This column argues that the proposal includes some major improvements, but also suffers from some fatal flaws. The proposal thus appears to be a missed opportunity to achieve the shared goal of forging a proper Stability and Growth Pact.
After months of deliberations, the European
Commission has finally published its proposal for a reform of the
Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), which is briefly presented in Buti et
al. (2022) and fully spelled out in European Commission (2022). The
proposal, which member countries will examine, includes two major
improvements and five main shortcomings.
The first improvement is to structure the procedure around the
projected evolution of public debt. This is the right concept, as long
argued by many economists (e.g. Martin et al. 2021, Wyplosz 2019).
Fiscal discipline is fundamentally an intertemporal issue, not the
year-after-year ‘deficit below 3%’ that fatally undermined all previous
versions of the Pact. Debt must be sustainable, which means that it
eventually converges toward a moderate level (say, 60% of GDP or less).
The second improvement is to differentiate countries according to
their pre-existing debts. This naturally follows from the first
improvement and avoids all countries being treated according to their
annual deficits in the same way, applying the same rules to low- and
high-debt countries. Even though the Commission has long recognised the
need to move in this direction, and often did so in practice, the formal
rule did not, which often led to bizarre contortions.
These conceptual breakthroughs, although obvious and long overdue,
cannot be overappreciated. It is a pity, then, that the proposed
implementation is marred by seriously flawed arrangements.
First, the debt path is to be established by the Commission using the
well-established debt sustainability analysis (DSA). The DSA simply
consists in using cumulated government budget constraint, an accounting
identity, to describe the evolution of the debt over a specified
horizon. The horizon must be long enough to approximate the formal
definition of debt sustainability (technically, the transversality
condition). The Commission proposes a four-year horizon, which can be
extended to seven years under some conditions (more below), but the
computation is based on a ten-year horizon. This is a reasonable
compromise....
more at CEPR
© CEPR - Centre for Economic Policy Research
Key
Hover over the blue highlighted
text to view the acronym meaning
Hover
over these icons for more information
Comments:
No Comments for this Article