Populism and Inequality

In last night’s seminar, my PhD class explored a pretty important and contemporary topic: Does inequality breed populism and, conversely, does populism fix inequality?

We’ve heard it all. Whether it’s draining the swamp, making America great again, or the distrust placed in institutions and expertise, the impression is that there’s a political class that benefits and a low-middle class that is floundering.

Populism thrives when a small group is seen to make rules that benefit that small group and everyone else is not sharing in the optimism and prosperity. Populist leaders are seen as disrupters and when voters are getting restless, they give the rebels the keys to power.

We are seeing that shift in UK polling right now.

It brings us to an important question: do the populists succeed in reducing inequality and re-balancing power? Academic studies have probed this question with little conclusive evidence that, on a macro-level, populism has reduced inequality. On a practical political level, however, much of these macro analyses fail to understand the micro dissection that our politics has turned to, which is why macro academic studies fail to grasp the perception changes that are happening among activated voters on the ground. Some of these very voters have been previously disenfranchised from voting because they felt that their vote wouldn’t change anything. They now feel that someone is fighting for them even if the actual material changes don’t match the rhetoric.

Is the rise of populism a punctuating event and is it changing our politics forever? Or, is this just a blip in democratic progress, a voter market correction, and a protest that will fizzle?

By Rob Leone