IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v9y2021i1p180-188_12.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

All Keynesians now? Public support for countercyclical government borrowing

Author

Listed:
  • Barnes, Lucy
  • Hicks, Timothy

Abstract

In the wake of the 2008 financial crisis, macroeconomic policy returned to the political agenda, and the influence of Keynesian ideas about fiscal stimulus rose (and then fell) in expert circles. Much less is known, however, about whether and when Keynesian prescriptions for countercyclical spending have any support among the general public. We use a survey experiment, fielded twice, to recover the extent to which UK respondents hold such countercyclical attitudes. Our results indicate that public opinion was countercyclical—Keynesian—in 2016. We then use Eurobarometer data to estimate the same basic parameter for the population for the period 2010–2017. The observational results validate our experimental findings for the later period, but also provide evidence that the UK population held procyclical views at the start of the period. Thus, there appear to be important dynamics in public opinion on a key macroeconomic policy issue.

Suggested Citation

  • Barnes, Lucy & Hicks, Timothy, 2021. "All Keynesians now? Public support for countercyclical government borrowing," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 9(1), pages 180-188, January.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:9:y:2021:i:1:p:180-188_12
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847019000487/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. Alessia Aspide & Kathleen J. Brown & Matthew DiGiuseppe & Alexander Slaski, 2023. "Culture & European attitudes on public debt," New Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 28(4), pages 509-525, 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:pscirm:v:9:y:2021:i:1:p:180-188_12. 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/ram .

    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.