Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T15:30:59.009Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Are governments paying a price for austerity? Fiscal consolidations reduce government approval

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  23 February 2021

Olivier Jacques Open the ORCID record for Olivier Jacques [Opens in a new window]  and
Lukas Haffert
Olivier Jacques*
Affiliation:
Department of Political Studies, Queen’s University, MacKintosh-Corry Hall, Room C321, Kingston, ON, Canada, KL7 3N6
Lukas Haffert
Affiliation:
Department of Political Science, University of Zurich, Affolternstrasse 56, 8050, Zurich, Switzerland
*
*E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

What are the political effects of fiscal consolidations? Theoretical considerations suggest that consolidations should reduce the public’s support for their governments, but empirical studies have found surprisingly small effects on government support. However, most of these studies analyze electoral outcomes, which are separated from the consolidation by a multi-link causal chain. We argue that more direct measures of government support, such as executive approval, show much stronger negative effects of consolidation, since they are less affected by the strategic timing of consolidations or the political alternatives on offer. We analyze a time series cross-sectional dataset of executive approval in 14 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries from 1978 to 2014, using the narrative approach to measure fiscal consolidations. We find that spending cuts decrease government approval, especially during economic downturns, but tax increases’ impact on approval remains minimal. Finally, left- and right-wing governments are equally likely to lose approval after implementing austerity.

Keywords

austerityfiscal consolidationsapprovalpublic opinioneconomic crisis
Type
Research Article
Information
European Political Science Review , Volume 13 , Issue 2 , May 2021 , pp. 189 - 207
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of European Consortium for Political Research

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agnello, L. and Sousa, R.M. (2014), ‘How does fiscal consolidation impact on income inequality?’, Review of Income and Wealth 60(4): 702–726.Google Scholar
Alesina, A., Carloni, D. and Lecce, G. (2011). The electoral consequences of large fiscal adjustments. (NBER Working Paper No. 17655).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alesina, A., Favero, C. and Giavazzi, F. (2019), Austerity: When it Works and when it Doesn’t, Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Alesina, A., Perotti, R. and Tavares, J. (1998), ‘The political economy of fiscal adjustments’, Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1: 197–266.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Alpino, M., Asatryan, Z., Blesse, S. and Wehrhöfer, N. (2020). Austerity and distributional policy. ZEW-Centre for European Economic Research Discussion Paper (20-028).Google Scholar
Ardanaz, M., Hallerberg, M. and Scartascini, C. (2019). Fiscal Consolidations and Electoral Outcomes in Emerging Economies: Does the Policy Mix Matter? Macro and Micro Level Evidence from Latin America. (IDB-WP-1002).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arias, E. and Stasavage, D. (2019), ‘How large are the political costs of fiscal austerity?’, The Journal of Politics 81(4): 1517–1522.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K. and Giger, N. (2008), ‘Conditional punishment: a comparative analysis of the electoral consequences of welfare state retrenchment in OECD nations, 1980–2003’, West European Politics 31(3): 558–580.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Armingeon, K., Wenger, V., Wiedemeier, F., Isler, C., Knöpfel, L., Weisstanner, D. and Engler, S. (2019). Comparative Political Data Set 1960-2017.Google Scholar
Auerbach, A.J. and Gorodnichenko, Y. (2012), ‘Measuring the output responses to fiscal policy’, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy 4(2): 1–27.Google Scholar
Bansak, K., Bechtel, M.M. and Margalit, Y. (2019). Why Austerity? The Mass Politics of a Contested Policy. Working paper.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bellemare, M.F., Masaki, T. and Pepinsky, T.B. (2017), ‘Lagged explanatory variables and the estimation of causal effect’, The Journal of Politics 79(3): 949–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackwell, M. (2013), ‘A framework for dynamic causal inference in political science’, American Journal of Political Science 57(2): 504–520.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blyth, M. (2013), Austerity. The History of a Dangerous Idea, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Bojar, A. (2018), ‘The electoral advantage of the left in times of fiscal adjustment’, European Political Science Review 10(2): 291–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bond, J.R., Fleisher, R. and Wood, B.D. (2003), ‘The marginal and time-varying effect of public approval on presidential success in congress’, The Journal of Politics 65(1): 92–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Born, B., Müller, G.J. and Pfeifer, J. (2020), ‘Does austerity pay off?’, The Review of Economics and Statistics 102(2): 323–338.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bremer, B. and Bürgisser, R. (2019). Are citizens austerians? Evidence from survey experiments on budgetary preferences and priorities.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brender, A. and Drazen, A. (2008), ‘How do budget deficits and economic growth affect reelection prospects? Evidence from a large panel of countries’, American Economic Review 98(5): 2203–2220.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buti, M., Turrini, A., Van den Noord, P. and Biroli, P. (2009), ‘Defying the ‘Juncker curse’: can reformist governments be re-elected?’, Empirica 36(1): 65–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Camerlo, M. and Pérez-Liñán, A. (2015), ‘The politics of minister retention in presidential systems: technocrats, partisans, and government approval’, Comparative Politics 47(3): 315–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Canes-Wrone, B. and De, S. Marchi, (2002), ‘Presidential approval and legislative success’, Journal of Politics 64(2): 491–509.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carlin, R., Hartlyn, J., Hellwig, T., Love, G., Martinez-Gallardo, C., and Singer, M. (2020). Executive Approval Project. Retrieved from: http://www.executiveapproval.org/ Google Scholar
Chen, C., Dabla-Norris, E., Rappaport, J. and Zdzienicka, A. (2019). Political Costs of Tax-Based Consolidations. (IMF Working Paper No. 19/298).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ciminelli, G., Furceri, D., Ge, J., Ostry, J.D. and Papageorgiou, C. (2019). The Political Costs of Reforms: Fear or Reality?, (IMF Staff Discussion Note 19/08).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dalton, R.J. (2016). Party identification and its implications. In Oxford Research Encyclopedia of Politics.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fetzer, T. (2019), ‘Did Austerity Cause Brexit?’, American Economic Review 109(11): 3849–3886.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foucault, M., Seki, K. and Whitten, G.D. (2017), ‘Good times, bad times: taxation and electoral accountability’, Electoral Studies 45: 191–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Giger, N. (2010), ‘Do voters punish the government for welfare state retrenchment? A comparative study of electoral costs associated with social policy’, Comparative European Politics 8(4): 415–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Grittersová, J., Indridason, I.H., Gregory, C.C. and Crespo, R. (2016), ‘Austerity and niche parties: the electoral consequences of fiscal reforms’, Electoral Studies 42: 276–289.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Guajardo, J., Leigh, D. and Pescatori, A. (2014), ‘Expansionary austerity? International evidence’, Journal of the European Economic Association 12(4): 949–968.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hainmueller, J., Mummolo, J. and Xu, Y. (2019), ‘How much should we trust estimates from multiplicative interaction models? Simple tools to improve empirical practice’, Political Analysis 28(1): 163–192.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hellwig, T. and Samuels, D. (2007), ‘Voting in open economies: the electoral consequences of globalization’, Comparative Political Studies 40(3): 283–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hernandez, E. and Kriesi, H. (2016), ‘The electoral consequences of the financial and economic crisis in Europe’, European Journal of Political Research 55(2): 203–224.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, A. (2020), ‘The asymmetric long-term electoral consequences of unpopular reforms: why retrenchment really is a losing game for left parties’, Journal of European Public Policy 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horn, A. and Jensen, C. (2017), ‘When and why politicians do not keep their welfare promises’, European Journal of Political Research 56(2): 381–400.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübscher, E., Kemmerling, A. and Sattler, T. (2015). Austerity for the win? The effect of fiscal consolidation on political support for the government. Paper presented at the EPSA Annual Conference, Vienna.Google Scholar
Hübscher, E. and Sattler, T. (2017), ‘Fiscal consolidation under electoral risk’, European Journal of Political Research 56(1): 151–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hübscher, E., Sattler, T. and Wagner, M. (2019). Does Austerity Cause Political Fragmentation? Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the International Political Economy Society (IPES), UC San Diego, November 15-16, 2019.Google Scholar
Hübscher, E., Sattler, T. and Wagner, M. (2020), ‘Voter Responses to Fiscal Austerity’, British Journal of Political Science, Advance Access 1–10.Google Scholar
Jacobs, A.M. and Matthews, J.S. (2012), ‘Why do citizens discount the future? Public opinion and the timing of policy consequences’, British Journal of Political Science 42(4): 903–935.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraft, J. (2017), ‘Social democratic austerity: the conditional role of agenda dynamics and issue ownership’, Journal of European Public Policy 24(10): 1430–1449.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis-Beck, M.S. and Paldam, M. (2000), ‘Economic voting: an introduction’, Electoral Studies 19(2–3): 113–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mulas-Granados, C. (2006), Economics, Politics and Budgets: The Political Economy of Fiscal Consolidations in Europe, London: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nyman, P. (2016). Punished for austerity? The electoral consequences of fiscal adjustments. (Working paper).Google Scholar
Pescatori, A., Leigh, M.D., Guajardo, J. and Devries, M.P. (2011), A New Action-Based Dataset of Fiscal Consolidation, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pickup, M. (2010), ‘Better know your dependent variable: a multination analysis of government support measures in economic popularity models’, British Journal of Political Science 40(2): 449–468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pierson, P. (2001). Coping with Permanent Austerity. Welfare State Retrenchment in Affluent Democracies. The new politics of the welfare state, 410-456.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ponticelli, J. and Voth, H.-J. (2020), ‘Austerity and anarchy: budget cuts and social unrest in Europe, 1919-2008’, Journal of Comparative Economics 48: 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Schumacher, G., Vis, B. and van Kersbergen, K. (2013), ‘Political parties’ welfare image, electoral punishment and welfare state retrenchment’, Comparative European Politics 11(1): 1–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Seki, K. and Williams, L.K. (2014), ‘Updating the Party Government data set’, Electoral Studies 34: 270–279.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Swedish National Data Service (2020), Data Catalogue. Retrieved from https://snd.gu.se/en Google Scholar
Talving, L. (2017), ‘The electoral consequences of austerity: economic policy voting in Europe in times of crisis’, West European Politics 40(3): 560–583.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tavares, J. (2004), ‘Does right or left matter? Cabinets, credibility and fiscal adjustments’, Journal of Public Economics 88(12): 2447–2468.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walter, S. (2016), ‘Crisis politics in Europe: why austerity is easier to implement in some countries than in others’, Comparative Political Studies 49(7): 841–873.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Jacques and Haffert supplementary material

Appendix

Download Jacques and Haffert supplementary material(File)
File 492.1 KB