IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/bjposi/v53y2023i4p1170-1188_5.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Does Austerity Cause Polarization?

Author

Listed:
  • Hübscher, Evelyne
  • Sattler, Thomas
  • Wagner, Markus

Abstract

In recent decades, governments in many Western democracies have shown a remarkable consensus in pursuing fiscal austerity measures during periods of strained public finances. In this article, we show that these decisions have consequences for political polarization. Our macro-level analysis of 166 elections since 1980 finds that austerity measures increase both electoral abstention and votes for non-mainstream parties, thereby boosting party system polarization. A detailed analysis of selected austerity episodes also shows that new, small and radical parties benefit most from austerity policies. Finally, survey experiments with a total of 8,800 respondents in Germany, Portugal, Spain and the UK indicate that the effects of austerity on polarization are particularly pronounced when the mainstream right and left parties both stand for fiscal restraint. Austerity is a substantial cause of political polarization and hence political instability in industrialized democracies.

Suggested Citation

  • Hübscher, Evelyne & Sattler, Thomas & Wagner, Markus, 2023. "Does Austerity Cause Polarization?," British Journal of Political Science, Cambridge University Press, vol. 53(4), pages 1170-1188, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:cup:bjposi:v:53:y:2023:i:4:p:1170-1188_5
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S0007123422000734/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. Alberto Alesina & Gabriele Ciminelli & Davide Furceri & Giorgio Saponaro, 2024. "Austerity and elections," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 91(363), pages 1075-1099, July.

    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:53:y:2023:i:4:p:1170-1188_5. 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.