Exit Stimulus

Author(s):  
Charlotte Rommerskirchen

This chapter considers the determinants of fiscal policy outcomes during the Consolidation Years 2011–14. It disagrees with the claim that Europe is under the spell of an austerity illusion. Echoing Chapter 5, it finds that member states’ fiscal consolidation was by and large in line with domestic fiscal space. Proponents of fiscal rules would credit the strictures of the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) or newly created debt brakes for bringing about consolidation. Yet there is no convincing evidence that these rules mattered for fiscal policy outcomes. Instead, financial market pressure mattered—this holds for the Stimulus Years and Consolidation Years alike. Market discipline is not felt equally across the EU. A prominent emerging fault line runs between program countries and those who fear the threat of market panic on the one hand, and credit countries who remain largely insulated from the vagaries of international capital markets on the other.

Author(s):  
Charlotte Rommerskirchen

Solutions to free riding, whether stability or growth free riding, are thought to be found in the provision of incentives. Yet the empirical findings of this chapter suggest that domestic fiscal rules, such as debt brakes, did not impact on the fiscal policy responses to the Great Recession. Similarly, EU-level agreements (the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) and the newly created European Economic Recovery Plan (EERP)) did not impact on fiscal policy choices. First, the majority of domestic fiscal rules were equipped with exceptionality clauses. As a result, they did not impose stern constraints on fiscal policy in hard times. Second, the EERP and SGP were meaningless for fiscal policy outcomes; member states adopted stimulus programs as they saw fit with little concern for EU-level agreements or EU-wide aims for stability and growth.


2015 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
pp. 19-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
Damir Šehović

Abstract : The EMU fiscal system is specific in many areas compared to other classic fiscal systems of national states. Specific features mainly reflect in the implementation of economic policy within the EMU which is carried out by combining a common centralized monetary policy under the ECB jurisdiction and decentralized fiscal policies under the jurisdiction of the member states. The member states` sovereignty in governing their fiscal policies is one of the key causes of the EU fiscal system underdevelopment, i.e. its indigent structure in relation to “standard fiscal systems”. More indigent structure of the EU fiscal system is reflected in the fact that it consists of only three segments. The first one refers to the EU budget which is also the only instrument for implementing fiscal policy at the supranational level. The second one refers to the harmonization of taxation systems in accordance with inputs and other legislation adopted at the EU level with the aim of fostering the single internal market. Finally, the third segment refers to the fiscal policy coordination of the EMU member states related to appropriate fiscal rules, which mainly stem from the Maastricht convergence criteria and the Stability and Growth Pact.


2004 ◽  
Vol 53 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carsten Hefeker ◽  
Friedrich Heinemann ◽  
Klaus F. Zimmermann

AbstractIn his contribution Carsten Hefeker points out that most of the official arguments concerning the necessity of the Stability and Growth Pact are not convincing. Nevertheless, a mechanism that credibly avoids excessive debts and deficits is needed in most member states. It would be more useful, however, if such rules would focus on overall debt rather than on deficits. In addition, he advocates to create an external control for such fiscal rules, independent from the Commission and ECOFIN. He concludes that the Pact does not need to become more flexible, but more credible.Friedrich Heinemann states that much of the recent reform debate on the Stability Pact is based on a fundamental misconception: The Pact has not been established as a guiding tool for welfare - maximising politicians, but in order to limit detrimental incentives from fiscal short-sightedness. “Stupid” elements like the three-per-cent deficit ceiling have a clear and beneficial strategic function as boundary within the national budgetary process. Furthermore, simple rules are superior to smart ones in increasing the political costs of high deficits in terms of public awareness. The critique on the pact′s missing flexibility is correct mainly regarding its lose logical link to long-run sustainability. Increasing flexibility in a cyclical sense, however, is not a reform priority. Already today the Pact leaves sufficient leeway for responsible politicians. Instead, the reform focus must be on depoliticising the pact in the sense of limiting Council power in the deficit procedure. More flexibility must not come without depoliticising. He recommends that any reform should only be carried into effect with a significant time lag in order to limit the reputation damage which would be the consequence of any quick institutional response to the Pact′s recent crisis.In his paper Klaus F. Zimmermann argues that the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) has been subject to criticism ever since its inception. He points out that it overlooks business cycle developments within the framework of the consolidation process; it adopts a too short-term view of the stabilisation target which is also hardly under control of policy-makers; and it deals with policy imperfections in a sub-optimal way. Therefore, a reform of the SGP is urgent. The author suggests that the rules must be handled more flexibly. In his opinion, a mediumterm budgetary target and a focus on public expenditures to tackle the pro-cyclical bias is needed. To restore credibility, the task of supervision should be transferred to an independent European institution.


Competitio ◽  
2020 ◽  
Vol 10 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Oliver Kovacs

This contribution addresses the question of what are the main constituents of an innovative fiscal policy in the context of sustainability. We apply the concept of sustaining and disruptive innovation to fiscal policy. On the one hand, innovative fiscal policy is able to be sustaining whereby public finance will incrementally improve without leaving its decisive structure. On the other hand, innovative fiscal policy should be disruptive as well in the context of long term sustainability, whereby the structure of public finances can be profoundly restructured as a reaction to future challenges. By using the Finnish recovery in the early 1990s, we can refine our argument about the use and necessity of the mixture of fiscal rules and independent institutions in favour of fiscal sustainability. We also shed light on the key sources of the expansionary consolidation that emerged in the aftermath of the fiscal adjustment in the early 1990s. We emphasise that innovative fiscal policy with a mixture of legislated fiscal rules and independent fiscal anchor is more likely to be associated with sustainability if the economy has weaker growth potential which does not provide enough social trust towards the consolidation efforts of the government. Journal of Economic Literature (JEL) classification: E61, E62, Q01


Author(s):  
Piedad García-Escudero Márquez

Tras el establecimiento de la “restricción europea” al déficit público, la derivada del Tratado de Maastricht y del Pacto de Estabilidad y Crecimiento, las Comunidades Autónomas han estado sujetas a reglas fiscales relativas al déficit y a la deuda, así como a la gestión de sis presupuestos. Esta normativa, sin embargo, no evitó que algunas Comunidades incumplieran los objetivos se estabilidad persupuestaria probablemente porque carecía de un eficaz sistema de sanciones. Este trabajo examina el alcance de la reforma del art. 135 de la Constitución, y especialmente se centra en el margen de maniobra que el nuevo artículo atribuye al Estado para imponer a los gobiernos autonómicos el cumplimiento de los límites de déficit y deuda.After the introduction of the “European restriction” to public deficit, resulting from the Treaty of Maastricht and the Stability and Growth Pact, the Autonomous Communities have been subject to formal fiscal rules with regard to the deficit and the debt, as well as the management of their budgets. However, this regulation did not prevent some Autonomous Communities failed to comply with the budgetary stability objectives, probably because it lacked an effective system of sanctions. This paper examines the scope of the constitutional amendment of article 135, and focuses particularly on the margin of maneuver that new article 135 gives the State to impose the regional governments meet the deficit and debt limits.


2001 ◽  
Vol 31 (125) ◽  
pp. 637-648
Author(s):  
Hansjörg Herr

The terrorattack hit the western world in a situation of a sharp cyclical downturn in the USA, Europe and Japan. Mainly because of increased uncertainty the downturn will be intensified by the attack. Immediately after the attack US monetary and fiscal policy became even more expansive. In Europe monetary policy reacted very reluctantly. Active fiscal policy in the Euro-area is nearly not existing as the Stability and Growth Pact as well as neo-liberal ideology prevents fiscal measures. The inactive economic policy in the Euro-area is not only dangerous for Europe but also a depressing factor for the world economy.


Author(s):  
Juliusz Giżyński ◽  
Ryszard Wierzba

Fiscal discipline is one of fundamental requirements of the Economic and MonetaryUnion as specified in the provisions of the Maastricht Treaty (1992) and laterelaborated on in the Stability and Growth Pact (1997). EMU Member States fromthe beginning had serious difficulties in adhering to the fiscal rules, which ledto the first reform of the SGP in 2005 resulting in more flexible fiscal rules. Despitegood economic situation, EMU’s economies still had budget deficits which furtherincreased with the global financial crisis causing government debts to soar overacceptable limits. In due time, two further reforms of SGP were enacted, in 2011and 2013, introducing new indicators and improvements in the assessment of thegovernment budget balance in the euro area. Nevertheless, enforcement of newrules still will depend on EMU governments political will.


2021 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 26-35

Fiscal policymaking of the Member States aims to follow fiscal rules through the economic cycle that ensure macroeconomic sustainability in the European Union (EU). After the 2008 global crisis, the Stability and Growth Pact introduced the enhanced supranational fiscal rules, setting additional boundaries to fiscal deficits and government debt. The new ceiling on the structural deficit in public finance laws of Member States has served to protect creditworthiness. The COVID-19 pandemic, which led to a temporary suspension of the fiscal rules, clearly indicates that the key challenges are to implement a countercyclical policy during upturns, building buffers for bad days. Under the Next Generation Europe’s initiative the European Commission (EC) will borrow up to €750 billion and distribute it over 2021-2024 to Member States (European Commission, 2020a). Raising funds in the EU budget and repayment of the EC debt may lead to amendments to the design and application of the EU fiscal rules. This paper lays out the objectives of the EU current fiscal framework and its main pillars, discusses how the EC new financial instruments for the period 2021-2027 will be accounted for in the Member States’ fiscal framework, and what are its possible changes and challenges after Covid-19 and Brexit.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document