Austerity lacks an actual theory and is only a default sensibility in liberal economics
Evidence
For an idea so central to the governance of states and markets, austerity’s intellectual history is both short and shallow. There is no well worked out “theory of austerity” in economic thought that extends back in time to some foundational statements that became more systematized and rigorous over time as there is, for example, with trade theory. We have instead what David Colander has called a “sensibility” concerning the state, embedded in liberal economics from its inception, that produces “austerity” as the default answer to the question, what should we do when markets fail? — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 264
Categorization
- DEFINE: Frames austerity as a ‘sensibility’ rather than a worked-out theory, a crucial definitional move for the whole book.
- XREF: Connects to Mattei’s work on austerity as political project rather than economic doctrine. — connects to: Austerity theory only holds in a special case unlike actual economies — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 480; Austerity is economically irrational yet politically rational for preserving capitalism; Austerity is not a coherent doctrine but derivative of scattered state-role beliefs — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 66 (+2 more)
Broader Connections
- Austerity is not a coherent doctrine but derivative of scattered state-role beliefs
#corroborates(0.85) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 66 - Austerity theory only holds in a special case unlike actual economies
#expands(0.80) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 480 - Austerity needed economic theory to justify unpopular cutbacks after World War I
#complicates(0.80) — Clara E. Mattei, The Capital Order, 874 - Austerity is economically irrational yet politically rational for preserving capitalism
#expands(0.75)