Introduction

Originally, austerity was portrayed as a brief but severe remedy to convince people that constraining state spending and encouraging self-reliance were crucial actions in the aftermath of the 2008 crash and recession. While the cuts and reforms might bring about hardship in the present, they were ‘future-orientated’ in the sense that they would safeguard a good life for future generations (Latimer, 2013: 22). George Osborne, then Chancellor of the Exchequer, presented austerity as a necessary sacrifice to be endured to ‘protect the economy’ (Osborne, 2010a: column 177) and build towards a ‘more prosperous future’ (Osborne, 2010a: column 180) downplaying the fact that austerity is part of the ‘framework conditions’ (Kiersey, 2016: 166) of a long-standing neoliberal agenda that emphasizes market-based solutions and individual responsibility, as well as the highly uneven social and geographical outcomes of such an approach. The incongruity between the newly perceived sacrifices of austerity and its enduring repercussions for social cohesion, economic stability and political landscapes lies at the heart of this chapter. Austerity has, since 2010, become a seemingly self-evident economic principle:

After a decade or more of debt-filled growth, recession is all too easily palmed off as the ‘pain after the party’, recalling to us the true cost of the goods and services we enjoy so much. Neoliberalism, in this sense, is lived as a kind of economic cold turkey. ‘Austerity is painful, yes’, goes the refrain of this morality play, ‘but it is as natural as a hangover’. (Kiersey, 2016: 167)

By contrast, recent scholarly work has deconstructed this narrative exposing its deeper historical roots and unveiling the complex and far-reaching social, economic and political impacts that endure, even after austerity's proclaimed end, and despite recent and significant spending through the COVID-19 pandemic (Adkins et al, 2020; Macartney et al, 2022).

The discussion within this chapter revolves around two key themes. First, the progressive shift towards a lean state and individual self-reliance that has gained traction since the 1980s, placing a greater onus on individuals to manage their welfare needs through personal asset accumulation (Crouch, 2009; see also Adkins et al, 2020). Second, the lasting consequences of this shift for social mobility and life course development, which necessitates a re-examination of collective state-centred arrangements.