The Austerity Debate and Mass Politics in Post-Crisis Economies

What explains the specific choice of post-crisis policies that governments have adopted and the minimal electoral consequences their pursuit of austerity measures has generated? In the fallout from the financial crisis, a fierce debate over the most effective approach to reviving the economy has formed: whereas some advocate increased spending in the short term to stimulate the economy, others call for immediate and sizable cuts in government expenditures. Yet while the former approach seemingly requires taking less painful steps in the short run, governments have mostly pursued the latter approach of austerity. This paper studies one potential explanation: voters' preferences and beliefs on how best to deal with an economic downturn. We do so using an original, multi-country survey fielded in five European countries embroiled in the austerity debate: Italy, Spain, France, Greece, and the UK. We theorize about the determinants of attitudes toward austerity and use an experimental conjoint design to estimate the sensitivity of voters' preferences to different types of spending cuts and tax increases. We then decompose the treatment effects to assess the potential explanations for cross-country differences in mass preferences. Our findings offer insight on the nature of the political fractures in the Eurozone after the crisis as well as on the political leeway that politicians face in implementing austerity policies in post-crisis economies.