2013
Savings in public services after the crisis: A multilevel analysis of public preferences in the EU27
Publication
Publication
Policy responses to the global financial crisis can be divided into pro- and counter-cyclical approaches. The former advocates reducing public spending in times of financial constraints. The latter approach advocates public spending to boost the economy. Using public opinion (N=23,652) data from 27 EU member countries, we empirically test a model for citizen preferences for reducing spending in public services versus government investment in measures to boost the economy as a response to the financial crisis. We look at individual- and country-level determinants of attitudes to savings in public services, and concentrate on four groups of explanations: political disaffection, ideology, self-interest, and macro-economic conditions. It was found that political disaffection, and the respondent’s ideological orientation all have effects on preferences, as well as whether one experiences economic strain or receives welfare services. Macro-economic conditions, such as a country’s government deficit level, public debt or public expenditure have, surprisingly, no effect on citizens’ financial policy preferences. We discuss the implications of our results for public administration theory and practice.
Additional Metadata | |
---|---|
, , , , , | |
The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme under grant agreement No. 266887 (Project COCOPS), Socio-economic Sciences and Humanities | |
hdl.handle.net/1765/40496 | |
International Review of Administrative Sciences: an international journal of comparative public administration | |
Organisation | Erasmus School of Social and Behavioural Sciences |
Van de Walle, S., & Jilke, S. (2013). Savings in public services after the crisis: A multilevel analysis of public preferences in the EU27. International Review of Administrative Sciences: an international journal of comparative public administration, 1–33. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1765/40496 |