Karl Polanyi finished The Great Transformation in 1944. He wrote it after a market order collapsed into fascism and war. His diagnosis was blunt. Market liberalism reached an impasse, and fascism was one resolution of that impasse (Polanyi, 1944/2001).

For most of the eighty years after he wrote it, that stayed an argument from one region and one decade. Polanyi had Europe between the wars, and he read it well. He had no way to test the pattern across many countries and many decades.

Economists and political scientists built that test in the last fifteen years. They assembled long records of elections, trade shocks, layoffs, and financial crises. The results support a narrow version of Polanyi’s claim. They fail to support the wide version that circulates in political argument.

This is Part 5 of a series on the anthropology of unregulated capitalism. Part 1 set out the vocabulary. A market society treats land, labor, and money as commodities that they are not. It therefore keeps damaging the people and the nature that it depends on.

Part 2 followed the colonial drain. Part 3 examined manufactured delay on climate. Part 4 examined inequality and precarity. This post asks a narrower question. What does unregulated capitalism do to democracy?

The answer here has two channels. Economic shocks and insecurity push voters toward far-right parties. Separately, neoliberal statecraft removes market policy from the control of voters. Those are two different mechanisms. They rest on different kinds of evidence, and the link between them is weaker than the pairing suggests.

One note on words. The scholarship uses far right, radical right, extreme right, and authoritarian populism for overlapping sets of parties. I use “far right” throughout for parties that combine nativism with authoritarian appeals. Where I report what a specific study measured, I keep that study’s own term, because the terms pick out different sets.

What the record shows

Manuel Funke, Moritz Schularick, and Christoph Trebesch are economists. They built a record of 20 advanced economies and more than 800 general elections across about 140 years. Far-right parties raise their vote share by about 30 percent in the five years after a systemic financial crisis (Funke, Schularick, & Trebesch, 2016). The 30 percent is a relative rise rather than 30 percentage points. A party at 10 percent of the vote goes to about 13 percent. Their finding is also narrow, because ordinary recessions and non-financial shocks produce no comparable effect in their data.

Trade shocks show a similar pattern. Italo Colantone is an economist and Piero Stanig is a political scientist. They measured regional exposure to Chinese import competition in 15 Western European countries from 1988 to 2007. Regions with higher exposure moved toward nationalist and radical-right parties, and the whole electorate in those regions moved right (Colantone & Stanig, 2018a). They ran the same design on the 2016 British referendum. Support for Leave was higher in the regions that global competition damaged most (Colantone & Stanig, 2018b).

Sirus Dehdari studied the mechanism at a smaller scale. He matched layoff notices at the precinct level to the Swedish national elections of 2006 and 2010. One layoff notice among low-skilled native-born workers raises support for the Sweden Democrats by 0.17 to 0.45 votes. Those layoff notices account for about 31 percent of the rise in the party’s vote between the two elections (Dehdari, 2022). The effect is stronger where the share of low-skilled immigrants is high.

Luigi Guiso and his coauthors are economists. They used individual survey data across Europe and found that economic insecurity raises the populist vote through two paths. It raises the direct demand for protection, and it lowers trust in institutions. It also cuts turnout, which changes who the remaining voters are (Guiso, Herrera, Morelli, & Sonno, 2024).

Eli Rau and Susan Stokes are political scientists. They ran a cross-national study of the risk factors for democratic erosion in this century. Income inequality is one of the strongest predictors of where and when a democracy erodes. Two conventional protections failed in their models. The age of a democracy, which predicts resistance to military coups well, showed no protective effect against erosion. National wealth, measured as GDP per capita, had a weaker and less consistent relationship with erosion than inequality did (Rau & Stokes, 2025).

The aggregate trend is the backdrop. The V-Dem Institute counted 92 autocracies and 87 democracies at the end of 2025, the second year in a row with more autocracies than democracies. About 74 percent of the world population, near 6 billion people, live under autocracies. About 7 percent live in liberal democracies. For the average person on earth, the level of democracy returned to where it stood in 1978 (V-Dem Institute, 2026).

Those counts rest on expert coding, and the method is under attack in print. Andrew Little and Anne Meng are political scientists. They surveyed objective indicators such as incumbent vote shares and incumbent turnover. They found little evidence of global democratic decline over the last decade (Little & Meng, 2024).

They offer coder bias as one explanation for the gap between the two kinds of indicator. I still use the V-Dem counts, because the objective indicators miss the capture of courts, election administration, and media that the expert coders record. The counts point one way, and Little and Meng contest how they are measured.

One limit of scale applies to every study above. Funke samples 20 advanced economies, Colantone and Stanig sample 15 Western European countries, Dehdari samples Sweden, and Guiso samples Europe. The V-Dem counts are global, and much of the recent autocratization sits in India, Turkey, Hungary, Tunisia, and sub-Saharan Africa. India consolidated a Hindu-nationalist government while its economy grew fast. I use the counts to show that the political shift is large. I do not claim that the mechanisms above explain the non-Western cases.

The strongest objections

The load-bearing claim of this post is that the economic conditions unregulated capitalism produces cause the turn toward far-right and authoritarian politics. Four published objections attack that claim, and they attack it at four different depths. I take them in order of severity.

Larry Bartels is a political scientist. He attacks the thing to be explained. He examined European survey data across two decades and found no populist wave in public opinion. Europeans trust their politicians and parliaments about as much as they did twenty years ago. They are about as satisfied with democracy and about as favorable toward European integration.

He also found weak and inconsistent links between economic discontent and anti-system sentiment, and weaker links from those sentiments to populist vote shares. He argues that far-right success comes from the supply side of politics, which means populist entrepreneurs, the failures of mainstream parties, and media attention (Bartels, 2023).

That objection is more serious than the culture argument, because it removes the dependent variable. If European voters did not shift, then channel one has nothing to explain. Two things survive it, and both are partial.

The regional and precinct designs above measure vote shares in exposed places. A flat national attitude series is compatible with a large local shift. Bartels also supplies the elite side of the story. Rodrik’s supply-side channels, described below, are the general category that the Bartels finding fits. His account moves the causal weight from voters to elites, and it leaves the economic conditions in the story.

One half of his objection survives that answer. Bartels also finds weak links from economic discontent to anti-system sentiment, and weaker links again from sentiment to vote share. The regional designs correlate a shock with a vote directly, so they never test the sentiment step that Bartels tests.

The political scientists Pippa Norris and Ronald Inglehart made the best-known objection. Their cultural backlash thesis holds that a long value shift drives the turn. Post-materialist values spread through rich societies over decades. Voters who hold materialist and authoritarian values found themselves outnumbered, and they reacted. They test economic and cultural models side by side, and they find cultural values the stronger predictor of authoritarian-populist support. They keep a role for economic insecurity alongside cultural values (Norris & Inglehart, 2019).

Noam Gidron and Peter Hall are political scientists. They make the objection I find hardest to answer. They argue that subjective social status mediates both accounts. Economic and cultural developments together lowered the social status of men without a college education. Low subjective status then predicts support for the populist right (Gidron & Hall, 2017). If they are right, then the economics-against-culture frame that organizes this section is the wrong frame.

Yotam Margalit is a political scientist. He makes the objection about size. He argues that the literature confuses two questions. Economic insecurity can matter at the margin of a close election and still explain only a modest share of the total populist vote. He also argues that the causal direction may run the other way. Disaffection from social and cultural change can drive economic discontent as well as populist support (Margalit, 2019).

Diana Mutz is a political scientist. She made a related argument about the 2016 United States election. She concluded that status threat rather than economic hardship explains the vote (Mutz, 2018a). Stephen Morgan, a sociologist, reanalyzed her data. He found that her cross-sectional data cannot separate the two effects. He also found her panel data consistent with economic interests mattering as much as status threat (Morgan, 2018).

Mutz replied and defended her models (Mutz, 2018b). The exchange is unresolved, and I cite it as a warning about the weight one study can carry.

Dani Rodrik, an economist, gives the answer I find most defensible against Norris, Inglehart, and Margalit. He argues that the economic and the cultural accounts are complementary. Economic shocks activate grievances that already exist, and they raise the political demand that a populist entrepreneur can supply. He separates four channels of transmission, two on the demand side of politics and two on the supply side, and judges each separately (Rodrik, 2021). Rodrik keeps the economics-against-culture frame and divides it, so he does not answer Gidron and Hall, and I leave that objection open.

That is a large retreat from the strong claim, and here is its size. Unregulated capitalism supplies the shocks, the insecurity, and the inequality that make an existing grievance electorally decisive. It does not manufacture the turn on its own. Bartels goes further and moves the causal weight to elites. Margalit’s point about size stands. I am tempted to make the strong claim, and the evidence does not carry it.

Same shock, different outcome

The counterexamples reach deeper than the debate about culture. A society that takes a severe economic shock does not reliably turn to the far right. Sometimes it turns left, sometimes it builds protections, and sometimes it does nothing much at all.

Alan de Bromhead, Barry Eichengreen, and Kevin O’Rourke are economic historians. They studied far-right vote shares across the Great Depression, which is the case Polanyi built his argument on. They confirmed a link between economic hardship and far-right votes. They found that cumulative growth performance mattered more than growth at the moment of an election.

The effect concentrated under three conditions. It concentrated in countries with short democratic histories. It also concentrated where electoral rules set a low bar for parliamentary seats, and on the losing side of the First World War (de Bromhead, Eichengreen, & O’Rourke, 2013).

The same shock hit the United States and Sweden. Those two countries produced the New Deal and Swedish social democracy. Germany produced the Nazi party. The shock supplies the pressure, and institutions, electoral rules, and political history condition the result.

Poland runs the counterexample the other way. It was the only economy in the European Union that avoided recession in 2009, and it grew while the rest of the Union contracted. Law and Justice took power in 2015 and then produced one of the two canonical European cases of democratic erosion. The party captured the Constitutional Tribunal, the public media, and the prosecution service.

A severe economic shock was absent, and the erosion happened anyway. Bartels reads Hungary and Poland the same way. A conventional conservative party carried out the backsliding from office, and no voter demand for authoritarianism drove it (Bartels, 2023).

Ireland is the case that my own falsification test names, and I return to it in the section on tests. Ireland took a systemic banking crisis in 2008, a bank guarantee, a troika program, and severe austerity. No far-right party won a seat in the Dáil in the elections that followed. The anti-establishment vote went to Sinn Féin and to the left instead.

Steve Garner is a sociologist. He argues that the mainstream nationalist parties already occupied the political ground that a far-right party would need (Garner, 2007). His account predates the crisis, so it explains the absence after the fact.

Southern Europe makes the point with a delay attached. Spain took a severe austerity program, and the first political result was Podemos, a new left populist party. Luis Ramiro and Raul Gomez are political scientists. They found that Podemos supporters did not match the standard portrait of the populist voter as a loser of globalization (Ramiro & Gomez, 2017). Spain then produced Vox, which entered the Andalusian parliament in 2018 and became the third largest party in the Congreso in November 2019. Greece produced Syriza on the left and Golden Dawn on the far right at the same time.

The summary is narrow. Economic shocks raise the political demand for a radical alternative. Which alternative wins depends on what parties exist, on who organizes, and on the rules of the electoral system. This post cannot say in advance which way a given country will go, and no post in this series should claim that it can.

The second channel: the state made harder to reach

The first channel runs through voters. The second channel runs through the design of the state, and it needs no change in voter behavior at all.

Ian Bruff is a political economist. He argues that neoliberal governance reconfigures the state into a less democratic institution. Constitutional rules, legal changes, and treaty commitments insulate economic policy from social and political conflict. On his account, four instruments do that work. Debt brakes, independent central banks, investor-state arbitration, and balanced-budget rules each move a piece of economic policy beyond an ordinary election. He calls the pattern authoritarian neoliberalism (Bruff, 2014).

One qualification belongs on that list. Some of those instruments are much older than neoliberalism. Polanyi described the classical gold standard as a rule that removed monetary policy from democratic reach (Polanyi, 1944/2001). John Dove is an economist. He traced how many American states wrote debt limits into their constitutions in the 1840s, after eight states and one territory defaulted (Dove, 2012).

That evidence covers constitutional limits on public borrowing. I take no position on whether a debt brake and a balanced-budget rule are one mechanism or two.

Investor-state arbitration is the clearest case of an instrument that belongs to the neoliberal era. It spread through the bilateral investment treaty wave of the 1980s and 1990s. My reading is that the era intensified and extended an older practice. Bruff does not make that argument.

He and Cemal Burak Tansel later set out the research program around the term (Bruff & Tansel, 2019).

Wendy Brown is a political theorist. She works the same problem at the level of the person. In Undoing the Demos she argues that neoliberal rationality remakes people in the image of economic man. On her account the citizen becomes a piece of human capital, and growth rates and investment climates replace questions of justice. She argues that popular sovereignty then loses its meaning, because a population of investors has no shared political body (Brown, 2015). Her later book argues that neoliberalism carried an antidemocratic strain from the start (Brown, 2019).

This channel has a serious objection too. Matthew Ryan is a political economist. He attacks the periodization. Bruff dates the sharp turn to the period after the 2008 crisis. Ryan examines the United Kingdom under Thatcher and the Greek experience of austerity, and he argues that coercive neoliberal statecraft long predates 2008 (Ryan, 2019). If the coercion was always present, then the term names a continuity and presents it as a break.

Ryan wins the point about novelty. Bruff and Tansel accept in their later article that the authoritarian tendencies predate the crisis. They argue instead for a shift in scale and intensity after it (Bruff & Tansel, 2019). That is a smaller claim than the original one, and it is the claim I use here. Part 1 made a related correction from Loïc Wacquant. The neoliberal state works harder rather than steps back, and it applies laissez-faire at the top and discipline at the bottom (Wacquant, 2012).

The two channels also rest on different qualities of evidence, and the difference is large. Channel one rests on long panels, instrumented designs, and precinct-level data. Channel two rests on case studies and on theory. I know of no cross-national panel that measures policy insulation the way Funke measures vote shares. Any reader who accepts channel one on the strength of its numbers should hold channel two to a lower confidence.

The two channels differ in a second way. Channel one says voters turn to the far right because markets damage them. Channel two says elites made the state less answerable to voters on purpose. Those are compatible stories, and they are separate stories.

Nothing in this post shows that channel two causes channel one. A voter might turn to a far-right party because ordinary politics no longer changes economic policy, and that link would join the two channels. Bartels argues something close to it from the elite side. That claim needs evidence, and I do not have it. I place the two findings side by side.

The turn at “eye level”

The quantitative work tells you that the shift happened and roughly how large it was. Ethnography tells you what the shift feels like from inside, and how a person moves from a lost job to a new political identity.

Douglas Holmes is an anthropologist. He did the fieldwork earliest. Integral Europe studied European neofascist movements in the 1990s. He argued that they draw on integralism, a sensibility that tries to hold ethnic identity and solidarity together inside a pluralist society. He placed those movements as a reaction to what he called fast capitalism and to the strains of European integration (Holmes, 2000).

He returned to the material two decades later. He traced how a marginal activism became a mass movement across northeast Italy, the European Parliament, and inner London (Holmes, 2019).

Don Kalb is an anthropologist. He supplies the class analysis. He argues that working-class populism in Europe carries a class experience that speaks in a national idiom. Neoliberal restructuring dispossessed and disenfranchised industrial working classes after 1989. He reads the political result as a displacement. The left stopped speaking about that experience in class terms, and the nationalist right offered the available language for it (Kalb, 2011).

The volume he edited with Gábor Halmai carries case studies from Romania, Hungary, Serbia, Italy, and Scotland (Kalb & Halmai, 2011).

Arlie Russell Hochschild is a sociologist rather than an anthropologist. Her method is close to ethnography. She spent five years around Lake Charles, Louisiana, in a petrochemical belt with heavy industrial pollution. She wanted to understand why people who live with that pollution oppose environmental regulation.

She reconstructed what she calls their deep story, in which people wait patiently in a line toward the American dream and work hard. They then watch other people move ahead of them in the line with official help (Hochschild, 2016). She argues that the deep story organizes political loyalty, whether or not it is factually accurate.

Justin Gest is a political scientist. His fieldwork argues against channel one. He studied Dagenham in east London and Youngstown in Ohio, two places that lost their manufacturing base. He argues that nostalgic deprivation drives sympathy for the far right. Nostalgic deprivation means a felt loss of wealth and standing, which can persist while material position holds steady (Gest, 2016).

That is the Gidron and Hall status argument, observed through fieldwork. An ethnography section that carried only work supporting my thesis would not be worth reading.

Nancy Postero is an anthropologist. She supplies the counterexample from the discipline’s own record. She worked with Guaraní people in lowland Bolivia from 1994. She traced how neoliberal multiculturalism produced an indigenous politics that then turned against neoliberalism itself (Postero, 2006). Bolivia and Ecuador took structural adjustment and produced the Cochabamba water war, the gas war, and an indigenous left in government. That looks like a protective counter-movement in Polanyi’s sense, and it went democratic and left.

William Mazzarella is an anthropologist. He asks what the discipline adds to the study of populism. He argues that anthropologists worked on the material of populism for a long time under other names. He also argues that most liberal commentary treats populism as a pathology from outside a healthy political order. That characterization of the opposing view belongs to him, and I report it as his. He wants the analysis to start from the ordinary work of political feeling and mediation (Mazzarella, 2019).

These accounts do something the regressions cannot. They show the far-right turn as a set of meanings that people make, which a coefficient cannot show. They carry a risk in exchange. An ethnography of a movement can become a defense of it. An account of how a grievance feels can also replace an account of whether it is accurate.

A caution about Polanyi

It is tempting to close the argument and call the far right the Polanyian counter-movement. Markets damaged a society. The society reacted, and the reaction took an ugly form. Polanyi’s own text supports part of that reading, because he treated fascism as one resolution of the impasse that market liberalism reached.

The Polanyi scholarship warns against the loose version. Rowan Alcock argues that much of the writing that labels left-wing or right-wing ideological movements as Polanyi’s counter-movement misreads him. In his reading, Polanyi described the counter-movement as a spontaneous and non-ideological reaction. A society protects its own substance, and it adopts no particular political program to do so (Alcock, 2025).

Geoff Goodwin replied and rejected part of it. He argues that Polanyi understood the counter-movement as both ideological and non-ideological, and he supplies textual and historical evidence for that reading. He makes the case for several defensible readings (Goodwin, 2025).

I take the conservative position here. The double movement is a useful frame for asking why a society under market pressure produces political reaction. The label adds nothing when I apply it to a specific party, because it does no explanatory work on its own.

What this post asserts and does not prove

Part 1 promised that this series would name its unproven causal claims. Five claims in this post need that treatment.

• Unregulated capitalism causes the authoritarian turn. I do not show this. The evidence supports a narrower claim. Financial crises, trade shocks, layoffs, and inequality each raise far-right support or the risk of erosion. The conditions vary by country. Bartels and Margalit both stand against the general claim.
• Neoliberal statecraft made states less answerable to voters. I do not show this quantitatively. Bruff and Brown argue it from cases and from theory, and the gap in evidence between my two channels is real.
• Authoritarian neoliberalism causes voter authoritarianism. I do not show this, and I do not test it here. I describe the two channels separately for that reason.
• Inequality causes democratic erosion. I do not show this. Rau and Stokes report a robust cross-national association across measures of income and wealth inequality, which is strong observational evidence. They ran no experiment.
• The far right is the counter-movement in Polanyi’s sense. I do not show this, and the Polanyi scholarship contests it.

The framework also has a falsifiability problem, and Part 1 raised the same problem about the double movement. Two channels that run through voters and through state design can absorb almost any outcome. A country turns to the far right, and channel one explains it. A country holds steady, and channel two explains why its economic policy stopped responding to elections anyway.

Here are the tests, and my first attempt at one of them failed. A rich democracy that takes a severe financial crisis, holds inequality high, and returns no far-right party would count against channel one. Ireland is that case. Funke and the others report average effects across many countries, so one country cannot refute them. A test that a single case defeats is the wrong test, and I withdraw it.

Three better tests remain. One result would count against channel one. Far-right vote share tracks value change alone across a wide panel of countries, with no measurable response to trade shocks or layoffs. Repeated failures to replicate the regional design of Colantone and Stanig would count against it too.

The moderating conditions need a rule as well, because each counterexample above arrives with one. A condition counts only if a cited study derived it from a wide sample. It must also predict the next case rather than explain the last one. Democratic age, electoral thresholds, and war-loser status meet that rule, because de Bromhead and his coauthors derived them across the whole interwar panel. A condition that I fit to one country after the fact would rescue the channel rather than test it.

One result would count against channel two. Ordinary legislation rolls back treaty commitments and agency mandates, and economic policy still does not respond to election outcomes.

One part of this post has no test that I can state. Brown’s account of neoliberal rationality absorbs every outcome I can imagine. Citizens who vote show the demos persisting. Citizens who abstain show the demos undone. Citizens who vote for redistribution show human capital protecting its returns. I use her work as a description of a mood, and I make no causal claim with it.

Where this leaves the series

The record supports a modest and still serious conclusion. Unregulated capitalism regularly supplies the shocks and the insecurity that a far-right party can convert into votes. The institutions and the party system decide whether the conversion happens. It does not create authoritarian politics from nothing.

Bruff and Brown argue that neoliberal statecraft separately builds a state that answers to voters less. Their argument rests on case studies. No panel measures it. The scale of the political shift is large. Little and Meng dispute how it is measured, and the mechanism is partial.

Polanyi’s framing still holds a place, with the caution attached. A society under sustained market pressure reacts. The reaction can build protection, and it can build something much worse. Which one a society gets depends on what its institutions allow and on which organizations exist to act on that reaction. Ireland, Poland, and Bolivia each gave a different answer to the same kind of pressure.

The last post in this series takes up that question directly. It returns to the double movement and asks what pushes back when markets damage the societies they run through. It will need to meet the standard Part 1 set. A counter-movement claim has to say in advance which protections a specific movement demands, who organizes them, and what would count as a failure.

References

Alcock, R. (2025). Re-embedding Polanyi’s double movement thesis: The non-ideological and destructive countermovement. Globalizations, 22(4), 550-568. (Published online 11 September 2024.) https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2024.2397243

Bartels, L. M. (2023). Democracy erodes from the top: Leaders, citizens, and the challenge of populism in Europe. Princeton University Press. https://press.princeton.edu/books/hardcover/9780691244501/democracy-erodes-from-the-top

Brown, W. (2015). Undoing the demos: Neoliberalism’s stealth revolution. Zone Books. https://www.zonebooks.org/books/9-undoing-the-demos-neoliberalism-s-stealth-revolution

Brown, W. (2019). In the ruins of neoliberalism: The rise of antidemocratic politics in the West. Columbia University Press. https://cup.columbia.edu/book/in-the-ruins-of-neoliberalism/9780231193856/

Bruff, I. (2014). The rise of authoritarian neoliberalism. Rethinking Marxism, 26(1), 113-129. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08935696.2013.843250

Bruff, I., & Tansel, C. B. (2019). Authoritarian neoliberalism: Trajectories of knowledge production and praxis. Globalizations, 16(3), 233-244. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/14747731.2018.1502497

Colantone, I., & Stanig, P. (2018a). The trade origins of economic nationalism: Import competition and voting behavior in Western Europe. American Journal of Political Science, 62(4), 936-953. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/ajps.12358

Colantone, I., & Stanig, P. (2018b). Global competition and Brexit. American Political Science Review, 112(2), 201-218. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/american-political-science-review/article/abs/global-competition-and-brexit/C843990101DB9232B654E77130F88398

de Bromhead, A., Eichengreen, B., & O’Rourke, K. H. (2013). Political extremism in the 1920s and 1930s: Do German lessons generalize? The Journal of Economic History, 73(2), 371-406. https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/journal-of-economic-history/article/political-extremism-in-the-1920s-and-1930s-do-german-lessons-generalize/0A2ACD66FBF33D2E51145E4FA95A9062

Dehdari, S. H. (2022). Economic distress and support for radical right parties: Evidence from Sweden. Comparative Political Studies, 55(2), 191-221. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/00104140211024301

Dove, J. A. (2012). Credible commitments and constitutional constraints: State debt repudiation and default in nineteenth century America. Constitutional Political Economy, 23(1), 66-93. https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10602-011-9114-z

Funke, M., Schularick, M., & Trebesch, C. (2016). Going to extremes: Politics after financial crises, 1870-2014. European Economic Review, 88, 227-260. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0014292116300587

Garner, S. (2007). Ireland and immigration: Explaining the absence of the far right. Patterns of Prejudice, 41(2), 109-130. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/00313220701265486

Gest, J. (2016). The new minority: White working class politics in an age of immigration and inequality. Oxford University Press. https://global.oup.com/academic/product/the-new-minority-9780190632557

Gidron, N., & Hall, P. A. (2017). The politics of social status: Economic and cultural roots of the populist right. The British Journal of Sociology, 68(S1), S57-S84. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1468-4446.12319

Goodwin, G. (2025). Radical (re)readings of Polanyi: Splitting hairs and building bridges. Globalizations. Advance online publication. https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14747731.2025.2456401

Guiso, L., Herrera, H., Morelli, M., & Sonno, T. (2024). Economic insecurity and the demand for populism in Europe. Economica, 91(362), 588-620. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/ecca.12513

Hochschild, A. R. (2016). Strangers in their own land: Anger and mourning on the American right. The New Press. https://thenewpress.org/books/strangers-in-their-own-land/

Holmes, D. R. (2000). Integral Europe: Fast-capitalism, multiculturalism, neofascism. Princeton University Press. https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7scsx

Holmes, D. R. (2019). Fascism at eye level: The anthropological conundrum. Focaal, 2019(84), 62-90. https://www.berghahnjournals.com/view/journals/focaal/2019/84/fcl840105.xml

Kalb, D. (2011). Introduction. Headlines of nation, subtexts of class: Working-class populism and the return of the repressed in neoliberal Europe. In D. Kalb & G. Halmai (Eds.), Headlines of nation, subtexts of class (pp. 1-36). Berghahn Books. https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/9780857452047-002/html

Kalb, D., & Halmai, G. (Eds.). (2011). Headlines of nation, subtexts of class: Working class populism and the return of the repressed in neoliberal Europe. Berghahn Books. https://www.berghahnbooks.com/title/kalbheadlines

Little, A. T., & Meng, A. (2024). Measuring democratic backsliding. PS: Political Science & Politics, 57(2). https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/ps-political-science-and-politics/article/measuring-democratic-backsliding/9EE2044CDA598BD815349912E61189D8

Margalit, Y. (2019). Economic insecurity and the causes of populism, reconsidered. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33(4), 152-170. https://www.aeaweb.org/articles?id=10.1257%2Fjep.33.4.152

Mazzarella, W. (2019). The anthropology of populism: Beyond the liberal settlement. Annual Review of Anthropology, 48, 45-60. https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev-anthro-102218-011412

Morgan, S. L. (2018). Status threat, material interests, and the 2016 presidential vote. Socius, 4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023118788217

Mutz, D. C. (2018a). Status threat, not economic hardship, explains the 2016 presidential vote. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115(19), E4330-E4339. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.1718155115

Mutz, D. C. (2018b). Response to Morgan: On the role of status threat and material interests in the 2016 election. Socius, 4. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/2378023118808619

Norris, P., & Inglehart, R. (2019). Cultural backlash: Trump, Brexit, and authoritarian populism. Cambridge University Press. https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/cultural-backlash/3C7CB32722C7BB8B19A0FC005CAFD02B

Polanyi, K. (2001). The great transformation: The political and economic origins of our time (2nd Beacon ed.). Beacon Press. (Original work published 1944. All references above are to this edition.) https://www.beacon.org/The-Great-Transformation-P46.aspx

Postero, N. G. (2006). Now we are citizens: Indigenous politics in postmulticultural Bolivia. Stanford University Press. https://www.sup.org/books/anthropology/now-we-are-citizens

Ramiro, L., & Gomez, R. (2017). Radical-left populism during the Great Recession: Podemos and its competition with the established radical left. Political Studies, 65(1_suppl), 108-126. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0032321716647400

Rau, E. G., & Stokes, S. C. (2025). Income inequality and the erosion of democracy in the twenty-first century. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 122(1), e2422543121. https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2422543121

Rodrik, D. (2021). Why does globalization fuel populism? Economics, culture, and the rise of right-wing populism. Annual Review of Economics, 13, 133-170. https://www.annualreviews.org/content/journals/10.1146/annurev-economics-070220-032416

Ryan, M. D. J. (2019). Interrogating “authoritarian neoliberalism”: The problem of periodization. Competition & Change, 23(2), 116-137. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1024529418797867

V-Dem Institute. (2026). Democracy report 2026: Unraveling the democratic era? (10th ed.). University of Gothenburg. https://www.v-dem.net/documents/75/V-Dem_Institute_Democracy_Report_2026_lowres.pdf

Wacquant, L. (2012). Three steps to a historical anthropology of actually existing neoliberalism. Social Anthropology, 20(1), 66-79. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8676.2011.00189.x