Fiscal Stimulus, Fiscal Policies, and Financial Instability

2021 ◽  
Vol 55 (2) ◽  
pp. 552-558
Author(s):  
Alicia Girón ◽  
Eugenia Correa
2013 ◽  
Vol 62 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunther Schnabl

AbstractJapan went 15 years earlier than Europe through a boom-and-bust cycle in the real estate and stock markets. The country has made important experience with crisis therapies in form of monetary expansion, Keynesian fiscal stimulus and recapitalization of financial institutions. Japan has reached the zero interest bound in 1999 and has accumulated a very high public debt level. The paper compares the boom-and-bust cycles in Japan and Europe with respect to the reasons for the boom, the characteristics of the crises, and the (potential) effects of the crisis therapies. It is argued that the consequence of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies is the hysteresis of the zero-interest rate and high debt trap, the erosion of the allocation and signaling function of the interest rate, the gradual nationalization of the financial sector and aggregate demand, as well as gradual real income losses. The economic policy implication for Europe and Japan is the timely exit from crisis therapies in form of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies despite high adjustment costs.


2021 ◽  
Vol 24 (3) ◽  
pp. 313-334
Author(s):  
Syed Aun R. Rizvi ◽  
Solikin M. Juhro ◽  
Paresh K. Narayan

In this paper, we examine the effect of fiscal and monetary policy stimulus actions during the COVID-19 pandemic on the stock markets of four ASEAN countries, namely, Indonesia, Singapore, Malaysia, and Thailand. Using time-series regression models, we show the relative importance of monetary and fiscal policies. Our findings suggest that 7-days after the policy announcement, fiscal policies helped cushion financial market losses in Indonesia, Singapore and Thailand. We do not find any robust evidence of policy effectiveness for Malaysia. While our investigation is preliminary it opens an additional avenue for understanding the effectiveness of policy stimulus.


Significance The economic rebound from a 9% contraction in 2020 is mainly being driven by strong domestic demand supported by accommodative fiscal policies and higher-than-expected tourism revenues. However, the deteriorating epidemiological situation in Greece, and new COVID-19 variants expanding into Europe -- possibly resistant to vaccines -- pose risks to future growth prospects. Impacts Persistent supply-chain disruptions will slow down expansion in industrial output in 2022. Winding down the fiscal stimulus will narrow the primary budget deficit from 7.6% of GDP in 2021 to an estimated 1.2% in 2022. The primary budget deficit will widen in 2022-23 thanks to front-loading defence spending. Greater penetration of digital services is a positive side-effect of the pandemic. A deceleration in bank credit issuance could restrict corporate investment in 2022.


2015 ◽  
Vol 14 (1) ◽  
pp. 124-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gunther Schnabl

Japan experienced a boom-and-bust cycle in the real estate and stock markets almost 20 years earlier than Europe. Since the bursting of the Japanese bubble economy, the country has fallen into a deep recession and has experimented with crisis therapies in the form of unconventional monetary expansion, Keynesian fiscal stimulus, and recapitalization of financial institutions. Japan reached a low interest rate environment in the mid 1990s and has accumulated an exceptionally high level of public debt during more than two decades of economic stagnation. This paper compares the boom-and-bust cycles in Japan and Europe with respect to the reasons for excessive booms, the characteristics of the crises, and the (potential) effects of the crisis therapies. It is argued that in both Japan and Europe the consequences of expansionary monetary and fiscal policies include the hysteresis of a low-interest rate and high government debt environment, the erosion of the allocation and signaling functions of the interest rate, the gradual quasi-nationalization of financial institutions, as well as gradual real income losses. The economic policy implication for Europe and Japan is the timely exit from crisis therapies in the form of excessively expansionary monetary and fiscal policies.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gligor Bishev ◽  
◽  
Aleksandar Stojkov ◽  
Fatmir Besimi ◽  
◽  
...  

The pandemic recession was fundamentally different from ordinary recessions, and thus required a different policy response. We review the empirical literature on fiscal consolidation and fiscal multipliers. Then, we assess the impact of fiscal policies on the pace of recovery and public debt sustainability. A premature or a strong fiscal consolidation might result in lower rates of economic growth and elevated public debt as a share of GDP. We critically analyze different adjustment paths across Europe and offer policy-relevant recommendations. The issue is particularly relevant for countries with a strong fiscal stimulus and moderate to high levels of public debt.


2016 ◽  
Vol 15 (1) ◽  
pp. 67-98 ◽  
Author(s):  
Francesco Forte ◽  
Cosimo Magazzino

Purpose The aim of the paper is to evaluate fiscal adjustments that have occurred in the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) countries in the last 35 years, and their consequences on the economic growth process by using the mean group (MG) estimators. Design/methodology/approach Our emphasis is on the effects of different composition of fiscal stimuli and consolidations. We compare the effects on the economic growth rate of different compositions of major fiscal changes. We use a cyclically adjusted value of the fiscal variables to leave aside variations of the fiscal variables induced by business cycle fluctuations. Findings Our empirical research of the effects of large changes in fiscal policy, both in case of a fiscal consolidation and of fiscal stimulus in the 18 EMU countries from 1980 to 2015, shows that adjustments by cutting current expenditures, rather than by tax increases are more likely to boost economic growth. It also shows that cuts of investment expenditures may reduce GDP growth. During fiscal stimulus episodes, tax cuts and public investments are more likely to increase growth than current public expenditure. Originality/value This is the first study devoted to the EMU countries. It should be underlined that the results obtained as for EMU countries are not necessarily applicable to other countries, as the different government size as well as different market institutions may influence the results.


2013 ◽  
Vol 2013 ◽  
pp. 1-20 ◽  
Author(s):  
David Peón ◽  
Fernando Rey

European authorities are encouraging internal devaluation by GIPSI countries in order to improve their competitiveness and reduce current account deficits. However, this option introduces an additional source of risk, as it may generate deflation, making fiscal consolidation for these countries even harder to achieve. Several authors have suggested that an enhanced coordination of national fiscal policies would be preferable. This paper contributes to the debate in two instances. First, we analyze the main drivers of debt dynamics for peripheral versus core countries in the Eurozone in the last decade, to evidence that GIPSI countries should focus on a fiscal consolidation that does not damage growth, while deflation should be avoided. Second, we implement a scenario analysis to analyze the effectiveness of a coordinated policy among Eurozone members, where core countries accept a 3% target for inflation and reduce the pace of their fiscal consolidation, while GIPSI countries focus on fiscal consolidation with a low (but positive) level of inflation. This coordinated policy might be a better option as it (i) increases the competitiveness of GIPSI countries while avoiding the risks of deflation, (ii) ensures stability of debt for both groups of countries without imposing an excessive inflation target from EU core countries, and (iii) introduces the possibility of a fiscal stimulus.


2012 ◽  
Vol 4 (3) ◽  
pp. 216-250 ◽  
Author(s):  
Claudia R Sahm ◽  
Matthew D Shapiro ◽  
Joel Slemrod

Recent fiscal policies, including the 2008 stimulus payments and the 2009 Making Work Pay Tax Credit, aimed to increase household spending. This paper quantifies the spending response to these policies and examines differences in spending by whether the stimulus was delivered as a one-time payment or as a flow of payments from reduced withholding. Based on responses from a representative sample of households in the Thomson Reuters/University of Michigan Surveys of Consumers, the paper finds that the reduction in withholding in 2009 boosted spending at roughly half the rate (13 percent) as the one-time payments (25 percent) in 2008. (JEL D12, E21, E62)


2021 ◽  
Vol 10 (4) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sunwoo Yoo ◽  
Emma Campbell-Mohn

In 2020, the South Korean government aimed to mitigate the socio-economic impact of the COVID-19 pandemic by enacting a fiscal stimulus package worth 66.8 trillion won. Traditional economic theory warns that such deficit-financed expansionary fiscal policies can have the adverse effect of crowding out business investment, but the current literature is more divided: some argue that the crowding-out effect outweighs the multiplier effect of fiscal stimulus; some claim that the two effects cancel each other out; and others assert that the scale of crowding out is small, at least in recessions. It is important to study the existence and scale of crowding out during recessions to evaluate the soundness of fiscal policies as a countercyclical tool. Thus, this paper examines whether Korea’s fiscal policy crowded out business investment during two severe economic downturns: the “great recession” of 2008 and the “great lockdown” of 2020. The paper uses a cross-time case comparison of the two economic crises in the hopes of drawing generalizable conclusions for South Korea over time. The findings show that Korea’s facility investment continued to increase during the recent pandemic but decreased during the 2008 financial crisis. Was this due to crowding out? Further analysis suggests that the decrease in investment during the 2008 crisis was due to factors other than crowding out. Hence, the paper concludes that Korea’s fiscal responses to the two crises did not crowd out business investment and thus encourages the continued use of appropriately sized and targeted fiscal stimulus during recessions.


2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cesare Dosi ◽  
Michele Moretto ◽  
Roberto Tamborini

Abstract We examine the timing of a business investment providing valuable external benefits to society. A surge in uncertainty about private returns, a typical feature if not a cause of recessions, delays capital outlays to an extent that may be detrimental to social welfare. Is there an efficiency-improving public policy directed at accelerating investment? By real option analysis, we try answering this question by comparing three fiscal policies: (i) a simple subsidy on investment, (ii) a balanced-budget fiscal stimulus where the subsidy is subsequently covered by profit taxation, and (iii) by taxing external benefits as well. We show that, under a balanced-budget stimulus, investment acceleration may come at the expense of a net economic loss, and the higher is uncertainty on private returns, the higher the likehood of a negative outcome. However, this risk strongly declines when government spending is balanced by taxing both private and public returns on investment.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document