Under the light of the current fall down of the economy it seems that economists have loosing the battle and are just working in a theoretical basis without an effective and coherent relationship with politicians. We´re facing the age of pre-eminence of Politicians over Economists and their failure approach. Under weak good governance structures this pre-eminence lead to a chaotic situation unable to face future growth challenges. Meanwhile “austerians”, seems to win all the fronts on the economic financial arena, establishing a strong relationship with politics and changing basic economics principles even with impressive negative results.
We´re facing the age of pre-eminence of Politicians over Economists and their failure approach
Indeed, there is a consolidated austerity ideology. This is not just another position but a real current of thought that acquires enough power to continued in force despite their devastating impact. Having as a unique argumentation bringing market confidence and a so-called financial stability. However, after 7 years of overcoming crisis we could definitely conclude that reduction on public spending and a general policy of no investment have lead countries into stagnation, troubling increases on public debt, lost in confidence and well-being.
This “austerity mania”(Paul Krugman) has no logics despite having achieved political consensus at global level encouraging by international finance institutions.
But let´s focus on the roots on the application of an economic theory. Political ideologies should be the guiding light that justifies governmental agendas hence they have to gather support from different fields including the economist. Is not possible to create economic models without a clear economic ideology behind them and what is more, without a correlated relationship with politics that apply those models. The harmonization of this two perspectives is what determinate the success of an economic system and its measures. Currently, government’s ideologies are not properly defined and are wrongly connected with political-financial agendas. Their goals are submitted to a global political scenario that many times has a very difficult ideological assessment. Is that so that an individual country sees their national affairs seriously affected by international interests and it many cases with the negative impact of wrong political finance decisions. Is under this perspective that globalization brings ideological uncertainty to those countries that would like to establish a clear and delimited political-finance strategy for the medium-long term.
there is not a “tailor-made” financial measure for each country and it´s own reality
Austerity measures come as a consequence of this situation in which there is not a coherent political line that support a particular financial focus. Hence we change the logical debate of which ideology is the best to the adaption of economic policies according to the universal tendency marked by Banks and politicians. All of the above on a global basis and with no further ideological perspective than the one determinate by the urgency of the circumstances.
Concluding, there is not a “tailor-made” financial measure for each country and it´s own reality, but economic international measures that apply to one and uniform economic model. The fact that is just one-size-fits-all model instead of one model for each country has as a result: no ideological coherency, no economic-financial coherent mode, politician decisions instead of economist decisions, slow recoveries, slow down on productivity and unemployment. To restore the economy and move forward on conflict areas like market confidence, public debt and unemployment, INVESTMENT is the only reasonable way out.
A coherence perspective is need it and a ideological economic debate is essential as a way to give coherency to this economic debacle and address current resilience´s challenges from a stronger position.