Fiscal Shocks and The Sectoral Composition of Output

Abstract

We study the impact of shocks to different types of government spending on the sectoral composition of output for a panel of EMU member countries. We find that fiscal shocks lead to an increase in the relative size of the nontraded sector, with the impact varying across the different spending categories. There is typically no significant impact on the level of production in the tradables sector but the level of imports increases and the level of exports declines in most cases. Overall, the results show that fiscal shocks matter not only for aggregate variables but also for the sectoral composition of output. The sectoral output results are consistent with previous work concerning the impact of fiscal shocks on the real exchange rate and the relative price of nontradables.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes

  1. 1.

    Alternative approaches to identification are not well suited for our purposes. The ‘narrative’ or ‘dummy variable’ approach developed by Ramey and Shapiro (1998) and latter implemented by Edelberg et al. (1999), Burnside et al. (2004) and Romer and Romer (2009) has focused on the U.S. case and would be difficult to implement for a multi-country panel. The ‘sign restriction’ approach implemented by Mountford and Uhlig (2008) and Canova and Pappa (2007) requires taking a strong stand on the predicted sign impact of fiscal shocks on the sectoral composition of output and the diversity of theoretical models does not support taking a strong stand on the sign of the response.

  2. 2.

    Ramey (2008) shows that fiscal policy in the U.S. may be anticipated one or two quarters in advance and that this produces qualitative changes in the responses of consumption and real wages.

  3. 3.

    To show this, Beetsma et al. (2006) estimate a panel VAR in public spending (g) and output (y) for seven EU countries with non-interpolated quarterly fiscal data assuming that g does not react to y within a quarter. From these results they construct an estimate of the response of public spending to output at annual frequency finding that it is not significantly different from zero. For further details on the plausibility of this assumption see Beetsma et al. (2009).

  4. 4.

    We thank George Tavlas for providing these data. The database has some missing entries. These are wage government consumption for Belgium between 1970 and 1975, Germany in 1970 and Portugal between 1970 and 1977. This last country also lacks data for total government consumption and government fixed investment for the same period, while Germany lacks total government consumption for 1970. Data from West Germany and Germany are combined by splicing growth rates in 1991.

  5. 5.

    Since all responses produced by this alternative Choleski ordering are similar to those previously presented, we do not report these figures.

  6. 6.

    To compute these differences we take the point estimates of the mean responses. We then test the statistical significance of these using the 1000 impulse responses produced by the Monte Carlo experiment used to derive the error bands.

References

  1. Arellano M (2003) Panel data Econometrics. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beetsma R, Giuliodori M, Klaassen F (2006) Trade spill-overs of fiscal policy in the European Union: a panel analysis. Econ Policy 21(48):639–687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Beetsma R, Giuliodori M, Klaassen F (2008) The effects of public spending shocks on trade balances and budget deficits in European Union. Journal of the European Economic Association 6(2–3):414–423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Beetsma R, Giuliodori M, Klaassen F (2009) Temporal aggregation and SVAR identification, with an application to fiscal policy. Econ Lett 105:253–255

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Bénétrix AS (2009) Fiscal shocks and real wages. IIIS Discussion Paper No. 288

  6. Bénétrix AS, Lane PR (2009) Fiscal shocks and the real exchange rate. IIIS Discussion Paper No. 286

  7. Blanchard O (2007) Current account deficits in rich countries. NBER Working Paper No. 12925

  8. Blanchard O, Perotti R (2002) An empirical characterization of the dynamic effects of changes in government spending and taxes on output. Q J Econ 117(4):1329–1368

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Burnside C, Eichenbaum M, Fisher JDM (2004) Fiscal shocks and their consequences. J Econ Theory 115(1):89–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Canova F, Pappa E (2007) Price differentials in monetary unions: the role of fiscal shocks. Econ J 117:713–737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Canzoneri MB, Cumby RE, Diba B (1999) Relative labor productivity and the real exchange rate in the long run: evidence for a panel of OECD countries. J Int Econ 47(2):245–266

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Cavallo M (2005) Government employment expenditure and the effects of fiscal policy shocks. Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco

  13. Cavallo M (2007) Goverment consumption expenditure and the current account. Public Financ Manag 7:73–115

    Google Scholar 

  14. Edelberg W, Eichenbaum M, Fisher JDM (1999) Understanding the effects of a shock to government purchases. Rev Econ Dyn 2(1):166–206

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Engler P, Fidora M, Thimann C (2007) External imbalances and the US current account: how supply-side changes affect an exchange rate adjustment. ECB Working Paper No. 761

  16. Galstyan V, Lane PR (2009) The composition of government spending and the real exchange rate. J Money Credit Bank 41:1233–1249

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Giordano R, Momigliano S, Neri S, Perotti R (2007) The effects of fiscal policy in Italy: evidence from a VAR model. European Journal of Political Economy 23(3):707–733

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Lane PR, Perotti R (2003) The importance of composition of fiscal policy: evidence from different exchange rate regimes. J Public Econ 87(9–10):2253–2279

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Matsuyama K (1992) A simple model of sectoral adjustment. Rev Econ Stud 59:375–388

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Monacelli T, Perotti R (2008) Openness and the sectoral effects of fiscal policy. Journal of the European Economic Association 6(2–3):395–403

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Monacelli T, Perotti R (2009) Fiscal policy, the real exchange rate, and traded goods. Econ J (in press)

  22. Mountford A, Uhlig H (2008) What are the effects of fiscal policy shocks? NBER Working Paper No. 14551

  23. Nickell SJ (1981) Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 49(6):1417–1426

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Obstfeld M (2009) Time of troubles: the yen and Japan’s economy, 1985-2008. mimeo, University of California, Berkeley

  25. Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (1996) Foundations of international macroeconomics. MIT, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  26. Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (2001) Perspectives on OECD capital market integration: implications for U.S. current account adjustment. In: Federal reserve bank of Kansas City global economic integration: opportunities and challenges, pp. 169-208

  27. Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (2005) Global current account imbalances and exchange rate adjustments. In: Brainard W, Perry G (eds) Brookings papers on economic activity vol 1, pp 67–146

  28. Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (2007) The unsustainable US current account position revisited. In: Clarida R (ed) G7 current account imbalances: sustainability and adjustment. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  29. Pappa E (2005) New-Keynesian or RBC transmission? the effects of fiscal policy in labor markets. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 5313

  30. Perotti R (2004) Estimating the effects of fiscal policy in OECD countries. mimeo, Università Bocconi

  31. Perotti R (2007) Public investment and the Golden Rule: another (different) look. mimeo, Università Bocconi

  32. Ramey VA (2008) Identifying government spending shocks: it’s all in the timing. mimeo, UCSD Institute for Applied Economics

  33. Ramey VA, Shapiro MD (1998) Costly capital reallocation and the effects of government spending. Carnegie-Rochester Conf Ser Public Policy 48:145–194

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Ravn M, Schmitt-Grohe S, Uribe M (2007) Explaining the effects of government spending shocks on consumption and real exchange rate. NBER Working Paper No. 13328

  35. Romer C, Romer D (2009) The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks. Am Econ Rev (in press)

  36. Tagkalakis A (2006) The effects of macroeconomic policy shocks on the UK labour market. Int J Financ Econ 11(3):229–244

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Philip R. Lane.

Additional information

We thank an anonymous referee for helpful comments. This paper is part of an IRCHSS-sponsored research project on An Analysis of the Impact of European Monetary Union on Irish Macroeconomic Policy.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bénétrix, A.S., Lane, P.R. Fiscal Shocks and The Sectoral Composition of Output. Open Econ Rev 21, 335–350 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-009-9161-5

Download citation

Keywords

  • Government spending shocks
  • Tradables
  • Nontradables
  • European Monetary Union
  • Panel VAR

JEL Classification

  • E24
  • E62