Denmark’s austerity cuts occurred during a boom, not a slump

Evidence

In fact, later work by the IMF does not see Denmark as an example of “fiscal consolidation motivated by a desire to reduce the budget deficit” because the economy was overheating when the consolidation was undertaken. That is, the cuts were taken in a boom, not a slump. — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 564

Categorization

• XREF: Directly challenges the expansionary austerity narrative — austerity is supposed to work in depressions, yet the canonical positive case was done in a boom. Relevant to Mattei’s periodization of when austerity is sold. — connects to: Austerity was historically contingent, not inevitable — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 621; Successful austerity required devaluation and boom timing, not fiscal contraction alone. — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 503; Alleged expansionary austerity episodes actually occurred during economic growth, not slumps. — Mark Blyth, Austerity: The History of a Dangerous…, 576 (+3 more)

Broader Connections

• Alleged expansionary austerity episodes actually occurred during economic growth, not slumps. #exemplifies (0.90) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 576
• Successful austerity required devaluation and boom timing, not fiscal contraction alone. #expands (0.85) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 503
• Denmark’s consolidation was roughly half spending cuts and half tax increases #expands (0.85) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 562
• Expectations-based expansionary austerity theory rests on Denmark and Ireland cases #corroborates (0.80) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 457
• Austerity was historically contingent, not inevitable #qualifies (0.75) — Mark Blyth, Austerity, 621