01818nam a2200193   4500999001900000008004100019100002300060245014900083260002600232300002800258520108000286650002501366650004001391700002801431773002701459906002301486942001201509952010301521  c512651d512651191205b           ||||| |||| 00| 0 eng d  aBan, Cornel914284  aThe professional politics of the austerity debate: A comparative field analysis of the European Central Bank and the international monetary fund  bPublic Administration  a97(3), 2019: p.530-545.  aHow do different professional structures shape the economic ideas that international economic organizations use to prescribe policy recommendations or derive legitimacy and authority for them? The comparative professional field analysis proposed herein deploys a novel combination of content, network and regression analysis to uncover the precise role of different qualifications, experiences and hierarchies in shaping the economic expertise invoked by the European Central Bank's and the International Monetary Fund's main policy documents, with a specific focus on debates over fiscal consolidation in the wake of the global financial crisis of 2008. The findings challenge much of the scholarship about how economic ideas diffuse across professional domains and where change on macroeconomic policy in international economic organizations is likely to come from. As such, the article should be of interest to scholarship on international bureaucracies, the politics of professional knowledge and the international political economy of fiscal consolidation. - Reproduced.  aCentral Banks914285  aInternational Monetary Fund 914286  aPatenaude, Bryan914287  aPublic Administration   aBanks and banking   2ddccAR  00102ddc40709386702aIIPAbIIPAd2019-12-05h97(3), 2019: p.530-545.pAR121993r2019-12-05yAR