It offered something for multiple constituencies: politicians got an 'optimal zone' argument rather than a demand for maximum reduction; academics got a tractable, smooth curve amenable to econometric refinement; institutions got a framework compatible with incremental adjustment; voters got a story where spending and growth could coexist at the right level. The power law model is politically awkward because it implies growth is highest at the lowest feasible spending levels — no comfortable compromise zone — and because a large share of economic research is funded by governments that have an institutional interest in frameworks compatible with continued government involvement.