By Khyaati Acharya*
Maintaining fiscal discipline is certainly difficult.
Resisting the temptation to increase spending, particularly during an economic boom, is something that governments worldwide grapple with.
What options are there then, to usefully guard against politically expedient spending promises and better restrain politicians from exuberant spending?
The International Monetary Fund (IMF) last month released a working paper discussing the ability of expenditure rules to encourage better fiscal policy decisions.
While improving productivity growth and competition are both fundamental to lifting living standards, more robust fiscal rules could go a long way in consolidating public finances around the world.
The Global Financial Crisis represented the sharpest deterioration in public finances globally since the end of World War II.
The IMF paper emphasises that many countries found themselves between a rock and a hard place, having committed to costly, long-term policies during times of economic vigour.
It is little wonder that discussion around the role of fiscal institutions, and expenditure rules in particular, has become increasingly prevalent in the discussion on how to promote much more sound and credible fiscal policies.
Expenditure rules are lauded for their transparency and ability to be easily monitored, and are effective at bolstering fiscal performance and addressing the shortcomings of other budgetary aggregates.
Such rules are able to accommodate revenue shortfalls that result from adverse economic conditions, thus performing an important role in fiscal policy stabilisation.
They are also critical in helping to create fiscal buffers during economic booms, when the existence of revenue windfalls can make spending pressures difficult to resist.
Expenditure rules can help reduce the volatility of government expenditure and improve the predictability of fiscal policy.
Finally, they can also encourage more efficient spending decisions, particularly so in advanced economies where such rules have been attributed with higher public investment efficiency.
This is not to say, however, that expenditure rules are without their own weaknesses.
According to the IMF, between 1985 and 2012, 31 expenditure rules were introduced across 27 countries. Since then, 10 have already been abandoned.
The two key reasons for discarding expenditure rules, as noted by the IMF, are that either the country never complied with the rule in the first place, or that fiscal consolidation was successful and the government in question did not want to be restricted by the rule in good economic times.
Neither reasons are particularly commendable.
Nevertheless, with the exception of emerging countries, who likely have more pressing problems in addition to poor fiscal performance, the IMF finds that “expenditure rules have a better compliance record than budget balance and debt rules”.
Unfortunately, New Zealand is not exempt from fiscal profligacy. The current Minister of Finance Bill English has wrestled to restore fiscal surpluses now for six successive budgets, after a spending blow-out during the 2000s.
Current fiscal arrangements here do not adequately prevent poor spending decisions, even at a time where the financial pressures of the country’s ageing population demand much greater fiscal discipline.
It is reasonable to propose then, that in the search for better fiscal discipline in New Zealand, any option should encompass better spending constraints. A well-designed expenditure limit would lean against the growth in government spending and help guard against another unplanned deficit blow-out.
Careful design of such a rule is fundamental to encouraging high compliance. Empirical evidence indicates that the compliance rate is high when the expenditure rule is directly under the control of the government, enshrined in either law or in a coalition agreement.
New Zealand’s own fiscal rules are embodied in the Public Finance Act, which helps regulate parliamentary processes and decision-making. Fiscal rules are defined narrowly by the IMF as rules that set numerical limits on specific budget aggregates; they are constraints on things like public debt, spending and taxation.
But while New Zealand has budget balance rules and debt rules (although, not one that sets a numerical target) in place, it does not as yet have any expenditure rules.
Guarding the Public Purse, a report released by The New Zealand Initiative late last year, recommended strengthening New Zealand’s fiscal rules in order to make it harder for aggregate government spending to be increased without good reason.
More specific options include consideration of a spending cap rule, such as 5-to-10 year targets for future operating spending, in either per capita or a percent of GDP terms.
Compliance with such rules and targets could also be much more effective if monitored by an independent fiscal council responsible for improving the transparency of fiscal policies.
Our report recommends establishing an Office of Parliament to perform such tasks as well as monitoring the adequacy of the Executive government’s programme for responding to identified fiscal issues and risks.
Used in conjunction with New Zealand’s existing budget balance and debt rules, the IMF presents a strong case for introducing expenditure rules in strengthening fiscal performance.
While New Zealand’s fiscal outlook may not look immediately dire, poor quality spending and imminent demographic pressures make focusing on achieving and maintaining fiscal sustainability a priority.
This is because the longer these necessary fiscal adjustments are delayed, the harder they become.
------------------
*Khyaati Acharya is a Research Assistant at The New Zealand Initiative, a public policy think tank.
8 Comments
Is it just me, or do other people find it hard to believe the clap trap of the IMF after they spectacularly failed to see the last crisis coming and have made such a wonderful job of Greece? I was amazed that there has been no public de-frocking of these incompetents.
The BIS, on the other hand, did see things coming and issued stern warnings, so the IMF is doubly guilty of dereliction of duty and gross incompetence. Or am I being too harsh and they are wonderful people really, who just want to help?
We have elections to elect a government and give them the authority to make decisions on our behalf for good or ill (usually some of each). Labour usually like to spend more, sometimes this is a good thing, sometimes not. National get elected when Labour stuff up. Sometimes it's National that spend too much and Labour who get elected to sort out the mess. It is important the government of the day can actually act to solve the problems they encounter. That is why they are there. Surely we do not need yet another office to second guess them; staffed, presumably, by incompetent economists.
Interesting thing on Greece, what they wanted was pretty hard core right wing, normally right up your street in terms of politics? hence really its a comment on your own outlook I'd suggest.
We have enough economists in say Treasury who frankly are so dogmatic they wouldnt know the risk of a depression if it bit them. Look back to 2008/9 and you see the recession we had was worse than their worst projections. "It is important the government of the day can actually act to solve the problems they encounter" while I'll agree I also think the Govn should be looking forward and dodging the landmines before they encounter them, they are not IMHO.
So the theme of this article is “Government is like a business and must balance it’s books – and we need another government department to enforce that” Groan :( …. Steve Keen has done some really nice work to discredit the notion that governments should run a surpluses. Any time the IMF makes a prescription the patient usually dies, look at Greece.
Perhaps the “NZ initiative” could raise the bar by using some non-equilibrium money dynamics financial modelling software like Minsky to more clearly articulate its ideas. Then it could publish its findings online so that they could be scrutinised by all, and peer reviewed by experts in the field.
Remember when National got into power then gave tax cuts to the rich and then borrowed to cover those losses.
We need more transparency with all this PPP and the like. Socialising the debts and privatising the profits.
All this corruption needs sorting first as it costs the country milions of dollars.
Aussie rules in cricket...but we sold off our ASSETS...first.
Does this sound familiar.
https://independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/who-is-reall…
yet another piece of dogma from the rabid right....oh joy -----> bin ***plonk***
"against another unplanned deficit blow-out." when the Govn's income collapses then its option is a) austerity which with recent evnets is demonstratably a disaster, or b) borrow to meet its needs and pay it back. If a so called policy restraints b) and only leaves a) then that is or can be an awful consquence. In terms of spending, we can see the attempt at vote buyng by Brash in 2005 as an example of bad behaviour, repeated and acted on by JK in 2008 both done by ppl who should and Im sure did know better but did it anyway to win power.
As it happens I agree in principle with the idea of benchmarking government expenditure by core category as a share of GDP, both against our history, and against other comparably developed and structured countries. Knowing what percentage we spend on health, pensions, education, government admin, social welfare, defence etc in easy to use tables, would be a useful guide to whether we are over or underspending any particular category.
Am not sure I would enforce any rules regarding these parameters; as others have noted, that is partly what elections are for, but it would be preferable to be better informed than we are now on how current and proposed spending compares, and why.
The article seems to perpetuate the myth that Labour ran deficits; they did of course I believe always run surpluses, and reduced NZ's government debt dramatically. For probably mostly justifiable reasons, that debt has climbed again under National, who have always run deficits. (the significant changes I would have advocated over the last few years is a different approach to monetary policy, and no power company sales, but that is an aside)
We welcome your comments below. If you are not already registered, please register to comment.
Remember we welcome robust, respectful and insightful debate. We don't welcome abusive or defamatory comments and will de-register those repeatedly making such comments. Our current comment policy is here.