Austerity advocates claimed voters reward politicians who cut welfare in recessions

Evidence

Drawing on separate work on the composition of governments and policy making, Alesina assures the assembled finance ministers that if they go in this direction and start to cut budgets in the middle of a recession, not only will it make things better, it will not cost them their jobs. In fact, the public will reward them for their boldness since cutting the welfare state is neither unfair nor avoidable. Cutting is fair since “the rhetoric about the immense social cost of fiscal adjustment is blown out of proportion and is often used strategically by certain groups, not necessarily the most disadvantaged, to protect themselves.” And it’s unavoidable because the welfare state and its transfers are too big not to touch and are precisely what need to be cut to make growth return and reduce the debt. — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 476

Categorization

• XREF: Directly relevant to Mattei on the intellectual history of austerity; also connects to the claim that austerity’s political appeal rests on making cuts seem electorally safe. — connects to: Political parties lose the capacity to reward supporters once austerity removes material incentives
• SEED: Angle: how the ‘voters reward cutting’ claim functions as a self-fulfilling narrative that legitimizes welfare-state retrenchment as both fair and expedient.