This file is part of IDEAS, which uses RePEc data


[ Papers | Articles | Software | Books | Chapters | Authors | Institutions | JEL Classification | NEP reports | Search | New papers by email | Author registration | Rankings | Volunteers | FAQ | Blog | Help! ]

Warum verstoßen vorwiegend die großen EWU-Länder gegen den Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt?: Eine theoretische Beweisaufnahme

Author info | Abstract | Publisher info | Download info | Related research | Statistics
Author Info
Bodo Herzog

Additional information is available for the following registered author(s):

Abstract

Spätestens seit dem Scheitern der Frühwarnung im Februar 2002 und dem Aussetzen des Defizitverfahrens gegenüber Deutschland auf der Sitzung des Ecofin-Rates im November 2003 erlangte der Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt öffentliches Aufsehen. Die Frage, warum gerade die großen Länder wie Deutschland und Frankreich gegen die 3 %-Defizithürde verstoßen, wirft so manches Rätsel auf, auch wenn Deutschland nicht alleine in der Riege der Defizitsünder ist. Hinzu kamen in jüngster Zeit auch Äußerungen, die in der politischen Arena für Wirbel und Furore sorgten. So sagte der Kommissionspräsident der Europäischen Union, Romano Prodi, in der Zeitung Le Monde: „Der Pakt ist dumm – wie alle Regeln, die rigide sind.“ Seitdem ist klar: Eine Reform des Stabilitätspaktes liegt in der Luft. Die Reformdiskussion, die heftig und kontrovers geführt wird, ist mittlerweile selbst für Insider kaum noch zu überschauen. Darüber hinaus gibt es bis heute keine vernünftige ökonomische Theorie, die die Defizit- und

Download Info
To our knowledge, this item is not available for download. To find whether it is available, there are three options:
1. Check below under "Related research" whether another version of this item is available online.
2. Check on the provider's web page whether it is in fact available.
3. Perform a search for a similarly titled item that would be available.

Publisher Info
Article provided by DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research in its journal Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung.

Volume (Year): 73 (2004)
Issue (Month): 3 ()
Pages: 405-417
Download reference. The following formats are available: HTML (with abstract), plain text (with abstract), BibTeX, RIS (EndNote, RefMan, ProCite), ReDIF
Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:73-30-7

Contact details of provider:
Postal: Mohrenstra�e 58, D-10117 Berlin
Phone: xx49-30-89789-0
Fax: xx49-30-89789-200
Email:
Web page: http://www.diw.de/en
More information through EDIRC

For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its listing, contact: (Bibliothek).

Related research
Keywords:

References listed on IDEAS
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:

  1. Uhlig, Harald, 2002. "One Money, but Many Fiscal Policies in Europe: What Are the Consequences?," CEPR Discussion Papers 3296, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  2. Antonio Fatás & Ilian Mihov, 2003. "The Case For Restricting Fiscal Policy Discretion," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, MIT Press, vol. 118(4), pages 1419-1447, November. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  3. Dixit, Avinash & Lambertini, Luisa, 2001. "Monetary-fiscal policy interactions and commitment versus discretion in a monetary union," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 977-987, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  4. Marco Buti & Gabriele Giudice, 2002. "Maastricht's Fiscal Rules at Ten: An Assessment," Journal of Common Market Studies, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 40(5), pages 823-848, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  5. Avinash Dixit & Luisa Lambertini, 2003. "Interactions of Commitment and Discretion in Monetary and Fiscal Policies," Boston College Working Papers in Economics 575, Boston College Department of Economics. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  6. Beetsma, Roel M. W. J. & Bovenberg, A. Lans, 2003. "Strategic debt accumulation in a heterogeneous monetary union," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 19(1), pages 1-15, March. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  7. Beetsma, Roel & Uhlig, Harald, 1999. "An Analysis of the Stability and Growth Pact," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 109(458), pages 546-71, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  8. Xavier Debrun, 2000. "Fiscal Rules in a Monetary Union: A Short-Run Analysis," Open Economies Review, Springer, vol. 11(4), pages 323-358, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  9. Beetsma, Roel & Jensen, Henrik, 2003. "Contingent deficit sanctions and moral hazard with a stability pact," Journal of International Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 187-208, October. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
  10. J. de Haan & H. Berger & D. Jansen, 2003. "The end of the stability and growth pact?," WO Research Memoranda (discontinued) 748, Netherlands Central Bank, Research Department. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  11. V.V. Chari & Patrick J. Kehoe, 2003. "On the desirability of fiscal constraints in a monetary union," Staff Report 330, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis. [Downloadable!]
    Other versions:
  12. Beetsma, Roel M. W. J. & Bovenberg, A. Lans, 1999. "Does monetary unification lead to excessive debt accumulation?," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(3), pages 299-325, December. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
    Other versions:
  13. Dixit, Avinash, 2001. "Games of monetary and fiscal interactions in the EMU," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 45(4-6), pages 589-613, May. [Downloadable!] (restricted)
Full references

Statistics
Access and download statistics

Did you know? LogEc provides statistical analysis about downloads from this service (and others).

This page was last updated on 2009-11-26.


This information is provided to you by IDEAS at the Department of Economics, College of Liberal Arts and Sciences, University of Connecticut using RePEc data on a server sponsored by the Society for Economic Dynamics.