ABSTRACT

Since the 1980s, many governments in the Western world have implemented radical income tax cuts which have become associated with soaring levels of inequality. The literature has focused on institutional accounts to explain these developments. However, institutions alone cannot account for the emergence of societal and political support necessary for radical change of this kind. Therefore, this paper explores the role of communication techniques directed at voters, interest groups and legislators to enable radical reform. Based on a content analysis of Congressional debates for the Reagan and Bush tax cuts, contextualised with archival documents from Presidential Libraries, this study shows the critical relevance of strategic acts of compromise to shore up legislative and voter support for radical tax cuts. It finds (a) that change actors have several different acts of strategic compromise (incorporation, compensation, and reconciliation) at their disposal which they use at different points in the legislative process. That (b) the most successful strategies consistently link the coordinative discourse (bargaining with interest groups behind closed doors) and communicative discourse (directed at the public and the minority congressional party). And that (c) change actors learn how to the use successful combinations of compromise over time and thereby enhance reform stability.

摘要

自 1980 年代以来，西方世界的许多政府都实施了激进的所得税减税措施，这与不平等程度的飙升有关。文献集中于机构账户来解释这些发展。然而，单靠制度并不能解释这种激进变革所必需的社会和政治支持的出现。因此，本文探讨了针对选民、利益集团和立法者的沟通技术在实现激进改革中的作用。基于对里根和布什减税国会辩论的内容分析，结合总统图书馆的档案文件，本研究显示了战略妥协行动的关键相关性支持立法和选民对激进减税的支持。它发现 (a) 变革参与者有几种不同的战略妥协行为（合并、补偿和和解）可供他们支配，他们在立法过程的不同阶段使用这些行为。(b) 最成功的策略始终将协调性话语（与闭门造车的利益集团讨价还价）和交流性话语（针对公众和少数国会党派）联系起来。并且 (c) 变革参与者随着时间的推移学习如何使用成功的妥协组合，从而提高改革的稳定性。