Suchergebnisse

The 'starving the beast' hypothesis claims that tax cuts lead to lower public spending, rather than higher debt levels and higher taxes in the future. This paper uses the institutional setting of German fiscal federalism to its advantage in order to explore how fiscal policy reacts to exogenous tax revenue shocks. We use panel data from the German states covering the period from 1992 to 2011, and assess to what extent exogenous changes in tax revenues affect aggregate public expenditure as well as specific sub-categories of government spending. Applying the narrative approach pioneered by Romer and Romer (2009), we construct a measure of exogenous tax shocks. This allows us to identify the causal effect of tax changes on fiscal policy. Our results suggest that an exogenous decrease in tax revenues triggers a reduction in public spending of roughly the same amount, with a delay of two to three years. We find that a revenue decline of one Euro reduces public spending on administration and, with a larger delay, social security, by 30 to 45 cents in each case. Spending on infrastructure declines by ten cents. We find no significant effects on spending on education, legal protection and public safety, or culture.

This paper empirically evaluates how fiscal policy reacts to changes in the government's fiscal situation. Utilizing panel data from the German states covering the period from 1992 to 2011, we assess to what extent exogenous changes in tax revenues affect total public revenues, aggregate public expenditure as well as specific sub-categories of government spending. Applying the narrative approach pioneered by Romer and Romer (2010), we construct a measure of exogenous tax shocks, allowing us to identify the causal effect of tax changes on fiscal policy. Our findings indicate that tax changes trigger expenditure adjustments into the same direction after 2 to 3 years, specifically with respect to spending on governmental administration, health expenditures and spending on infrastructure.

In recent years, one of the most common metaphors for using tax cuts to discipline government spending has been 'starve the beast.' The idea is that if revenues are unilaterally reduced, this reduction will lead to a higher budget deficit, which will force legislators to enact spending cuts. Thus, using tax cuts to bring about spending cuts has been called 'starving the beast.' The budgetary experience of recent years, in which Congress has enacted large tax cuts and large spending increases at the same time, has caused some former supporters of the starve-the-beast idea to reconsider their view. However, the metaphor remains a powerful one. In this article, I trace the origins and development of the idea and the reasons why it rose to prominence not just among policymakers, but among professional economists as well. Adapted from the source document.

The notion of "starving the beast" has been an important justification for fiscal programs emphasizing revenue reductions since the mid-1970s. While the idea of restraining government spending by limiting government revenues has an intuitive appeal, there is convincing evidence the reducing federal tax rates without coordinated reductions in federal spending actually produces long-term growth in spending. This perverse result is explained by a theory of "fiscal illusion." By deferring the costs of government services and benefits through deficit financing, starve the beast policies have the effect of lowering the perceived price of government in the minds of many citizens. We assess the principal behavioral prediction of the fiscal illusion theory.Incorporating estimates of the effects of federal deficits into a standard substantive model of Stimson's mood index, we find strong support for a subjective price-driven theory of demand for government. In particular, we find that the size of the federal budget deficit is significantly associated with greater demand for government services and benefits. This may have important implications for contemporary debates about fiscal discipline.

Whether to increase taxes or cut spending is an important question with profound policy implications, especially as countries attempt to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study, therefore, investigated the relationship between revenues and spending in the Southern African Development Community (SADC), where concerns about rising debt and deficits were raised prior to the pandemic. A panel bootstrap Granger-causality technique was used to analyze annual frequency data covering the 1980–2018 period. To our best knowledge, this was the first study in Africa to simultaneously account for cross-country differences and cross-section dependence. The findings of the study have in-depth implications for fiscal policy and adjustments towards budgetary equilibria. The study found no evidence of causality between revenues and spending in eleven SADC member states, suggesting that to balance their respective budgets, governments in these countries can alter either spending or revenues, or both. However, in Botswana, we found evidence of the tax-spend hypothesis, implying that governments should consider altering revenues to eliminate budget imbalances. Finally, evidence of the spend-tax hypothesis was found in Mauritius and Mozambique, suggesting that past and current expenditures drive revenues in these countries. Accordingly, cutting spending would be an ideal policy recourse to deal with budgetary disequilibrium.

Whether to increase taxes or cut spending is an important question with profound policy implications, especially as countries attempt to deal with the consequences of the COVID-19 pandemic. This study, therefore, investigated the relationship between revenues and spending in the Southern African Development Community (SADC), where concerns about rising debt and deficits were raised prior to the pandemic. A panel bootstrap Granger-causality technique was used to analyze annual frequency data covering the 1980–2018 period. To our best knowledge, this was the first study in Africa to simultaneously account for cross-country differences and cross-section dependence. The findings of the study have in-depth implications for fiscal policy and adjustments towards budgetary equilibria. The study found no evidence of causality between revenues and spending in eleven SADC member states, suggesting that to balance their respective budgets, governments in these countries can alter either spending or revenues, or both. However, in Botswana, we found evidence of the tax-spend hypothesis, implying that governments should consider altering revenues to eliminate budget imbalances. Finally, evidence of the spend-tax hypothesis was found in Mauritius and Mozambique, suggesting that past and current expenditures drive revenues in these countries. Accordingly, cutting spending would be an ideal policy recourse to deal with budgetary disequilibrium.