Fiscal Discipline
Charles WyploszThe Graduate Institute, Geneva
Conference on Fiscal PolicyIMF, June 2, 2009
Outline
Fiscal discipline is hard to come by
Institutions matter
Rules are arbitrary
Bureaucrats are great but unwelcome
How to affect politicians’ incentives?
Fiscal discipline is hard to come by
OECD Countries
20
30
40
50
60
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Fiscal discipline is hard to come by
Latin America
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Fiscal discipline is hard to come by
Asia
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
55
60
65
70
1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005
Reasons for indiscipline
• Public debt is an externality Private beneficiaries of spending and tax
payments Social cohesion Mechanism for internalizing
• Intertemporal inconsistency Political parties (coalitions vs. single party
majority) Political regimes
Institutions matter
• Large literature Political regime
• Democracies or not• Presidential vs. parliamentary• Majority vs. coalitions
Budget-setting process• Role and rights of parliament• Role of Finance Minister• Nesting of decisions• Rules
Institutions matter
• Large literature• Difficult to apply
Reforms are rare and in response to unusual circumstances
No simple lesson from literature• Except perhaps role of Finance Minister
Many other considerations, anyway
Fiscal rules
• Formal budget rules Stability Pact
• Numerical deficit ceiling (3% rule)• External monitoring and sanctions• Some effect, maybe
Stability pact effect
40
50
60
70
80
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
EMU Non-EMU OECD
Convergence
EMU starts
Fiscal rules
• Formal budget rules Stability Pact Swiss “brake” (2003)
• Aims at budget balance over the cycle• Ties expenditures to expected revenues (G=kT)• Explicitly allows for countercyclical spending (k a
function of the output gap)• Bygones are not bygones
Fiscal rules
• Formal budget rules Stability Pact Swiss “brake” Chile and structural budget rule
• Similar to Switzerland
Swiss brake
Switzerland
30
40
50
60
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Chile
0
10
20
30
40
50
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006
Fiscal rules
• Formal budget rules Stability Pact Swiss “brake” Chile structural budget rule Sweden and many more: multiyear horizon
Sweden
Sweden
40
50
60
70
80
90
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Note:Rules often
established afterdebt reduction
Fiscal rules
• Formal budget rules Stability Pact Swiss “brake” Chile structural budget rule Sweden and many more Golden rules
• Germany• UK
All inclusive
Exclude “productive”investment
Fiscal rules
• Formal budget rules• Informal budget rules
The British code for fiscal stability The Dutch medium-term framework
• Debt sustainability• Medium term = planned duration of Parliament• Embedded in election platform • Relies on expert estimation (CPB)
The Dutch medium-term framework
The Dutch medium-term framework
Netherlands
40
50
60
70
80
1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008
Fiscal rules
• Formal budget rules• Informal budget rules• Inherent arbitrariness
Deficit vs. debt Gross, net, contingent liabilities Deficit/debt vs. spending
Fiscal institutions
• Dealing with a large number of contingencies Cannot rely on rules
• Dealing with the deficit bias Cannot rely on the political infrastructure
• A solution must involve: Judgment Ability to counteract or resist pressure
Fiscal institutions
• Solution 1 Delegate budget to Finance Minister
• Solution 2 Delegate budget balance to independent
council
• Solution 3 Advisory council to act as counter-pressure
body Can be embedded into budget process
Politicians reject empowering bureaucrats
• The misleading similarity with central banks Weight of history Income redistribution
• The difficulty of separating out budget balance from spending and revenue decisions
• Why are rules preferred to bureaucrats?
Conclusions
• Affect incentives Can be evolutionary
• The Dutch approach Technical skills
• The Wisemen approach Independence
• Europe’s special case Replacing the Stability Pact