3. Speaking Austerity: Policy Rhetoric and Design beyond Fiscal Consolidation

Austerity ◽  
2017 ◽  
pp. 40-62
Author(s):  
Christopher Hood ◽  
Rozana Himaz

This chapter draws on historical statistics reporting financial outcomes for spending, taxation, debt, and deficit for the UK over a century to (a) identify quantitatively and compare the main fiscal squeeze episodes (i.e. major revenue increases, spending cuts, or both) in terms of type (soft squeezes and hard squeezes, spending squeezes, and revenue squeezes), depth, and length; (b) compare these periods of austerity against measures of fiscal consolidation in terms of deficit reduction; and (c) identify economic and financial conditions before and after the various squeezes. It explores the extent to which the identification of squeeze episodes and their classification is sensitive to which thresholds are set and what data sources are used. The chapter identifies major changes over time that emerge from this analysis over the changing depth and types of squeeze.


Author(s):  
Ben Clift

This chapter charts changing character of the economic ideas informing fiscal policymaking in Britain, and Fund responses to them. Drawing on interviews with the Fund’s UK Missions and UK authorities, it shows how, despite the IMF’s prizing of its non-political, scientific image, its differing views of UK policy space and prioritization became the stuff of a contested politics. The central assumption of the coalition government’s construction of fiscal rectitude was that Britain faced a ‘crisis of debt’, yet the IMF did not share this view. Fund work on fiscal multipliers being higher during recessions, and the adverse effects of fiscal consolidation on growth, all had pointed relevance for UK policy. The coalition government saw little potential for activist fiscal policy in support of growth. In 2013 Blanchard accused the UK authorities of ‘playing with fire’ by pursuing excessively harsh austerity which threatened a prolonged and deep recession.


Author(s):  
Gisela Hirschmann

How can international organizations (IOs) like the United Nations (UN) and their implementing partners be held accountable if their actions and policies violate fundamental human rights? Political scientists and legal scholars have shed a much-needed light on the limits of traditional accountability when it comes to complex global governance. However, conventional studies on IO accountability fail to systematically analyze a related, puzzling empirical trend: human rights violations that occur in the context of global governance do not go unnoticed altogether; they are investigated and sanctioned by independent third parties. This book puts forward the concept of pluralist accountability, whereby third parties hold IOs and their implementing partners accountable for human rights violations. We can expect pluralist accountability to evolve if a competitive environment stimulates third parties to enact accountability and if the implementing actors are vulnerable to human rights demands. Based on a comprehensive study of UN-mandated operations in Afghanistan, Bosnia, and Kosovo, the European Union Troika’s austerity policy, and global public–private health partnerships in India, this book demonstrates how competition and human rights vulnerability shape the evolution of pluralist accountability in response to diverse human rights violations, such as human trafficking, the violation of the rights of detainees, economic rights, and the right to consent in clinical trials. While highlighting the importance of studying alternative accountability mechanisms, this book also argues that pluralist accountability should not be regarded as a panacea for IOs’ legitimacy problems, as it is often less legalized and might cause multiple accountability disorder.


2020 ◽  
pp. 097674792096687
Author(s):  
H. K. Dwivedi ◽  
Sudip Kumar Sinha

This article examines the interlinkage between fiscal consolidation targets and states’ developmental expenditure under capital account. While fiscal consolidation targets have enabled states to take corrective measures to reduce deficit under the revenue account, the effect of the same is studied on developmental expenditure under capital account. For analysis, the fiscal deficit and developmental expenditure under the capital account have been compared with the fiscal deficit targets and general category states’ average benchmarks for fiscal indicators for three phases (corresponding to the periods of three finance commissions). It is argued, that, while fiscal consolidation has helped to improve the state finances, the stringent fiscal targets have further reduced the developmental expenditure under capital account. In view of this, it is suggested that the states, which are historically stressed, should be allowed to borrow an additional amount of 0.25 per cent of GSDP each year over and above the existing limit, provided these states make efforts to reduce deficit under revenue account and spend the extra borrowings on developmental expenditure under capital account.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document