扳手行动:走向民粹主义政策进程?

IF 0.3 Q4 POLITICAL SCIENCE
Populism Pub Date : 2019-10-14 DOI:10.1163/25888072-02021029
Paul K. Adler, Todd N. Tucker
{"title":"扳手行动:走向民粹主义政策进程?","authors":"Paul K. Adler, Todd N. Tucker","doi":"10.1163/25888072-02021029","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"\nThe policy process literature focuses on technocratic insiders, while scholarship on populism hones in on demagogic outsiders. The latter’s distrust of elites, compromise, and nuance makes them potentially effective in opposition or government, but less obviously as intervenors in policy formation between elections. We argue that, under certain conditions, populists can effectively insert themselves into policy processes without seizing power or even reducing the basic polarity they believe exists between “the elite” and “the people.” In particular, populists can “monkey wrench” the policy process by getting maligned elites to act against their own interests, even if the populists themselves can agree on no alternative policies. Using original archival materials, we illustrate how the transnational movement against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the late 1990s deployed monkey-wrenching. In so doing, we contribute to an understanding of how Benjamin Moffitt’s conception of the populist style can be deployed to analyze left-wing transnational nongovernmental policy entrepreneurs, instead of the right-wing national government aspirants who are often focused upon in political science research on populism. We conclude that interdisciplinary scholarship between political scientists and historians can identify circumstances when populists’ influence on policy is more likely.","PeriodicalId":29733,"journal":{"name":"Populism","volume":" ","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":0.3000,"publicationDate":"2019-10-14","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/25888072-02021029","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Operation Monkey Wrench: Toward a Populist Policy Process?\",\"authors\":\"Paul K. Adler, Todd N. Tucker\",\"doi\":\"10.1163/25888072-02021029\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"\\nThe policy process literature focuses on technocratic insiders, while scholarship on populism hones in on demagogic outsiders. The latter’s distrust of elites, compromise, and nuance makes them potentially effective in opposition or government, but less obviously as intervenors in policy formation between elections. We argue that, under certain conditions, populists can effectively insert themselves into policy processes without seizing power or even reducing the basic polarity they believe exists between “the elite” and “the people.” In particular, populists can “monkey wrench” the policy process by getting maligned elites to act against their own interests, even if the populists themselves can agree on no alternative policies. Using original archival materials, we illustrate how the transnational movement against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the late 1990s deployed monkey-wrenching. In so doing, we contribute to an understanding of how Benjamin Moffitt’s conception of the populist style can be deployed to analyze left-wing transnational nongovernmental policy entrepreneurs, instead of the right-wing national government aspirants who are often focused upon in political science research on populism. We conclude that interdisciplinary scholarship between political scientists and historians can identify circumstances when populists’ influence on policy is more likely.\",\"PeriodicalId\":29733,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Populism\",\"volume\":\" \",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2019-10-14\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1163/25888072-02021029\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Populism\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-02021029\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"POLITICAL SCIENCE\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Populism","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1163/25888072-02021029","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"POLITICAL SCIENCE","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

政策过程方面的文献关注的是技术官僚的内部人士,而民粹主义方面的学术研究关注的是蛊惑人心的外部人士。后者对精英的不信任、妥协和细微差别使他们在反对派或政府中具有潜在的效力,但在选举期间作为政策形成的干预者则不那么明显。我们认为,在某些条件下,民粹主义者可以在不夺取权力的情况下有效地将自己插入政策过程,甚至可以减少他们认为存在于“精英”和“人民”之间的基本极性。特别是,民粹主义者可以通过让被诽谤的精英违背自己的利益来“捣乱”政策过程,即使民粹主义者自己无法就其他政策达成一致。本文利用原始档案资料,阐述了20世纪90年代末反对多边投资协定的跨国运动是如何让人痛苦的。在这样做的过程中,我们有助于理解如何利用本杰明·莫菲特的民粹主义风格概念来分析左翼跨国非政府政策企业家,而不是经常关注民粹主义政治学研究的右翼国家政府抱负者。我们的结论是,政治学家和历史学家之间的跨学科学术研究可以确定民粹主义者更有可能对政策产生影响的情况。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Operation Monkey Wrench: Toward a Populist Policy Process?
The policy process literature focuses on technocratic insiders, while scholarship on populism hones in on demagogic outsiders. The latter’s distrust of elites, compromise, and nuance makes them potentially effective in opposition or government, but less obviously as intervenors in policy formation between elections. We argue that, under certain conditions, populists can effectively insert themselves into policy processes without seizing power or even reducing the basic polarity they believe exists between “the elite” and “the people.” In particular, populists can “monkey wrench” the policy process by getting maligned elites to act against their own interests, even if the populists themselves can agree on no alternative policies. Using original archival materials, we illustrate how the transnational movement against the Multilateral Agreement on Investment in the late 1990s deployed monkey-wrenching. In so doing, we contribute to an understanding of how Benjamin Moffitt’s conception of the populist style can be deployed to analyze left-wing transnational nongovernmental policy entrepreneurs, instead of the right-wing national government aspirants who are often focused upon in political science research on populism. We conclude that interdisciplinary scholarship between political scientists and historians can identify circumstances when populists’ influence on policy is more likely.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
1.50
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信