Welfare Cuts and the Roots of Populism: How Economic Insecurity Fuels the Far Right

Decades of austerity and shrinking welfare states have bred fear, resentment and mistrust creating the perfect conditions for populist and far-right movements to thrive warns UN expert Olivier De Schutter.

Across much of the world, the far right is no longer on the fringes of politics it’s a growing force in parliaments, governments and public opinion. According to Olivier De Schutter, the United Nations’ special rapporteur on extreme poverty and human rights, this surge is not simply the result of cultural backlash or anti-immigrant sentiment. Instead, he argues, decades of welfare cuts and neglect by mainstream politicians have created the fertile ground on which populism thrives. His warning, delivered ahead of a report to the UN General Assembly, suggests that dismantling social protections has done more than weaken economic safety nets; it has eroded social trust and fueled resentment that extremists have learned to exploit.

De Schutter’s central claim is straightforward but profound: when people feel economically secure, they are less vulnerable to divisive, fear-based politics. For decades, however, governments from both the center-right and center-left have treated welfare as a financial burden rather than a social investment. From London to Lisbon, policymakers have tightened eligibility rules, increased surveillance of welfare claimants, and stigmatized those receiving benefits. The result, De Schutter says, has been the creation of a widespread “sense of scarcity “the idea that resources are limited, and that every benefit for one group must come at the expense of another. This “us versus them” mentality, he warns, is the emotional fuel that the far right has mastered turning into political power.

CHECK ALSO: Kenya at a Crossroads as Nation Reels from Raila Odinga’s Death

The UK, he notes, is a prime example. Years of austerity and cuts to social programs have left many communities struggling with insecurity and mistrust. That insecurity has helped populist forces like Nigel Farage’s Reform Party outflank traditional conservatives by stoking anger toward migrants and elites. “It’s completely terrifying,” De Schutter, pointing to the growth of anti-migrant protests and the normalization of far-right rhetoric in mainstream discourse. Similar patterns are visible across Europe in Germany with Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), in France with Marine Le Pen’s National Rally, and in the Netherlands with the Freedom Party each finding support in rural or deindustrialized regions that feel neglected and left behind.

De Schutter’s warning is backed by empirical evidence. A 2021 study examining 14 European countries found that rising income inequality directly correlated with increased support for populist parties. In contrast, robust welfare policies such as higher pensions, better minimum wage protections, and generous child allowances tend to reduce far-right voting. In other words, when citizens feel that the state protects them from economic shocks, they are less susceptible to political movements built on fear and resentment. Populist narratives often claim that migration and globalization are unaffordable luxuries, but the data contradicts that. Migrants in OECD countries, for example, contribute more in taxes and social payments than they receive in benefits. The problem, De Schutter argues, is not economic reality but the political stories people are told about scarcity and competition.

Once far-right or populist leaders take power, their economic policies tend to deepen the very inequalities they decry. De Schutter points to Donald Trump’s presidency in the United States and Javier Milei’s government in Argentina as cases where populists have, in practice, pursued tax cuts and welfare reductions that benefit elites rather than the working class. These governments, he says, “slash food assistance, healthcare and other life-saving services,” worsening poverty and inequality even as they promise to restore national pride and protect the “forgotten” citizen.

At the core of De Schutter’s argument is a plea to rethink the purpose of the welfare state. Social protection, he insists, is not a drain on public resources but a foundation for democratic stability. By guaranteeing basic needs through healthcare, unemployment support, and education governments can build trust, social cohesion, and resilience against the manipulative rhetoric of fearmongering politicians. Welfare should be seen as “an investment in the future,” he argues, not as a cost to be minimized. When states abandon that principle, they erode the sense of shared belonging that holds societies together.

Omega Tv UK celebrates ONE YEAR ANNIVERSARY, we wish to thank all our viewers for helping us reach this milestone.

Happy 1st anniversary to Omega TV UK!.

De Schutter’s message is ultimately a warning but also a call to action: rebuilding robust, universal welfare systems is not just an economic necessity it’s a defense of democracy itself. A society that allows insecurity and inequality to deepen risks fragmenting into rival groups competing for scarce resources. As he puts it, “Let us not, in the name of sound management of public finance, allow society to dissolve itself into a set of groups that are competing for scarce resources.” His argument reminds us that social protection is not only about compassion it is about preserving the social fabric that keeps democracies alive.

About The Author