IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/diw/diwvjh/73-30-6.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

How Successful Has the Stability and Growth Pact Been?: An Empirical Analysis

Author

Listed:
  • Andrew Hughes Hallet
  • John Lewis

Abstract

Prior to EMU, fiscal policy within the EU was disciplined by the threat of exclusion of the single currency; post-EMU, discipline has been exerted through the provisions of the Stability and Growth Pact. In this paper, we contrast the discipline induced by the two separate regimes on three specific criteria: the probability of violating the 3% deficit limit, the probability of commencing a budgetary consolidation, and the longevity of a budgetary consolidation once undertaken. We find that the runup to EMU did lead to a marked increase in the probability of commencing consolidations. However, once inside EMU, this discipline gradually slipped - with the longevity of consolidations being reduced year on year, and the probability of violating the 3% limit rising year on year. By 2004, the cumulative slippage meant that the initial disciplinary benefits of joining the Euro were completely eroded. Growth accounting analysis reveals that the source of the problem was the reliance on growth to meet budgetary targets and a corresponding failure to build up adequate surpluses at the top of the cycle. Vor dem Beitritt zur EWU wurde die Fiskalpolitik durch den möglichen Ausschluss einer einzelnen Währung diszipliniert. Nach dem Beitritt erfolgt diese Disziplinierung durch den Stabilitäts- und Wachstumspakt. Im vorliegenden Aufsatz wird die in beiden Regimen ausgeübte Disziplinierung an drei verschiedenen Kriterien überprüft: der Wahrscheinlichkeit, das 3 %-Kriterium zu verletzen, der Wahrscheinlichkeit, eine Konsolidierung einzuleiten, sowie der Langlebigkeit einmal unternommener Konsolidierung. Im Vorlauf zur EWU stieg die Wahrscheinlichkeit, Konsolidierungen einzuleiten. Waren die Länder jedoch erst einmal aufgenommen, sank die Disziplin deutlich, die Nachhaltigkeit der Konsolidierung nahm ab, und die Wahrscheinlichkeit für die Verletzung des 3 %-Kriteriums stieg. Im Jahre 2004 waren die disziplinierenden Vorzüge des Beitritts zur EWU aufgebraucht. Die Analyse zeigt, dass die Quelle des Problems darin lag, auf Wachstumseffekte zur Konsolidierung gebaut und keine angemessenen Übersc

Suggested Citation

  • Andrew Hughes Hallet & John Lewis, 2004. "How Successful Has the Stability and Growth Pact Been?: An Empirical Analysis," Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung / Quarterly Journal of Economic Research, DIW Berlin, German Institute for Economic Research, vol. 73(3), pages 392-404.
  • Handle: RePEc:diw:diwvjh:73-30-6
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://doi.org/10.3790/vjh.73.3.392
    Download Restriction: no

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. von Hagen, Jurgen & Hughes Hallett, Andrew & Strauch, Rolf, 2002. "Budgetary Consolidation in Europe: Quality, Economic Conditions, and Persistence," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 512-535, December.
    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. Vassilis Monastiriotis & Sotirios Zartaloudis, 2010. "Beyond the crisis: EMU and labour market reform pressures in good and bad times," LEQS – LSE 'Europe in Question' Discussion Paper Series 23, European Institute, LSE.
    2. Gnangnon, Sèna Kimm, 2013. "Structural vulnerability and excessive public indebtedness in CFA Franc Zone countries," Economic Modelling, Elsevier, vol. 35(C), pages 816-832.

    More about this item

    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:diw:diwvjh:73-30-6. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Bibliothek). General contact details of provider: http://edirc.repec.org/data/diwbede.html .

    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 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.

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.