Economics
Comparative Study of Populism in Europe and the Americas
Quick fact
In Latin America, populists like Evo Morales and Hugo Chávez gained power by championing the poor against a traditional elite, while in Europe, populists like Viktor Orbán and Marine Le Pen built support by defending national identity against immigration—and their policies on economics are often more centrist or even conservative.
Why this is interesting
Populism is booming on both sides of the Atlantic—yet in Europe it often champions restricting immigration, while in Latin America it frequently pushes for expanding social programs. Why does the same label describe such different political styles?
Read the full explanation
Understanding Comparative Study of Populism in Europe and the Americas
Think of populism not as a single ideology but as a political style that divides society into two camps: the 'pure people' and the 'corrupt elite.' A populist leader claims to speak directly for the people against this elite. In Europe, the elite is often cast as remote bureaucrats in Brussels (the EU) or as culturally liberal national politicians who are seen as imposing liberal values. The people are defined as the 'real' native citizens whose culture is threatened. This sets a restrictive, sometimes xenophobic tone. In Latin America, the elite is usually identified as a domestic oligarchy backed by foreign corporations or the IMF, and the people are the poor, indigenous, and working-class majority who have been excluded from prosperity. So European populists often emphasize cultural distance, while Latin American populists emphasize economic class. The result is that European populism tends to be right-wing, and Latin American populism tends to be left-wing. To understand this difference, you must consider the historical context: Europe has relatively strong welfare states but high immigration, so the perceived threat is cultural and economic—immigrants are seen as competing for scarce resources. Latin America has extreme inequality and a history of resource extraction, so the perceived threat is economic exploitation by elites.
A deeper explanation
The mechanism behind these regional variations is a combination of economic grievances and political opportunity structures. In Europe, since the 1980s and especially after the 2008 crisis, many have felt left behind by globalization. However, because European welfare states have reduced economic inequality in comparison to Latin America, that economic dissatisfaction often gets reframed as resentment against immigration and loss of national sovereignty. The EU—an elite, technocratic institution—becomes a natural target. In contrast, Latin American countries have historically had vast economic inequality and weak state capacity, so populists there can credibly blame economic elites for widespread poverty. The lack of a strong middle class means that class-based appeals resonate deeply. Also, electoral systems play a role: many European countries use proportional representation, making it easier for small parties to have a voice, whereas the U.S. and many Latin American countries use presidential systems with less proportional representation, but historically these have allowed strong personalist leaders to rise. These differences in the political system shape how populist movements emerge and whether they take an institutional or more radical form. Thus, while populist leaders everywhere exploit a similar anti-establishment sentiment, the specific grievances they highlight and the policies they propose are shaped by the actual economic and political realities of their countries.