Explore the vast range of titles available.

Only a few empirical studies have analyzed the relationship between fiscal multipliers and the underlying state of the economy. This paper investigates this link on a country-by-country basis for the G7 economies (excluding Italy). Our results show that fiscal multipliers differ across countries, calling for a tailored use of fiscal policy. Moreover, the position in the business cycle affects the impact of fiscal policy on output: on average, government spending, and revenue multipliers tend to be larger in downturns than in expansions. This asymmetry has implications for the choice between an upfront fiscal adjustment versus a more gradual approach.

Fiscal sustainability analysis is the use of a simple set of tools to analyze a government's budget and its debt position, and leads to conclusions - given the government's debt level - about the appropriateness of fiscal policy.

We estimate short- and long-run tax elasticities that capture the relationship between changes in national income and tax revenue. We show that the short-run tax elasticity changes according to the business cycle. We estimate a two-state Markov-switching regression on a novel data set of tax policy reforms in 15 European countries from 1980 to 2013, showing that the elasticities during booms and recessions are statistically (and often economically) different. The elasticities of personal income taxes, corporate income taxes, indirect taxes and social contributions tend to be larger during recessions. Estimates of long-run elasticities are in line with existing literature.

I compare nominal gross domestic product (GDP) level targeting with strict price level targeting in a small New Keynesian model, with the central bank operating under optimal discretion and facing a zero lower bound on nominal interest rates. I show that, if the economy is only buffeted by purely temporary shocks to inflation, nominal GDP level targeting may be preferable because it requires the burden of the shocks to be shared by prices and output. However, in the presence of persistent supply and demand shocks, strict price level targeting may be superior because it induces greater policy inertia and improves the tradeoffs faced by the central bank. During lower bound episodes, somewhat paradoxically, nominal GDP level targeting leads to larger falls in nominal GDP.

This paper provides a novel dataset of time-varying measures on the degree of countercyclicality of fiscal policies for advanced and developing economies between 1980 and 2021. The use of time-varying measures of fiscal stabilization, with special attention to potential endogeneity issues, overcomes the major limitation of previous studies and allows the analysis to account for both country-specific as well as global factors. The paper also examines the key determinants of countercyclicality of fiscal policy with a focus on factors as severe crises, informality, financial development and governance. Empirical results show that (i) fiscal policy tends to be more countercyclical during severe crises than typical recessions, especially for advanced economies; (ii) fiscal countercyclicality has increased over time for many economies over the last two decades; (iii) discretionary and automatic countercyclicality are both strong in advanced economies but acyclical (at times procyclical) in low-income countries; (iv) fiscal countercyclicality operates primarily through the expenditure channel, particularly for social benefits; and (v) better financial development, larger government size and stronger institutional quality are associated with larger countercyclical effects of fiscal policy. Our results are robust to various specifications and endogeneity checks.

The article discusses the determinants of fiscal policy in the times of COVID-19. Most economists share the opinion that fiscal packages are necessary to mitigate the health and economic costs of a pandemic. However, the scale of fiscal intervention and the types of fiscal policy instruments that should be used raise doubts. The aim of the article is to explore the factors determining the size and structure of fiscal packages which have been implemented globally in response to the crisis caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. In addition, attention is drawn to the potential impact of fiscal intervention on public finance sustainability, bearing in mind that most governments have chosen to use fiscal support instruments to enhance consumption and investment following the COVID-19 hit, although the cross-country differences are evident both in the magnitude and composition of fiscal stimulus packages. A descriptive analysis was conducted along with a panel data analysis to examine the determinants of government fiscal support in response to the COVID-19 crisis. The empirical analysis is based on cross-sectional data from the International Monetary Fund, OECD and Eurostat. The sample consists of 40 countries representing advanced and emerging economies. Based on the panel analysis, it was found that the total fiscal stimulus packages depended mainly on the fiscal space. Fiscal intervention in countries with greater tax-collection capacity (such as Germany, United States, United Kingdom and Japan) was greater compared to others. A positive and statistically significant relationship between the average income level and the size of fiscal stimulus was also confirmed. Moreover, it turned out that countries with larger populations and higher fatality rates provided greater fiscal support for the COVID-19 pandemic.The empirical analysis expands the existing knowledge on the determinants of the fiscal policy implemented in response to the COVID-19 crisis under the conditions of low interest rates, when macroeconomic stabilization can only be ensured through fiscal stimulus programs.

The comparison of H.C. Simons’ theories to those of Friedman and Keynes has resulted in confining the former to some of the issues debated in the recent controversies between the monetarist and the Keynesian schools. The present article demonstrates that a more balanced analysis of Simons’ theories can modify some of the outcomes obtained. In particular, the author gives less importance to differences in monetary theory while placing more weight on those of a pre-analytic and general theoretical nature. This distinction is of use when it comes to a question which drives a deep gulf between modern monetarists and Keynesians - that of the choice between fixed rules and discretionary policies.   JEL: B22, B31

This paper studies how model uncertainty influences economic fluctuation when trend inflation is high. We introduce Hansen and Sargent’s [(2008) Robustness, Princeton University Press] robust control techniques into a New Keynesian model with non-zero trend inflation. We reveal the following three points. First, we find that robust monetary policy responds more aggressively. This aggressiveness increases with trend inflation. Second, as the trend inflation rises, the response of macroeconomic variables is larger under robust policy. Third, stronger robustness tends to lead to indeterminate equilibrium as trend inflation increases. Consequently, the economy might be volatile when trend inflation is high due to robustness from the view of both variance and determinacy. We interpret the results as indicating that the model uncertainty might be the one of the factors causing large macroeconomic fluctuations when trend inflation is high.

The paper takes stock of the debate on the positive link between output volatility and the size of government-which reflects automatic stabilizers. After a survey of the literature, we show that the contribution of automatic stabilizers to output stability may have disappeared since the 1990s. However, econometric analysis suggests that the breakdown in the government size-volatility relationship largely reflects temporary developments (better monetary management and financial intermediation). Once these factors are taken into account, the stabilizing role of government size remains important although little extra stability can be gained by expanding public expenditure beyond 40 percent of GDP.