IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v52y2022i3p1296-1314_17.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Are Policy Analogies Persuasive? The Household Budget Analogy and Public Support for Austerity

Author

Listed:
  • Barnes, Lucy
  • Hicks, Timothy

Abstract

Public opinion on complex policy questions is shaped by the ways in which elites simplify the issues. Given the prevalence of metaphor and analogy as tools for cognitive problem solving, the deployment of analogies is often proposed as a tool for this kind of influence. For instance, a prominent explanation for the acceptance of austerity is that voters understand government deficits through an analogy to household borrowing. Indeed, there are theoretical reasons to think the household finance analogy represents a most likely case for the causal influence of analogical reasoning on policy preferences. This article examines this best-case scenario using original survey data from the United Kingdom. It reports observational and experimental analyses that find no evidence of causation running from the household analogy to preferences over the government budget. Rather, endorsement of the analogy is invoked ex post to justify support for fiscal consolidation.

Suggested Citation

  • Barnes, Lucy & Hicks, Timothy, 2022. "Are Policy Analogies Persuasive? The Household Budget Analogy and Public Support for Austerity," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 52(3), pages 1296-1314, July.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:52:y:2022:i:3:p:1296-1314_17
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123421000119/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. DiGiuseppe, Matthew & Del Ponte, Alessandro, 2023. "Bottom-Up Sovereign Debt Preferences," SocArXiv wxr67, 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:bjposi:v:52:y:2022:i:3:p:1296-1314_17. 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/jps .

    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.