IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/euf/ecobri/045.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Automatic Fiscal Stabilisers in the EU: Size and Effectiveness

Author

Listed:
  • Philipp Mohl
  • Gilles Mourre
  • Klara Stovicek

Abstract

This Economic Brief examines the size and effectiveness of automatic stabilisers in the European Union (EU). It shows that the tax and benefit system automatically, i.e. at unchanged polices, cushions a sizeable part of the cyclical fluctuations in the EU on average, namely around 35% of the households’ loss of disposable income and around 70% of their consumption loss. However, the degree of automatic stabilisation varies across Member States. Automatic stabilisers are somewhat smaller if behavioural and macroeconomic feedback effects are taken into account. Procyclical fiscal policy hampers the functioning of automatic stabilisers. Good economic times should, therefore, be used to build up fiscal buffers, in full compliance with the Stability and Growth Pact and in particular in highly indebted Member States, to let automatic stabilisers play fully in during downturns. There are several options to increase the efficiency of automatic stabilisers. Nevertheless, enhancing automatic stabilisers is not a panacea, since it can have a negative impact on the allocative efficiency. While automatic stabilisers are the first line of defence against economic fluctuations, they may not be sufficient to fully absorb economic shocks in severe recessions. A well-functioning single market including product and labour markets and further private cross-country risk sharing should contribute to a better capacity of economies to absorb shocks. Moreover, a fiscal stabilisation function at the EU level could complement the automatic stabilisers in case of large shocks.

Suggested Citation

  • Philipp Mohl & Gilles Mourre & Klara Stovicek, 2019. "Automatic Fiscal Stabilisers in the EU: Size and Effectiveness," European Economy - Economic Briefs 045, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.
  • Handle: RePEc:euf:ecobri:045
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://ec.europa.eu/info/sites/info/files/economy-finance/eb045_en.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Lalive, Rafael, 2008. "How do extended benefits affect unemployment duration A regression discontinuity approach," Journal of Econometrics, Elsevier, vol. 142(2), pages 785-806, February.
    2. Dolls, Mathias & Fuest, Clemens & Peichl, Andreas, 2012. "Automatic stabilizers and economic crisis: US vs. Europe," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 279-294.
    3. Helge Berger & Giovanni Dell’Ariccia & Maurice Obstfeld, 2019. "Revisiting the Economic Case for Fiscal Union in the Euro Area," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 67(3), pages 657-683, September.
    4. Camille Landais & Pascal Michaillat & Emmanuel Saez, 2018. "A Macroeconomic Approach to Optimal Unemployment Insurance: Theory," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 152-181, May.
    5. Thomas J. Kniesner & James P. Ziliak, 2002. "Tax Reform and Automatic Stabilization," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 92(3), pages 590-612, June.
    6. Gilles Mourre & Aurélien Poissonnier, 2019. "What Drives the Responsiveness of the Budget Balance to the Business Cycle in EU Countries?," Intereconomics: Review of European Economic Policy, Springer;ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics;Centre for European Policy Studies (CEPS), vol. 54(4), pages 237-249, July.
    7. Camille Landais & Pascal Michaillat & Emmanuel Saez, 2018. "A Macroeconomic Approach to Optimal Unemployment Insurance: Applications," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 10(2), pages 182-216, May.
    8. Alan J. Auerbach, 2009. "Implementing the New Fiscal Policy Activism," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 99(2), pages 543-549, May.
    9. Jan C. van Ours & Milan Vodopivec, 2006. "How Shortening the Potential Duration of Unemployment Benefits Affects the Duration of Unemployment: Evidence from a Natural Experiment," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 24(2), pages 351-378, April.
    10. Joseph A. Pechman, 1973. "Responsiveness of the Federal Individual Income Tax to Changes in Income," Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, Economic Studies Program, The Brookings Institution, vol. 4(2), pages 385-428.
    11. Rohan Kekre, 2016. "Unemployment Insurance in Macroeconomic Stabilization," 2016 Meeting Papers 1184, Society for Economic Dynamics.
    12. Nickell, Stephen, 1998. "Unemployment: Questions and Some Answers," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 108(448), pages 802-816, May.
    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. Cláudia Braz & Maria Manuel Campos, 2021. "Challenges in measuring fiscal effects," Economic Bulletin and Financial Stability Report Articles and Banco de Portugal Economic Studies, Banco de Portugal, Economics and Research Department.
    2. Guillaume Cléaud & Francisco de Castro Fernández & Jorge Durán Laguna & Lucia Granelli & Martin Hallet & Anne Jaubertie & Carlos Maravall Rodriguez & Diana Ognyanova & Balazs Palvolgyi & Tsvetan Tsali, 2019. "Cruising at Different Speeds: Similarities and Divergences between the German and the French Economies," European Economy - Discussion Papers 103, Directorate General Economic and Financial Affairs (DG ECFIN), European Commission.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Gałecka-Burdziak, Ewa & Góra, Marek & Jessen, Jonas & Jessen, Robin & Kluve, Jochen, 2021. "The effects of shortening potential benefit duration: Evidence from regional cut-offs and a policy reform," Ruhr Economic Papers 911, RWI - Leibniz-Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung, Ruhr-University Bochum, TU Dortmund University, University of Duisburg-Essen.
    2. Dolls, Mathias & Fuest, Clemens & Kock, Jan & Peichl, Andreas & Wehrhöfer, Nils & Wittneben, Christian, 2014. "Abschlussbericht zu Forschungsvorhaben fe 5/14: "Automatic stabilizers in the Eurozone: Analysis of their effectiveness at the member state and euro area level and in international comparison&quo," ZEW Expertises, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research, number 111444.
    3. Alari Paulus & Iva Valentinova Tasseva, 2020. "Europe Through the Crisis: Discretionary Policy Changes and Automatic Stabilizers," Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Department of Economics, University of Oxford, vol. 82(4), pages 864-888, August.
    4. Kyyrä, Tomi & Pesola, Hanna & Rissanen, Aarne, 2017. "Unemployment Insurance in Finland: A Review of Recent Changes and Empirical Evidence on Behavioral Responses," Research Reports 184, VATT Institute for Economic Research.
    5. Dolls, Mathias & Fuest, Clemens & Peichl, Andreas, 2012. "Automatic stabilizers and economic crisis: US vs. Europe," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 96(3), pages 279-294.
    6. Steven Dieterle & Otávio Bartalotti & Quentin Brummet, 2020. "Revisiting the Effects of Unemployment Insurance Extensions on Unemployment: A Measurement-Error-Corrected Regression Discontinuity Approach," American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, American Economic Association, vol. 12(2), pages 84-114, May.
    7. Camarero Garcia, Sebastian & Murmann, Martin, 2020. "Unemployment benefit duration and startup success," ZEW Discussion Papers 20-033, ZEW - Leibniz Centre for European Economic Research.
    8. Moyen, Stéphane & Stähler, Nikolai & Winkler, Fabian, 2019. "Optimal unemployment insurance and international risk sharing," European Economic Review, Elsevier, vol. 115(C), pages 144-171.
    9. Alisdair McKay & Ricardo Reis, 2016. "The Role of Automatic Stabilizers in the U.S. Business Cycle," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 84, pages 141-194, January.
    10. Konstantinos Tatsiramos & Jan C. Ours, 2014. "Labor Market Effects Of Unemployment Insurance Design," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 28(2), pages 284-311, April.
    11. Zweimüller, Josef, 2018. "Unemployment insurance and the labor market," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 53(C), pages 1-14.
    12. Thiess Buettner & Clemens Fuest, 2010. "The role of the corporate income tax as an automatic stabilizer," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 17(6), pages 686-698, December.
    13. Mathias Dolls & Clemens Fuest & Andreas Peichl & Christian Wittneben, 2022. "Fiscal Consolidation and Automatic Stabilization: New Results," IMF Economic Review, Palgrave Macmillan;International Monetary Fund, vol. 70(3), pages 420-450, September.
    14. Mathias Dolls & Clemens Fuest & Dirk Neumann & Andreas Peichl, 2018. "An unemployment insurance scheme for the euro area? A comparison of different alternatives using microdata," International Tax and Public Finance, Springer;International Institute of Public Finance, vol. 25(1), pages 273-309, February.
    15. Guo, Audrey, 2020. "The Effects of Unemployment Insurance Taxation on Multi-Establishment Firms," MPRA Paper 97919, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    16. Elira Kuka, 2020. "Quantifying the Benefits of Social Insurance: Unemployment Insurance and Health," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 102(3), pages 490-505, July.
    17. David S. Lee & Pauline Leung & Christopher J. O’Leary & Zhuan Pei & Simon Quach, 2021. "Are Sufficient Statistics Necessary? Nonparametric Measurement of Deadweight Loss from Unemployment Insurance," Journal of Labor Economics, University of Chicago Press, vol. 39(S2), pages 455-506.
    18. Kuester, Keith & Jung, Philip & Ignaszak, Marek, 2020. "Federal unemployment reinsurance and local labor-market policies," CEPR Discussion Papers 15465, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
    19. Bennmarker, Helge & Skans, Oskar Nordström & Vikman, Ulrika, 2013. "Workfare for the old and long-term unemployed," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 25(C), pages 25-34.
    20. Albanese, Andrea & Picchio, Matteo & Ghirelli, Corinna, 2020. "Timed to Say Goodbye: Does Unemployment Benefit Eligibility Affect Worker Layoffs?," Labour Economics, Elsevier, vol. 65(C).

    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:euf:ecobri:045. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    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 bibliographic 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.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: ECFIN INFO (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/dg2ecbe.html .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.