IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/apsrev/v115y2021i2p486-505_10.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Why Austerity? The Mass Politics of a Contested Policy

Author

Listed:
  • BANSAK, KIRK
  • BECHTEL, MICHAEL M.
  • MARGALIT, YOTAM

Abstract

The effects of austerity in response to financial crises are widely contested and assumed to cause significant electoral backlash. Nonetheless, governments routinely adopt austerity when confronting economic downturns and swelling deficits. We explore this puzzle by distinguishing public acceptance of austerity as a general approach and support for specific austerity packages. Using original survey data from five European countries, we show that austerity is in fact the preferred response among most voters. We develop potential explanations for this surprising preference and demonstrate the empirical limitations of accounts centered on economic interests or an intuitive framing advantage. Instead, we show that the preference for austerity is highly sensitive to its political backers and precise composition of spending cuts and tax hikes. Using a novel approach to estimate support for historical austerity programs, we contend that governments’ strategic crafting of policy packages is a key factor underlying the support for austerity.

Suggested Citation

  • Bansak, Kirk & Bechtel, Michael M. & Margalit, Yotam, 2021. "Why Austerity? The Mass Politics of a Contested Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 115(2), pages 486-505, May.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:115:y:2021:i:2:p:486-505_10
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0003055420001136/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Ketchley, Neil & Eibl, Ferdinand & Gunning, Jeroen, 2023. "Anti-austerity riots in late developing states: evidence from the 1977 Egyptian Bread Intifada," LSE Research Online Documents on Economics 119831, London School of Economics and Political Science, LSE Library.
    2. DiGiuseppe, Matthew & Del Ponte, Alessandro, 2023. "Bottom-Up Sovereign Debt Preferences," SocArXiv wxr67, Center for Open Science.
    3. Nora Bearth & Michael Lechner, 2024. "Causal Machine Learning for Moderation Effects," Papers 2401.08290, arXiv.org, revised Apr 2024.
    4. Alpino, Matteo & Asatryan, Zareh & Blesse, Sebastian & Wehrhöfer, Nils, 2022. "Austerity and distributional policy," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 131(C), pages 112-127.
    5. Carmignani, Fabrizio, 2022. "The electoral fiscal multiplier," Economic Analysis and Policy, Elsevier, vol. 76(C), pages 938-945.
    6. Lax-Martinez, Gema & Rohner, Dominic & Saia, Alessandro, 2022. "Threat of taxation, stagnation and social unrest: Evidence from 19th century sicily," Journal of Economic Behavior & Organization, Elsevier, vol. 202(C), pages 361-371.
    7. David J. Hebert & Michael D. Curry, 2022. "Optimal lockdowns," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 263-274, December.
    8. Kyung Suk Lee & Kirby Goidel & Clifford Young, 2023. "The system is broken: Can we have some more?," Social Science Quarterly, Southwestern Social Science Association, vol. 104(1), pages 39-53, January.
    9. Jaroslaw Kantorowicz, 2023. "Testing public reaction to constitutional fiscal rules violations," Constitutional Political Economy, Springer, vol. 34(4), pages 483-509, December.
    10. Markus Eller & Branimir Jovanovic & Thomas Scheiber, 2021. "What do people in CESEE think about public debt?," Focus on European Economic Integration, Oesterreichische Nationalbank (Austrian Central Bank), issue Q3/21, pages 35-58.
    11. Bremer, Björn & Bürgisser, Reto, 2022. "Lower Taxes At All Costs? Evidence from a Survey Experiment in Four European Countries," SocArXiv e6ds9, Center for Open Science.
    12. Bansak, Kirk & Paulson, Elisabeth, 2023. "Public Opinion on Fairness and Efficiency for Algorithmic and Human Decision-Makers," OSF Preprints pghmx, Center for Open Science.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:apsrev:v:115:y:2021:i:2:p:486-505_10. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/psr .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.