TY - JOUR

T1 - The 'we' that bear the burden of the European Dilemma: can 'we' together?

AU - Lo Presti, Patrizio Ulf Enrico

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - This contribution provides an interdisciplinary analysis of expressions of austerity policies. It is argued that expressions of austerity policies are meaningful if and only if the intended addressees’ psychological states are adequately attuned and the conceptual preconditions for implementation met. Furthermore, it is argued that if the addressees are suitably psychologically attuned and these preconditions met, utility will, by definition, be maximised and successful economical recovery enjoyed in equal measure among austerity implementors. The paper is divided into five sections. In the first section, the political scene is set in which austerity policies are expressed and the terminology is introduced. In the second section, expressions of austerity policies are dissected and an analysis of the reference conditions of such expressions provided. The third section reviews a conceptual analysis of intending and acting together and relates it to jointly implementing austerity policies. In the fourth section, the economic rationale behind expressions of austerity policies is evaluated with reference to what in economic theory is called team-reasoning theory. It is concluded, in section five, that given suitably psychologically attuned implementors of austerity policies, expressions of austerity policies are economically rational. But we should be sceptical about their economic motivation: if the people referred to, to implement austerity, are different from those calling for austerity policies, then it might appear, in the long run, that the former bear a burden for the good of the latter.

AB - This contribution provides an interdisciplinary analysis of expressions of austerity policies. It is argued that expressions of austerity policies are meaningful if and only if the intended addressees’ psychological states are adequately attuned and the conceptual preconditions for implementation met. Furthermore, it is argued that if the addressees are suitably psychologically attuned and these preconditions met, utility will, by definition, be maximised and successful economical recovery enjoyed in equal measure among austerity implementors. The paper is divided into five sections. In the first section, the political scene is set in which austerity policies are expressed and the terminology is introduced. In the second section, expressions of austerity policies are dissected and an analysis of the reference conditions of such expressions provided. The third section reviews a conceptual analysis of intending and acting together and relates it to jointly implementing austerity policies. In the fourth section, the economic rationale behind expressions of austerity policies is evaluated with reference to what in economic theory is called team-reasoning theory. It is concluded, in section five, that given suitably psychologically attuned implementors of austerity policies, expressions of austerity policies are economically rational. But we should be sceptical about their economic motivation: if the people referred to, to implement austerity, are different from those calling for austerity policies, then it might appear, in the long run, that the former bear a burden for the good of the latter.

M3 - Journal article

VL - 14

SP - 181

JO - COLLeGIUM

JF - COLLeGIUM

ER -