Effectiveness in crisis management is usually credited to policy contents, policymakers' credibility, and the institutional strength of governments. But these variables do not explain why specific policies are adopted nor how crafting dynamics may affect their effectiveness. This paper argues that policymaking arrangements explain policy adoption, and these arrangements are contingent to executives' perception of experience with economic crises: the more they perceive themselves as experienced, the more prone they are to choose centralized arrangements. Centralized arrangements are more effective for launching stabilization policies than for consolidating them, while decentralized arrangements are more effective in consolidating policy implementation than in responding to crises. The paper tests the argument by comparing stabilization programs in Argentina and Brazil since the 1980s. Both countries tried similar programs, but while Argentine governments were more effective in launching stabilization policies than consolidating them, Brazilian governments were more effective in consolidating policies than in launching them.
