Resumo

Esta tese de doutorado investiga a relação entre choques não econômicos e instabilidade financeira, desafiando as visões neoclássicas que tratam a política como mera externalidade. Utilizando um conjunto de dados de 638 depreciações agudas do mercado de ações superiores a -6% em 50 dos principais índices globais entre 1989 e 2024, o estudo emprega uma matriz 2x2 para categorizar os fatores desencadeantes em quatro categorias: política doméstica, negócios privados domésticos, política internacional e negócios privados transnacionais. Metodologicamente, a pesquisa aplica regressões de Mínimos Quadrados Ordinários (MQO), Modelos Lineares Multiníveis (MLM) e Modelagem de Equações Estruturais (SEM) para testar a hipótese principal de que a política tem um impacto mais severo do que a economia. Os resultados empíricos fornecem um forte suporte para essa hipótese, demonstrando que, embora os eventos não privados incluindo crises políticas, geopolíticas e sociais representem apenas 25% da amostra, eles impõem uma penalidade estatisticamente significativa sobre as avaliações, causando perdas mais profundas do que choques puramente privados. As principais conclusões revelam que os eventos domésticos são os principais impulsionadores da variação das perdas no mercado de ações, refletindo a persistência do papel do Estado e da vida doméstica em um mundo financeiro altamente globalizado. No entanto, a análise também confirma que a política internacional se tornou cada vez mais perigosa ao longo do tempo, uma mudança atribuída à ascensão da interdependência instrumentalizada e à aceleração das mudanças históricas. Além disso, a análise estrutural identifica um construto de Penalidade Doméstica (tanto política quanto relacionada a negócios privados) que atua como um depressor sistêmico do mercado, enquanto a ausência de variação regional indica que o risco financeiro moderno não está relacionado a preconceitos históricos em relação às economias emergentes. Em última análise, a tese sugere que a proposta neoliberal de um mercado privado isolado está se tornando impossível (se é que algum dia não foi) à medida que a política recupera sua força em nosso século.

Abstract

This doctoral dissertation the relationship between non-economic shocks and financial instability by challenging neoclassical views that treat politics as a mere externality. Utilizing a dataset of 638 acute stock market depreciations exceeding -6% across 50 major global indices between 1989 and 2024, the study employs a 2x2 matrix to typify triggers into four categories: domestic politics, domestic private business, international politics, and transnational private business. Methodologically, the research applies Ordinary Least Squares regressions, Multilevel Linear Models, and Structural Equation Modeling to test the primary hypothesis that politics hits harder than money. The empirical results provide robust support for this hypothesis, demonstrating that while non-private events comprising political, geopolitical, and social crises account for only 25% of the sample, they impose a statistically significant penalty on valuations, driving losses deeper than purely private shocks. Key findings reveal that domestic events are the primary drivers of stock loss variation, reflecting the persistence of the state's role and the domestic life in a highly globalized financial world. However, the analysis also confirms that international politics has become increasingly hazardous over time, a shift attributed to the rise of weaponized interdependence and an acceleration of historical change. Furthermore, structural analysis identifies a Domestic Penalty (both political and private business-related) construct that acts as a systemic market depressor, while the lack of regional variance indicates that modern financial risk is not related to historical prejudices regarding emerging economies. Ultimately, the thesis suggests that the neoliberal proposal of an insulated private market is becoming impossible (if it ever was not) as politics regains its strength in our century.

Resumo

Despite extensive research on populism, particularly its contemporary right-wing variants, its parodic dimension has received limited attention. While scholarship has highlighted the authoritarian tendencies of the rhetoric and practices of these actors, it has paid far less attention to the role of absurdity, excess and ridicule in its visual and affective logics. This dissertation addresses this gap by examining the role of parody in shaping contemporary right-wing populism. It argues that, in the current political climate, authority is not weakened by the ridiculous; rather, it is often produced and sustained through it. To develop this argument, this dissertation analyses the visual presence of three right-wing populist leaders on Instagram: Donald Trump in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Javier Milei in Argentina. The empirical material consists of 3,513 images collected from their official accounts. Through qualitative analysis, the study identifies a shared parodic aesthetic pattern across the cases, despite differences in national context and personal style. This pattern is theorized in the light of the concept of parody as a discovery of excess, which understands parody not as a feature of populism itself, but as a broader political dynamic that populism both channels and intensifies. In doing so, the dissertation contributes to socio-cultural approaches to populism by reframing key analytical categories such as transgression, identification, and the low, and by showing how parody operates as a structuring element of contemporary populist authority.

Abstract

Despite extensive research on populism, particularly its contemporary right-wing variants, its parodic dimension has received limited attention. While scholarship has highlighted the authoritarian tendencies of the rhetoric and practices of these actors, it has paid far less attention to the role of absurdity, excess and ridicule in its visual and affective logics. This dissertation addresses this gap by examining the role of parody in shaping contemporary right-wing populism. It argues that, in the current political climate, authority is not weakened by the ridiculous; rather, it is often produced and sustained through it. To develop this argument, this dissertation analyses the visual presence of three right-wing populist leaders on Instagram: Donald Trump in the United States, Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil and Javier Milei in Argentina. The empirical material consists of 3,513 images collected from their official accounts. Through qualitative analysis, the study identifies a shared parodic aesthetic pattern across the cases, despite differences in national context and personal style. This pattern is theorized in the light of the concept of parody as a discovery of excess, which understands parody not as a feature of populism itself, but as a broader political dynamic that populism both channels and intensifies. In doing so, the dissertation contributes to socio-cultural approaches to populism by reframing key analytical categories such as transgression, identification, and the low, and by showing how parody operates as a structuring element of contemporary populist authority.