Couldn't it go either way though? I mean ultimately it just depends on what returns they can get. My impression is that the New Deal in the Depression gave good ROI because the infrastructure improvements opened up new avenues of growth. However if you have massive corruption like in Greece then you're probably better off with austerity.
When you build the Hoover dam and the interstate system, yes.
When you loan money to stimulate defense contractors, non-competitive solar manufacturers and for all sorts of other boondoggles and build bridges to nowhere, no.
The problem is that the process of spending on infrastructure rarely is positive in most places for a whole host of reasons. Therefore, austerity is better because it avoids malinvestment. Doing nothing is better than wasting capital.
If you borrow money to spend, the spending has to create more return than the cost of the borrowed money, or the money is wasted. This is true in the case of the individual, the company and the government. Individuals rarely invest money for greater returns (think : new cars), companies that last always invest for greater returns, but governments have few incentives to do so.
They would much rather make a big splash and announce jobs now, than worry about whether or not they are creating something worthwhile.
The problem, of course, is always in measuring the positive returns of large public spending. But again, in times of over-borrowing, governments should always err on the side of caution.
