Skip to main content

Ineffective fiscal rules? The effect of public sector accounting standards on budgets, efficiency, and accountability

Public Choice volume 186, pages 387–412 (2021)Cite this article

Abstract

International organizations have encouraged national governments to switch from traditional cash-based to business-like accrual accounting, on the presumption that long-run benefits may outweigh substantial implementation and operating costs. We use a quasi-experimental setting to evaluate whether changing public sector accounting standards is justified. Some local governments in the German federal state of Bavaria introduced accrual accounting while others retained cash-based accounting. Difference-in-differences and event-study results do not show that (capital) expenditures, public debt, voter turnout, or government efficiency developed differently after changes in accounting standards. Operating costs of administration, however, increase under accrual accounting.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price includes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1

Source: Deloitte (2015), PwC (2015), OECD and IFAC (2017), IFAC and CIPFA (2018). Notes: The map reports the current public-sector accounting standard (cash or accrual) at the national government level around the world as of 2018. The map also indicates countries which are in a transition from cash-based to a full accrual-based reporting system or have plans to do so in the next years

Fig. 2

Source: see Lueder (2001, p. 37). Notes: The figure shows a simplified three-component accounting system

Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Notes: Dots represent point estimates from event study estimations, bars are 90% confidence intervals (equivalent to *p < 0.1). − 1 on the x-axis is the base category and denotes 1 year before the introduction of accrual accounting; 1 denotes the first year of implementing accrual accounting

Fig. 5

Notes: Dots represent point estimates from event study estimations, bars are 90% confidence intervals (equivalent to *p < 0.1). − 1 on the x-axis is the base category and denotes 1 year before the introduction of accrual accounting; 1 denotes the first year of implementing accrual accounting. Technical efficiency multiplied by 100

Notes

  1. The European Commission proposes a harmonized accrual accounting regime (EPSAS) for all EU member states assuming that “[t]he appropriateness of the accruals principle is indisputable” (European Commission 2013, p. 5). The underlying assumption is that harmonized public accrual accounting among the EU members may strengthen confidence in the financial stability in the European Union and facilitates fiscal surveillance in order to avoid future sovereign debt crisis (Council of the European Union 2011; European Commission 2013). A majority of EU member states have already implemented full accrual-based public accounting or plan to do so. See also Cavanagh et al. (2016) for the IMF, and OECD and IFAC (2017) for the OECD.

  2. The cost estimates refer to the introduction of the accrual-based EPSAS.

  3. Lampe et al. (2015) use a stochastic frontier approach and show that accrual accounting comes with initial gains in cost efficiency which diminish rapidly. In their setting of German local governments in the state of North Rhine-Westphalia in the very short run over 3 years, however, accrual accounting overlaps with further policy changes such as withdrawing fiscal supervision (see Christofzik and Kessing 2018).

  4. Asatryan et al. (2018) use a similar strategy.

  5. Tóth (2019) shows that fiscal rules successfully bind the implementing but also later governments.

  6. The difference of the two accounting systems and its components becomes more obvious by discussing some examples: If an investment good (e.g., non-financial asset) is acquired (a), cash-based accounting reports only the cash outflow in the period when cash is paid out. Under accrual accounting, however, the balance sheet reports the decrease of liquid financial assets (or an increase of debt (liabilities)) at the price of the purchased asset, but also the increase of non-financial assets at the value of the purchased asset. Equity capital, however, does not change if the price equals the value of the purchased asset. This is similar if non-financial assets such as land properties, buildings or machineries are sold (b). While cash-based accounting only reports the cash inflow in the cash flow statement, the balance sheet of accrual accounting takes the rise of liquid assets on the one hand and the decline in the value of non-financial assets on the other hand into account. In the case of borrowing (c), cash-based accounting records again only the inflow of cash in the cash flow statement. Accrual accounting, by contrast, reports the rise of liquid assets (due to cash inflow) and the rise of liabilities. Moreover, future interest costs of the credit are considered in the income statement as expenses (d). The income statement also reports an increase in expenses when capital assets depreciate (e). If the balance of revenues and expenses is negative, equity capital is decreasing in the balance sheet. Table A1 in the appendix gives a numerical example.

  7. Traditional cash-based accounting statements do not systematically report the use of resources.

  8. See, Delmenhorster Kurier, June 30, 2019, “Misstrauische Politiker”, https://www.weser-kurier.de/region/delmenhorster-kurier_artikel,-misstrauische-politiker-_arid,1841297.html.

  9. See, e.g., Boehme et al. (2013), and Selb-Live.de, November 29, 2018, ”Aus dem Stadtrat notiert - Rückumstellung des Rechnungswesens”, http://www.hochfranken-live.de/index.php/aus-dem-rathaus/6300-aus-dem-stadtrat-notiert-31.html.

  10. The states of Bavaria and Thuringia allow local governments to choose between accrual-based and traditional cash-based accounting. In the state of Schleswig-Holstein, local governments can select full accrual-based or cash-based accounting extended by some accrual accounting elements. All county governments have switched to accrual accounting. In Thuringia, four out of 23 county governments changed accounting standards.

  11. See Pressestelle Landratsamt Bamberg, December 21, 2004, ”Landkreis Bamberg entscheidet sich für die Doppik; Einstimmiger Grundsatzbeschluss des Kreistages”, https://www.landkreis-bamberg.de/showobject.phtml?object=tx,1633.10.1&ModID=7&FID=1633.5682.1; Stadt Regensburg, March 21/29, 2007, ”Vorlage - VO/07/2212/020: Umstellung der Haushaltsführung von der kameralistischen auf die doppelte kommunale Buchführung”, https://srv19.regensburg.de/bi/vo020.asp?VOLFDNR=2121; Pressestelle Landkreis Würzburg, March 04, 2009, ”Landkreis führt Doppik ein”, https://www.landkreis-wuerzburg.de/Auf-einen-Klick/Pressebereich/Landkreis-f%C3%BChrt-Doppik-ein.php?object=tx,2680.5.1&ModID=7&FID=1755.226.1&NavID=2680.127&La=1; Die Augsburger Zeitung, November 13, 2009, ”Pro Augsburg gibt Doppik nicht auf”, https://www.daz-augsburg.de/pro-augsburg-gibt-doppik-nicht-auf/; Landkreis Schwandorf, March 14, 2011, ”11. Sitzung des Kreisausschusses: Bericht zum neuen Kommunalen Haushaltsrecht”, https://landkreis-schwandorf.de/index.phtml?La=1&sNavID=1901.67&mNavID=1901.1&object=tx%7C1901.416.1&kat=&kuo=1&sub=0.

  12. Data on accounting standards are from the Bavarian State Parliament (Bayerischer Landtag, Drs. 17/12909). All other data are obtained from the State Statistical Office of Bavaria.

  13. The collection of these expenditure categories are hardly affected by different accounting standards. Spurious statistical effects can be ruled out to large extent. By contrast, other expenditure categories as well as total expenditures might be biased by artificial statistical breaks. The State Statistical Office of Bavaria confirmed that our fiscal performance categories are comparable between cash-based and accrual-based accounting statements.

  14. Investment expenditures include the acquisition of land, facilities, and movable fixed assets as well as construction expenditures. This article also discusses whether accrual accounting affects local government decisions on total construction expenditure and investments in schools or county streets in the results section.

  15. County governments do not raise own taxes. County rates, however, do not occur in consolidated city counties.

  16. Data on debt of all local government enterprises is not available as panel dataset in the period of observation.

  17. DEA report the maximum efficiency score of 1. We multiply all efficiency scores by 100 and report the maximum efficiency score as 100.

  18. The calculations of the efficiency scores are based on an input-orientation rather than an output-oriented model. This approach seems appropriate because county governments have large autonomy in expenditure decisions (input factors). A decrease or increase in input factors such as expenditures (given a constant output) seems always possible (for example by raising the county rate to finance expenditures), whereas a change in the amount of outputs and services is not always feasible. Scholars have shown that per capita public expenditures or legislative tasks may depend on the size and density of the population (see, for example, Breunig and Rocaboy 2008; Holcombe and Williams 2008; Egger and Koethenbuerger 2010). Efficiency scores therefore rely on the assumption of variable returns to scale. Inferences of our results hardly change by using constant returns to scale.

  19. The SPD was the second largest party in the Bavarian parliament during our period of observation and clearly preferred mandatory accrual accounting in the parliamentary debate. We have also tested the SPD seat share and SPD head of government as additional control variables. Inferences regarding our main results, however, do not change.

  20. Inferences hardly change when we include Regierungsbezirk-year fixed effects instead of year fixed effects (see, Table A13 for cox and probit regressions with district-year fixed effects; Table A14 for the difference-in-differences results and figures A1 and A2 for the event-study results in the Online Appendix). Bavarian counties are grouped into seven administrative districts (Regierungsbezirke); interactions among heads of government could be somewhat more intense within districts. We found a statistically significant effect of CSU heads of government on the cox regression but not in the probit estimations.

  21. Table A4 in the Online Appendix shows the results for our control variables.

  22. Results do not change for time lags of voter turnout. See Table A6 in the Online Appendix.

  23. The Online Appendix provide full event study regression outputs in Tables A7 and A8.

  24. Another minor exception is that road accidents are somewhat lower some 2 years before switching (10% significance level). See Table A8 in the Online Appendix.

  25. We do not use unemployment rates as a baseline control variable because we do not observe unemployment rates for the entire period under investigation. Dummies for flood events are one in 2002 and 2013 when a county government declared emergency alert, and zero otherwise.

  26. Anecdotal evidence reports, for example, that introducing accrual accounting gave rise to transition problems including inconsistent and contradictory statements, time consuming asset valuation, costly expenses for new IT systems, staff training and external support services. Some counties even report severe mistakes in creating the new balance sheets and asset valuations due to overloading of the staff. After 2012 no further counties decided to implement accrual accounting in Bavaria. Quite the contrary, some local governments are discussing to switch back to cash-based accounting. See Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 9, 2015, ”Sinn und Unsinn Befürworter der Doppik”, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/landkreismuenchen/befuerworter-der-doppik-sinn-und-unsinn-1.2427815; Süddeutsche Zeitung, April 9, 2015, ”Pioniere mit Problemen”, https://www.sueddeutsche.de/muenchen/landkreismuenchen/vorreiter-gemeinde-pioniere-mit-problemen-1.2427817; Nordbayerischer Kurier, May 16, 2015, ”Bayreuth: Buchhalterpanne kostet 1,5 Millionen Euro”, https://www.kurier.de/inhalt.stadt-beginnt-mit-aufarbeitung-der-falschen-bilanz-bayreuth-buchhalterpanne-kostet-1-5-millionen-euro.221eeee7-9a0b-4d48-83e8-f92fdb2dd729.html; Selb-Live.de, November 29, 2018, ”Aus dem Stadtrat notiert - Rückumstellung des Rechnungswesens”, http://www.hochfranken-live.de/index.php/aus-dem-rathaus/6300-aus-dem-stadtrat-notiert-31.html.

  27. We show that observable pre-reform characteristics do not predict the selection into treatment (see Sect. 4.2). Even more, event study results corroborate that the common trends assumption in our outcome variables hold (see Sect. 5.2). One may still argue that unobserved characteristics such as the motivation of the head of the county administration and the members of the county council influence the selection into treatment decision and the government performance as more motivated decision makers more likely use the new management tools provided by accrual-based financial statements. The benefits of accrual accounting might then be overestimated due to an omitted variable bias. Our results, however, do not show significant effects which suggest that unobserved characteristics cause an overestimation of benefits. Thus, our results do not seem to be biased.

References

  • Aghion, P., Alesina, A., & Trebbi, F. (2004). Endogenous political institutions. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 119(2), 565–611.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., Hausmann, R., Hommes, R., & Stein, E. (1999). Budget institutions and fiscal performance in Latin America. Journal of Development Economics, 59(2), 253–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alesina, A., & Perotti, R. (1999). Budget deficits and budget institutions. In J. Poterba & J. von Hagen (Eds.), Fiscal institutions and fiscal performance (pp. 13–36). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alt, J., Lassen, D. D., & Wehner, J. (2014). It isn’t just about Greece: Domestic politics, transparency and fiscal gimmickry in Europe. British Journal of Political Science, 44(4), 707–716.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alt, J. E., & Lowry, R. C. (1994). Divided government, fiscal institutions, and budget deficits: Evidence from the States. American Political Science Review, 88(4), 811–828.

    Google Scholar 

  • Andriani, Y., Kober, R., & Ng, J. (2010). Decision usefulness of cash and accrual information: Public sector managers perceptions. Australian Accounting Review, 20(2), 144–153.

    Google Scholar 

  • Asatryan, Z., Castellon, C., & Stratmann, T. (2018). Balanced budget rules and fiscal outcomes: Evidence from historical constitutions. Journal of Public Economics, 167, 105–119.

    Google Scholar 

  • Balaguer-Coll, M. T., Prior, D., & Tortosa-Ausina, E. (2007). On the determinants of local government performance: A two-stage nonparametric approach. European Economic Review, 51(2), 425–451.

    Google Scholar 

  • Banker, R. D., Charnes, A., & Cooper, W. W. (1984). Some models for estimating technical and scale inefficiencies in data envelopment analysis. Management Science, 30(9), 1078–1092.

    Google Scholar 

  • Beetsma, R., Giuliodori, M., & Wierts, P. (2009). Planning to cheat: EU fiscal policy in real time. Economic Policy, 24(60), 753–804.

    Google Scholar 

  • Benito, B., & Bastida, F. (2009). Budget transparency, fiscal performance, and political turnout: An international approach. Public Administration Review, 69(3), 403–417.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernholz, P. (1980). Public choice. Public Choice, 35(1), 121–121.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernholz, P. (1993). Public choice theory: Some items for a research agenda. Public Choice, 77, 29–37.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bernholz, P. (2008). Institutional competition: International environment, levels and consequences. In A. Bergh & R. Hoeijer (Eds.), Institutional Competition (pp. 90–111). Cheltenham, UK/Northhampton, MA: Edward Elgar.

    Google Scholar 

  • Blume, L., & Voigt, S. (2013). The economic effects of constitutional budget institutions. European Journal of Political Economy, 29, 236–251.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boehme, D., Blasch, K., & Heindl, M. (2013). Die Reform des Haushalts- und Rechnungswesen im Freistaat Bayern: Aktueller Umsetzungsstand. Implementationsprobleme und Perspektiven. Evaluationsbericht: Universität Bamberg.

  • Bohn, H., & Inman, R. P. (1996). Balanced-budget rules and public deficits: Evidence from the us states. In Carnegie-Rochester conference series on public policy (Vol. 45, pp. 13–76). Elsevier .

  • Breunig, R., & Rocaboy, Y. (2008). Per-capita public expenditures and population size: A non-parametric analysis using French data. Public Choice, 136(3–4), 429–445.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burret, H. T., & Feld, L. P. (2018). (Un-) intended effects of fiscal rules. European Journal of Political Economy, 52, 166–191.

    Google Scholar 

  • Burth, A., & Hilgers, D. (2014). Cui bono? Depicting the benefits of the new municipal budgeting and accounting regime in Germany. Journal of Business Economics, 84(4), 531–570.

    Google Scholar 

  • Buti, M., Martins, J. N., & Turrini, A. (2007). From deficits to debt and back: Political incentives under numerical fiscal rules. CESifo Economic Studies, 53(1), 115–152.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, T. M. (2005). Debating the impact of accrual accounting and reporting in the public sector. Financial Accountability & Management, 21(3), 309–336.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carlin, T. M. (2006). Victoria’s accrual output based budgeting system-delivering as promised? Some empirical evidence. Financial Accountability & Management, 22(1), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cavanagh, J., Flynn, S., & Moretti, D. (2016). Implementing accrual accounting in the public sector. Washington, D.C.: IMF Fiscal Affairs Department.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charnes, A., Cooper, W. W., & Rhodes, E. (1978). Measuring the efficiency of decision making units. European Journal of Operational Research, 2(6), 429–444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christensen, M. (2007). What we might know (but aren’t sure) about public-sector accrual accounting. Australian Accounting Review, 17(41), 51–65.

    Google Scholar 

  • Christofzik, D. I. (2019). Does accrual accounting alter fiscal policy decisions? Evidence from Germany. European Journal of Political Economy. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2019.07.003.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Christofzik, D. I., & Kessing, S. G. (2018). Does fiscal oversight matter? Journal of Urban Economics, 105, 70–87.

    Google Scholar 

  • Council of the European Union. (2011). Council Directive 2011/85/EU on requirements for budgetary frameworks of the Member States. In Official Journal of the European Union (Vol. L306, 41–47).

  • Dabla-Norris, E., Gollwitzer, S., Kvintradze, E., Prakash, M. T., Zanna, L.-F., Allen, R., Yackovlev, I., et al. (2010). Budget institutions and fiscal performance in low-income countries. In IMF working paper,  (10/80).

  • Dafflon, B., & Rossi, S. (1999). Public accounting fudges towards EMU: A first empirical survey and some public choice considerations. Public Choice, 101(1–2), 59–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Debrun, X., Moulin, L., Turrini, A., Ayuso-i Casals, J., & Kumar, M. S. (2008). Tied to the mast? National fiscal rules in the European Union. Economic Policy, 23(54), 298–362.

    Google Scholar 

  • Deloitte. (2015). Accrual accounting is for the public sector too. A perspective for Arab central governments. A middle east point of view. Deloitte.

  • Dove, J. A. (2016). Do fiscal constraints prevent default? Historical evidence from US municipalities. Economics of Governance, 17(2), 185–209.

    Google Scholar 

  • Easterly, W. (1999). When is fiscal adjustment an illusion? Economic Policy, 14(28), 56–86.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ebdon, C., & Franklin, A. L. (2006). Citizen participation in budgeting theory. Public Administration Review, 66(3), 437–447.

    Google Scholar 

  • Egger, P., & Koethenbuerger, M. (2010). Government spending and legislative organization: Quasi-experimental evidence from Germany. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 2(4), 200–212.

    Google Scholar 

  • European Commission. (2013). Towards implementing harmonised public sector accounting standards in member states. The suitability of IPSAS for the member states, (Vol. 57). Commission staff working paper SWD.

  • Fabrizio, S., & Mody, A. (2006). Can budget institutions counteract political indiscipline? Economic Policy, 21(48), 690–739.

    Google Scholar 

  • Farrell, M. J. (1957). The measurement of productive efficiency. Journal of the Royal Statistical Society: Series A (General), 120(3), 253–281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fritzsche, C. (2018). Analyzing the efficiency of county road production-Evidence from eastern German counties. German Economic Review. https://doi.org/10.15456/ger.2018172.075332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • German SAI. (2017). Special Report on the intended implementation of harmonized European Public Sector Accounting Standards (EPSAS) in the Member States of the European Union. Bundesrechnungshof (The German SAI).

  • Grembi, V., Nannicini, T., & Troiano, U. (2016). Do fiscal rules matter? American Economic Journal: Applied Economics, 8(3), 1–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Halac, M., & Yared, P. (2014). Fiscal rules and discretion under persistent shocks. Econometrica, 82(5), 1557–1614.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heinemann, F., Moessinger, M.-D., & Yeter, M. (2018). Do fiscal rules constrain fiscal policy? A meta-regression-analysis. European Journal of Political Economy, 51, 69–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Holcombe, R. G., & Williams, D. W. (2008). The impact of population density on municipal government expenditures. Public Finance Review, 36(3), 359–373.

    Google Scholar 

  • IFAC and CIPFA (2018). International public sector accountability index. 2018 status report. International Federation of Accountants (IFAC) and The Chartered Institute of Public Finance & Accountancy (CIPFA).

  • Kalb, A. (2014). What determines local governments’ cost-efficiency? The case of road maintenance. Regional Studies, 48(9), 1483–1498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Khan, A., & Mayes, S. (2009). Transition to accrual accounting. Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund.

    Google Scholar 

  • Krogstrup, S., & Wälti, S. (2008). Do fiscal rules cause budgetary outcomes? Public Choice, 136(1–2), 123–138.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kuhlmann, S., Bogumil, J., & Grohs, S. (2008). Evaluating administrative modernization in German local governments: Success or failure of the “new steering model”? Public Administration Review, 68(5), 851–863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lampe, H. W., Hilgers, D., & Ihl, C. (2015). Does accrual accounting improve municipalities efficiency? Evidence from Germany. Applied Economics, 47(41), 4349–4363.

    Google Scholar 

  • Landon, S., & Smith, C. (2017). Does the design of a fiscal rule matter for welfare? Economic Modelling, 63, 226–237.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lassen, D. D. (2005). The effect of information on voter turnout: Evidence from a natural experiment. American Journal of Political Science, 49(1), 103–118.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lueder, K. (2001). Neues öffentliches Haushalts- und Rechnungswesen. Anforderungen, Konzept, Perspektiven. In Modernisierung des öffentlichen Sektors (Vol. 18). Edition Sigma.

  • Milesi-Ferretti, G. M. (2004). Good, bad or ugly? On the effects of fiscal rules with creative accounting. Journal of Public Economics, 88(1–2), 377–394.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milesi-Ferretti, G. M., & Moriyama, K. (2006). Fiscal adjustment in EU countries: A balance sheet approach. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(12), 3281–3298.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moretti, D. (2016). Accrual practices and reform experiences in OECD countries Results of the 2016 OECD Accruals Survey. OECD Journal on Budgeting, 16(1), 9–28.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD and IFAC. (2017). Accrual practices and reform experiences in OECD countries. Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • Poterba, J. M. (1996). Budget institutions and fiscal policy in the US states. American Economic Review, 86, 395–400.

    Google Scholar 

  • PwC. (2015). Towards a new era in government accounting and reporting. In PwC Global survey on accounting and reporting by central governments (2nd Edn.). PricewaterhouseCoopers (PwC).

  • Raffer, C. (2019). Accrual accounting in Baden–Württemberg: A matching evaluation. Unpublished working paper, Hertie School of Governance, Berlin.

  • Reischmann, M. (2016). Creative accounting and electoral motives: Evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 44(2), 243–257.

    Google Scholar 

  • Roesel, F. (2017). Do mergers of large local governments reduce expenditures? Evidence from Germany using the synthetic control method. European Journal of Political Economy, 50, 22–36.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tóth, C. G. (2019). Valuable legacy? The effect of inherited fiscal rules. Public Choice, 178(1–2), 3–30.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hagen, J. (1991). A note on the empirical effectiveness of formal fiscal restraints. Journal of Public Economics, 44(2), 199–210.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hagen, J., & Harden, I. J. (1995). Budget processes and commitment to fiscal discipline. European Economic Review, 39(3–4), 771–779.

    Google Scholar 

  • Von Hagen, J., & Wolff, G. B. (2006). What do deficits tell us about debt? Empirical evidence on creative accounting with fiscal rules in the EU. Journal of Banking & Finance, 30(12), 3259–3279.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank István Ábel, Stephan Brand, Silvia Coretti, Gunther Friedl, Carolin Fritzsche, Arye L. Hillman, Christian Hofmann, Florian Keppeler, Niklas Potrafke, Christian Raffer, William F. Shughart II, Johannes Steinbrecher, Jan-Egbert Sturm, three anonymous referees, and the participants of the Annual Yearbook of Public Finances Workshop in Leipzig (2018), the Meeting of the European Public Choice Society (EPCS) in Jerusalem (2019), the Meeting of the Doctoral conference of the Hanns-Seidel-Foundation in the Banz monastery (2019), and the 28th Silvaplana Workshop of Political Economy in Pontresina (2019) for helpful comments. We are grateful for helpful data support by the State Statistical Office of Bavaria. Florian Dorn gratefully acknowledges funding by the Hanns-Seidel-Foundation, and Felix Roesel gratefully acknowledges funding by the German Research Foundation (DFG Grant Number 400857762).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, University of Munich, Poschingerstrasse 5, 81679, Munich, Germany

    Florian Dorn & Stefanie Gaebler

  2. ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, Dresden Branch, Technische Universität Dresden, Einsteinstrasse 3, 01069, Dresden, Germany

    Felix Roesel

Authors
  1. Florian Dorn
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Stefanie Gaebler
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Felix Roesel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Stefanie Gaebler.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary material 1 (pdf 174 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Dorn, F., Gaebler, S. & Roesel, F. Ineffective fiscal rules? The effect of public sector accounting standards on budgets, efficiency, and accountability. Public Choice 186, 387–412 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00755-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-019-00755-8

Keywords

  • Fiscal rules
  • Public accounting
  • Budget transparency
  • Sustainability
  • Government efficiency
  • Accountability
  • Local government

JEL Classification

  • D02
  • D73
  • H72
  • H83