Economic crisis and the variety of populist response: evidence from Greece, Portugal and Spain

Abstract

Greece, Portugal and Spain are among the countries worst hit by the 2008 Great Recession, with significant electoral and political turmoil since then. However, one of the dimensions in which they differ is the presence and varieties of populism in parties' political proposals. Drawing on holistic coding of party manifestos, we assess the varying presence of populist features in mainstream and challenging parties before and after the 2008 economic downturn. Our empirical findings show that populism is significantly higher in Greece compared to Spain and Portugal. We do not find a significant impact of the crisis as the degree of populism remains rather stable in Greece and Portugal, while it increases in Spain, mainly due to the rise of new populist forces. In addition, inclusionary populism is the predominant flavour of populist parties in new Southern Europe, although exclusionary populism is present to a lesser extent in the Greek case. Finally, we contend the national context -namely the ideological legacy of parties and the strategic options of party leadership -, is crucial for explaining cross-country variation in the intensity of populism and the specific issues that characterise populist discourse.

Housing, place and populism: Towards a research agenda

“…In the decade following the financial crisis, rising economic inequality, diminishing social protections and a crisis of democratic legitimacy have thoroughly reshaped Europe's political and economic geography as an increasing share of voters have turned to populist alternatives (Dijkstra et al, 2018). In some countries, such as Spain, populists have made significant electoral gains (Lisi et al, 2019), while in others, such as Sweden and the UK, populists have transplanted their rhetoric and policy priorities into mainstream parties (Heinze, 2018;Jessop, 2018). Populism is defined as a style of politics marked by (1) a political rhetoric that instrumentalises public anxieties to challenge the political establishment, (2) a thin-centred ideology that separates society into two antagonistic groups (i.e.…”