Public finances and long-term growth in Europe: Evidence from a panel data analysis

Abstract

Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen:Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden.Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen.Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Tables and figures 30 Appendices 43 European Central Bank working paper series 48 Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may E U R O P E A N C E N T R A L B A N K WO R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S E U R O P E A N C E N T R A L B A N K WO R K I N G PA P E R S E R I E S ECB Working Paper No 246 July 20034 Abstract In Lisbon the European Council proclaimed a European growth strategy. It considers an average economic "growth rate of around 3 percent as a realistic prospect for the coming years" and assigns public finances an important role in the process of achieving this goal. This paper addresses the question whether we can find empirical evidence for European countries that public finance reform affects trend growth. Focusing on time series patterns, we investigate whether there have been persistent shifts or trends in economic growth and fiscal variables over the last 40 years. In addition, we estimate a distributed lag model, which 1) indicates that government consumption and transfers negatively affect growth rates of GDP per capita over the business cycle, while public investment has a positive impact, and 2) provides robust evidence that distortionary taxation affects growth in the medium-term through its impact on the accumulation of private physical capital. Non-technical summaryThe European Council set forth the Lisbon Process in order to raise growth rates of output in EU countries. The Council considers "an average economic growth rate of around 3% [as] a realistic prospect for the coming years" 1 . In a follow-up to the process initiated in Lisbon, the Commission and ECOFIN Council underscored that the quality of public finances plays a crucial role for growth and employment. More specifically, they outlined the necessity of lowering the tax burden and particularly the tax wedge for lowskilled workers, making benefit systems more supportive to employment, shifting resources towards productive expenditures in health, education and physical infrastructure, and ensuring the sustainability of public finances.The conclusions of the European Council on the European output performance leave open whether the increase in economic growth is expected to be persistent. Therefore we investigate in this paper which growth pattern could be the outcome of policy reforms in the future course of the Lisbon process. Analysing past experiences in European countries should indicate whether public finances have the potential to raise growth rates more permanently, ...

Direct versus Indirect Taxation: Trends, Theory, and Economic Significance

“…The coefficient on initial subsample GDP per capita is negative and significant, which is consistent with the assumption of the conditional convergence of growth rates reported in previous studies (Barro, 1991;Mankiw et al, 1992;Kneller et al, 1999). Inflation affects economic growth rate negatively, supporting the hypothesis that, among other things, inflation increases investment uncertainty and, therefore, reduces economic agents' incentives to invest Galli, 2001 andRomero-Avila and Strauch, 2008). Trade openness has a posi tive and significant effect on the growth rate, which is consistent with previous findings (Dollar, 1992;Edwards, 1998;Frankel and Romer, 1999;and Dollar and Kraay, 2003).…”

Fiscal policy and TFP in the OECD: measuring direct and indirect effects

“…Some empirical studies find a negative effect, e.g. Hansson and Henrekson (1994), Arjona et al (2003) and Romero-Avila and Strauch (2008), while others obtain a positive impact, e.g. Herce et al (2001) and Zhang and Zhang (2004).…”

Growth Effects of Fiscal Policies: A Critical Appraisal of Colombier’s (2009) Study

“…In addition to Fölster and Henrekson (2001), papers by Dar and AmirKhalkhali (2002), Romero-Avila and Strauch (2008), Bergh and Karlsson (2010) and Afonso and Furceri (2010) all find a statistically and economically significant negative correlation between aggregate government size and growth in rich countries. The omission of the latter two can of course be explained by them being published later, but the main impression is nevertheless that Colombier is not fully accurate in his description of existing literature.…”