
The surge of right-wing populism in East-Central Europe is often portrayed as an unforeseen shift from the earlier post-1989 liberalization path. The 鈥渋lliberal transformation鈥 narrative underlines stark differences between the policy arsenals that informed democratization and marketization reforms in the early 1990s and those fueling current 鈥.鈥 Yet this framing conceals the analytical maneuver of disconnecting the political sphere from its socioeconomic counterpart, thereby limiting democracy to the former and defining democratic participation based on electoral competition.
It was precisely this separation, which at the dawn of post-communist transformation, tended to align democratization not with leveling erstwhile power and wealth disparities, but with by the lingering elements of Soviet bureaucracy. Conceived in this way, democratization was deemed to be an engine of market reforms. Insofar as much of the 鈥渢ransitology鈥 scholarship operated with a parochial 鈥渄emocracy鈥 versus 鈥渁uthoritarianism鈥 dichotomy, it repeatedly obscured authoritarian tendencies in consolidating democratic systems.
In the recently published article , I argue that the corpus on 鈥渁uthoritarian neoliberalism鈥 is well-positioned to instigate a much-needed departure from this externalization of 鈥減olitical鈥 and 鈥渟ocioeconomic鈥 spheres when revisiting the intricacies of post-communist transformation in general and monetary reforms in the Baltic states in particular.
Read More »