Are we allausteriansnow? An analysis of national parliamentary parties' positioning on anti-crisis measures in the eurozone

Abstract

Are we all austerians now? An analysis of national parliamentary parties' positioning on anti-crisis measures in the eurozone * Aleksandra MaatschABSTRACT Which factors account for positioning of national parliamentary parties on anti-crisis measures implemented in the bailout states of the eurozone? The literature suggests that parties representing the economic 'left' are more likely to advocate Keynesian measures, whereas parties representing the economic 'right' tend to support the neoliberal ones. However, the current political discourse suggests that the choice of anti-crisis policies rather reflects the conflict of interests between euro states that received a bailout (debtors) and those who only provided financial guarantees (creditors). The empirical findings, based on (1) discourse analysis of national parliamentary debates and (2) the qualitative comparative analysis (QCA) model (crisp set), demonstrate that -next to the economic stance of a partyreceipt of a bailout also accounts for parliamentary parties' positioning on anticrisis measures. In particular, parliamentary parties in debtor states are likely to opt for Keynesian anti-crisis measures despite their right-wing economic stance or membership in the government.

From constraining to catalysing dissensus? The impact of political contestation on parliamentary communication in EU affairs

“…Closa and Maatsch's (2014) findings highlight the impact of parliamentary Euroscepticism and the government-opposition divide on debates regarding the European Financial Stability Facility. In contrast, Maatsch (2014) concludes that debtor or donor status with regard to the crisis bailouts had a stronger impact on parties' positioning in debates on anti-crisis measures than the parties' ideological position on the left-right dimension.…”

Keynes, Friedman, or Monnet? Explaining parliamentary voting behaviour on fiscal aid for euro area member states

“…Broz (2008: 351), for instance, finds with regard to voting on fiscal aid, that 'members of congress are more likely to support a funding increase … the more "liberal" their ideology' (see also Milner and Tingley 2010). In addition, left parties are arguably more supportive of Keynesian measures entailing an increase of government spending in order to induce growth (Alesina and Rosenthal 1995;Boix 2000;Hibbs 1977;Maatsch 2013).…”

Debating Europe in National Parliaments

“…While these studies add to our knowledge about the extent of parliamentary debate about European integration (and its comparative variation within the EU), they mainly aim at the assessment of the amount of debates and frequency of communication, but generally do not enter into the content of debate, or the strength or form of party political contention. Some studies have engaged in a content analysis of parliamentary exchanges to explore questions of public contention and party political polarization, particularly in relation to the question of EU Treaty Reform and decision-making during the Eurozone crisis (Puntscher Riekmann and Wydra 2013 ;Maatsch 2010Maatsch , 2014Closa and Maatsch 2014 ;Wendler 2011aWendler , b , 2012aWendler , b , 2013Wendler , 2014a. However, considering the arguments in favor of investigating parliamentary debate discussed at the outset of this chapter, public debate remains underexplored as a fi eld of empirical research about the content of public debate and contention about European governance.…”