In this case I suspect the author is talking about a popular interpretation of populism where a politician in question intends to make sweeping changes to constitutions and rights where those are seen to be working against the popular interest.
In this case the answer might be to curb the rights of specific types of family investors somehow, for instance in European property markets (to take an example from the author) where this is seen as distorting the markets and causing pain to people - for instance not being able to afford housing, or ending up in negative equity because such funds pull out of the market and cause a bubble to collapse.
In this case I suspect the author is talking about a popular interpretation of populism where a politician in question intends to make sweeping changes to constitutions and rights where those are seen to be working against the popular interest.
In this case the answer might be to curb the rights of specific types of family investors somehow, for instance in European property markets (to take an example from the author) where this is seen as distorting the markets and causing pain to people - for instance not being able to afford housing, or ending up in negative equity because such funds pull out of the market and cause a bubble to collapse.