Should history change the way we think about populism?
本文探讨历史是否应改变经济学家和经济史学家对民粹主义的看法，基于穆勒的定义，提出三个历史论点：19世纪末美国民粹主义者并非民粹主义；民粹主义与反全球化无必然联系；经济学家有时在涉及民粹主义的政策辩论中站错立场。
Abstract This paper asks whether history should change the way in which economists and economic historians think about populism. We use Müller's definition, according to which populism is ‘an exclusionary form of identity politics, which is why it poses a threat to democracy’. We make three historical arguments. First, late‐nineteenth‐century US Populists were not populist. Second, there is no necessary relationship between populism and anti‐globalization sentiment. Third, economists have sometimes been on the wrong side of important policy debates involving opponents rightly or wrongly described as populist. History encourages us to avoid an overly simplistic view of populism and its correlates.