IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/gla/glaewp/2005_23.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Costs of Fiscal Inflexibility - Extended

Author

Listed:
  • Campbell Leith
  • Simon Wren-Lewis

Abstract

Extending Gali and Monacelli (2004 ), we build an N-country open economy model, where each economy is subject to sticky wages and prices and, potentially, has access to sales and income taxes as well as government spending as fiscal instruments. We examine an economy either as a small open economy under flexible exchange rates or as a (small) member of a monetary union. In a small open economy when all three fiscal instruments are freely available, we show analytically that the impact of technology and mark-up shocks can be completely eliminated, whether policy acts with discretion or commitment. However, once any one of these fiscal instruments is excluded as a stabilisation tool, costs can emerge. Using simulations, we find that the useful fiscal instrument in this case (in the sense of reducing the welfare costs of the shock) are sales taxes. In contrast, having government spending as an instrument contributes very little. In the case of mark-up shocks tax instruments which can offset the impact of the shock directly are highly effective, while other fiscal instruments are less useful. The results for an individual member of a monetary union facing an idiosyncratic technology shock (where monetary policy in the union does not respond) are very different. First, even with all fiscal instruments freely available, the technology shock will incur welfare costs. Second, government spending is potentially useful as a stabilisation device, because it can act as a partial substitute for monetary policy. Finally, income taxes are helpful in reducing the cost of a technology shock, although sales taxes remain the most effective instrument. If all three taxes are available, they can reduce the impact of the technology shock on the union member by around a half, compared to the case where fiscal policy is not used. Finally we consider the robustness of these results to two extensions. Firstly, introducing implementation lags in the use of fiscal instruments and, secondly, introducing government debt, such that policy makers take account of the debt consequences of using fiscal instruments as stabilisation devices. We find that implementation lags can reduce, but not eliminate, the gains from fiscal stabilisation, while the need for debt sustainability has limited impact on the use of fiscal instruments for stabilisation purposes, particularly under commitment..

Suggested Citation

  • Campbell Leith & Simon Wren-Lewis, 2006. "The Costs of Fiscal Inflexibility - Extended," Working Papers 2005_23, Business School - Economics, University of Glasgow.
  • Handle: RePEc:gla:glaewp:2005_23
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.gla.ac.uk/media/media_22214_en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Mark Gertler & Jordi Gali & Richard Clarida, 1999. "The Science of Monetary Policy: A New Keynesian Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(4), pages 1661-1707, December.
    2. Mark Gertler & Jordi Gali & Richard Clarida, 1999. "The Science of Monetary Policy: A New Keynesian Perspective," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 37(4), pages 1661-1707, December.
    3. Campbell Leith & Simon Wren-Lewis, 2013. "Fiscal Sustainability in a New Keynesian Model," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 45(8), pages 1477-1516, December.
    4. Jordi Gali & Tommaso Monacelli, 2005. "Optimal fiscal policy in a monetary union," Proceedings, Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco.
    5. Pierpaolo Benigno & Michael Woodford, 2004. "Optimal Monetary and Fiscal Policy: A Linear-Quadratic Approach," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2003, Volume 18, pages 271-364, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Clinton, Kevin & Kumhof, Michael & Laxton, Douglas & Mursula, Susanna, 2011. "Deficit reduction: Short-term pain for long-term gain," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 55(1), pages 118-139, January.
    2. Cambell Leith & Simon Wren-Lewis, 2006. "The Optimal Monetary Policy Response to Exchange Rate Misalignments," CDMA Conference Paper Series 0605, Centre for Dynamic Macroeconomic Analysis.
    3. Kumhof, Michael & Laxton, Douglas & Leigh, Daniel, 2014. "To starve or not to starve the beast?," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 39(PA), pages 1-23.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Vines, David & Stehn, Sven Jari, 2008. "Strategic Interactions between an Independent Central Bank and a Myopic Government with Government Debt," CEPR Discussion Papers 6913, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    2. Bai, Yuting & Kirsanova, Tatiana & Leith, Campbell, 2017. "Nominal targeting in an economy with government debt," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 94(C), pages 103-125.
    3. Campbell Leith & Simon Wren-Lewis, 2005. "Fiscal Policy as a Stabilisation Device for an Open Economy Inside or Outside EMU," CDMA Conference Paper Series 0506, Centre for Dynamic Macroeconomic Analysis.
    4. Massimiliano Rigon & Francesco Zanetti, 2017. "Optimal Monetary Policy and Fiscal Policy Interaction in a non-Ricardian Economy," BCAM Working Papers 1708, Birkbeck Centre for Applied Macroeconomics.
    5. Vines, David & Stehn, Sven Jari, 2008. "Debt Stabilisation Bias and the Taylor Principle: Optimal Policy in a New Keynesian Model with Government Debt and Inflation Pe," CEPR Discussion Papers 6696, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    6. Kirsanova, Tatiana & Vines, David & Wren-Lewis, Simon, 2007. "When Inflation Persistence Really Matters: Two examples," Kiel Working Papers 1351, Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel).
    7. Campbell Leith & Simon Wren-lewis, 2006. "The Costs of Fiscal Inflexibility," WEF Working Papers 0005, ESRC World Economy and Finance Research Programme, Birkbeck, University of London.
    8. Pierpaolo Benigno & Michael Woodford, 2007. "Optimal Inflation Targeting under Alternative Fiscal Regimes," Central Banking, Analysis, and Economic Policies Book Series, in: Frederic S. Miskin & Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel & Norman Loayza (Series Editor) & Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel (Se (ed.),Monetary Policy under Inflation Targeting, edition 1, volume 11, chapter 3, pages 037-075, Central Bank of Chile.
    9. Martin Melecký & Diego Rodríguez Palenzuela & Ulf Söderström, 2009. "Inflation Target Transparency and the Macroeconomy," Central Banking, Analysis, and Economic Policies Book Series, in: Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel & Carl E. Walsh & Norman Loayza (Series Editor) & Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel (Series (ed.),Monetary Policy under Uncertainty and Learning, edition 1, volume 13, chapter 10, pages 371-411, Central Bank of Chile.
    10. Schaumburg, Ernst & Tambalotti, Andrea, 2007. "An investigation of the gains from commitment in monetary policy," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 54(2), pages 302-324, March.
    11. Andrea Ferrero, 2012. "The Advantage of Flexible Targeting Rules," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 44(5), pages 863-881, August.
    12. Stephanie Schmitt-Grohé & Martín Uribe, 2006. "Optimal Fiscal and Monetary Policy in a Medium-Scale Macroeconomic Model," NBER Chapters, in: NBER Macroeconomics Annual 2005, Volume 20, pages 383-462, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    13. Himmels, Christoph & Kirsanova, Tatiana, 2013. "Escaping expectation traps: How much commitment is required?," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 37(3), pages 649-665.
    14. Matthew B. Canzoneri & Robert E. Cumby & Behzad T. Diba, 2004. "The Cost of Nominal Inertia in NNS Models," NBER Working Papers 10889, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    15. Benigno, Pierpaolo & Woodford, Michael, 2012. "Linear-quadratic approximation of optimal policy problems," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 147(1), pages 1-42.
    16. Pierpaolo Benigno & Michael Woodford, 2005. "Inflation Stabilization And Welfare: The Case Of A Distorted Steady State," Journal of the European Economic Association, MIT Press, vol. 3(6), pages 1185-1236, December.
    17. Christoph Himmels & Tatiana Kirsanova, 2011. "Expectations Traps and Monetary Policy with Limited Commitment," Discussion Papers 1102, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
    18. van der Ploeg, Frederick, 2004. "Prudent Monetary Policy: Applications of Cautious LQG Control and Prediction," CEPR Discussion Papers 4222, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Paul Levine & Joseph Pearlman & Richard Pierse, 2006. "Linear-Quadratic Approximation, Efficiency and Target-Implementability," Computing in Economics and Finance 2006 441, Society for Computational Economics.
    20. Eric M. Leeper, 2010. "Monetary science, fiscal alchemy," Proceedings - Economic Policy Symposium - Jackson Hole, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, pages 361-434.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • F32 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Current Account Adjustment; Short-term Capital Movements
    • E60 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - General
    • F41 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - Open Economy Macroeconomics

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:gla:glaewp:2005_23. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Business School Research Team (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dpglauk.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.