The Transitional Dynamics Of Fiscal Policy; Long-Run Capital Accumulation And Growth
Recent research in growth theory has established the importance of the non-scale growth model, a key advantage of which is that they are consistent with balanced growth under quite general production structures. Indeed, if the knife-edge restriction that generates traditional endogenous growth models is not imposed, then any stable balanced growth equilibrium is characterized by the absence of scale effects. In this case the long-run equilibrium growth rate is determined by technological parameters and is independent of macro policy instruments.Despite the fact that the equilibrium growth rate is independent of macro policy, fiscal policy remains an important determinant of long-run economic performance. First, fiscal policy has significant effects on the levels of key economic variables, such as the per capita stock of capital and output. Moreover, the non-scale model typically yields slow asymptotic speeds of convergence, consistent with the empirical evidence of 2-3% per annum. This implies that policy changes can affect growth rates for sustained periods of time, so that the accumulated effects of policy changes during the transition from one equilibrium to another may therefore translate to potentially large impacts on steady-state levels. Thus, although the stock of capital grows at the same rates across steady states, the corresponding bases upon which the growth rates compound may be substantially different.These considerations suggest that attention should be directed to determining the impact of fiscal policy on the transitional dynamics. This is the focus of the present paper. The model we employ is of a one-sector economy in which output depends upon the stocks of both private and public capital, as well as endogenously supplied labor. Public capital introduces a positive externality in production, so that the complete production function is one of overall increasing returns to scale in these three productive factors. In addition to accumulating public capital, the government allocates resources to a utility-enhancing consumption good. These expenditures are financed by taxing capital, labor income, and consumption, or by imposing non-distortionary lump-sum taxation. We set out the dynamic equilibrium of this economy and show how the stable adjustment is characterized by a two dimensional locus in terms of the two stationary variables, referred to as "scale-adjusted" per capita stocks of private and public capital.Our analysis focuses on two aspects. First, we characterize the steady state equilibrium and analyze the effects of various fiscal changes on the long-run labor-leisure allocation, the long-run changes in the capital stocks, and output. We compare the long-run effects of the two forms of government expenditure ? investment versus consumption ? and changes in the alternative tax rates. Distortionary tax-financed increases in both forms of government expenditure are analyzed and shown to be amalgams of these effects. Most of our attention is devoted to calibrating the model to a benchmark economy and assessing the numerical effects of various types of policy shocks, relative to the benchmark. We consider both the long-run equilibrium response and the transitional adjustment paths. Particular attention is devoted to the welfare of the representative agent, both the time profile of instantaneous utility and the intertemporal welfare, as represented by the discounted sum of the short-run benefits. The implications for the government?s intertemporal budget balance are also addressed. Our numerical analysis yields many insights into the transitional dynamics, and the following are noted. 1. Despite the fact that fiscal policy in such an economy has no effect on the long-run equilibrium growth rate, the slow rate of convergence implies that fiscal policy exerts has a sustained impact on growth rates for substantial periods during the transition. These accumulate to substantial effects on the long-run equilibrium levels of crucial economic variables, including welfare.2. As examples of the accumulated impacts of policy, an increase in government investment from 0.08 to 0.14 of output raises the long level of output by 40%. Raising the tax on capital income from 0.28 to 0.40 reduces long-run output by 16%.3. For the calibrated economy allocating a fixed fraction of output to government investment is better than allocating the same resources to government consumption. However, the intertemporal time profiles of the respective benefits are different. The benefits of (lump-sum tax-financed) government consumption are uniformly positive; government investment involves short-run losses, which are more than more than offset over time. These comparisons depend upon the sizes of the two government expenditures, relative to their respective first-best optimal values and could be reversed in other situations.4. The time paths and growth rates of private and public capital contrast sharply for policies which impact on one or other directly; they move closely for those fiscal shocks which do not impact directly on either form of capital. The most dramatic contrasts in the time paths for the two types of capital occur with respect to an increase in government consumption expenditure, under the four alternative modes of tax financing. Long-run stocks of both increase proportionately under lump-sum taxes; remain unchanged under consumption tax-financing, decrease proportionately under wage tax-financing, and lead to a more than proportional decline in private capital under capital tax-financing.5. Our numerical simulations suggest the following ranking for the different modes of financing. For either form of expenditure, lump-sum tax financing dominates consumption tax financing, which in turn dominates wage tax financing and finally capital tax financing, in terms of long-run welfare. These rankings are reflected in the long-run output multipliers.6. The fact that wage tax-financing dominates capital tax-financing, despite the fact that a given increase in the former has a more adverse effect than does a comparable increase in the latter is of interest. It reflects the fact that being levied on a larger base, a smaller rise in the wage tax is required to generate the required revenue to finance the higher expenditure.7. The analysis highlights the intertemporal welfare tradeoffs involved in policy changes. For example, both the substitution of a consumption tax for a uniform reduction in the income tax and a revenue-neutral switch from government consumption to government investment lead to a short-run welfare losses, which in both cases are more than offset by long-run welfare gains. This is a consequence of the growth generated during the subsequent transition.
|Date of creation:||05 Jul 2000|
|Date of revision:|
|Contact details of provider:|| Postal: CEF 2000, Departament d'Economia i Empresa, Universitat Pompeu Fabra, Ramon Trias Fargas, 25,27, 08005, Barcelona, Spain|
Fax: +34 93 542 17 46
Web page: http://enginy.upf.es/SCE/
More information through EDIRC
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.:
- Ladron-de-Guevara, Antonio & Ortigueira, Salvador & Santos, Manuel S., 1997.
"Equilibrium dynamics in two-sector models of endogenous growth,"
Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control,
Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 115-143, January.
- Santos, Manuel S. & Ortigueira, Salvador & Ladrón de Guevara, Antonio, 1994. "Equilibrium dynamics in two-sector models of endogenous growth," UC3M Working papers. Economics 2913, Universidad Carlos III de Madrid. Departamento de Economía.
- Antonio Ladron de Guevara & Salvador Ortigueira & Manuel S. Santos, 1994. "Equilibrium Dynamics in Two-Sector Models of Endogenous Growth," Working Papers 9403, Centro de Investigacion Economica, ITAM.
- Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
- Charles I. Jones, 1995. "Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(2), pages 495-525.
- Gramlich, Edward M, 1994. "Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1176-96, September.
- Theo Eicher & Stephen J. Turnovsky, . "Transitional Dynamics in Non-Scale Growth Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 1997 105, Society for Computational Economics.
- Robert J. Barro & Paul M. Romer, 1991.
National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number barr91-1.
- N. Gregory Mankiw & Julio J. Rotemberg & Lawrence H. Summers, 1985.
"Intertemporal Substitution in Macroeconomics,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 100(1), pages 225-251.
- Robert J. Barro, 1989.
"Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries,"
NBER Working Papers
3120, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Kneller, Richard & Bleaney, Michael F. & Gemmell, Norman, 1999. "Fiscal policy and growth: evidence from OECD countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 171-190, November.
- Alwyn Young, 1998. "Growth without Scale Effects," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 41-63, February.
- Barro, Robert J, 1990.
"Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages S103-26, October.
- Barro, Robert J., 1990. "Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogeneous Growth," Scholarly Articles 3451296, Harvard University Department of Economics.
- Robert J. Barro, 1988. "Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth," NBER Working Papers 2588, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Barro, R.J., 1988. "Government Spending In A Simple Model Of Endogenous Growth," RCER Working Papers 130, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Robert E. Hall, 1981.
"Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption,"
NBER Working Papers
0720, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Reinhart, Carmen & Ogaki, Masao, 1995.
"Measuring intertemporal substitution: The role of durable goods,"
13690, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Masao Ogaki & Carmen M. Reinhart, 1998. "Measuring Intertemporal Substitution: The Role of Durable Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 1078-1098, October.
- Ogaki, M & Reinhart, C-M, 1995. "Measuring Intertemporal Substitution : The Role of Durable Goods," RCER Working Papers 404, University of Rochester - Center for Economic Research (RCER).
- Aschauer, David Alan, 1989.
"Is public expenditure productive?,"
Journal of Monetary Economics,
Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 177-200, March.
- Baxter, Marianne & King, Robert G, 1993.
"Fiscal Policy in General Equilibrium,"
American Economic Review,
American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 315-34, June.
- N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1992.
"A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth,"
The Quarterly Journal of Economics,
Oxford University Press, vol. 107(2), pages 407-437.
- William Easterly & Sergio Rebelo, 1993.
"Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation,"
NBER Working Papers
4499, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Easterly, William & Rebelo, Sergio, 1993. "Fiscal policy and economic growth: An empirical investigation," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 417-458, December.
- Easterly, William & Rebelo, Sérgio, 1994. "Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth: An Empirical Investigation," CEPR Discussion Papers 885, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Lucas, Robert E, Jr & Rapping, Leonard A, 1969. "Real Wages, Employment, and Inflation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(5), pages 721-54, Sept./Oct.
- Bernard, Andrew B & Jones, Charles I, 1996. "Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement across Industries and Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1216-38, December.
- Rebelo, Sergio, 1991.
"Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth,"
Journal of Political Economy,
University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 500-521, June.
- Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-84, August.
- Ortigueira, Salvador & Santos, Manuel S, 1997. "On the Speed of Convergence in Endogenous Growth Models," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 383-99, June.
- Segerstrom, Paul S, 1998. "Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1290-1310, December.
- Robert E. Lucas Jr. & Nancy L. Stokey, 1982.
"Optimal Fiscal and Monetary Policy in an Economy Without Capital,"
532, Northwestern University, Center for Mathematical Studies in Economics and Management Science.
- Lucas, Robert Jr. & Stokey, Nancy L., 1983. "Optimal fiscal and monetary policy in an economy without capital," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 55-93.
- Nancy L. Stokey & Sergio Rebelo, 1993.
"Growth Effects of Flat-Rate Taxes,"
NBER Working Papers
4426, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Nazrul Islam, 1995. "Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, Oxford University Press, vol. 110(4), pages 1127-1170.
- Bruce, Neil & Turnovsky, Stephen J, 1999. "Budget Balance, Welfare, and the Growth Rate: "Dynamic Scoring" of the Long-Run Government Budget," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(2), pages 162-86, May.
- Futagami, Koichi & Morita, Yuichi & Shibata, Akihisa, 1993. " Dynamic Analysis of an Endogenous Growth Model with Public Capital," Scandinavian Journal of Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 95(4), pages 607-25, December.
- Ireland, Peter N., 1994. "Supply-side economics and endogenous growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 559-571, June.
- Deaton, Angus, 1981.
"Optimal Taxes and the Structure of Preferences,"
Econometric Society, vol. 49(5), pages 1245-60, September.
- Stephen Turnovsky, 1998.
"Fiscal Policy, Elastic Labor Supply, and Endogenous Growth,"
Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington
0068, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
- Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2000. "Fiscal policy, elastic labor supply, and endogenous growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 185-210, February.
- Stephen Turnovsky, 1998. "Fiscal Policy, Elastic Labor Supply, and Endogenous Growth," Working Papers 0068, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
- Jonathan R. W. Temple, 1998. "Robustness tests of the augmented Solow model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 361-375.
- Jones, Larry E & Manuelli, Rodolfo E & Rossi, Peter E, 1993. "Optimal Taxation in Models of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 485-517, June.
- David K. Backus & Patrick J. Kehoe & Timothy J. Kehoe, 1992.
"In search of scale effects in trade and growth,"
152, Federal Reserve Bank of Minneapolis.
- Bond, Eric W. & Wang, Ping & Yip, Chong K., 1996.
"A General Two-Sector Model of Endogenous Growth with Human and Physical Capital: Balanced Growth and Transitional Dynamics,"
Journal of Economic Theory,
Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 149-173, January.
- Eric W. Bond & Ping Wang & Chong K. Yip, 1993. "A general two-sector model of endogenous growth with human and physical capital: balanced growth and transitional dynamics," Research Paper 9324, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
- Bernard, Andrew B & Jones, Charles I, 1996. "Technology and Convergence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 1037-44, July.
- Eric W. Bond & Ping Wang & Chong K. Yip, 1993. "A general two sector model of endogenous growth with human and physical capital," Research Paper 9303, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
- Turnovsky, Stephen J., 1996. "Optimal tax, debt, and expenditure policies in a growing economy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 21-44, April.
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:199. 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: (Christopher F. Baum)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.