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.
Gomide et al. (Tue,) studied this question.