What is the reason for the rise of global populism this year?

Ordinary people always think that they have been treated unfairly by the ruling elite, so the soil of populism will always exist. However, when the economic and social development is good and the common people can share the fruits of development, populism will not easily rise. If the economic development is relatively good, but ordinary people think that they have not shared the fruits of development, left-wing populism will easily rise, and the voice of demanding income redistribution and improving people's welfare will become louder and louder, such as Venezuela during the period of rising oil prices since the new century. When economic development is poor and social contradictions are prominent, right-wing populism is more likely to gain the upper hand and point the finger at foreigners or external forces, or a certain ethnic minority in China. Of course, the domestic elite is also the first to bear the brunt. After all, they are responsible for the current problems, as in many developed countries today.

However, the rise of populism on a global scale is bound to be caused by the same factors. Over the past 40 years, the most common trends in the world are economic liberalization, globalization (the outward extension of domestic liberalization) and the great development of information technology. Although this period is one of the fastest economic growth periods in human history, the distribution of growth results among different countries and different groups in the same country is unbalanced. Because the mobility of capital is higher than that of labor, economic liberalization and globalization mean that capital can be optimally allocated on a global scale, the rate of return of capital relative to labor will rise, and the income gap between capital owners and ordinary workers will widen significantly. Informatization means that knowledge becomes an important factor of production, the return of education will rise, and the income gap between high-quality labor and low-quality labor will also widen. According to the statistics of the Congressional Budget Office, from 1979 to 2009, the proportion of the richest 1% families in the United States increased from 8% to 17%, while the proportion of low-income and middle-income families decreased. Although the international financial crisis hit high-income people to a certain extent, the subsequent quantitative easing policy led to a sharp rebound in asset prices, and the proportion of high-income families in total income further increased. This is the public opinion base of left-wing populism such as the Occupy Wall Street Movement.

At the same time, the elite are indifferent to this and even take it for granted. Warren Buffett, one of the richest men in the United States and a famous investor, once lamented that his personal income tax rate was lower than that of his secretary, and was mercilessly ridiculed by the Wall Street elite: Since you think the tax is too low, pay more! Nobody's stopping you! Leona helmsley, an American hotelier, once disdainfully said: We don't pay taxes, only small people pay taxes. The elites not only turned a blind eye to the people's voice, but tried to solidify their vested interests. According to the research of OECD 2013, the United States is one of the countries with the worst social mobility in developed countries, that is to say, if parents are poor, their children are likely to remain poor in the future, and the "American dream" has long since disappeared. The only thing worse than America is Britain. Francis Fukuyama, an American political scientist, believes that special interest groups in developed countries have great power and strong organization, and it is impossible to adopt any policies that go against their interests. just as

A Comparative Study of Two Global Crises

It is pointed out that "after technological innovation, the adjustment of production relations lags behind the development of productivity, the adjustment of superstructure lags behind the change of economic base, and the potential crisis risk will inevitably increase."

Although the mobility of capital is greater than that of labor, the mobility of people is always an important part of globalization. In the last round of globalization, a large number of people immigrated from Europe to North America and Oceania, which laid the political and economic map of the world today. There is no essential difference between today's immigrants and those in the19th century. They all seek a better economic future and avoid domestic political persecution or war. As at that time, the arrival of immigrants really threatened the living environment and lifestyle of aborigines. The difference is that the immigrants in the19th century conquered the aborigines through organized power, and the terrorist activities mixed with today's immigrants are only by-products. But in any case, the threat of terrorism is real, and it forms the basis of public opinion for Britain's withdrawal from the EU and Trump's rise.

The consequences of the rise of populism

From the above analysis, people's dissatisfaction is reasonable and the mistakes of elites are inevitable, but the prescriptions prescribed by populism are wrong. Trade protection, robbing the rich to help the poor and isolationism are very enjoyable to implement, and even have certain effects in the short term, but in the long run, they are bound to be detrimental to national development. The people hope that their demands can be met quickly, effectively and free of charge, but any responsible and responsible politician will know that changing the existing system will take a long, profound and painful process, and it will be very difficult. Only unscrupulous careerists can easily promise to be elected.

Judging from historical experience, populism has become the mainstream of society. After its representatives are elected as political leaders, long-term implementation of populist policies will lead to economic stagnation and social unrest. Trade protectionist measures lead to the contraction of transnational trade and investment activities, and reduce the speed and efficiency of economic growth. Narrowing the income gap by simple and rude means will easily lead to capital outflow and investment decline. The contradiction between the ordinary people and the elite will continue to deepen, leading to social unrest. In this regard, populist politicians will take advantage of this contradiction and even create contradictions, such as targeting foreigners or a certain group in China. One is to divert attention, and the other is to use the people's pursuit of security and stability to consolidate their rule. Plato, an ancient Greek philosopher, predicted in The Republic that the final outcome of a democratic system would be that populist politicians would come to power, and finally tyrant politics would be established through social unrest, and people would be willing to sacrifice their freedom for security. Many Americans half-jokingly predicted that Trump would be the last American president and compared him to Hitler.

Another possibility is that populist policies will not be fully implemented, because the elite-led interest groups are very strong and will hinder the full implementation of these policies; Second, it is possible for both sides to reach a compromise. Populist politicians guarantee the basic interests of the elite in exchange for their support. At the same time, the elite made some concessions, especially in the incremental part. For example, the import substitution policy implemented by Latin American countries, on the surface, is trade protection, which is not conducive to foreign products and foreign enterprises, but foreign-funded enterprises investing in Latin America have also been protected and their interests have been maintained and solidified. Hitler's supporters at that time were mainly the middle class and some workers, but in fact he reached a compromise with the big German capitalists on the eve of taking office. The two sides supported each other to ensure each other's interests, and so did the subsequent development. It is the people who are ultimately damaged.

In foreign policy, the general tendency of populism is isolationism. The xenophobia of ordinary people mainly stems from their belief that foreign products, foreign capital and foreign immigrants pose a threat to their livelihood, and they will not take the initiative to plunder other countries' resources and occupy their markets. Therefore, populism is defensive, not expansionary, even if it has nationalist elements. However, as previously analyzed, the populist policy is doomed to fail in the long run, and the possibility of external conflicts caused by politicians in order to transfer domestic contradictions and cover up their own mistakes cannot be ruled out. For example, in 1982, Argentina sent troops to occupy the Malvinas Islands, which triggered the Anglo-Arab War. Although this is a small probability event, the possibility exists between countries with territorial disputes, historical grievances and strategic confrontation.

However, isolationism will make you safe for a while, but it will not make you safe for a lifetime. The United States suffered this loss 80 years ago. Today, the main threat facing the west is terrorism, which is actually what Huntington called the conflict between civilizations. If it is to prevent thieves, it is feasible to build a fence, because the thief has gone to the next door, but if it is to prevent the enemy, building a fence will not shake the other party's determination. The rise of populism in the world will lead to the retrogression of globalization, the risk of long-term stagnation of the world economy will rise, the foundation of mutual trust and cooperation between countries will weaken, and the supply of international public goods will be insufficient, which will give more room for the development of non-traditional security threats such as terrorism. On the other hand, if some countries can overcome the temptation of populism, achieve economic development, maintain social stability, and adhere to the principles of open cooperation and mutual benefit and win-win, their hard power and soft power will be effectively improved, and they will occupy a favorable position in the adjustment of the international political and economic order in the future.