This paper is dedicated to the question how so-called globalization shocks affect voting outcomes and the rise of populism. The thesis brought forward is that strong ‘domestic institutions’ help soften the societal turmoil caused by globalization, both economically and politically. Building on existing arguments (Rodrick, Manow), the paper argues, however, that the mere existence of strong domestic institutions in the established sense is not enough to prevent populist movements from rising, but needs to be accompanied by feasible policies and a problem-oriented rhetoric that addresses the whole of society. Doing so, the essay systematically distinguishes between economic and political tasks of domestic institutions. The hypothesis is that populists are only successful if domestic institutions fail to fulfil their economic or political task, or in other words, when either ‘domestic economic institutions’ or ‘domestic political institutions’ fail. To prove the argument, the paper looks at different examples of domestic institutions in Europe and measures their success in recent elections (reflected in the voting share for populist parties, as of July 2019).
Table of Contents
1. Introduction: What this paper is about
2. Prelude: Globalization & Populism
3. The argument I: Populist Strategies
4. The argument II: The role of Domestic Institutions
5. Conclusion I: The economic and the political task of domestic institutions
6. Comparable analysis: Anti-populist strategies in Greece, Italy, and Denmark
6.1 Greece
6.2 Italy
6.3 Denmark
7. Conclusion II: Different ways to counter populism
Research Objectives and Thematic Focus
This paper examines how globalization shocks influence voting outcomes and the rise of populism by analyzing the performance of domestic institutions. The central research objective is to determine whether a failure by these institutions to fulfill specific economic or political tasks directly correlates with the electoral success of populist movements in Europe.
- Theoretical conceptualization of domestic institutions in the context of populism.
- Distinction between economic and political tasks of domestic institutions.
- Empirical case study analysis of Greece, Italy, and Denmark.
- Evaluation of populist strategy mechanisms and societal cleavages.
- Assessment of institutional resilience against political destabilization.
Excerpt from the Book
The argument II: The role of Domestic Institutions
In a nutshell: Societal unity can be fostered by domestic institutions. They work on various levels and in various areas to minimize the cleavages essential for the success of populist movements. The term domestic institution needs to be understood in a broad sense.
If one takes a closer look at the ‘populist strategies chart’, it becomes clear that the centre of society, i.e. the majority of the population, plays a key role. Only if a populist movement succeeds in incorporating a significant portion of the majority, it can gain enough leverage to influence the political discourse. Otherwise, it is sentenced to retain its usual status as anti-elite protest among minorities, and anti-minority resentments among the elite, respectively. If the cleavage between the centre and one of the two outside groups is big, it is relatively easy for societal extremists of any couleur to exploit it. Therefore, it depends on the inner-societal ability to adapt and close those gaps if a populist movement will be successful in dismantling the unity of a society. In other words, if a country has domestic institutions that prevent it from drifting apart, it can much better resist any populist threat to its integrity.
Summary of Chapters
Introduction: What this paper is about: The author introduces the hypothesis that populist rise is driven by the failure of domestic institutions to fulfill their economic or political duties.
Prelude: Globalization & Populism: This chapter contextualizes the rise of populism as a consequence of globalization-induced societal cleavages and psychological tensions.
The argument I: Populist Strategies: The section outlines how populists exploit internal societal cleavages by scapegoating specific groups based on economic or cultural status.
The argument II: The role of Domestic Institutions: This chapter defines domestic institutions as organized bodies meant to strengthen internal unity and protect groups against destabilization.
Conclusion I: The economic and the political task of domestic institutions: The author distinguishes between the macro-economic task of market compatibility and the political task of maintaining inclusive democratic discourse.
Comparable analysis: Anti-populist strategies in Greece, Italy, and Denmark: This chapter provides empirical testing of the proposed theory by reviewing three distinct European political landscapes.
Conclusion II: Different ways to counter populism: The final analysis synthesizes the results, confirming that institutional failure strongly correlates with populist success in the studied countries.
Keywords
Globalization, Populism, Domestic Institutions, Economic Cleavage, Cultural Cleavage, European Politics, Institutional Resilience, Social Policy, Trade Liberalization, Political Polarization, Greece, Italy, Denmark, Populist Strategies, Societal Unity.
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the core focus of this research?
The research focuses on the intersection of globalization, domestic institutional performance, and the increasing electoral success of populist movements in Europe.
What are the primary thematic areas covered?
The work covers theoretical models of populism, the economic and political functions of domestic institutions, and an empirical comparative study of three European nations.
What is the central hypothesis of the study?
The hypothesis suggests that populist movements succeed specifically when domestic institutions fail to address either the economic or the political needs of the society.
Which methodology is applied to prove the arguments?
The author uses a qualitative comparative analysis, applying a developed theoretical framework to the empirical evidence found in Greece, Italy, and Denmark.
What does the main body of the text discuss?
The main body develops a theory relating populist growth to institutional failure, tests this theory via country examples, and evaluates how these institutions can act as barriers to segregation.
Which keywords best characterize this work?
Key terms include globalization, populism, domestic institutions, societal cleavages, institutional resilience, and European political economy.
Why did the author choose Greece, Italy, and Denmark as case studies?
These countries represent diverse experiences: Greece as a victim of the Euro-crisis, Italy as a case struggling with migration, and Denmark as an example of strong institutional resilience.
How does the author define the "political task" of a domestic institution?
The political task is defined as the effort to keep the public participating in the democratic society, which often requires non-populist rhetoric and inclusive social communication.
What role does the "majority" play in the author's model of populist success?
The majority is identified as the central group; populists can only gain significant political leverage if they successfully incorporate a substantial portion of this majority into their agenda.
- Arbeit zitieren
- Magnus Obermann (Autor:in), 2019, Globalization and Populism in Europe, München, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/899590
