Current Issue
Past Issues
About the Journal
Aims and Scope
Publisher
Editorial Board
Publishing Ethics
Indexing and Archiving
Copyright, Licensing and Access
For Authors
Submission Guidelines
Publication Fees
Peer-review Process
Editorial and Production Processes
Corrections and Retractions
Publishing Ethics
Copyright, Licensing and Access
Contact Us
RESEARCH PAPER
A Comparison of German, Swiss, and Polish Fiscal Rules Using Monte Carlo Simulations
1
SGH Warsaw School of Economics, Poland
Submission date: 2021-09-09
Final revision date: 2021-12-13
Acceptance date: 2022-09-21
Publication date: 2022-12-30
GNPJE 2022;312(4):17-41
KEYWORDS
JEL CLASSIFICATION CODES
ABSTRACT
This paper assesses the economic implications of existing fiscal rules in Poland, Switzerland and Germany. In the analysis, we establish economic relationships between output, government revenues and expenditures, estimating a VAR model based on US data for the 1960–2015 period. We impose on these relationships fiscal policies implied by a given rule and analyse the consequences for the simulated paths of debts, deficits and expenditures in terms of stability and cyclicality. We find that the Swiss and German rules are strict and stabilise deficits at low levels. However, this may still not be sufficient to stabilise debt in the long term in the strict sense. The Polish rule stabilises the debt level at about 40% – 50% of the GDP in the long term. All the rules imply an anticyclical fiscal policy: the deficit-to-GDP ratio implied by changes in the output gap increases by up to 2.2 percentage points, 3.3 pp and 3.9 pp over the whole business cycle for the Polish, Swiss and German rules respectively. These results can be perceived as satisfactory for the Swiss and German rules.
REFERENCES (67)
1.
Alesina A., Bayoumi T. [1996], The costs and benefits of fiscal rules: Evidence from U. S. states, NBER Working Paper 5614.
2.
Alesina A., Campante F., Tabellini G. [2008], Why is fiscal policy often procyclical?, Journal of the European Economic Association, 6 (5): 1006–1036.
3.
Alesina A., Favero C., Giavazzi F. [2019], Effects of austerity: expenditure- and tax-based approaches, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33 (2): 141–162.
4.
Alesina A., Passalacqua A. [2016], The political economy of government debt, in: Taylor J. B., Uhlig H. (eds.), Handbook of Macroeconomics 2B, Elsevier: 2599–2651.
5.
Alesina A., Perotti R. [1994], The political economy of budget deficits, NBER Working Paper 4637.
6.
Alesina A., Perotti R. [1996], Budget deficits and budget institutions, NBER Working Paper 5556.
7.
Alfaro L., Kanczuk F. [2016], Fiscal rules and sovereign default, Harvard Business School Working Paper 16-134.
8.
Auerbach A. [2014], Budget rules and fiscal policy: Ten lessons from theory and evidence, German Economic Review, 15 (1): 84–99.
9.
Auerbach A., Gorodnichenko Y. [2012], Measuring the output responses to fiscal policy, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4 (2): 1–27.
10.
Backhus D., Kehoe P. [1992], International evidence on the historical properties of business cycles, American Economic Review, 82 (4): 864–888.
11.
Beetsma R., Debrun X. [2016], Fiscal councils: rationale and effectiveness, IMF Working Paper 16/86.
12.
Beljean T., Geier A. [2013], The Swiss debt brake – has it been a success?, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 2 (2): 115–135.
13.
Blanchard O. [2019], Public debt and low interest rates, American Economic Review, 109 (4): 1197–1229.
14.
Blanchard O., Perotti R. [2002], An empirical characterization of the dynamic effects of changes in government spending and taxes on output, Quarterly Journal of Economics, 107 (4): 1329–1368.
15.
Bohn H., Inman R. [1996], Balanced budget rules and public deficits: Evidence from the U. S. states, NBER Working Paper 5533.
16.
Bruchez P. [2003], A modification of the HP filter aiming at reducing the end- point bias, The Federal Finance Administration of Switzerland Working Paper 3/2003.
17.
Brzozowski M., Siwińska-Gorzelak J. [2010], The impact of fiscal rules on fiscal policy volatility, Journal of Applied Economics, 13 (2): 205–231.
18.
Burriel P. et al. [2009], Fiscal policy shocks in the euro area and in the US, ECB Working Paper 1133.
19.
Caldara D., Kamps C. [2008], What are the effects of fiscal policy shocks? A VAR-based comparative analysis, ECB Working Paper 877.
20.
Checherita-Westphal C., Zdarek V. [2017], Fiscal reaction function and fiscal fatigue: evidence for the euro area, ECB Working Paper 2036.
21.
Choudhary A., Hanif N., Iqbal J. [2014], On smoothing macroeconomic time series using the modified HP filter, Applied Economics, 46 (19): 2205–2214.
22.
Debrun X., Kumar M. [2007], The discipline-enhancing role of fiscal institutions: Theory and empirical evidence, IMF Working Paper 07/171.
23.
Debrun X., Symanski S., Epstein N. [2008], A new fiscal rule: Should Israel go Swiss?, IMF Working Paper 08/87.
24.
Deutsche Bundesbank [2011], Die Schuldenbremse in Deutschland – wesentliche Inhalte und deren Umsetzung (in German), Monatsbericht Oktober.
25.
Doorn D. [2001], Consequences of Hodrick-Prescott filtering for parameter estimation on a structural model of inventory behavior, Proceedings of the Annual Meeting of the American Statistical Association.
26.
European Central Bank [2013], The importance and effectiveness of national fiscal frameworks in the EU, ECB Monthly Bulletin.
27.
European Commission [2014a], Adjusting the budget balance for the business cycle: the EU methodology, Economic Papers 536.
28.
European Commission [2014b], The production function methodology for calculating potential growth rates and output gaps, Economic Papers 535.
29.
Eyraud L., Baum A., Hodge A., Jarmużek M., Young K., Mbaye S., Türe E. [2018], How to calibrate fiscal rules, a primer, How to Notes, International Monetary Fund.
30.
Eyraud L., Lledo V., Dudine P., Peralta A. [2018], How to select fiscal rules, a primer, International Monetary Fund.
31.
Favero C., Giavazzi F. [2007], Debt and the effects of fiscal policy, Federal Reserve Bank of Boston Working Paper.
32.
Favero C., Giavazzi F. [2012], Measuring tax multipliers: the narrative method in fiscal VARs, American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4 (2): 69–94.
33.
Favero C., Marcellino M. [2005], Modelling and forecasting fiscal variables for the Euro area, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 67 (s1): 755–783.
34.
Federal Ministry of Finance, Germany [2015], Germany’s federal debt brake, official paper.
35.
Frankel J., Schreger J. [2013], Over-optimistic official forecasts in the euro-zone and fiscal rules, Review of World Economics, 149 (2): 247–272.
36.
Frankel J., Vegh C., Vuletin G. [2013], On graduation from fiscal procyclicality, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 100 (1): 32–47.
37.
Geier A. [2011], The debt brake – the Swiss fiscal rule at the federal level, The Federal Finance Administration of Switzerland, Working Paper 15.
38.
Geier A. [2012], Application of the Swiss fiscal rule to artificial data: A Monte Carlo simulation, Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 1 (2): 37–55.
39.
Gordon R. [2015], Secular stagnation: a supply-side view, American Economic Review, 105 (5): 54–59.
40.
Grembi V., Nannicini T., Troiano U. [2016], Do fiscal rules matter?, American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8 (3): 1–30.
41.
Guerguil M., Mandon P., Tapsoba R. [2017], Flexible fiscal rules and countercyclical fiscal policy, Journal of Macroeconomics, 52: 189–220.
42.
Haan J. de [2014], Democracy, elections and government budget deficits, German Economic Review, 15 (1): 131–142.
43.
Halac M., Yared P. [2014], Fiscal rules and discretion under persistent shocks, Econometrica, 82 (5): 1557–1614.
44.
Heun W. [2014], Balanced budget requirements and debt brakes: feasibility and enforcement, German Economic Review, 15 (1): 100–115.
45.
Holm-Hadulla F., Hauptmeier S., Rother P. [2012], The impact of expenditure rules on budgetary discipline over the cycle, Applied Economics, 44 (25): 3287–3296.
46.
Kopits G. [2001], Fiscal rules: useful policy framework or unnecessary ornament?, IMF Working Paper.
47.
Korniluk D. [2013], Optymalizacja wartości parametrów reguły wydatkowej za pomocą algorytmu genetycznego, Bank i Kredyt (in Polish), 44 (1): 67–98.
48.
Korniluk D. [2016], The stabilizing expenditure rule in Poland – simulations for 2014–2040, Eastern European Economics, vol. 54 (4): 351–375.
49.
Kumar M., Baldacci E., Schaechter A., Caceres C., Kim D., Debrun X., Yakadina I. [2009], Fiscal rules – anchoring expectations for sustainable public finances, IMF Working Paper.
50.
Landon S., Smith C. [2017], Does the design of a fiscal rule matter for welfare?, Economic Modelling, 63: 226–237.
51.
Lucas R. [2003], Macroeconomic priorities, American Economic Review, 93 (1), 1–14.
52.
Luechinger S., Schaltegger C. [2013], Fiscal rules, budget deficits and budget projections, International Tax and Public Finance, 20 (5): 785–807.
53.
Mayer E., Stähler N. [2009], The debt brake: business cycle and welfare consequences of Germany’s new fiscal policy rule, Deutsche Bundesbank Discussion Paper 24/2009.
54.
Nerlich C., Reuter W. [2016], Fiscal rules, fiscal space and procyclical fiscal policy, FinanzArchiv: Public Finance Analysis, 72 (4): 421–452.
55.
OECD [2015], Adjusting fiscal balances for the business cycle: new tax and expenditure elasticity estimates for OECD countries, OECD Working Papers.
56.
Paetz C., Rietzler K., Truger A. [2016], Die Schuldenbremse im Bundeshaushalt seit 2011: die wahre Belastungsprobe steht noch aus, IMK Working Paper 117 (in German).
57.
Pigoń A., Ramsza M. [2016], Impact of a modified HP filter on countercyclical behavior of the Swiss fiscal rule, Equilibrium, Quarterly Journal of Economics and Economic Policy, 11 (4): 661–674.
58.
Ramey V. [2011], Can government purchases stimulate the economy?, Journal of Economic Literature, 49 (3): 673–685.
59.
Ramey V. [2019], Ten years after the financial crisis: What have we learnt from the renaissance in fiscal research?, Journal of Economic Perspectives, 33 (2): 89–114.
60.
Ravn M., Uhlig H. [2002], On adjusting the Hodrick-Prescott filter for the frequency of observations, The Review of Economics and Statistics, 84 (2): 371–380.
61.
Schaechter A., Kinda T., Budina N., Weber A. [2012], Fiscal rules in response to the crisis – toward the ‘next-generation’ rules: a new dataset, IMF Working Paper 12/187.
62.
Summers L. [2015], Demand side secular stagnation, American Economic Review, 106 (5): 503–507.
63.
Swedish Fiscal Policy Council [2018], The Swedish fiscal policy, official report.
64.
Swedish Ministry of Finance [2018], The Swedish fiscal policy framework, official paper.
65.
Truger A., Will H. [2012], The German debt brake – a shining example for European fiscal policy?, Working Paper.
66.
Wyplosz C. [2008], Fiscal policy councils: unlovable or just unloved?, Swedish Economic Policy Review, 15: 173–192.
67.
Wyplosz C. [2013], Fiscal rules: theoretical issues and historical experiences, in: Alesina A., Giavazzi F. (eds.), Fiscal policy after the financial crisis, University of Chicago Press: 495–525.
Share
RELATED ARTICLE
| eISSN: | 2300-5238 |
© 2006-2024 Journal hosting platform by Bentus
We process personal data collected when visiting the website. The function of obtaining information about users and their behavior is carried out by voluntarily entered information in forms and saving cookies in end devices. Data, including cookies, are used to provide services, improve the user experience and to analyze the traffic in accordance with the Privacy policy. Data are also collected and processed by Google Analytics tool (more).
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
You can change cookies settings in your browser. Restricted use of cookies in the browser configuration may affect some functionalities of the website.
