Fiscal Spending Multiplier Calculations Based on Input-Output Tables? An Application to EU Member States
Intervention. European Journal of Economics and Economic Policies,
Fiscal spending multiplier calculations have attracted considerable attention in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. Much of the current literature is based on VAR estimation methods and DSGE models. In line with the Keynesian literature we argue that many of these models probably underestimate the fiscal spending multiplier in recessions. The income-expenditure model of the fiscal spending multiplier can be seen as a good approximation under these circumstances. In its conventional form this model suffers from an underestimation of the multiplier due to an overestimation of the import intake of domestic absorption. In this article we apply input-output calculus to solve this problem. Multipliers thus derived are comparably high, ranging between 1.4 and 1.8 for many member states of the European Union. GDP drops due to budget consolidation might therefore be substantial in times of crisis.
Effects of Fiscal Stimulus in Structural Models
American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics,
The paper subjects seven structural DSGE models, all used heavily by policymaking institutions, to discretionary fiscal stimulus shocks using seven different fiscal instruments, and compares the results to those of two prominent academic DSGE models. There is considerable agreement across models on both the absolute and relative sizes of different types of fiscal multipliers. The size of many multipliers is large, particularly for spending and targeted transfers. Fiscal policy is most effective if it has moderate persistence and if monetary policy is accommodative. Permanently higher spending or deficits imply significantly lower initial multipliers.
Cluster Policies in the Federal States of Bavaria and Thuringia: Discrepancies between Practice and Theory
Wirtschaft im Wandel,
The contribution analyzes cluster policies pursued in the Federal States of Bavaria and Thuringia. The investigation is based on the exploration of government documents. In both countries cluster policy is target at strengthening competitiveness. The documents explored do not reveal an economic justification for cluster policy in the sense of eliminating market failures, e. g. externalities, information asymmetries and coordination failures. Therefore, it is unclear whether the support schemes under consideration really tie in with factors that hamper cluster evolution. Policies in both states support state-wider clusters and networks. The state-wide focus, however, might undervalue advantages of spatial proximity. As another critical point the ex-ante selection of industries or technologies eligible under cluster policy can be regarded. Despite readiness of considering new technologies etc., public administration generally suffers from a lack of information about the future development perspectives of industries and technologies. A way to mitigate the limited capability of public administration in terms of forecasting might be favoring economic support based on competition for the best concepts/projects instead of focusing on certain industries. Several support schemes offered by the Federal government in Germany are already competition-based. In Thuringia cluster policy is strongly motivated by several structural shortcomings, e. g. by the fragmented firm landscape mainly consisting of small units. Therefore, beyond cluster policy, the necessity will remain to abolish directly the structural shortcomings mentioned, especially by providing an economic environment that enhances firm growth.
Equity and Bond Market Signals as Leading Indicators of Bank Fragility
Journal of Money, Credit and Banking,
We analyse the ability of the distance to default and subordinated bond spreads to signal bank fragility in a sample of EU banks. We find leading properties for both indicators. The distance to default exhibits lead times of 6-18 months. Spreads have signal value close to problems only. We also find that implicit safety nets weaken the predictive power of spreads. Further, the results suggest complementarity between both indicators. We also examine the interaction of the indicators with other information and find that their additional information content may be small but not insignificant. The results suggest that market indicators reduce type II errors relative to predictions based on accounting information only.