Measuring compliance with the Golden Rule
The golden rule of public finance is based upon the notion that intergenerational equity requires that the cost of public expenditures be spread over time in a manner that reflects the intertemporal distribution of the benefits generated by those expenditures. This is often translated into a rule that the budget be structurally balanced in accrual accounting terms. This article considers the form of accrual accounting that is most suited to the task of measuring the consistency of fiscal policy with the golden rule. It recommends a combination of the real capital maintenance approach (also known as ‘current purchasing power accounting’) and annuity depreciation. Such an approach differs from ‘current cost accounting’, which has dominated public sector models of accrual accounting in recent years. The meaning of balance-sheet measures is also considered, and it is concluded that the golden rule is more appropriately expressed as an accrual balanced budget requirement than as a requirement for the maintenance of constant net worth.
Volume (Year): 19 (1998)
Issue (Month): 4 (November)
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: |
Phone: (+44) 020 7291 4800
Fax: (+44) 020 7323 4780
Web page: http://www.ifs.org.uk
More information through EDIRC
|Order Information:|| Postal: The Institute for Fiscal Studies 7 Ridgmount Street LONDON WC1E 7AE|
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.:
- Boskin, Michael J, 1982. "Federal Government Deficits: Some Myths and Realities," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 72(2), pages 296-303, May.
- Willem H. Buiter, 1990. "Principles of Budgetary and Financial Policy," MIT Press Books, The MIT Press, edition 1, volume 1, number 0262524139, June.
- Feldstein, Martin S, 1976. "Perceived Wealth in Bonds and Social Security: A Comment," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 84(2), pages 331-36, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:ifs:fistud:v:19:y:1998:i:4:p:447-462. 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: (Stephanie Seavers)
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 references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.
If the full references list an item that is present in RePEc, but the system did not link 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 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.