Based on the Institutional Hardball Framework (IHF), this article introduces five hardball tactics to explain how illiberal populist leaders reshape policy processes amid democratic backsliding. Departing from traditional theories of policy change—grounded in assumptions of liberal democracy, institutional stability, and pluralism—the IHF conceptualizes institutional hardball as the strategic weakening, circumvention, or instrumentalization of democratic constraints to advance political agendas. Illiberal populist leaders’ strategy of institutional hardball directly affects the administrative state, especially the bureaucracy, which places constraints on power as part of its professional duty. Drawing on comparative case studies from Brazil, Hungary, Mexico, the Philippines, Poland, Turkey, and the United States, the article develops a typology of five hardball tactics: normative, administrative, deliberative, symbolic, and judicial. These tactics erode core mechanisms of policy resilience, thereby enabling policy dismantling, paralysis, and scapegoating. The article contributes to the literature by offering a systematic and operational framework to analyze policy processes under conditions of democratic backsliding and asymmetric polarization.
BauerMWKnillC (2012) Understanding policy dismantling: an analytical framework. In: BauerMWKnillCSteinebachP (eds) Dismantling Public Policy: Preferences, Strategies, and Effects. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, pp.30–55.
2.
BauerMWPetersBGPierreJ, et al. (eds) (2021) Democratic Backsliding and Public Administration: How Populists in Government Transform State Bureaucracies. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
3.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1991) Agenda dynamics and policy subsystems. The Journal of Politics53(4): 1044–1074.
4.
BaumgartnerFRJonesBD (1993) Agendas and Instability in American Politics. Chicago, IL, USA: University of Chicago Press.
5.
Ben-GhiatR (2020) Strongmen: Mussolini to the Present. New York: W. W. Norton & Company.
6.
BermeoN (2016) On democratic backsliding. Journal of Democracy27(1): 5–19.
7.
BodaZ (2024) Political governance: Conceptualizing the governance style of illiberal politics. In: MoraisMGomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Cham: Springer Nature, pp.59–83.
8.
BronzoCAraújoE (2024) Desmonte da política de assistência social no Brasil pós 2016: Uma tragédia anunciada. Revista Brasileira de Ciência Política43. DOI: 10.1590/0103-3352.2024.43.278905.
9.
CobanMK (2024) The political economic sources of policy non-design and the decay in policy capacity in Turkey. In: MoraisMGomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Cham: Springer Nature, pp.113–137.
10.
de VriesJ (2024) Dismantling science and technology policies in Mexico. In: MoraisMGomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Springer Nature, pp.137–158.
11.
GomideAMoraisMLeopoldiMA (2023) Políticas públicas em contexto de retrocesso democrático e populismo reacionário: Desmontes e reconfigurações. In: Desmonte e reconfiguração de políticas públicas no Brasil (2016–2022). Brasilia: Ipea.
12.
Guedes-NetoJV (2024) Do you love me? The effects of budget cuts on intrinsic motivation during the Trump administration. In: Morais de Sá e SilvaMde Ávila GomideA (ed) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding. International Series on Public Policy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.311–333.
13.
HackerJSPiersonP (2015) Confronting asymmetric polarization. In: PierselyN (ed) Solutions to Political Polarization in America. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, pp.59–70.
14.
HaggardSKaufmanR (2021) Backsliding: Democratic Regress in the Contemporary World. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
15.
HuntingtonSP (1991) The Third Wave: Democratization in the Late Twentieth Century. Norman, OK: University of Oklahoma Press.
16.
Itrich-DrabarekJPleckaD (2024) Populist drift in Poland. In: MoraisMGomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland, pp.85–109.
17.
JonesBD (1994) Reconceiving Decision-Making in Democratic Politics: Attention, Choice, and Public Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
18.
KingdonJWStanoE (1984) Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Boston, MA: Little, Brown and Company.
19.
KogaNPalottiPCoutoB, et al. (2024) Dismantling policies through (de)mobilization of analytical capacity: cases from Brazil. In: Morais de Sá e SilvaMde Ávila GomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding. Cham, Switzerland: Springer Nature, pp.159–189.
20.
LevitskySMurilloMV (2009) Variation in institutional strength. Annual Review of Political Science12(1): 115–133.
21.
Levitsky S and Murillo MV. Building institutions on weak foundations: Lessons from Latin America. In: Brinks D and Mainwaring S (eds) Guillermo O'Donnell and the Study of Democracy. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; 2014.
22.
LevitskySZiblattD (2018) How Democracies Die. New York: Crown Publishing Group.
23.
LindblomCE (1959) The science of “muddling through”. Public Administration Review19(2): 79–88.
24.
LottaGFernandezMPedoteJP, et al. (2024) Action and reaction: how bureaucrats cope with different forms of political oppression. In: MoraisMGomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Cham: Springer Nature, pp.285–310.
25.
MahoneyJThelenK (eds) (2010) Explaining Institutional Change: Ambiguity, Agency, and Power. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
26.
MilhoranceC (2022) Policy dismantling and democratic regression in Brazil under Bolsonaro: coalition politics, ideas, and underlying discourses. Review of Policy Research39: 752–770.
27.
MilhoranceCde AndradeMLle CoqJF, et al. (2024) Democratic public action during times of backsliding: Examining the resilience of Brazil’s food and water policies. In: Morais de Sá e SilvaMde Ávila GomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding. International Series on Public Policy. Cham: Palgrave Macmillan, pp.227–258.
28.
MoraisM (2022) Policy dismantling by capacity manipulation in a context of democratic backsliding: the bureaucracy in disarray in Bolsonaro’s Brazil. International Review of Public Policy4(3): 272–292.
29.
Morais de Sa e SilvaMGomideAA (eds) (2024) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Cham: Springer Nature Switzerland.
30.
MoulinCSA (2024) Capacity-building, dismantling strategies, and resistance tactics in Brazilian environmental agencies: changes in IBAMA’s authority and nodality tools from 2004 to 2022. In: MoraisMGomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Springer Nature, pp.259–284.
31.
PeetRHartwickE (2015) Theories of Development: Contentions, Arguments, Alternatives. Guilford.
32.
PiersonP (1993) When effect becomes cause: policy feedback and political change. World Politics45(4): 595–628.
33.
PiersonP (2004) Princeton, NJ: Politics in Time: History, Institutions, and Social Analysis. Princeton University Press.
34.
PiersonPSchicklerE (2024) Partisan Nation: The Dangerous New Logic of American Politics in a Nationalized Era. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
35.
RichJAFonsecaEMDBowerL (2024) What makes bureaucracies politically resilient? Evidence from Brazil’s COVID-19 vaccination campaign. Comparative Politics57(1): 25–48.
36.
RostowWW (1960) The Stages of Economic Growth: A Non-Communist Manifesto. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
37.
SabatierPA (1988) An Advocacy Coalition Framework of policy change and the role of policy-oriented learning therein. Policy Sciences21(2-3): 129–168.
38.
SaguinKMedina-GuceC (2024) Dismantling while accumulating: dynamics of local participatory institutions in the Philippines. In: MoraisMGomideA (eds) Public Policy in Democratic Backsliding: How Illiberal Populists Engage with the Policy Process. Cham: Springer Nature, pp.191–224.
39.
ScheppeleKL (2022) The diseases of constitutional democracy. Verfassung und Recht in Übersee/Law and Politics in Africa, Asia and Latin America55(4): 528–541.
40.
SilveiraMC (2024) Navigating challenging settings: bureaucrats’ policy entrepreneurship and divergence practices within Brazil’s environmental and indigenous agencies. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation.
41.
StreeckWThelenK (eds) 2005Beyond Continuity: Institutional Change in Advanced Political Economies. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
42.
VarolOO (2014) Stealth authoritarianism. Iowa Law Review100: 1673.
43.
WeibleCM (ed) (2023) Theories of the Policy Process. 5th ed.New York, NY: Routledge.
44.
YesilkagitKBauerMPetersBG, et al. (2024) The Guardian State: strengthening the public service against democratic backsliding. Public Administration Review84(3): 414–425.
