Drawing from a panel of 134 elections from 1990 to 2021 and pooled cross-sectional data from eleven waves of the European Social Survey, a new study by researchers from Kin’s College of London and Columbia University of New York finds evidence that populist parties fared worse where countries provided more robust income support to workers experiencing unemployment. The effect was stronger among those individuals who had experienced unemployment and among current and former trade union members. This suggests that the welfare cuts and labor-market reforms pursued since the early 2000’s may have alienated vulnerable segments of the population and driven them toward populist parties.
While “there is ample evidence for the impact of economic distress, both due to international economic trends and to automation” and “there are important cultural, ethnic, and traditionalist bases of populist sentiment” the focus of the study is on national government welfare policies.
The authors, Chase Foster (King’s College London) and Jeffry Frieden (Columbia University), analyzed 134 national elections in 16 countries between 1990 and 2021, alongside data from 11 waves of the European Social Survey. The research is published in the journal European Union Politics.They argue that cuts in social policies, particularly spending on programs that maintain incomes for working-age adults who are fully or partially unemployed, have had an impact on the appeal of populism.
“Countries that evolved a broader and deeper social safety net for working adults facing actual or potential economic disruption have experienced less of a populist backlash than those who have not. This suggests that some form of the “compensation hypothesis”—that compensating those harmed by economic changes, or most vulnerable to harm, can mitigate the socio-political impact of those changes—may be correct.”
