Advertisement

International Advances in Economic Research

, Volume 21, Issue 3, pp 299–315 | Cite as

The Tax-Spend Debate and Budgetary Policy in Austria

  • Johann BröthalerEmail author
  • Michael Getzner
Article

Abstract

In the aftermath of the 2008 financial and economic crisis, governments developed plans to steer fiscal policies back to a sustainable path. Austria is no exception, since the latest 2012 consolidation package aimed to balance the budget by 2016. For the success of consolidation policies, however, it is of great importance which fiscal policy strategies are pursued. For instance, should the deficit be reduced by reducing expenditure, by increasing revenue, or by a mixed coordinated policy? Empirical evidence from the mid-1990s indicated that Austria’s policy makers followed a path according to the spend-tax hypothesis, deciding on expenditure and then caring about the funding of public tasks. Since 1995, the year of Austria’s accession to the European Union, fiscal policy frameworks have changed (e.g., Maastricht Treaty, Fiscal Pact), and thus budgetary policies might have changed as well. The current paper provides new econometric evidence for a stable spend-tax fiscal policy decision process in Austria for the last 60 years. Therefore, it seems that the importance of reducing expenditure (about 72 % of the total consolidation volume in the current package) accounts for this principal approach in Austrian fiscal policy making. However, left open is whether the envisioned increase in revenues (about 28 % of the total consolidation volume) might be counterproductive for sustainably balancing the budget.

Keywords

Public debt Public revenue/expenditure Tax-spend debate (revenue-expenditure nexus) Budgetary policies 

JEL Classification

H6 E6 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the participants of the 77th International Atlantic Economic Conference in Madrid, Spain, April 2–5, 2014. Anonymous reviewers provided many helpful suggestions for substantial improvements of the paper. All errors are, of course, the responsibility of the authors.

References

  1. Austrian Ministry of Finance. (2010). Österreichisches Stabilitätsprogramm für die Jahre 2009 bis 2013. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Finanzen (BMF) (Federal Ministry of Finance).Google Scholar
  2. Austrian Ministry of Finance. (2012). Strategiebericht zum Bundesfinanzrahmengesetz 2013–2016. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Finanzen (BMF) (Federal Ministry of Finance).Google Scholar
  3. Austrian Ministry of Finance. (2015). Steuerliche Maßnahmen der Steuerreform 2015/2016. Vienna: Bundesministerium für Finanzen (BMF) (Federal Ministry of Finance).Google Scholar
  4. Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2002). Determining the number of factors in approximate factor models. Econometrica, 70(1), 191–221.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bai, J., & Ng, S. (2004). A PANIC attack on unit roots and cointegration. Econometrica, 72(4), 1127–1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Breitung, J. (2000). The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. In B. H. Baltagi (Ed.), Advances in econometrics (Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, Vol. 15, pp. 161–178). JAY Press: Amsterdam.Google Scholar
  7. Bröthaler, J., & Getzner, M. (2011). Fiscal autonomy and total government expenditure: an Austrian case-study. International Advances in Economic Research, 17, 134–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Buchanan, J. M., & Wagner, W. (1977). Democracy in deficit: The political legacy of Lord Keynes. New York: Academic.Google Scholar
  9. Chang, Y. (2004). Bootstrap unit root tests in panels with cross-sectional dependency. Journal of Econometrics, 120(2), 263–293.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chang, T., & Chiang, G. (2009). Revisiting the government revenue-expenditure nexus: Evidence from 15 OECD countries based on the panel data approach. Czech Journal of Economics and Finance, 59(2), 165–172.Google Scholar
  11. Choi, I. (2002). Test of unit root combination unit root tests for cross-sectionally correlated panels. Mimeo: University of Hongkong.Google Scholar
  12. Dickey, D. A., & Fuller, W. A. (1979). Distribution of the estimators for autoregressive time series with a unit root. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74(366), 427–431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C. W. J. (1987). Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 55(2), 251–276.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. ESA 95, European System of Accounts (1995). Eurostat (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1996), Brussels.Google Scholar
  15. European System of Accounts (ESA). (1995). Eurostat (Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, Luxembourg, 1996), Brussels.Google Scholar
  16. Friedman, M. (1978). The limitations of tax limitation. Policy Review (Summer), 7–14.Google Scholar
  17. Garcia, M. J. (2012). The revenues-expenditures nexus: a panel data analysis of Spain’s regions. International Journal of Academic Research in Economics and Management Sciences, 1(1), 24–38.Google Scholar
  18. Getzner, M., Glatzer, E., & Neck, R. (2001). On the sustainability of Austrian budgetary policy. Empirica, 28(1), 21–40.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Hurlin, C., & Mignon, V. (2007). Second generation panel unit root tests. Mimeo: University of Orleans.Google Scholar
  20. Im, K. S., Pesaran, M. H., & Shin, Y. (2003). Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics, 115(1), 53–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1998). Testing structural hypothesis in multivariate cointegration of the PPP and the UIP for UK. Journal of Econometrics, 53(1–3), 211–244.Google Scholar
  22. Koren, S., & Stiassny, A. (1995). Tax and spend or spend and tax? An empirical investigation for Austria. Empirica, 22(2), 127–149.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Koren, S., & Stiassny, A. (1998). Tax and spend, or spend and tax? An international study. Journal of Policy Modeling, 20(2), 163–191.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Kwiatkowski, D., Phillips, P. C. B., Schmidt, P., & Shin, Y. (1992). Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root. Journal of Econometrics, 54(1), 159–178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levin, A., Lin, C.-F., & Chu, C.-S. J. (2002). Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics, 108(1), 1–24.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Mehrara, M., Pahlavani, M., & Elyasi, Y. (2011). Government revenue and government expenditure nexus in Asian countries: panel cointegration and causality. International Journal of Business and Social Science, 2(7), 199–207.Google Scholar
  27. Moon, H. R., & Perron, B. (2004). Testing for a unit root in panels with dynamic factors. Journal of Econometrics, 122(1), 81–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Neck, R., & Getzner, M. (2001). Politico-economic determinants of public debt growth: a case study for Austria. Public Choice, 109(3–4), 243–268.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Paleologou, S.-M. (2013). Asymmetries in the revenue–expenditure nexus: a tale of three countries. Economic Modelling, 30(C), 52–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Payne, J. E. (2003). A survey of the international empirical evidence on the tax-spend debate. Public Finance Review, 31(3), 302–324.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Pesaran, M. H. (2007). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependence. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 22(2), 265–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Phillips, P. C. B., & Oualiaris, S. (1988). Testing for cointegration using principal component methods. Journal of Economics Dynamics and Control, 12(2–3), 205–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Republic of Austria. (2014). “Reporting of Government Deficits and Debt Levels” in accordance with Council Regulation (EC) N° 479/2009, as amended and the Statements contained in the Council minutes of 22/11/1993 – Set of reporting tables revised to comply with Commission Regulation (EU) No 220/2014; date of the tables submitted: 14 October 2014. Statistics Austria (www.statistik.at; 21 October 2014).
  34. Statistics Austria (2014). National accounts (GDP) 1948–2013, Public finance statistics for Austria, public debt, revenue and expenditure data 1948–2013 of central government in Austria (statistical database, and www.statistik.at, Oct. 2014), based on annual total data of federal budget (ordinary budget of cash flow budget), Federal Ministry of Finance, Austria, www.bmf.gv.at (Oct. 2014), Vienna.
  35. Trachanas, T., & Katrakilidis, C. (2013). Fiscal deficits under financial pressure and insolvency: evidence for Italy, Greece and Spain. Journal of Policy Modeling, 35(5), 730–749.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Westerlund, J., Mahdavi, S., & Firoozi, F. (2011). The tax-spending nexus: evidence from a panel of US state–local governments. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 885–890.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center of Public Finance and Infrastructure Policy, Department of Spatial PlanningTU WienViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations