Advertisement

The stability and growth pact, fiscal policy institutions and stabilization in Europe

  • Carlos Fonseca MarinheiroEmail author
Original Paper

Abstract

Ever since its inception, the EMU has been subject to controversy. The fiscal policy rules embedded in the Maastricht Treaty, and clarified in the Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), are probably the most contentious. The SGP has constantly been accused of being too rigid and of forcing procyclicality in fiscal policy. However, in an influential paper Galí and Perotti (2003) concluded that discretionary fiscal policy has actually become more countercyclical in EMU countries since the Maastricht Treaty. This paper argues that this conclusion stands up to several robustness tests using ex-post data, including the use of institutional variables, but not to the use of real-time data. Using ex-post data, there is some evidence pointing to a more countercyclical use of discretionary fiscal policy (or at least to less use of procyclical discretionary fiscal policy). However, the use of real-time data for the period 1999–2006 reveals that discretionary fiscal policy has been designed to be procyclical. Hence, the actual acyclical behaviour of discretionary fiscal policy in the period after 1999 seems to be simply the result of errors in forecasting the output gap, and not the result of a change in the intentions of policy-makers. As a result, there is no evidence to support the view that Maastricht rules have forced euro-area policy-makers to change their behaviour and design countercyclical discretionary fiscal policies.

Keywords

Fiscal policy Stabilization Stability and growth pact Institutional arrangements Real-time data 

JEL Classification

E62 H62 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The text has benefited from comments received from an anonymous referee and from António Afonso, Martin Larch, Peter Brandner, José Tavares, Alfred Sitz and other participants at the 63rd International Atlantic Economic Conference held in Madrid on 14–18 March 2007, and at the Workshop on the Sustainability of the Public Debt held at Klagenfurt University on 20 May 2007. All remaining errors or omissions are solely my responsibility. A word of recognition is also due to Jochen Mierau, Richard Jong-A-Pin and Jakob de Haan for making their data set on political variables available, and to Reinhard Neck for superbly organizing the two mentioned sessions. The author also acknowledges financial support provided by the Portuguese Foundation for Science and Technology (FCT) under research grant POCI/EGE/60069/2004 (partially funded by FEDER, programme POCI 2010).

References

  1. Andersen T (2001) Stabilization policy, University of Aarhus, unpublished manuscript, JuneGoogle Scholar
  2. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:227–297Google Scholar
  3. Auerbach A (2002) Is there a role for discretionary fiscal policy?, NBER Working Paper No. 9306Google Scholar
  4. Baltagi B (2001) Econometric analysis of panel data. 2nd edition, Wiley & Sons ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  5. Bayoumi T, Masson P (1995) Fiscal flows in the United States and Canada: lessons for monetary union in Europe. Eur Econ Rev 39:253–274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Brandner P, Diebalek L and Koehler-Toeglhofer (2006) Budget balances decomposed: tracking fiscal policy in Austria. Presented at the Workshop on Fiscal Indicators in the EU Budgetary Surveillance, Brussels, 22 SeptemberGoogle Scholar
  7. Brender A, Drazen A (2005) Political budget cycles in new versus established democracies. J Mon Econ 52:1271–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Forni L, Momigliano S (2004) Cyclical sensitivity of fiscal policies based on real-time data. App Econ Q 50:299–326Google Scholar
  9. Galí J, Perotti R (2003) Fiscal policy and monetary integration in Europe. Econ Policy 37:533–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jonung L, Larch M (2006) Improving fiscal policy in the EU: the case for independent forecasts. Econ Policy 21:491–534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lane P (2003) The cyclical behaviour of fiscal policy: Evidence from the OECD. J Pub Econ 87:2661–2675CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Mierau Jo, Jong-a-Pin R and De Haan J (2006) Do political variables affect fiscal policy adjustment decisions? New empirical evidence, Paper submitted for EPCS2006Google Scholar
  13. Mierau J, Jong-a-Pin R and De Haan J (2007) Do political variables affect fiscal policy adjustment decisions? New empirical evidence. Pub Choice 133(3–4):297–319CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Orphanides A, Van Norden S (2002) The unreliability of output-gap estimates in real time. Rev Econ Stat 84:569–583CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Pina Á (2004) Fiscal policy in Portugal: discipline, cyclicality and the scope for expenditure rules, proceedings of the 2nd Conference on Portuguese Economic Development in the European Context, held by the Bank of Portugal in Lisbon, 11–12 March 2004, forthcomingGoogle Scholar
  16. Roubini N, Sachs J (1989) Political and economic determinants of budget deficits in the industrial democracies. Eur Econ Rev 33:903–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Volkerink B, De Haan J (2001) Fragmented government effects on fiscal policy: new evidence. Pub Choice 109:221–242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Woo J (2003) Economic, political, and institutional determinants of public deficits. J Pub Econ 87:387–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Wyplosz C (2002) Fiscal Discipline in EMU: rules or institutions? Paper prepared for the April 16, 2002 meeting of the Group of Economic Analysis of the European Commission. http://heiwww.unige.ch/~wyplosz/

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Grupo de Estudos Monetários e Financeiros (GEMF)Faculty of Economics, University of CoimbraCoimbraPortugal

Personalised recommendations