Efficient welfare policy in capitalist market societies is, from my viewpoint, country specific. Welfare economics is needed to humanize the capitalist market system, which is an ethical and rational necessity. This social issue leads to the methodical application of opportunity cost: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain%27t_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch,

GDP = G + C + I + net trade

Populist policy is part of G to stimulate C. If G and C grow so does the GDP. What is wrong with that? if all government spending is captured in G in the GDP equation, no government spending (even under the name of populist policy) could ever be called "waste."

I believe that the social support policies applied in some developing countries are unfair and hinder economic development, As governments in these countries subsidize basic commodities and foodstuffs to make them accessible to the poor, low-income classes, this measure also benefits the rich,This is completely illogical. How can the government support the wealthy, which will cost them huge sums

I think this is great question, and is relevant with both developing and developed countries. I believe the problem is with politicians and even non-elected rulers who prefer to launch investments and other governmental projects that yield short-term benefits.This may be the case despite the fact that long- term projects may be to the interest of a country for the purpose of economic development, stability, and growth. Politicians who seek the support of the voters , usually every four years, like to pinpoint their accomplishments to the citizens to become popular and reelected. Even non-elected rulers and bureaucrats like to be popular with the citizens of the country and prefer short-term projects.

This idea can be extended to deal with decisions involving inter-generational costs and benefits. Millions of economic decisions are made in this principle. This is why future generations bear more costs than benefits from economic activities of present generations. Increasing levels of pollution and deterioration of the environment can be explained on the same line of thinking.

Kind regards,

George K Zestos

George K. Zestos thanks a lot for your response/observation in details!

Short term social spending by governments is not on its own necessarily a bad thing. In highly unequal societies it moderates the condition of the very poor and may contribute to social stability through reducing the need for violent protests. Some populist actions when relating to such things as education and provision of boreholes to provide water may in fact have long term positive economic effects. The point I am making therefore is that populist programs to provide free or subsidized goods are not the same and it is the nature of the goods that need to be scrutinised. Populist schemes may in some cases have long term societal benefits but it is true that if they merely provide consumption goods they will not be sustainable and may damage the structure of the economy.

Thelima,

All those things you mentioned are not populist just because they help poor people. We must define populist politics those that yes they help people in the short run but in the long run are harmful. The it will be easy to discuss the Issue.

Best,

George K Zestos

George,

I accept your point completely. The challenge, I believe, lies in how the term populism is used by the media and by politicians. In these instances fluid meanings are attached and deployed as a means to attribute negative intentions to political opponents. Related to this is that once a politician or political party is labeled as "populist", all their programs become tainted by the label. This narrative may differ from country to country. A more scholarly definition of what we mean, what is included and what is excluded is useful for us to take this issue forward.

Yes Tlelima I agree with you,

We must examine one by one all major programs to decide whether they are can be considered populist or not regardless if the political party that proposed them is branded populist by the news media,

kind regards

George

It is quite possible that government transfers can actually improve the national economy. Low income earners will actually spend money they are given, whereas the rich will pocket it. If income inequality becomes too great, it will cripple any economy since no-one is spending anything and even the rich will be unable to make money. This is why 'rescue packages' to kickstart economies are always aimed at the poorest group if possible.

Yes, an obstacle to economic development and scientific progress.

Well-being prevents people from progressing in work and research

This answer is correct because economic development is not only economic growth i.e., more of the same. Economic development entails more economic growth and improvement in the quality of life. This means many things for example more democracy, respect of human rights, minorities, and women and so forth . Many populist politicians do not pursue such noble ideas even though they are elected politicians In countries that are considered democracies.

They can be beneficial in some cases. For example, welfare programs can help reduce poverty and inequality, which can lead to greater social stability and economic growth. However, if these programs are not well-designed or implemented, they can also have negative effects on economic development.

To balance welfare politics and economic development, policymakers need to carefully consider the costs and benefits of different policies. They should also take into account the specific needs and circumstances of their country or region. For example, some countries may need to focus more on reducing poverty and inequality, while others may need to prioritize economic growth.