RevDem Podcast

In this interview Review of Democracy political economy editor Kristóf Szombati speaks with Vincent Liegey— degrowth activist, essayist, lecturer and editorial advisor of the new Routledge Handbook of Degrowth — about the roots, trajectory, and challenges of the degrowth movement.Beginning with the rise of degrowth from activist origins in early 2000s France to a now-global intellectual and political project, the wide-ranging conversation engages withdegrowth as an intellectual project and as a social movement, focusing on its breakthrough into mainstream discussion and the hurdles to it building up its influence. Liegey, who is originally from France but has been living for a long time in Hungary, touches on the erosion of trust in mainstream politics, the psychological cost of economiclife, and the political ambivalence of youth. Despite an admittedly grim outlook for a politics of solidarity, he highlights the power and autonomy of networked grassroots communities and insists that “everything is already here”to build a livable post-growth future. To get there he calls for a three-pronged strategy based on survival, resistance, and readiness. 

In recent years, the EU’s increasingly right-leaning discourse on migration has given rise to a new narrative: the instrumentalization of migration. EU member states strivefor lower human rights standards, arguing that Belarus, under the authoritarian rule of Alexander Lukashenko, deliberately sends individuals who have fled countries such as Afghanistan and Iraq to the EU’s borders in order to overwhelm them, at times even accusing these individuals of collaborating with Belarusian authorities. Currently, three cases related to this situation are pending before the European Court of Human Rights. In this conversation, Prof. Nora Markard examines the origins of the narrative of the “instrumentalization of migration” and the legal challenges it presents—particularly with regard tothe principle of non-refoulement and the prohibition of collective expulsion in the pending cases. She argues that these cases pose a serious threat to the rule of law, as EU member states increasingly disregard their obligations undermigration law and seek exceptions before the court. The discussion then shifts to broader challenges in human rights protection, including the misappropriation of rights and the question of whether a strong focus on the legality of state actions might actually undermine human rights. ]Prof. Markard notes that, while human rights are being questioned today in ways that might not have occurred a decade ago—and despite legitimate criticisms of the humanrights framework—it remains essential to make the most of it.

In the latest episode of our monthly special incooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Francis Fukuyama and Beatriz Magaloni discuss why democratic legitimacy increasingly hinges on governments’ ability to deliver tangible results.Drawing on their co-authored article with Chris Dann, “Delivering for Democracy: Why Results Matter” (April2025, Vol. 26, No. 2), Fukuyama and Magaloni examine how unmet expectations around infrastructure, security, and economic opportunity are fueling distrust in democratic systems and possibly opening the door to authoritarianalternatives. The conversation explores the performance–legitimacy nexus, whether democracies can overcome their “vetocratic” hurdles without compromising their core values, and what reforms might help reverse the global democratic malaise.

In the new episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Serhii Plokhii discusses the key aspects of Russia’s war in Ukraine, the clash between democracy and autocracy.Serhii Plokhii, Mykhailo S. Hrushevs'kyi Professor of Ukrainian History and Director of the Ukrainian Research Institute at the Harvard University, analyzes the development of Russian and Ukrainian political cultures, considers democracy as a factor of international relations, and assesses the impact of the war.In the framework of this partnership, authors discuss outstanding articles from the latest print issue of the Journal of Democracy. The conversation is based on Serhii Plokhii’s article “David vs. Goliath: Defeating Russian Autocracy” which has been published in the April 2025 (36/2) issue.

In this episode of the Review of Democracy podcast, Alexandra Medzibrodszky speaks with Patricia Owens,renowned professor of international relations at Oxford, about her bold and revelatory new book, Erased: A History of International Thought Without Man (Princeton University Press, 2025). Owens exposes the hidden foundations ofinternational relations in Britain, not as a field founded solely by elite white men, but one deeply shaped by the intellectual work of women—figures such as Margery Perham, Merze Tate, Eileen Power, and Susan Strange—whose ideas andinfluence have long been buried under layers of academic erasure.Owens shares the story behind her archival detective work, the personal and professional struggles of these women, and how their exclusion from the canon fundamentally weakened the intellectual foundations of IR. This is more than a story of forgotten contributions—it is a powerful call to confront the gendered and racialised roots of scholarly disciplines. Tune in for a compelling discussion that challenges the way wewrite and remember the history of ideas.

In this conversation with Professor Vamsi Vakulabharanam, we explore the relationship between democracy and economic inequality by examining the divergenttrajectories of China and India, as detailed in his recently published book, Class and Inequality in China andIndia, 1950-2010 (Oxford University Press, 2024). Through a comparative lens, Vamsi probes how political regimes—one authoritarian, the other democratic—shaped theeconomic responses to inequality in each country.While both nations began their postcolonial histories with ambitious visions of development, their political systems produced markedly different outcomes. In India, democraticgovernance allowed for broad participation but was also shaped by elite consensus.Post-independence reforms, though grounded in democratic ideals, often took a top-down form that prioritized the interests of rural capitalists and dominant castes. This constrained the potential for deep structural transformation,despite the formal mechanisms of political inclusion.China, on the other hand, undertook radical redistributive measures—land reforms, massliteracy campaigns, grassroots healthcare programs, and gender-focused initiatives—under an authoritarian regime that bypassed electoral accountability but implemented egalitarian policies more decisively. These interventions, Vamsi argues, laid a durable foundation for China’s latereconomic growth and relative success in reducing inequality.Rather than viewing democracy as inherently egalitarian, Vamsi invites us to consider how democratic systems can reproduce hierarchies if they are not grounded in strongredistributive commitments. By situating economic shifts within their political contexts, Vamsi offers a nuanced view of democracy—not as an automatic guarantor of equality, but as a contested terrain where class interests and institutional design deeply influence economic outcomes. This conversation reframes the question: not simply whether democracy matters for development, but what kind of democracy can enable just and equitable economicfutures.

In this episode, investigative journalist and historian Isaac Stanley-Becker discusses his revealing new book, Europe Without Borders: A History (Princeton University Press). Drawing on newly accessible archives and in-depth interviews, Stanley-Becker sheds light on the little-known origins of the Schengen Agreement—long celebrated as a cornerstone of European integration and free movement. Yet, as this conversation uncovers, the story behind Schengen is far more complex. The book reveals how the agreement was forged through diplomatic secrecy, reinforced surveillance systems, and the tightening of external borders, often at the expense of migrants from former European colonies. The podcast explores how these contradictions were built into Schengen from the start, how postcolonial activist movements like the sans-papiers challenged its exclusionary logic, and whether the original vision of a borderless Europe can survive in the face of renewed nationalism, migration crises, and the erosion of trust in European unity. It’s a conversation that opens up vital questions about the meaning of freedom, belonging, and mobility in today’s Europe.

In the new episode of our monthly special in cooperation with the Journal of Democracy, Dan Slater discusses the authoritarian origins of the third wave of democratization.Dan Slater – who is James Orin Murfin Professor of Political Science and the director of the Center for Emerging Democracies at the International Institute at the University of Michigan – explains what inspired him to critique Samuel Huntington’s influential interpretation of the third waveof democratization; discusses the rise and fall of left-wing and right-wing authoritarian waves in the 1970s and 1980s; examines how the democratization of countries thatexited left-wing authoritarian regimes may have differed from those leaving behind right-wing ones; considers the extent to which geopolitics might explain politicalchange; and reflects on what might be new and distinct  about the current wave of right-wing authoritarianism– and how the authoritarian waves of the recent past might help us grasp it better.In the framework of this partnership, authors discuss outstanding articles from the latest print issue of the Journal of Democracy. The conversation is based on Dan Slater’sarticle “The Authoritarian Origins of the Third Wave” which has been published in the April 2025 (36/2) issue.

In this wide-ranging conversation on hydrology and climate change, Dr. Dipak Gyawali, former Minister of Water Resources for Nepal, offers a series of crucial insights into the often indifferent, selectively inadequate, and politically compromised responses to the climate crisis. Arguing for a more sophisticated, multipronged approach, Dr. Gyawali critiques dominant Western scientific paradigms for failing to recognize the climate crisis primarily as a crisis of water. He highlights how these frameworks not only marginalizewater-related concerns but also frequently dismiss indigenous hydrological knowledge systems as unscientific or primitive, thereby reinforcing global hierarchies of knowledge and power.Urging communities and policymakers alike to rethink the prevailing narratives that frame climate change, Dr. Gyawalisituates his critique in the context of Nepal—a landlocked country with an estimated 6,000 rivers and the world’s second-largest reserve of fresh water. For Dr. Gyawali, Nepal serves as a powerful case study of how globalized,technocratic approaches often overlook the political and democratic dimensions of water governance. He argues that genuine sustainability cannot be achieved without broad-based equitability over governance. Drawing from his ownexperiences both as a field researcher and as a minister navigating the political complexities of water policy, he underscores how centralized, top-down management of water resources often exacerbates existing inequalitiesand undermines democratic decision-making processes. In this light, he calls for a radical rethinking of global “hydro-hegemony”—the political domination of water resources by powerful interests—and urges a shift toward more inclusive,community-driven models of hydrological governance. Dr. Gyawali challenges the international community to move beyond tokenistic gestures and to engagemeaningfully with the democratic potential embedded in local and indigenous approaches to water stewardship.

Since the seminal 2018 Portuguese Judges case, it has been established that violations of values enshrined in Article 2 of the Treaty on European Union (TEU) can be litigated before the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU). Currently, proceedings are ongoing in the European Commission’s infringement action against Hungary, the argument being that its anti-LGBTQI+ laws breach provisions of the internal market, several Charter rights, and, importantly, the common values enshrined in Article 2 TEU. The case, known as Valeurs de l’Union, has been hailed as the “largest human rights battle in EU history.”In this RevDem Rule of Law podcast episode, our co-managing editor, Dr. Oliver Garner, discusses the enforcement of the Union’s values at the Member State level as well as at the Union’s institutional level with Dr. Luke Dimitrios Spieker.Dr. Spieker is Senior Research Fellow at the Max Planck Institute for Comparative Public Law and International Law and Postdoctoral Researcher at Humboldt University in Berlin. In his monograph, EU Values before the Court of Justice, published by Oxford University Press, he analyzes the foundations, potential, and risks of the mobilization of Article 2 TEU.