Preview

MGIMO Review of International Relations

Advanced search

EU fiscal governance and budget consolidation in Visegrád countries

https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-3-66-131-158

Abstract

Budget consolidations in Visegrád countries, which followed European financial and debt crisis, were mainly driven by external factors such as EU fiscal governance. Since the Visegrád countries have accomplished their consolidation effort, it seems topical to study their experience and assess the efficiency of consolidation measures. Involving descriptive statistical analysis, the authors posit that supranational impact on national budgets of Visegrád countries was quite efficient, as all economies concerned have accomplished a relatively sizeable fiscal consolidation. This happened largely due to the fact that the governments did not intend to lose vast amounts of funds from the EU budget. Such an option was quite feasible as a part of possible sanctions related to excessive deficit. The Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland and the Slovak Republic run different consolidations as to scale, structure and measures taken, though one could highlight some similarities. On the one hand, consolidations were to a great extent carried out through the means of indirect taxation, because they have a less distortive nature, given the structural characteristics of countries at issue. On the other hand, the governments refrained from raising direct taxes due to their distortive character. Hungary was the only country, which took some active measures in the field of corporate taxation, and subsequently suffered from drop in tax collection. The Visegrád countries did cut government expenditures, but strived to use the most effective instruments such as curbing employment in public sector. Further, there were some subsidiary factors at place that influenced consolidation pace. For example, three of four Visegrád countries are not members of a currency union, which inter alia contributed to monetizing government debt. At the same time, some measures taken by the countries, were of a quite formal nature. For instance, Hungary totally nationalized pension system in order to increase budget revenues. Nevertheless, all Visegrád countries reached deficit target without any revolutionary changes to main fiscal aggregates, which means that consolidations were at least nominally effective. However, cumulative deficit change was not fully accompanied by lowering debt and was by several times less than cumulative transfers from the EU budget. At the same time the budget consolidations in Visegrád countries could be called efficient as GDP growth rates restored, as did investors’ confidence and exports.

About the Authors

Zh. N. Komissarova
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA of Russia
Russian Federation
PhD in Economics, Associate Professor at the World Economy Department


E. A. Sergeev
Moscow State Institute of International Relations (University) MFA of Russia
Russian Federation
Lecturer at the World Economy Department


References

1. Abel A., Bernanke B. Makroekonomika [Macroeconomics]. Saint-Petersburg, Piter, 2010. 768 p. (In Russian)

2. Baranov A.O. Kejnsianskij i liberal'nyj vzglyad na rol' gosudarstva v ekonomike: istoriya voprosa i diskussiya v Rossii [Keynesian and Liberal View on State’s Role in the Economy: a History of a Problem]. Vestnik NGU. Seriya: Social'no-ekonomicheskie nauki, 2003, vol. 3, no. 2, pp. 5-23. (In Russian)

3. Kołodko G., Postula M. Faktory i posledstviya rasshireniya evrozony [Determinants and implications of the Eurozone enlargement]. Voprosy Ekonomiki – Economic Problems, 2018, no. 7, pp. 1-20. (In Russian) DOI: 10.32609/0042-8736-2018-7-45-64

4. Komissarova Zh.N., Sergeev E.A. Procedura chrezmernogo deficita byudzheta v stranah Vishegradskoj gruppy [Excessive Deficit Procedure in Visegrád Countries]. Vestnik RUDN. Seriya: ekonomika – RUDN Journal of Economics, 2018, vol. 26, no. 2, pp. 246-257. (In Russian) DOI: 10.22363/2313-2329-2018-26-2-246-257

5. Publichnye finansy i nalogovoe pravo: ezhegodnik. Vyp. 4: Dohody byudzhetov v stranah Central'noj i Vostochnoj Evropy [Public Finance and Tax Law: a Yearbook. Issue 4: Budget Revenues in Central and Eastern European Countries]. Ed. by Karasyova (Sencova) M.V. Voronezh, VGU Publ., 2014. 370 p. (In Russian)

6. Sergeev E.A. Dinamika osnovnyh pokazatelej fiskal'nyh sistem stran Vishegradskoj gruppy v postkrizisnyj period [Fiscal Systems of Visegrád Countriesin a Post-Crisis Period: Statistical Trends]. Rossiya i Central'naya Evropa v novyh geopoliticheskih real'nostyah. Sb. st. uchastnikov XII mezhdunar. nauch. konferencii [Russia and Central Europe in New European Relaities. Proceedings of the XII International Scientific Conference]. Ed. by Shishelina L.N. Moscow, RAS Institute of Europe, 2018. Pp. 166-177. (In Russian)

7. Sergeev E.A. Fiskal'noe regulirovanie v integracionnyh ob"edineniyah: obshchaya harakteristika [Fiscal Governance in Regional Groupings; General Features]. Mirovoe i nacional'noe hozyajstvo – World and National Economy, 2017, no. 1. (In Russian)

8. Central'naya i Vostochnaya Evropa: posledstviya dolgovogo krizisa v evrozone [Central and Eatern Europe: Implications of Debt crisis in the Euro Area]. Ed. by N.V. Kulikova. Moscow, RAS Institute of Economics, 2014. 300 p. (In Russian)

9. Afonso A., Sousa R. The Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Policy. ECB Working Paper, 2009, no. 991, 53 p.

10. Alesina A. Introduction. in Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis. Ed. by Alesina A., Giavazzi F. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2013. pp. 1-18.

11. Alesina A., Ardagna S. Tales of Fiscal Adjustment, Economic Policy, 1998, no. 13(27), pp. 489-585.

12. Alesina A., Ardagna S. The Design of Fiscal Adjustments. Tax Policy and the Economy, 2013, vol. 27, pp. 19-68.

13. Ardagna S. Fiscal Stabilizations: When Do They Work and Why, European Economic Review, 2004, vol. 48, no. 5, pp. 1047-1074.

14. Barro R. Are Government Bonds Net Wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 1974, vol. 82, no. 6, pp. 1095-1117.

15. Combes J.-L., Minea A., Mustea L., Yogo T. Output Effects of Fiscal Stimulus in Central and Eastern European Countries. Post-Communist Economies, 2016, vol. 28, no. 1, pp. 108-127.

16. Delong J., Summers L. Fiscal Policy on a Depressed Economy. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Spring 2012, pp. 233-297.

17. Devries P., Guajardo J., Leigh D., Pescatori A. A New Action-Based Dataset of Fiscal Consolidation. IMF Working Paper, 2011, no. 11/128. International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC. 90 p.

18. Fatás A., Summers L. The Permanent Effects of Fiscal Consolidations. Journal of International Economics, 2018, vol. 112, no. C, pp. 238-250. DOI: 10.3386/w22374

19. von Hagen J., Wolff G. What Do Deficits Tell Us About Debt? Empirical Evidence on Creative Accounting with Fiscal Rules in the EU. Deutsche Bundesbank Discussion Paper. Series 1: Studies of the Economic Research Centre, 2004, no. 38. 30 p.

20. Hall R. By How Much Does GDP Rise if the Government Buys More Output. NBER Working Paper, 2009, no. 15496. 49 p.

21. Heimberger P. Did Fiscal Consolidation Cause the Double-Dip Recession in the Euro Area? Wiener Institut für Internationale Wirtschaſtsvergleiche Working Paper, 2016, no. 130. 22 p.

22. Hölscher J., Postula M., Alińska A., Klepacki J. The Impact of Fiscal Rules on Sustainable Development of the Visegrad Group Countries. BAFES – Bournemouth Accounting, Finance & Economic Series, 2018, no. 17. 29 p.

23. Kameník M., Ruščáková A., Semančíková J. Fiscal Multipliers and Macroeconomic Performance in the Case of Slovakia and Hungary. International Journal of Computational Economics and Econometrics, 2018, vol. 8, no. 1, pp. 79-94.

24. Kraay A. Government Spending Multipliers in Developing Countries. Evidence from Lending by Official Creditors. AEJ: Macroeconomics, 2014, no. 6, pp. 170-208.

25. Kumar M., Leigh D., Plekhanov A. Fiscal Adjustments: Determinants and Macroeconomic Consequences. IMF Working Paper, 2007, no. 07/178, 38 p.

26. Lentner C. Excerpts of New Hungarian State Finances from Legal, Economic and International Aspects. Pravni Vjesnik, 2018, vol. 34. No. 2, pp. 9-25. DOI: 10.25234/pv/5996

27. Mirdala R., Kaminík M. Effects of Fiscal Policy Shocks in CE3 Countries (TVAR Approach). Economics and Management, 2017, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 46-64.

28. Molnár M. Fiscal Consolidation: What Factors Determine the Success of Consolidation Efforts? OECD Journal: Economic Studies, 2012, no. 1, pp. 123-149.

29. Nickel Ch., Tudyka A. Fiscal Stimulus in Times of High Debt. Reconsidering Multipliers and Twin Deficits. ECB Workin Paper, 2013, no. 1513, 39 p.

30. Rzoncá A., Ciżkowicz P. Non-Keynesian Effects of Fiscal Contraction in New Member States. European Central Bank Working Paper Series, 2005, no. 519, 34 p.

31. Stockhammer E., Qazizada W., Gechert S. Demand Effects of Fiscal Policy since 2008. Post Keynesian Economic Study Group Working Paper, 2016, no. 1607, 26 p.

32. Taxation Trends in the European Union. Data for the EU Member States, Iceland and Norway, 2012 edition. European Commission. Luxembourg, Publications Office of the European Union, 2012. 269 p.

33. The First Two Years of the Self-financing Programme. Ed. by M. Hoffmann, P.P. Kolozsi. Budapest, Magyar Nemzeti Bank, 2016. 121 p.


Review

For citations:


Komissarova Zh.N., Sergeev E.A. EU fiscal governance and budget consolidation in Visegrád countries. MGIMO Review of International Relations. 2019;(3(66)):131-158. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.24833/2071-8160-2019-3-66-131-158

Views: 970


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2071-8160 (Print)
ISSN 2541-9099 (Online)