,
8 tweets,
2 min read
Read on Twitter
The structural problem of journalisms is media needs a simple story: therefore they focus on, and inflate the significance of, all the research on one "just so story" mechanism, and ignoring all the evidence for other mechanisms in a complex outcome theweek.com/articles/85378…
Fetzer, for example, makes the case that austerity may have increased support for Brexit *all else being equal*. That is *not the same* as claiming "austerity caused Brexit".
If we look at the British Election Study, for example, measures of economic experience (economic insecurity, income, perceptions of national economic situation) are very weak predictors of support for Brexit, while support for Brexit is *lower* among those who oppose austerity
By contrast, if we look at measures of identity and values (nationalism, authoritarianism, views about immigration, views of ethnic minorities) and the demographic variables associated with them (education, age), we find much stronger, more robust correlations
Just to be clear: I'm not saying economic effects like this don't exist, I'm just saying that the true story here is more complex than breathless headlines about "overwhelming correlations" would suggest.
One example - the work by Carreras, Carreras and Bowler showing it is the interaction between long term economic performance (not just austerity) and identity that helps explain Brexit. Areas experience relative decline, people in them turn inwards and become more threatened
by change and outsiders like immigrants, and the interaction of both factors combines to produce the mix of resentments driving Brexit. Austerity could of course intensify such processes, but its one eg of how the story is just a lot more complicated than "austerity cause Brexit"
Sorry meant to post link to the Carerra, Carerra, Bowler work. They give a write up here: blogs.lse.ac.uk/brexit/2019/05…
