Advertisement

The regional-stabilisation properties of fiscal arrangements

  • Alexander Italianer
  • Jean Pisani-Ferry

Abstract

The steps leading to the signature of the Treaty on European Union in Maastricht have refuelled the debate about whether a single European currency would need to be accompanied by a large budget at Community level, an equalisation scheme, a special “shock-absorbing” mechanism or a combination of these devices. One of the main arguments in favour of such a parallelism in the process of unification is that without a sizeable EC budget, monetary union would lack the automatic stabilisers needed to compensate states for the loss of the exchange rate as an adjustment instrument (a view taken by, for instance, Krugman, 1992 and Feldstein, 1992). As developed in Goodhart and Smith (1992), the case for regional stabilisation rests on the Keynesian assumption of market imperfections (especially price/wage rigidities) which prevent instantaneous market clearing. This is indeed a basic assumption in all the literature dealing with stabilisation properties of federal budgetary systems. It is therefore retained hereafter without further discussion.

Keywords

Member State Social Cohesion Unemployment Benefit Monetary Union Transfer Payment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Artis, M. and T. Bayoumi (1989), “Saving, investment, financial integration and the balance of payments”, IMF Working Paper 89/102, Washington, 14 December.Google Scholar
  2. Atkeson, A. and T. Bayoumi (1991), “Do private capital markets insure regional risk? Evidence from the United States and Europe”, mimeo, October.Google Scholar
  3. Bayoumi, T. and P. R. Masson (1991), “Fiscal flows in the United States and Canada: lessons for monetary union in Europe”, mimeo, November.Google Scholar
  4. Blanchard, O. and L. Katz (1991), “Regional evolutions”, mimeo, November.Google Scholar
  5. Centraal Planbureau (1992), Centraal Economisch Plan 1992, Sdu Uitgeverij, The Hague.Google Scholar
  6. Commission of the EC (1991), Annual Economic Report 1991-92, European Economy 50, December.Google Scholar
  7. Eichengreen, B. (1990), “One money for Europe? Lessons from the US currency union”, Economic Policy 10, April, pp. 119–86.Google Scholar
  8. Emerson, M., D. Gros, A. Italianer, J. Pisani-Ferry and H. Reichenbach (1992), One Market, One Money: An Evaluation of the Potential Benefits and Costs of Forming an Economic and Monetary Union, Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Equipe Mimosa (1989). “Mimosa une modelisation de l’économie mondiale”, Observations et Diagnostics Economiques.Google Scholar
  10. Feldstein, M. (1992), “The case against EMU”, The Economist, 13 June.Google Scholar
  11. Frenkel, J. and M. Goldstein (1991), “Monetary policy in an emerging European Economic and Monetary Union”, IMF Staff Papers 38(2), pp. 356–373, June.Google Scholar
  12. Goodhart, C.A.E. and S. Smith (1992), “Stabilisation” in The Economics of Community Public Finance, European Economy special edition.Google Scholar
  13. Gordon, J. (1991), “Structural trends and the 1992 program in the European Community”, IMF Working Paper 91/65, Washington, June.Google Scholar
  14. Horn, H. and T. Persson (1988), “Exchange-rate policy, wage-formation and credibility”. European Economic Review 32. pp. 1621–1636.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Italianer, A. and M. Vanheukelen (1992), “Proposals for Community stabilisation mechanisms: some historical applications” in The Economics of Community Public Finance, op. cit. Google Scholar
  16. Krugman, P., “Integration, specialisation, and regional growth: notes on 1992, EMU, and stabilisation”, paper presented at the Banco de Portugal/CEPR conference on “The transition to economic and monetary union in Europe”, Estoril, 16–18 January 1992.Google Scholar
  17. Majocchi, A. and M. Rey (1992), “A special financial support scheme in EMU: need and nature” in The Economics of Community Public Finance, op. cit. Google Scholar
  18. Ministère des Approvisionnements et Services du Canada (1991), Le Fédéralisme Canadien et lUnion Economique: Partenariat pour la Prospérité.Google Scholar
  19. Pisani-Ferry, J., A. Italianer and R. Lescure (1992), “Stabilisation properties of budgetary systems: a simulation analysis” in The Economics of Community Public Finance, op. cit. Google Scholar
  20. Sachs, J. and X. Sala-i-Martin (1989), “Federal fiscal policy and optimum currency areas”, unpublished manuscript, Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University.Google Scholar
  21. Sachs J. and J. Sala-i-Martin (1991), “Federal fiscal policy and optimum currency areas: evidence for Europe from the United States”, NBER Working Paper 3855.Google Scholar
  22. Van der Ploeg, F. (1991), “Macroeconomic policy co-ordination issues during the various stages of economic and monetary integration in Europe” in The Economics of EMU, European Economy special edition 1, pp. 136–164.Google Scholar
  23. von Hagen, J. (1991), “Fiscal arrangements in a Monetary Union: evidence from the US” Indiana University Discussion Paper 58, March.Google Scholar
  24. Whitley, J. D. (1991), “Comparative simulation analysis of the European multicountry models”, paper presented to SPES Seminar, Paris, 27–28 June.Google Scholar
  25. Wyplosz, C. (1991), “Monetary union and fiscal policy discipline” in The Economics of EMU, op. cit., pp. 165–184.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Centre for European Policy Studies 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Alexander Italianer
  • Jean Pisani-Ferry

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations