti-institutionalism, personalistic and charismatic leadership, direct, unmediated communication with the people, extensive use of crisis frames and adversarial narratives targeting unpopular minorities. These features crystallize a populist policy making ideal type (Bartha et al., 2020) opposed to the ideal type of policy making in liberal democracies that is usually, though often implicitly assumed in policy studies scholarship. From a political regime perspective this has an important implication: while populism is a historically democratic phenomenon, it has an ambiguous relationship with liberal democracies and often leans towards illiberalism.

This complex conceptual relation between populism ad policy making opens various research avenues. How compatible are populist policies with liberal democracies? What are procedural and discursive peculiarities of populist policies under left-wing and right-wing political leadership? Are there common policy features of left-wing and right-wing populism? What are the specific policy features of governing populist parties? What is the long-run survival potential of populist policies?

Recent studies have addressed some of the policy aspects of populism, see Rovira Kaltwasser and Taggart (2016), Batory (2016), Peters and Pierre (2019) and Bartha et al. (2020). However, these papers either provide theoretical insights, or use single case studies in their analysis. Accordingly, more research is needed and comparative case studies and quantitative cross-country analyses are particularly missing. Still, as there is no scholarly consensus yet on the basic constitutive features of populist policy making, explorative studies and papers providing theoretical insights are also welcomed in this panel.

References

Bartha, A., Boda, Zs. & Szikra, D. (2020). When Populist Leaders Govern: Conceptualizing Populism in Policy Making. Politics and Governance, 8(3), 71-81.

Batory, A. (2016). Populists in Government? Hungary's “System of National Cooperation”. Democratization, 23(2), 283-303.

Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist, Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541-563.

Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (2019). Populism and Public Administration: Confronting the Administrative State. Administration & Society, 51(10), 1521-1545.

Rovira Kaltwasser, C., & Taggart, P. (2016). Dealing with populists in government: a framework for analysis. Democratization, 23(2), 201-220.

Populism is on the rise and populist leaders and parties have come to power in several countries all around the globe, while studies on their governance and policy making is in short supply. The reason is that populism has been mostly considered and analysed as a phenomenon stemming from politics with little or no relevance for policy making. For instance, Mudde (2004) argues that as a ‘thin ideology’ populism can be compatible with either left-wing or right-wing ideas thus it does not imply any specific policy content.

Populism may be thin in terms of classical, left or right political ideologies, but it still represents a distinct approach to politics and policy. The substantive emptiness and the chameleonic nature of populism also means an ideational flexibility. In addition, apart from the content of policies, populism may have an effect on the policy process, policy discourses, as well as on actors, venues and institutions of policy making. Constitutive features of populism are anti-elitism, radical majoritarianism, glorification of popular will, anti-pluralism, anti-institutionalism, personalistic and charismatic leadership, direct, unmediated communication with the people, extensive use of crisis frames and adversarial narratives targeting unpopular minorities. These features crystallize a populist policy making ideal type (Bartha et al., 2020) opposed to the ideal type of policy making in liberal democracies that is usually, though often implicitly assumed in policy studies scholarship. From a political regime perspective this has an important implication: while populism is a historically democratic phenomenon, it has an ambiguous relationship with liberal democracies and often leans towards illiberalism.

This complex conceptual relation between populism ad policy making opens various research avenues. How compatible are populist policies with liberal democracies? What are procedural and discursive peculiarities of populist policies under left-wing and right-wing political leadership? Are there common policy features of left-wing and right-wing populism? What are the specific policy features of governing populist parties? What is the long-run survival potential of populist policies?

Recent studies have addressed some of the policy aspects of populism, see Rovira Kaltwasser and Taggart (2016), Batory (2016), Peters and Pierre (2019) and Bartha et al. (2020). However, these papers either provide theoretical insights, or use single case studies in their analysis. Accordingly, more research is needed and comparative case studies and quantitative cross-country analyses are particularly missing. Still, as there is no scholarly consensus yet on the basic constitutive features of populist policy making, explorative studies and papers providing theoretical insights are also welcomed in this panel.

References

Bartha, A., Boda, Zs. & Szikra, D. (2020). When Populist Leaders Govern: Conceptualizing Populism in Policy Making. Politics and Governance, 8(3), 71-81.

Batory, A. (2016). Populists in Government? Hungary's “System of National Cooperation”. Democratization, 23(2), 283-303.

Mudde, C. (2004). The Populist Zeitgeist, Government and Opposition, 39(4), 541-563.

Peters, B. G. & Pierre, J. (2019). Populism and Public Administration: Confronting the Administrative State. Administration & Society, 51(10), 1521-1545.

Rovira Kaltwasser, C., & Taggart, P. (2016). Dealing with populists in government: a framework for analysis. Democratization, 23(2), 201-220.