2017
DOI: 10.3326/pse.41.1.7
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Macroeconomic effects of fiscal policy in the European Union, with particular reference to transition countries

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

1
7
0
1

Year Published

2018
2018
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 31 publications
1
7
0
1
Order By: Relevance
“…on the other hand, increased interest rates lower asset values and have a negative wealth effect to discourage private consumption. Our estimates are consistent with the estimates documented by (Alichi et al, 2019; Corsetti et al, 2012; Furceri & Li, 2017; Ilzetzki et al, 2013; Kabashi, 2017; Koh, 2016).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…on the other hand, increased interest rates lower asset values and have a negative wealth effect to discourage private consumption. Our estimates are consistent with the estimates documented by (Alichi et al, 2019; Corsetti et al, 2012; Furceri & Li, 2017; Ilzetzki et al, 2013; Kabashi, 2017; Koh, 2016).…”
Section: Resultssupporting
confidence: 93%
“…The fiscal multipliers for high‐debt countries and low‐debt countries are estimated separately. To examine the effect of debt burden on the multiplier size, we split the sample into high‐debt countries and low‐debt countries, based on a 60 % of public debt to GDP ratio following the prominent papers of (Ilzetzki et al, 2013; Kabashi, 2017; Koh, 2016). The output response to a discretionary fiscal spending shock varies with countries' debt burden.…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our choice of variables is underpinned by the theoretical proposition underlying the study published by the IMF in 2015 (Clements et al, 2015), wherein they observe that taxes, as well as spending decisions such as social security, education and health expenditures, are designed not only to directly impact on households' welfare, but also on the income distribution. Therefore, and similarly to the approach of Kabashi (2015), we also replace the public spending variable with three social expenditure variables, one at a time: social protection spending (SPS it ), health spending (HS it ), and education spending (ES it ). Moreover, in examining the impact of the spending shocks on different income groups, we replace the Gini index with three percentile income shares representing three different income groups: the 10th percentile represents the low-income group; the 50th percentile denotes the middle-income group and the 90th percentile the high-income group.…”
Section: Model Specificationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…We identify the fiscal shocks in the smallest VAR possible, as argued by Fatás and Mihov (2001) and Kabashi (2017). Figures A1 and A2 in the Appendix plot the impulse responses of the government expenditure and revenue shock using only five variables excluding private consumption and investment.…”
Section: Robustness Checkmentioning
confidence: 99%