Introduction

Studies of voting and of public opinion are based on one assumption that appears obvious: citizens want governments to make them better off. And it is this norm that makes unambiguous interpretations of current performance when voters form retrospective judgments or when they assess the credibility of promises. Since things are supposed to improve, deterioration means that the government did not perform well or that the promises to improve things in the future are not credible. This is why studies of presidential popularity, voting behavior, and cabinet duration routinely assume that inflation and unemployment should work against the incumbents, while increases in real incomes should favor them.

But imagine that parties and politicians promise to make things worse off so that they could get better in the distant future. Union leaders “hope that there will be unemployment,” finance ministers declare that “unless the unemployment rate grows to 8 to 10 percent this year, we will not be doing our job,” and prime ministers proclaim that “there is no example in the economic history of the world of inflation being squelched without serious social difficulties, including bankruptcy of some enterprises and the unemployment associated with it.” And suppose that these promises are fulfilled: unemployment mounts and real incomes tumble. How are people to judge this performance: is the government leading them to a radiant future or are things simply getting worse?