قانون طلایی دارایی عمومی ویا یک رژیم کسری بودجه ثابت؟اثرات رشد و رفاه قوانین بودجه
|کد مقاله||سال انتشار||مقاله انگلیسی||ترجمه فارسی||تعداد کلمات|
|10884||2010||12 صفحه PDF||سفارش دهید||9827 کلمه|
Publisher : Elsevier - Science Direct (الزویر - ساینس دایرکت)
Journal : Economic Modelling, Volume 27, Issue 2, March 2010, Pages 523–534
In this paper, we compare growth and welfare effects of various budget rules within an endogenous growth model with productive public capital, utility enhancing public consumption and public debt. We find that introducing a fixed deficit regime does not affect the long run growth rate compared to a balanced budget while establishing a golden rule results in higher growth. Simulations of welfare effects indicate that a golden rule leads to highest welfare followed by a balanced budget and a fixed deficit regime. A maximum fraction of deficit financed public investment is derived. Varying the intertemporal elasticity of substitution shows that economies populated by households who have a strong tendency to smooth consumption should adhere to a balanced budget from a welfare point of view.
The macroeconomic effects of budget rules have been studied recently in a number of papers using growth models along the line of Futagami et al. (1993). In this framework endogenous growth stems from investment in a public capital stock, which also raises the private incentive to invest. Greiner and Semmler (2000) incorporate the so-called golden rule of public finance into this framework. This budget rule allows the government only to run deficits if those deficits are used to finance investments in the public capital stock. Greiner and Semmler (2000) find negative long run growth effects of higher deficits in a strict golden rule while in a more flexible regime that additionally allows interest payments to be financed by deficits, positive growth effects can be attained. Ghosh and Mourmouras (2004) compare long run welfare implications of the golden rule with the standard intertemporal budget constraint and show welfare improvements by introducing a golden rule. An interesting contribution is that of Minea and Villieu (2005) who study a fixed deficit budgetary regime and find, contrary to Greiner and Semmler (2000), that a balanced budget always leads to higher long run growth than a fixed deficit.1 They solve the model numerically and study welfare effects in comparison to a balanced budget during transitional dynamics.2 A shortcoming of this line of research is that the effect of different budget rules on the composition of government expenditures is not taken into account. Budget rules like the golden rule favor public investment whereas in a fixed deficit the government might use deficits to spend on public consumption. Through this channel budget rules differently affect growth and welfare of the economy. Another line of research studies optimal composition of government spending in the same endogenous growth setting, e.g. Lee (1992) and Turnovsky and Fisher (1995).3 Here, the government can either invest in productive public capital which is an input in the production function or pay for public consumption goods which increase the utility of private households. These studies analyze optimal composition between the two outlays but taxes are the only revenues of the public sector so budget rules are not analyzed. This paper synthesizes these two streams of literature by focusing on the impact of budget rules on the composition of government expenditures. Instead of finding optimal composition of government expenditure, growth and welfare effects of budget rules are analyzed and optimal policy parameters within a given budget rule are derived. We compare a golden rule and a fixed deficit regime in an endogenous growth setting with productive government expenditure and utility enhancing public consumption. The particular rules are chosen because they crucially differ in their impact on the composition of government spending.4 The golden rule stipulates that deficits can only be used to finance public investments whereas a fixed deficit rule does not prescribe a specific usage for the deficits. We find that higher deficits in a fixed deficit regime have no long run growth impact, while with a golden rule higher deficits have positive growth effects in the long run. This is due to the assumption that unlike the golden rule in a fixed deficits regime government borrowing is only used for public consumption. Additionally, we assume that interest payments on government debt are adjusted by public consumption rather than productive government expenditure in the long run. Simulations of welfare effects indicate that a golden rule leads to the highest welfare followed by a balanced budget and a fixed deficit regime. Within a golden rule a welfare maximizing fraction of deficit financed public investment exists. A sensitivity analysis reveals that the intertemporal elasticity of substitution is a crucial parameter determining the size and even the sign of the welfare effect. We show that economies populated by households who have a strong tendency to smooth consumption should adhere to a balanced budget rather than a golden rule or a fixed deficit from a welfare point of view. The paper is structured as follows: Section 2 presents a short description of the budget rules under consideration. In Section 3 we lay out the basic model and derive the decentralized equilibrium. Section 4 studies growth effects of the fixed deficit regime and the golden rule analytically. In Section 5, the transitional dynamics of a regime switch from a balanced budget to a fixed deficit rule and to a golden rule is simulated. Section 6 analyzes welfare effects and seeks to find optimal fiscal policy with given budget rules and Section 7 concludes.
نتیجه گیری انگلیسی
This paper shows growth and welfare effects of budget rules within an endogenous growth model with productive public capital, welfare improving public consumption expenditures and public debt. We compare a fixed deficit regime and a golden rule of public finance. For the former it is assumed that deficits are only used for public consumption while the latter allows public deficits only for public investments. This comparison points to an important aspect of budget rules: namely their impact on the composition of government expenditures. The transition from a base case with a balanced budget to a fixed deficit and a golden rule respectively is simulated. We show that in the long run positive deficits in the fixed deficit regime do not affect the growth rate while the growth rate is increased with a golden rule. These findings are in contrast to previous studies due to the assumption that rising debt obligations are borne by cutting public consumption instead of investments. This leads to complex welfare effects since public consumption expenditures deliver utility to the private households. With given parameters, a golden rule leads to highest welfare followed by a balanced budget and a fixed deficit regime. With a golden rule, there exists a maximum amount of public investment which should be financed by deficits. Welfare effects are highly dependent on the intertemporal elasticity of substitution. While welfare effects from a transition to a fixed deficit regime are negative for a broad range of elasticities, introducing a golden rule has ambiguous welfare effects being only positive with high elasticities of intertemporal substitution. The results indicate that economies populated by households who have a strong tendency to smooth consumption should maintain a balanced budget from a welfare point of view.