DOCSLIB.ORG

The Keynesian Multiplier in Recession: Why Fiscal Stimulus Is Now Even More Neces

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Keynesian Multiplier in Recession: Why Fiscal Stimulus Is Now Even More Neces April 2015 #7 The keynesian multiplier in recession: why fiscal stimulus is now even more neces- Page 1 sary in the eurozone? SÉBASTIEN CHARLES, THOMAS DALLERY & JONATHAN MARIE Sébastien Charles, Université Paris 8, LED - The keynesian multiplier Thomas Dallery, Université du Littoral, Clersé in recession: why fiscal sti- Jonathan Marie, Université Paris 13, CEPN mulus is now even more necessary in the eurozone? Abstract: Page 3 The Great Recession has revived economic policy debates from the 1930s between the advocates of a - Seminars & Conferences Page 4 balanced budget under all circumstances and the supporters of counter-cyclical fiscal policies. Since - Books 2012, a consensus has emerged that fiscal policy is more effective in recessions that during periods of growth. Now, new studies have explained why fiscal multipliers are usually higher in times of recession. These results confirm the pressing need for fiscal stimulus in Europe. Fund had underestimated the value of fiscal mul- Following the outbreak of the international finan- tipliers. This error had in turn led to an underesti- cial crisis in 2007, its contamination of the real mation of the negative effect on economic activity economy has provoked the “Great Recession”. Af- of fiscal consolidation policies, pursued in applica- ter the initial consensus in favour of measures to 1 tion of R&R’s results on the optimum ratios of Reinhart, C. et Rogoff, K. support the economy in 2008-2009, several fierce (2010),“Growth in a Time of public debt. controversies have developed since 2010 over eco- Debt”, American Economic Re- view, vol. 100(2), p. 573-8. nomic policy recommendations. What is the fiscal multiplier? The fiscal multiplier expresses the relation be- The most highly-mediatised of these disputes con- tween variations in public spending or tax revenue 2 cf. Herndon, T., Ash, M., Pol- cerns the possible existence of a maximum debt-to- and the level of national production. lin, R. (2014), “Does High Public GDP ratio that countries should not exceed. In a fa- Debt Consistently Stifle Econo- Since 1936, this macroeconomic mechanism has mic Growth? A Critique of Rein- mous article published in 2010, C. Reinhart and K. hart and Rogoff”, Cambridge 1 been associated with J.M. Keynes and The General Rogoff (R&R) concluded that a public debt-to-GDP 3 Journal of Economics, vol. 38, ratio of more than 90% causes negative growth. Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money. The n°2, pp. 257-279, higher the value of the multiplier, the greater the doi:10.1093/cje/bet075 This conclusion had extremely important practical consequences: it was considered essential to re- impact of government intervention on economic duce public debt if it rose above this threshold. activity. This mechanism is caused by the fact that 3 additional spending in the economy generates in- Keynes, J.M. (1936), “The Ge- neral Theory of Employment, In- come which in turn provokes further spending. terest and Money”, Cambridge Among other examples, the European Commis- However, this virtuous circle is limited by three University Press sioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs O. Rehn factors (which prevent the income generated and the British Chancellor of the Exchequer G. Os- from being entirely spent on domestically-pro- borne had no hesitation in using the results of R&R duced goods and services): savings, imports and to justify the fiscal consolidation they considered to taxes. be necessary in Europe. Since then, however, the conclusions of R&R have been largely refuted.2 The practical interpretation of this mechanism, according to which an increase in public spending A second controversy has also burst into the lime- should be considered as an effective instrument light. In January 2013, Blanchard and Leigh to avoid recessions, was soon called into question. acknowledged that the International Monetary Firstly by the “neoclassical synthesis” movement, and then by the “new classicals”. During the Directeur de la publication : David Flacher, Directeur du CEPN Rédacteur en chef : Nathalie Coutinet |Maquette : Philippe Abecassis www.univ-paris13/CEPN 2 1990s, a new generation of research developed sion, which tends to raise the value of the multi- 4 the idea that cutting public spending (fiscal con- plier. But these well-known mechanisms are insuf- Blanchard, O., Leigh, D. ficient to account fully for the variations in the (2013), “Growth Forecast Errors solidation) is a means to sustain economic growth. and Fiscal Multipliers”, Ameri- This was a complete turnaround: the multiplier is multiplier. can Economic Review, vol. 103, now negative! pp. 117-120 Using a methodology first developed by Palley 5 (2009)8 and then applied by Pusch (2012),9 the au- Auerbach, A.J., Gorodni- These theoretical developments have had undeni- chenko, Y. (2012), “Measuring able consequences on the economic policy rec- thors seek to bring to light the influence on the the Output Responses to Fiscal ommendations made by international financial in- multiplier of variations in imports over the eco- Policy”, American Economic nomic cycle. To this end, they ascribe a different Journal: Economic Policy, vol. 4, stitutions since the 1980s. The multiplier has been pp. 1-27. considered negligible or illusory. Only supply-side propensity to import to each component of de- mand. policies are effective, and over the short-term, 6 Riera-Crichton, D., Vegh, C.A., only monetary policy should be used. Aggregate demand can then be written in the fol- Vuletin, G. (2014), “Procyclical and Countercyclical Fiscal Multi- lowing form: pliers: Evidence From OECD Rediscovery of the multiplier and observation of its 푌 = (1 − 훼)퐶 + (1 − 훽)퐼 + (1 − 훾)퐺 + (1 − 훿)푋 Countries”, NBER Working Pa- variation over the economic cycle Where Y is the GDP, C is consumption, I is invest- per, n°20533, September. In a now-famous article published in 2013, ment, G is government spending and X is exports, 7 Blanchard and Leigh4 indicated that they had un- and α, β, γ and δ are respectively the share of im- Charles, S., Dallery, T., Marie, ports in consumption, investment, government J. (2014a), “Why are Keynesian derestimated the value of fiscal multipliers. Auer- Multipliers bigger in Hard bach and Gorodnichenko (2012)5 had already spending and exports. The multiplier k can then be Times?”, 4th Conference of the published results showing that multipliers were written as follows: French Association of Political 휕푌 1 Economy, 2-4 July, Paris, higher than had generally been assumed. In a very 푘 = = http://afep2014.sciences- 퐶 퐼 퐺 푋 recent article, Riera-Crichton et al. (2014)6 휕퐺 1 − 푐휑 + (훼 + 훽 + 훾 + 훿 ) conf.org/33825/document 푌 푌 푌 푌 showed that multiplier effects are all the stronger where 휑 is disposable income as a share of GDP. Charles, S., Dallery, T., Marie, when the economic slowdown is more pro- 9 J. (2014b), “Keynesian Multi- nounced and when public spending is used coun- Whereas Pusch (2012) postulated that consump- pliers During the Great Reces- ter-cyclically. In other words, the multiplier effect tion, investment and public spending all contain a sion: Assessing the Changes similar share of imports, Charles, Dallery and Ma- since 2007 to Advocate an Ef- is at its strongest in the configuration where pub- 7 fective Fiscal Policy in the Euro- rie used the results obtained by Bussière et al. zone”, 18th Conference of the lic spending is increased significantly during the 10 worst recessions, reaching as much as 3.20 for in- (2013) , who estimated the share of imports in Research Network Macroecono- the components of demand of the OECD coun- mics and Macroeconomic Poli- creased public spending in OECD countries during cies (FMM), 30 October - 1 No- tries in 1995, 2000 and 2005. The results are clear: the deepest recessions. In this case, the value of vember, Berlin, http://www.boeck- ler.de/pdf/v_2014_10_30_marie.pdf the multiplier is far from negligible. the propensity to import is strongest in the case of investment, followed by exports, then con- sumption and lastly public spending. To put it an- Why is the multiplier higher during recession? other way: β>δ>α>γ. These elements are decisive. 8 Palley, T.I. (2009), “Imports This phenomenon has not yet received a fully sat- and the Income-Expenditure Model: Implications for Fiscal isfactory explanation. With their simple method- Recalling the principle of the investment acceler- Policy and Recession Fighting”, ology, Charles et al. (2014a, 2014b)7 recall that the Journal of Post-Keynesian ator proposed by Aftalion at the beginning of the value of the multiplier is positively dependent on Economics, vol. 32, pp. 311- 20th century (variations in investment amplify the 322. the propensity to consume (the share of income variations in economic activity) and observing that devoted to consumption) and the disposable in- in recession, public spending tends to rise while 9 come of households, and negatively dependent Pusch, T. (2012), "Fiscal spen- exports fall, the authors explain why the multiplier ding multiplier calculations ba- on the propensity to import. moves countercyclically. To summarise, their sed on input-output tables – an It is known that the propensity to consume varies work shows that during a recession, investment application to EU member with the economic cycle: as incomes increase, the states", European Journal of shrinks more than the other components of ag- Economics and Economic Poli- savings rate also rises, which reduces the propen- gregate demand. Since investment is the compo- cies, n°1, vol. 9, pp. 129-144. sity to consume and thus the multiplier. Growth nent which contains the highest share of imports, therefore tends to reduce the value of the multi- it follows that the share of imports in GDP falls and 10 plier. Moreover, because of the existence of auto- Bussière, M., Callegari, G., the multiplier rises.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Natural Experiments in Macroeconomics∗
    Natural Experiments in Macroeconomics∗ Nicola Fuchs-Sch¨undeln Tarek A. Hassan Goethe University Frankfurt University of Chicago, and CEPR NBER and CEPR March 2015 Preliminary and Incomplete Abstract A growing literature relies on natural experiments to establish causal effects in macroe- conomics. In diverse applications, natural experiments have been used to verify underly- ing assumptions of conventional models, quantify specific model parameters, and identify mechanisms that have major effects on macroeconomic quantities but are absent from conventional models. We discuss and compare the use of natural experiments across these different applications and summarize what they have taught us about such diverse subjects as the validity of the Permanent Income Hypothesis, the size of the fiscal mul- tiplier, and about the effects of institutions, social structure, and culture on economic growth. We also outline challenges for future work in each of these fields, give guidance for identifying useful natural experiments, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the approach. JEL classification: C1, C9, E21, E62, H31, O11, O14, O43, O50 Keywords: Permanent Income Hypothesis, Fiscal Multiplier, Institutions, Social Ties, Net- works, Social Structure, Civic Capital, Trust, Multiple Equilibria ∗Chapter prepared for the Handbook of Macroeconomics. The chapter has benefitted from helpful discussions and comments from Daron Acemoglu, Chang-Tai Hsieh, Nathan Nunn, Rob Vishny and Mirko Wiederholt. Leonhard Czerny, Denis Gorea, and Philip Xu provided excellent research assistance. 1 Contents 1 Introduction 3 2 Verification: The Permanent Income Hypothesis 6 2.1 Reaction of Consumption to Unexpected Income Shocks . 8 2.2 Reaction of Consumption to Expected Income Changes . 11 2.2.1 Random Treatment: Determining an Appropriate Control Group .
    [Show full text]
  • Mpcs, Mpes, and Multipliers: a Trilemma for New Keynesian Models
    MPCs, MPEs, and Multipliers: A Trilemma for New Keynesian Models Adrien Auclert* Bence Bardóczy† Matthew Rognlie‡ March 2021 Abstract We show that New Keynesian models with frictionless labor supply face a challenge: given standard parameters, they cannot simultaneously match plausible estimates of marginal propen- sities to consume (MPCs), marginal propensities to earn (MPEs), and fiscal multipliers. A HANK model with sticky wages provides a solution to this trilemma. Introduction In recent decades, macroeconomics has experienced a micro-moment revolution. As the field has recognized the importance of heterogeneity for macroeconomic outcomes, it has increasingly used estimates from disaggregated data to discipline its models. One moment that epitomizes this revolution is the marginal propensity to consume (MPC): the amount by which consumption increases in response to a one-time transitory increase in income. Recent research has established that MPCs are extremely important for the macroeconomic effects of shocks and policy, both in partial equilibrium (e.g. Kaplan and Violante 2014, Auclert 2019, Berger, Guerrieri, Lorenzoni and Vavra 2018) and in general equilibrium (e.g. Kaplan, Moll and Violante 2018, Auclert, Rognlie and Straub 2018). Moreover, there exists a widespread consensus on the average level of MPCs in the data. We summarize this consensus as: Fact 1. Average MPCs are high in the data, around 0.25 quarterly and 0.5 annually. *Stanford University, CEPR and NBER. Email: [email protected]. †Northwestern University. Email: [email protected]. ‡Northwestern University and NBER. Email: [email protected]. An earlier version of this paper circulated under the title “A Note on Multipliers in NK Models with GHH Preferences”.
    [Show full text]
  • Austerity, Economic Growth, and Multipliers by David Hall [email protected] October 2012
    Public Services International Research Unit (PSIRU) www.psiru.org Austerity, economic growth, and multipliers by David Hall [email protected] October 2012 1. INTRODUCTION AND SUMMARY .................................................................................................................... 2 2. AUSTERITY WORSENS RECESSION ............................................................................................................... 2 CHART A. MORE AUSTERITY MEANS ECONOMIC CONTRACTION (KRUGMAN) ........................................................................... 3 CHART B. MORE AUSTERITY MEANS ECONOMIC CONTRACTION (IMF) ................................................................................... 4 3. SYSTEMATICALLY OVERSTATED FORECASTS ......................................................................................... 4 4. ACTUAL MULTIPLIERS ...................................................................................................................................... 5 CHART C. AUSTERITY MULTIPLIER 2009-2011 (KRUGMAN) .................................................................................................... 5 CHART D. AUSTERITY MULTIPLIER 2008-2012 (WOLF) ...................................................................................................... 5 5. THE EUROPEAN COMMISSION PREFERS THEORY .................................................................................. 6 6. A LONG RECORD OF OVER-OPTIMISTIC EXAGGERATION OF GROWTH PROSPECTS ................ 8 CHART E. ACTUAL GROWTH
    [Show full text]
  • Nber Working Paper Series the Time for Austerity
    NBER WORKING PAPER SERIES THE TIME FOR AUSTERITY: ESTIMATING THE AVERAGE TREATMENT EFFECT OF FISCAL POLICY Òscar Jordà Alan M. Taylor Working Paper 19414 http://www.nber.org/papers/w19414 NATIONAL BUREAU OF ECONOMIC RESEARCH 1050 Massachusetts Avenue Cambridge, MA 02138 September 2013 The views expressed herein are solely the responsibility of the authors and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or the National Bureau of Economic Research. We thank three referees and the editor as well as seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco, the Swiss National Bank, the NBER Summer Institute, the Bank for International Settlements, the European Commission, and HM Treasury for helpful comments and suggestions. We are particularly grateful to Daniel Leigh for sharing data and Early Elias for outstanding research assistance. All errors are ours. At least one co-author has disclosed a financial relationship of potential relevance for this research. Further information is available online at http://www.nber.org/papers/w19414.ack NBER working papers are circulated for discussion and comment purposes. They have not been peer- reviewed or been subject to the review by the NBER Board of Directors that accompanies official NBER publications. © 2013 by Òscar Jordà and Alan M. Taylor. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source. The Time for Austerity: Estimating the Average Treatment Effect of Fiscal Policy Òscar Jordà and Alan M.
    [Show full text]
  • Market Power and Fiscal Policy in Oecd Countries
    WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 1173 / APRIL 2010 MARKET POWER AND FISCAL POLICY IN OECD COUNTRIES by António Afonso and Luís F. Costa WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 1173 / APRIL 2010 MARKET POWER AND FISCAL POLICY IN OECD COUNTRIES 1 by António Afonso 2.3 and Luís F. Costa 2 NOTE: This Working Paper should not be reported as representing the views of the European Central Bank (ECB). The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ECB. In 2010 all ECB publications feature a motif taken from the €500 banknote. This paper can be downloaded without charge from http://www.ecb. europa.eu or from the Social Science Research Network electronic library at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1585116. 1 We are grateful to Mårten Blix, Huw Dixon, Gabriel Fagan, Nir Jaimovich, Nuno Palma, Ad van Riet, and also to an anonymous ECB WPS referee, to participants at an ISEG/UTL-Technical University of Lisbon Seminar, the Macro and Finance Research Group 41st Annual Conference (Bradford) and at the 3rd Meeting of the Portuguese Economic Journal (Funchal) for helpful comments and suggestions on previous versions, and to Silvia Albrizio and Filipe Farinha for research assistance. Financial support by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia), Portugal is gratefully acknowledged. This article is part of the Multi-annual Funding Project (POCI/U0436/2006). The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the ECB or the Eurosystem. 2 ISEG (School of Economics and Management), Technical University of Lisbon, Rua do Quelhas 6, 1200-781 Lisboa, Portugal and UECE (Research Unit on Complexity and Economics), Rua Miguel Lupi 20, 1249-078 Lisboa, Portugal, e-mails: [email protected], [email protected].
    [Show full text]
  • Sovereign Spreads and the Effects of Fiscal Austerity
    Sovereign Spreads and the Effects of Fiscal Austerity∗ Diego Anzoateguiy Rutgers University November, 2019 Abstract I analyze the impact of austerity on sovereign spreads. To do so I propose a model with strategic sovereign default and nominal rigidities where the government follows fiscal rules, which are estimated from data. I first analyze the theoretical implications of the model and find that austerity can be self-defeating only when austerity packages are persistent and the economy is expected to be in a recession with high fiscal multipliers. I then calibrate the model using data from Spain and estimate the size and impact of fiscal policy shocks associated with austerity policies. I use the model to predict what would have happened to spreads and economic activity if Spain had continued to follow the pre-2010 fiscal rule instead of switching to the austerity track. I find that, relative to the counter-factual, austerity decreased sovereign spreads and debt-to-GDP ratios even when fiscal multipliers where higher than one during 2010-2013. Overall, the results indicate that the likelihood of facing self-fulfilling austerity episodes depends on the magnitude of fiscal multipliers but is generally low. In fact, this probability is below 3% considering calibrations with overall fiscal multipliers lower or equal than 3. ∗I am grateful to Ricardo Lagos and Mark Gertler for their guidance and support throughout this project. I also thank Alessandro Dovis, Diego Perez and all participants to presentations at the SED 2019, 2018 7th Atlanta Fed Workshop on International Economics, Fall 2017 Midwest Macro, McMaster University, Rutgers University, George Washington University.
    [Show full text]
  • Fiscal Policy Stabilization: Purchases Or Transfers?∗
    Fiscal Policy Stabilization: Purchases or Transfers?∗ Neil R. Mehrotra Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis Both government purchases and transfers figure promi- nently in the use of fiscal policy for counteracting recessions. However, existing representative-agent models including the neoclassical and New Keynesian benchmark rule out transfers by assumption. This paper explains the factors that determine the size of fiscal multipliers in a variant of the C´urdia and Woodford (2010) model where transfers now matter. I estab- lish an equivalence between deficit-financed fiscal policy and balanced-budget fiscal policy with transfers. Absent wealth effects on labor supply, the transfer multiplier is zero when prices are flexible, and transfers are redundant to monetary policy when prices are sticky. The transfer multiplier is most relevant at the zero lower bound where the size of the multiplier is increasing in the debt elasticity of the credit spread and fiscal policy can influence the duration of a zero lower bound episode. These results are quantitatively unchanged after incorporating wealth effects on labor supply. JEL Codes: E62. 1. Introduction The Great Recession has brought renewed attention to the possibil- ity of using fiscal policy to counteract recessions. Policymakers in ∗I would like to thank Gauti Eggertsson, Ricardo Reis, and Michael Woodford for helpful discussions, and Nicolas Crouzet, Laura Feiveson, John Leahy, Guido Lorenzoni, Guilherme Martins, Alisdair McKay, Steven Pennings, Bruce Preston, Stephanie Schmitt-Grohe, Dmitriy Sergeyev, seminar participants at the Federal Reserve Board and Boston University, two anonymous referees and the editor, John Williams, for useful comments. The views expressed here reflect those of the author and do not represent the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of Min- neapolis or the Federal Reserve System.
    [Show full text]
  • Profits, Markups and Entry: Fiscal Policy in an Open
    Journal of Economic Dynamics & Control 27 (2003) 573–597 www.elsevier.com/locate/econbase Proÿts, markups and entry: ÿscal policy in an open economy Javier Coto-MartÃ,neza, Huw Dixonb;c; ∗ aUniversity of East Anglia, Norwich, NR4 7TJ, UK bCESifo, Poschingerst 5, 81697 Munich, Germany cUniversity of York, York YO10 5DD, UK Received 11 June 1999; accepted 15 August 2001 Abstract In this paper, we develop a general model of an imperfectly competitive small open economy. There is a traded and non-traded sector, whose outputs are combined in order to produce a single ÿnal good that can be either consumed or invested. We make general assumptions about preferences and technology, and analyze the impact of ÿscal policy on the economy. We ÿnd that the ÿscal multiplier is between zero and one, and provide su9cient conditions for it to be increasing in the degree of imperfect competition. We also are able to compare the multiplier under free-entry and with a ÿxed number of ÿrms and welfare. A simple graphical representation of the model is developed. c 2002 Elsevier Science B.V. All rights reserved. JEL classiÿcation: E20; E62; F4 Keywords: Imperfect competition; Open economy; Fiscal policy 1. Introduction This paper focuses on the relationship between markups, proÿts and entry in an open economy. There is now a well established literature which ex- plores the eAects of imperfect competition in output markets on ÿscal policy ∗ Corresponding author. University of York, York, YO10 5DD, UK. E-mail addresses: [email protected] (J. Coto-MartÃ,nez), [email protected] (H.
    [Show full text]
  • New Keynesian Versus Old Keynesian Government Spending Multipliers
    WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 1090 / SEPTEMBER 2009 NEW KEYNESIAN VERSUS OLD KEYNESIAN GOVERNMENT SPENDING MULTIPLIERS by John F. Cogan, Tobias Cwik, John B. Taylor and Volker Wieland WORKING PAPER SERIES NO 1090 / SEPTEMBER 2009 NEW KEYNESIAN VERSUS OLD KEYNESIAN GOVERNMENT SPENDING MULTIPLIERS 1 by John F. Cogan 2 , Tobias Cwik 3 , John B. Taylor 4 and Volker Wieland 5 In 2009 all ECB publications This paper can be downloaded without charge from feature a motif http://www.ecb.europa.eu or from the Social Science Research Network taken from the €200 banknote. electronic library at http://ssrn.com/abstract_id=1468262. 1 The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of the European Central Bank or the Eurosystem. 2 Stanford University – The Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace, HHMB Rm 347, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; e-mail: [email protected] 3 Goethe University Frankfurt, Grüneburgplatz 1, Uni-Pf. 77, D-60323 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] 4 Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305, USA; e-mail: [email protected] 5 University of Frankfurt, P.O. Box 94, Mertonstrasse 17, D-60054 Frankfurt am Main, Germany; e-mail: [email protected] © European Central Bank, 2009 Address Kaiserstrasse 29 60311 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Postal address Postfach 16 03 19 60066 Frankfurt am Main, Germany Telephone +49 69 1344 0 Website http://www.ecb.europa.eu Fax +49 69 1344 6000 All rights reserved. Any reproduction, publication and reprint in the form of a different publication, whether printed or produced electronically, in whole or in part, is permitted only with the explicit written authorisation of the ECB or the author(s).
    [Show full text]
  • Deficits, Public Debt Dynamics, and Tax and Spending Multipliers
    Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports Defi cits, Public Debt Dynamics, and Tax and Spending Multipliers Matthew Denes Gauti B. Eggertsson Sophia Gilbukh Staff Report No. 551 February 2012 Revised September 2012 FRBNY Staff REPORTS This paper presents preliminary fi ndings and is being distributed to economists and other interested readers solely to stimulate discussion and elicit comments. The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and are not necessarily refl ective of views at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System. Any errors or omissions are the responsibility of the authors. Defi cits, Public Debt Dynamics, and Tax and Spending Multipliers Matthew Denes, Gauti B. Eggertsson, and Sophia Gilbukh Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports, no. 551 February 2012; revised September 2012 JEL classifi cation: E52, E62 Abstract Cutting government spending can increase the budget defi cit at zero interest rates accord- ing to a standard New Keynesian model, calibrated with Bayesian methods. Similarly, increasing sales taxes can increase the budget defi cit rather than reduce it. Both results suggest limitations of “austerity measures.” At zero interest rates, running budget defi cits can be either expansionary or contractionary depending on how they interact with expec- tations about long-run taxes and spending. The effect of fi scal policy action is thus highly dependent on the policy regime. A successful stimulus, therefore, needs to specify how the budget is managed, not only in the short but also in the medium and long runs. Key words: fi scal policy, liquidity trap Denes: University of Pennsylvania.
    [Show full text]
  • Decomposing the Fiscal Multiplier
    FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF SAN FRANCISCO WORKING PAPER SERIES Decomposing the Fiscal Multiplier James S. Cloyne University of California, Davis NBER and CEPR Òscar Jordà Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco University of California, Davis Alan M. Taylor University of California, Davis NBER and CEPR September 2020 Working Paper 2020-12 https://www.frbsf.org/economic-research/publications/working-papers/2020/12/ Suggested citation: Cloyne, James S., Òscar Jordà, Alan M. Taylor. 2020. “Decomposing the Fiscal Multiplier,” Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco Working Paper 2020-12. https://doi.org/10.24148/wp2020-12 The views in this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors and should not be interpreted as reflecting the views of the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco or the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System. Decomposing the Fiscal Multiplier? James S. Cloyne† Oscar` Jorda` ‡ Alan M. Taylor § September 2020 Abstract The fiscal “multiplier” measures how many additional dollars of output are gained or lost for each dollar of fiscal stimulus or contraction. In practice, the multiplier at any point in time depends on the monetary policy response and existing conditions in the economy. Using the IMF fiscal consolidations dataset for identification and a new decomposition-based approach, we show how to quantify the importance of these monetary-fiscal interactions. In the data, the fiscal multiplier varies considerably with monetary policy: it can be zero, or as large as 2 depending on the monetary offset. More generally, we show how to decompose the typical macro impulse response function by extending local projections to carry out the well-known Blinder-Oaxaca decomposition.
    [Show full text]
  • On Theories and Estimation Techniques of Fiscal Multipliers
    A Service of Leibniz-Informationszentrum econstor Wirtschaft Leibniz Information Centre Make Your Publications Visible. zbw for Economics Gechert, Sebastian Working Paper On theories and estimation techniques of fiscal multipliers FMM Working Paper, No. 11 Provided in Cooperation with: Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK) at the Hans Boeckler Foundation Suggested Citation: Gechert, Sebastian (2017) : On theories and estimation techniques of fiscal multipliers, FMM Working Paper, No. 11, Hans-Böckler-Stiftung, Macroeconomic Policy Institute (IMK), Forum for Macroeconomics and Macroeconomic Policies (FFM), Düsseldorf This Version is available at: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/181469 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Terms of use: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. personal and scholarly purposes. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle You are not to copy documents for public or commercial Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, If the documents have been made available under an Open gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. www.econstor.eu FMM-WORKING PAPER No. 11 · November, 2017 · Hans-Böckler-Stiftung ON THEORIES AND ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES OF FISCAL MULTIPLIERS November 16, 2017 Sebastian Gechert1 ABSTRACT The fiscal multiplier is a condensed key figure of the complex transmission mechanism of fiscal policy into output.
    [Show full text]