论文部分内容阅读
全球金融危机的政策应对可以分为顺周期方法和逆周期方法。顺周期方法提倡在财政紧缩时期削减公共支出。逆周期方法提倡以公共支出刺激经济。我们利用来自欧盟27个成员国的公众意见数据(N=23 652),通过实证研究检验了公民对削减公共服务开支以及对政府为应对金融危机投资于刺激经济发展措施的偏好模型。我们在个人和国家层面观测了影响公共服务节约态度的决定性因素,并集中于四组解释:政治不满、意识形态、利己主义和宏观经济条件。由此发现,政治不满和受访者的意识形态倾向以及个人是否经历经济紧缩或接受福利服务都会对偏好产生影响。令人惊讶的是,诸如政府赤字水平、公共债务或公共支出等宏观经济条件却对公民的金融政策偏好没有影响。我们讨论了本研究的结论对公共行政理论与实践的启示。对实践工作者的启示本文分析了公民所偏好的政府应对金融危机的措施,即削减公共支出和经济刺激措施,发现宏观经济条件对这些偏好影响很小。事实上,首先应在个人而不是国家层面解读这些态度和偏好。支持或者反对公共服务节约的偏好很大程度受意识形态倾向、年龄、受教育程度、政治信任的总体水平以及公民是否(潜在地)受益于福利服务的影响。本文有助于理解公民为什么支持或者反对危机中出现的顺周期或逆周期政策方法。
The policy responses to the global financial crisis can be divided into pro-cyclical and counter-cyclical approaches. The pro-cyclical approach advocates the reduction of public spending during fiscal austerity. Countercyclical approaches advocate stimulating the economy with public spending. Using public opinion data (N = 23,652) from 27 EU member states, we examine citizen’s preference models for spending on public services and government incentives to invest in stimulating economic growth in response to the financial crisis through empirical research. We have at the individual and national levels observed the decisive factors that influence public service saving attitudes and we focus on four sets of explanations: political discontent, ideology, egoism and macroeconomic conditions. This shows that political discontent and the ideological tendencies of respondents and whether individuals experience economic contraction or welfare services all have an impact on preferences. Surprisingly, macroeconomic conditions such as government deficit levels, public debt or public spending have had no effect on citizens’ financial policy preferences. We discuss the implications of this study for public administration theory and practice. Enlightenment to Practitioners This paper analyzes citizens’ preferred measures to deal with the financial crisis, namely, cuts in public spending and economic stimulus measures and finds that macroeconomic conditions have little effect on these preferences. In fact, these attitudes and preferences should first be interpreted at the individual rather than the national level. Preferences favoring or opposing public service saving are largely influenced by ideological propensities, age, educational attainment, overall level of political trust, and whether citizens (potentially) benefit from welfare services. This article helps understand why citizens support or oppose the pro-cyclical or countercyclical policy approaches that emerge during a crisis.