Cutback management strategies and citizen evaluation of government

Abstract

AbstractThrough a behavioral approach, citizen evaluations of government performance have been an area of study in public administration. Research has explored how different factors influence citizens’ perceptions of public organizations, such as public sector bias and reference points. Understudied in this literature is how citizens evaluate government based on their use of financial management strategies. The Pandemic and other economic challenges have forced governments to engage in cutback management strategies to balance the budget. How do citizens evaluate governments based on their cutback strategies? To answer this theoretical question, we employ a survey experiment design with over 1600 respondents from the U.S. to explore how four cutback management strategies can influence citizen evaluations of government. Our findings suggest that cutback management strategies do influence citizens’ evaluation of government in trust, satisfaction, performance, and fairness. Citizens are more favorable to infrastructure or materials and contractor cuts than increasing taxes or reducing personnel. Further analysis by respondent partisanship indicates Democrats are more accepting of tax increases. Republicans rate governments lower when they cut capital and infrastructure and rate governments higher when they decrease personnel expenditures.