Notermans, Ton. (1999). "Policy Continuity, Policy Change, and the Political Power of Economic Ideas". Acta Poiltica, 34(3), 22-48.
Notermans argues that changes in economic policy stem not from ideational forces, but from material forces. Ideational forces are brought into the picture to simply justify the policy decision. Additionally, different theoretical frameworks can be manipulated in various ways to justify the needed policy response to the material drivers that a nation confronts.
“This article argues that the view that new economic ideas determine the character of new policies reverses cause and effect. More specifically, three hypotheses are advanced: 1.) Ideas exert n independent causal influence on policies by providing for continuity rather than change because economic policy-makers cling to the ideas and policies that were adopted in response to a traumatic event, even if the original constellation justifying such policies has long disappeared. 2.) The changes in macroeconomic policy regimes during this century have been driven by the need to correct cumulative price level disturbances… 3.) Because the timing and character of a regime change is determined by developments in financial and labour markets, it is largely exogenous to the political system” (23).
“In spite of fundamental theoretical differences between the two approaches, it is possible to derive Keynesian-type policies from neoclassical views and vice versa” (26). Notermans believes that, no matter what ideational approach you use, you will be able to manipulate that to produce any economic policy result. This means that people are just responding to material forces, and that ideational forces are tossed about. Eventually, this can be seen as securing economic policy that is more in line with neoclassical models, which tend to reflect reality more accurately. “Hence, policy convergence with the (long-term) neoclassical model is complete: macroeconomic policies need to prioritize price stability, and unemployment is to be tackled by supply-side policies” (27).
Notermans posits in section 4 of his article that ideas do not have a causal influence, even if different policy makers who hold different ideas posit different policies. This could simply mean that their interests diverge and that they are responding to material forces that they encounter. After making this claim, Notermans goes on to say that, since ideas are insufficient to explain macroeconomic change within the economic policies of
Only firms who respond to the dictates of the market will survive. However, a Darwinistic approach must take into account the idea of path-dependency, as opposed to pure environmental determinism. “…because the behavior an individual market actor faces is largely determined by the behavior of the other market actors, the case for environmental determination of economic outcomes is much weaker than commonly assumed” (32).
However, this aside, the current nature of the market necessitates price stability as the mechanism of Darwinistic selection and adaptation. “In a world where money serves as a store of value, price flexibility no longer necessarily serve s as the device through which markets will quickly return to equilibrium Instead, excessive changes of the general price level may severely disrupt the willingness to engage in productive activity and hence precipitate rather than mitigate economic crises” (33). Therefore, price stability is the holy grail, and markets will orientate around that for material reasons.
“Whereas ideas play no significant role in explaining regime changes, they do play an important role in accounting for regime inertia” (37). “In sum, to the extent that ideas do influence the development of macroeconomic management their influence is generally moderate as they tend to perpetuate a given regime even if the conditions which gave rise to that regime have long disappeared” (37).
Notermans goes on to highlight this ascertain by looking at the cases of
