The Professional Politics of the Austerity Debate: A Comparative Field Analysis of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund

Cornel Ban, Bryan Patenaude

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

Resumé

How do different professional structures shape the economic ideas that international economic organizations use to prescribe policy recommendations or derive legitimacy and authority for them? The comparative professional field analysis proposed herein deploys a novel combination of content, network and regression analysis to uncover the precise role of different qualifications, experiences and hierarchies in shaping the economic expertise invoked by the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s main policy documents, with a specific focus on debates over fiscal consolidation in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. The findings challenge much of the scholarship about how economic ideas diffuse across professional domains and where change on macroeconomic policy in international economic organizations is likely to come from. As such, the article should be of interest to scholarship on international bureaucracies, the politics of professional knowledge and the international political economy of fiscal consolidation.
OriginalsprogEngelsk
TidsskriftPublic Administration
Vol/bind97
Udgave nummer3
Sider (fra-til)530-545
Antal sider16
ISSN0033-3298
DOI
StatusUdgivet - sep. 2019

Bibliografisk note

Published online: 12. October 2018

Citer dette

@article{c52918e5cabc40cda07f3f521820e986,
title = "The Professional Politics of the Austerity Debate: A Comparative Field Analysis of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund",
abstract = "How do different professional structures shape the economic ideas that international economic organizations use to prescribe policy recommendations or derive legitimacy and authority for them? The comparative professional field analysis proposed herein deploys a novel combination of content, network and regression analysis to uncover the precise role of different qualifications, experiences and hierarchies in shaping the economic expertise invoked by the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s main policy documents, with a specific focus on debates over fiscal consolidation in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. The findings challenge much of the scholarship about how economic ideas diffuse across professional domains and where change on macroeconomic policy in international economic organizations is likely to come from. As such, the article should be of interest to scholarship on international bureaucracies, the politics of professional knowledge and the international political economy of fiscal consolidation.",
author = "Cornel Ban and Bryan Patenaude",
note = "Published online: 12. October 2018",
year = "2019",
month = "9",
doi = "10.1111/padm.12561",
language = "English",
volume = "97",
pages = "530--545",
journal = "Public Administration",
issn = "0033-3298",
publisher = "Blackwell Publishing",
number = "3",

}

The Professional Politics of the Austerity Debate : A Comparative Field Analysis of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund. / Ban, Cornel ; Patenaude, Bryan.

I: Public Administration, Bind 97, Nr. 3, 09.2019, s. 530-545.

Publikation: Bidrag til tidsskriftTidsskriftartikelForskningpeer review

TY - JOUR

T1 - The Professional Politics of the Austerity Debate

T2 - A Comparative Field Analysis of the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund

AU - Ban, Cornel

AU - Patenaude, Bryan

N1 - Published online: 12. October 2018

PY - 2019/9

Y1 - 2019/9

N2 - How do different professional structures shape the economic ideas that international economic organizations use to prescribe policy recommendations or derive legitimacy and authority for them? The comparative professional field analysis proposed herein deploys a novel combination of content, network and regression analysis to uncover the precise role of different qualifications, experiences and hierarchies in shaping the economic expertise invoked by the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s main policy documents, with a specific focus on debates over fiscal consolidation in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. The findings challenge much of the scholarship about how economic ideas diffuse across professional domains and where change on macroeconomic policy in international economic organizations is likely to come from. As such, the article should be of interest to scholarship on international bureaucracies, the politics of professional knowledge and the international political economy of fiscal consolidation.

AB - How do different professional structures shape the economic ideas that international economic organizations use to prescribe policy recommendations or derive legitimacy and authority for them? The comparative professional field analysis proposed herein deploys a novel combination of content, network and regression analysis to uncover the precise role of different qualifications, experiences and hierarchies in shaping the economic expertise invoked by the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund’s main policy documents, with a specific focus on debates over fiscal consolidation in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. The findings challenge much of the scholarship about how economic ideas diffuse across professional domains and where change on macroeconomic policy in international economic organizations is likely to come from. As such, the article should be of interest to scholarship on international bureaucracies, the politics of professional knowledge and the international political economy of fiscal consolidation.

UR - https://sfx-45cbs.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/45cbs?url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&rfr_id=info:sid/sfxit.com:azlist&sfx.ignore_date_threshold=1&rft.object_id=954925436483&rft.object_portfolio_id=&svc.holdings=yes&svc.fulltext=yes

U2 - 10.1111/padm.12561

DO - 10.1111/padm.12561

M3 - Journal article

VL - 97

SP - 530

EP - 545

JO - Public Administration

JF - Public Administration

SN - 0033-3298

IS - 3

ER -