|Generate QR code
Open Access
Subscription Access
Fiscal rules: Excessive limitation or indispensable instrument of fiscal sustainability?
https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-4-5-29
Abstract
In-depth analysis of international and Russia’s experiences with implementing fiscal rules is presented. Theoretical and empirical evidences are suggested in favor of retaining the present fiscal rules with some modifications aimed at ensuring: a) a relatively stable level of federal budget expenditure with guaranteed full execution of all commitments; b) countercyclical fiscal policy, based on flexibleand proper reaction to revenue changes; and c) robustness of fiscal rules to internal and external shocks. The main new features suggested include modified calculation of the oil base price, different measurement of cyclical fiscal revenues, lower size of structural fiscal balance, and thorough specification of sources for each item of the balance. The modified rules envisage increased flexibility by relaxing to a pre-set extent and for a pre-set time spending limits in response to extreme shocks. The suggested version of fiscal rules has been tested by application to historical data for 2005-2015, and macro projections for 2015-2025.
About the Authors
E. Gurvich
Economic Expert Group; Financial Research Institute
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
I. Sokolov
Russian Presidential Academy of National Economy and Public Administration
Russian Federation
Russian Federation
References
1. Belyakov I. (2015). On fiscal cost of banking crises. Finansovyi Zhurnal, No. 5, pp. 45—58. (In Russian).
2. Gurvich E., Suslina A. (2015). Dynamics of tax collection in Russia: Macroeconomic approach. Finansovyi Zhurnal, No. 4, pp. 22—33. (In Russian).
3. Gurvich E., Belyakov I., Prilepskiy I. (2015). Oil supercycle and fiscal policy. Voprosy Ekonomiki, No. 9, pp. 5—30. (In Russian).
4. Aghion P., Marinescu I. (2007). Cyclical budgetary policy and economic growth: What do we learn from OECD panel data? NBER Macroeconomics Annual, pp. 251-278.
5. Badinger H. (2009). Fiscal rules, discretionary fiscal policy, and macroeconomic stability: An empirical assessment for OECD countries. Applied Economics, Vol. 41, No. 7, pp. 829-847.
6. Bergman U., Hutchison M. (2015). Economic stabilization in the post-crisis world: Are fiscal rules the answer? Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 52, April, pp. 82-101.
7. Bova E., Kinda T., Muthoora P., Toscani F. (2015). Fiscal rules at a glance. Washington, DC: IMF.
8. Bova E., Medas P., Poghosyan T. (2016). Macroeconomic stability in resource-rich countries: The role of fiscal policy. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/16/36.
9. Cordes T. et al. (2015). Expenditure rules: Effective tools for sound fiscal policy? IMF Working Paper, No. WP/15/29.
10. Dupont J., Kwarteng K. (2012). Binding the hands of government - a credible fiscal rule for the UK. IEA Paper, No. 36.
11. Eberhardt M., Presbitero A. (2013). This time they are different: Heterogeneity and nonlinearity in the relationship between debt and growth. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/13/248.
12. Fatás A., Mihov I. (2008). Fiscal discipline, volatility and growth. In: G. Perry, L. Serven, R. Suescun (eds.). Prudence or abstinence? Fiscal policy, stabilization, and growth. Washington, DC: World Bank, pp. 43-74.
13. Frankel J. et al. (2013). On graduation from fiscal procyclicality. Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 100, No. 1, pp. 32-47.
14. Guerguil M., Mandon P., Tapsoba R. (2015). Flexible fiscal rules and countercyclical fiscal policy. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/15/8.
15. Holm-Hadulla F., Hauptmeier S., Rother P. (2010). The impact of numerical expenditure rules on budgetary discipline over the cycle. ECB Working Paper, No. 1169.
16. Husain A. M., Tazhibayeva K., Ter-Martirosyan A. (2008). Fiscal policy and economic cycles in oil-exporting countries. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/08/253.
17. Ilzetzki E., Vegh C. (2008). Procyclical fiscal policy in developing countries: Truth or fiction? NBER Working Paper, No. 14191.
18. IMF (2009). Fiscal rules - Anchoring expectations for sustainable public finances. Washington, DC.
19. IMF (2015a). Regional economic outlook: Middle East and Central Asia. Washington, DC. IMF (2015b). World economic outlook. Adjusting to lower commodity prices. Washington, DC.
20. Mandon P. (2014). Evaluating treatment effect and causal effect of fiscal rules on procyclicality. New assessments on old debate: Rules vs. discretion. Etudes et Documents, No. 14, CERDI.
21. McManus R., Ozkan F. (2015). On the consequences of pro-cyclical fiscal policy. Fiscal Studies, Vol. 36, No. 1, pp. 29-50.
22. Nerlich C., Reuter W. (2015). Fiscal rules, fiscal space and procyclical fiscal policy. ECB Working Paper, No. 1872.
23. Ossowski R. (2013). Fiscal rules and resource funds in nonrenewable resource exporting countries: International experience. IADB Discussion Paper, No. IDB-DP-290.
24. Pescatori A. et al. (2014). Debt and growth: Is there a magic threshold? IMF Working Paper, No. WP/14/34.
25. Reuter W. (2015). National numerical fiscal rules: Not complied with, but still effective? European Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 39, No. C, pp. 67-81.
26. Schaechter A. et al. (2012). Fiscal rules in response to the crisis - Toward the “next-generation” rules. A new dataset. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/12/187.
27. Schick A. (2010). Post-crisis fiscal rules: Stabilising public finance while responding to economic aftershocks. OECD Journal on Budgeting, Vol. 2010/2, pp. 1-17.
28. Sturm M. et al. (2009). Fiscal policy challenges in oil-exporting countries. ECB Occasional Paper, No. 104.
29. Villafuerte M., López-Murphy P. (2010). Fiscal policy in oil producing countries during the recent oil price cycle. IMF Working Paper, No. WP/10/28.
Review
For citations:
Gurvich E., Sokolov I. Fiscal rules: Excessive limitation or indispensable instrument of fiscal sustainability? Voprosy Ekonomiki. 2016;(4):5-29. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.32609/0042-8736-2016-4-5-29
Views:
1390
Email this article 
