Public Choice

, Volume 136, Issue 1–2, pp 123–138 | Cite as

Do fiscal rules cause budgetary outcomes?

  • Signe Krogstrup
  • Sébastien Wälti


This paper focuses on the observed empirical relationship between fiscal rules and budget deficits, and examines whether this correlation is driven by an omitted variable, namely voter preferences. We make use of two different estimation methods to capture voter preferences in a panel of Swiss sub-federal jurisdictions. First, we include a recently constructed measure of fiscal preferences. Second, we capture preferences through fixed effects with a structural break as women are enfranchised. We find that fiscal rules continue to have a significant impact on real budget balances.


Fiscal policy Fiscal rules Fiscal institutions Budget deficits Fiscal preferences Endogeneity 


C2 D7 E6 H6 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Alesina, A., & Bayoumi, T. (1996). The costs and benefits of fiscal rules: evidence from U.S. states (NBER Working Paper 5614). Google Scholar
  2. Alesina, A., Roubini, N., & Cohen, G. (1999). Political cycles and the macroeconomy. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  3. Alt, J., & Lowry, R. (1994). Divided government, fiscal institutions, and budget deficits: evidence from the States. American Political Science Review, 88, 811–828. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro, R. (1979). On the determination of public debt. Journal of Political Economy, 87, 940–971. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohn, H., & Inman, R. (1996). Balanced-budget rules and public deficits: evidence from the U.S. states. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, 45, 13–76. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Buchanan, J. (1964). Public debt, cost theory and the fiscal illusion. In J. Ferguson (Ed.), Public debt and future generations. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press. Google Scholar
  7. Carare, A., Khamis, M., & Debrun, X. (2006). Switzerland: selected issues (IMF Country Report 06/203). Google Scholar
  8. Dafflon, B., & Pujol, F. (2001). Fiscal preferences and fiscal performance: Swiss cantonal evidence. International Public Management Review, 2, 54–76. Google Scholar
  9. Feld, L., & Kirchgässner, G. (2001). Does direct democracy reduce public debt? Evidence from Swiss municipalities. Public Choice, 109, 347–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Feld, L., & Kirchgässner, G. (2006). On the effectiveness of debt brakes: the Swiss experience (CREMA Working Paper 2006/21). Google Scholar
  11. Feld, L., & Matsusaka, J. (2003). Budget referendums and government spending: evidence from Swiss cantons. Journal of Public Economics, 87, 2703–2724. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Funk, P., & Gathmann, C. (2005). What women want: suffrage, female voter preferences and the scope of government. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  13. Funk, P., & Gathmann, C. (2006). Estimating the effect of direct democracy on policy outcomes: preferences matter. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  14. Gorman, W. (1980). A possible procedure for analysing quality differentials in the egg market. Review of Economic Studies, 47, 843–856. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Heckman, J., & Snyder, J. (1997). Linear probability models of the demand for attributes with an empirical application to estimating the preferences of legislators. RAND Journal of Economics, 28, S142–S189. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hibbs, D. (1977). Political parties and macroeconomic policy. American Political Science Review, 7, 1467–1487. Google Scholar
  17. Krogstrup, S., & Wälti, S. (2007). Women and budget deficits (HEI Working Paper 13/2007). Google Scholar
  18. Krogstrup, S., & Wyplosz, C. (2007). Dealing with the deficit bias: principles and policies. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  19. Lagona, F., & Padovano, F. (2007). A nonlinear principal components analysis of the relationship between budget rules and fiscal performance in the European Union. Public Choice, 130, 401–436. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Lancaster, K. (1966). A new approach to consumer theory. Journal of Political Economy, 74, 132–157. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Lott, J., & Kenny, L. (1999). Did women’s suffrage change the size and scope of government. Journal of Political Economy, 107, 1163–1198. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Persson, T., & Svensson, L. (1989). Why a stubborn conservative would run a deficit: policy with time-inconsistent preferences. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 104, 325–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics, explaining economic policy. Cambridge: MIT Press. Google Scholar
  24. Plümper, T., & Troeger, V. (2007). Efficient estimation of time-invariant and rarely changing variables in finite sample panel analyses with unit fixed effects. Political Analysis, 15, 124–139. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Poterba, J. (1994). State responses to fiscal crises: the effects of budgetary institutions and politics. Journal of Political Economy, 102, 799–821. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Poterba, J. (1996). Budget institutions and fiscal policy in the U.S. states. American Economic Review, 86, 395–400. Google Scholar
  27. Schaltegger, C. (2002). Budgetregeln und ihre Wirkung auf die öffentliche Haushalte: empirische Ergebnisse aus den US-Bundesstaaten und den Schweizer Kantonen. Schmollers Jahrbuch, 122, 369–413. Google Scholar
  28. Stutzer, A., & Kienast, L. (2005). Demokratische Beteiligung und Staatsausgaben: die Auswirkungen des Frauenstimmrechts. Swiss Journal of Economics and Statistics, 141, 617–650. Google Scholar
  29. Tellier, G., & Imbeau, L. (2004). Budget deficits and surpluses in the Canadian provinces: a pooled analysis. Unpublished manuscript. Google Scholar
  30. Weingast, B., Shepsle, K., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: a neoclassical approach to distributive politics. Journal of Political Economy, 89, 642–664. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Swiss National BankZürichSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations