In the wake of the elections in Italy, some people are trotting out an old theory: that it was not homegrown problems that produced this election result, but a unilateral austerity policy imposed from outside. This “austerity course”, they say, has now been rejected. Growth, according to that thinking, can be created easily through spending programmes financed by borrowing.

But this is wrong on two counts. First, the eurozone countries hardest hit by the crisis have, despite hardships, elected governments pursuing sound policies for stability. That goes for Spain, Portugal, Ireland and Greece. Cyprus has also now announced structural reforms. In Italy, even Silvio Berlusconi supported Mario Monti’s reforms, albeit late and halfheartedly.

Second, claiming a choice has to be made between austerity and growth may work as a political slogan, but it doesn’t describe real alternatives. Anyone who argues that austerity and growth are irreconcilable opposites also claims that growth can only be produced through new borrowing. But we have known for a long time that state spending on credit can at best produce a flash-in-the-pan stimulus; it doesn’t provide a basis for a sustainable upswing. What’s more: if borrowing keeps rising, the moment of truth will arrive sooner or later – when the markets, as creditors, lose confidence in the sustainability of the debt. After all, there’s nothing worse for a state than to end up dependent on the financial markets.