In Aesop's classic fable, a carefree grasshopper joyfully chirps throughout a summer's day. By contrast, an industrious ant hauls an ear of corn to his nest. When winter arrives, the ill-prepared grasshopper wrestles with life-threatening hunger, whereas the ants enjoy the fruits of their labor. In the world of economic policy, the grasshopper's chirps are the politician's printing press. Politicians can spend lavishly today or save for a wintery day. Many classic political economy works expect presidents to spend like the profligate grasshopper. Politicians worry about their short-term political survival rather than longterm socioeconomic welfare.

But, when do they instead choose frugality? Developed country scholars contend that fiscally conservative voters promote miserly political behavior. At first, the claim that conservative politics pays electoral dividends does not seem to travel well to Latin America, a region hobbled by high poverty, income inequality, and unemployment. Facing strong redistributive pressures, why would politicians believe that voters are inflation hawks? Why would election minded incumbents value a seemingly long-run asset such as economic stability? What's the political benefit of low inflation? Presumably, delivering growth and jobs today offers the greatest electoral returns tomorrow.

If this is the case, why do Latin American politicians sometimes drift from this reliable political strategy?