How “baked in” ideas hinder ideational robustness: the International Monetary Fund and “fiscal space”

Abstract

Abstract This paper brings insights into ideational robustness to bear on the International Monetary Fund (IMF) fiscal policy thinking. It advances understanding of both the IMF and the concept of ideational robustness by focusing on economic ideas as they are put into practice by expert economic institutions. The IMF has traditionally enjoyed a reputation as a hawkish enforcer of neoliberal doctrine and conservative fiscal discipline, foregrounding deficit bias and fiscal sustainability concerns. Capitalist crises, notably the 2008 crash and COVID, have seen public debt increase while rendering growth and stability increasingly elusive. This turbulence has spurred some rethinking of Fund fiscal ideas. The IMF has added the new concept of fiscal space to its policy commentary and advocacy. Fiscal space seeks to reconcile economic stabilization and supporting growth to the Fund’s overarching concern to maintain fiscal discipline and sustainability. A focus on how ideas are put into practice shows that long-standing Fund fiscal priorities are hardwired into operational frameworks, curtailing the new emphasis and adaptions. Thus, key to the institutional conditions of IMF fiscal policy actions are “baked in” economic ideas. These are operationalized through economic models, analytical tools, fiscal evaluation frameworks, and standard operating procedures. The “politics of economic method,” in the form of deliberation and contestation over different normative ideas that can underpin alternative constructions of such policy frameworks, plays an important role in shaping which economic ideas come to matter, and how, for the IMF. The Fund’s “fiscal space” episode can be interpreted as a quest for ideational robustness (through increased flexibility), which thus far remains unrealized due to the crucial role of these mechanisms, institutional conditions, and ideational path dependencies.