IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/zbw/maxpod/204.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The ambiguous consensus on fiscal rules: How ideational ambiguity has facilitated social democratic parties' support of structural deficit rules in the eurozone

Author

Listed:
  • Eisl, Andreas

Abstract

In recent years, all eurozone member states have introduced national fiscal rules, which put limits on public deficits and debt. Fiscal rules reduce the fiscal policy discretion of politicians and affect their capacity to use public budgets for macroeconomic steering and redistribution. While such institutional discretion constraints run against the traditional policy preferences of social democratic parties, it is puzzling why they supported national fiscal rule reforms during the European debt crisis. This paper argues that the concept of structural deficit rules, central to reform efforts across the eurozone, allowed for the formation of an ambiguous consensus between center-right and center-left parties. While conservative and liberal parties are generally supportive of institutional discretion constraints, structural deficit rules - in contrast to nominal deficit rules - allowed social democratic and other left-wing parties to link such rules with their broader policy preferences of Keynesian countercyclical policymaking and the protection of tax revenues across the economic cycle to ensure the state's capacity for redistribution. Drawing on three country case studies (Germany, Austria, France), this paper shows how the concept of structural deficit rules facilitated - at least discursively - the support for discretion-constraining institutions among social democratic and other left-wing parties. In theoretical terms, this study also advances research on the role of ambiguity in political decision-making, (re-)conceptualizing three forms of ambiguity underlying ambiguous consensus: textual ambiguity, institutional ambiguity, and ideational ambiguity.

Suggested Citation

  • Eisl, Andreas, 2020. "The ambiguous consensus on fiscal rules: How ideational ambiguity has facilitated social democratic parties' support of structural deficit rules in the eurozone," MaxPo Discussion Paper Series 20/4, Max Planck Sciences Po Center on Coping with Instability in Market Societies (MaxPo).
  • Handle: RePEc:zbw:maxpod:204
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/226637/1/1739134273.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Hibbs, Douglas A., 1977. "Political Parties and Macroeconomic Policy," American Political Science Review, Cambridge University Press, vol. 71(4), pages 1467-1487, December.
    2. Philipp Heimberger & Jakob Kapeller, 2017. "The performativity of potential output: pro-cyclicality and path dependency in coordinating European fiscal policies," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 24(5), pages 904-928, September.
    3. European Fiscal Board (EFB), 2019. "Assessment of EU fiscal rules with a focus on the six and two-pack legislation," Reports 2019, European Fiscal Board.
    4. Lars Calmfors & Simon Wren-Lewis, 2011. "What should fiscal councils do? [Fiscal policy when monetary policy is tied to the mast]," Economic Policy, CEPR, CESifo, Sciences Po;CES;MSH, vol. 26(68), pages 649-695.
    5. Hallerberg,Mark & Rainer Strauch,Rolf & von Hagen,Jürgen, 2010. "Fiscal Governance in Europe," Cambridge Books, Cambridge University Press, number 9780521138260.
    6. Per Pettersson-Lidbom, 2001. "An Empirical Investigation of the Strategic Use of Debt," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 109(3), pages 570-583, June.
    7. Kohei Kawamura & Yohei Kobashi & Masato Shizume & Kozo Ueda, 2016. "Strategic central bank communication: discourse and game-theoretic analyses of the Bank of Japan's Monthly Report," CAMA Working Papers 2016-11, Centre for Applied Macroeconomic Analysis, Crawford School of Public Policy, The Australian National University.
    8. Blyth, Mark, 2013. "Austerity: The History of a Dangerous Idea," OUP Catalogue, Oxford University Press, number 9780199828302.
    9. Poterba, James M. & von Hagen, Jurgen (ed.), 1999. "Fiscal Institutions and Fiscal Performance," National Bureau of Economic Research Books, University of Chicago Press, edition 1, number 9780226676234, December.
    10. James M. Poterba & Jürgen von Hagen, 1999. "Fiscal Institutions and Fiscal Performance," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number pote99-1, March.
    11. Elba K. Brown-Collier & Bruce E. Collier, 1995. "What Keynes Really Said about Deficit Spending," Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 17(3), pages 341-355, March.
    12. repec:fth:geneec:99.05 is not listed on IDEAS
    13. James M. Poterba & Jürgen von Hagen, 1999. "Introduction to "Fiscal Institutions and Fiscal Performance"," NBER Chapters, in: Fiscal Institutions and Fiscal Performance, pages 1-12, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    14. Kawamura, Kohei & Kobashi, Yohei & Shizume, Masato & Ueda, Kozo, 2019. "Strategic central bank communication: Discourse analysis of the Bank of Japan’s Monthly Report," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 100(C), pages 230-250.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    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. Andreas Eisl, 2020. "The Ambiguous Consensus on Fiscal Rules," Working Papers hal-03053976, HAL.
    2. Andreas Eisl, 2020. "The Ambiguous Consensus on Fiscal Rules: How Ideational Ambiguity Has Facilitated Social Democratic Parties’ Support of Structural Deficit Rules in the Eurozone," Sciences Po publications 20/4, Sciences Po.
    3. repec:hal:spmain:info:hdl:2441/jpcu0knbl80rpibin9slrlrlb is not listed on IDEAS
    4. Andreas Eisl, 2020. "The Ambiguous Consensus on Fiscal Rules," SciencePo Working papers Main hal-03053976, HAL.
    5. Ziogas, Thanasis & Panagiotidis, Theodore, 2021. "Revisiting the political economy of fiscal adjustments," Journal of International Money and Finance, Elsevier, vol. 111(C).
    6. Christoph A. Schaltegger & Lars P. Feld, 2004. "Do Large Cabinets Favor Large Governments? Evidence from Swiss Sub-Federal Jurisdictions," CESifo Working Paper Series 1294, CESifo.
    7. Nouha Bougharriou, 2017. "Understanding Public Debt from a Political Economy Perspective," Economic Alternatives, University of National and World Economy, Sofia, Bulgaria, issue 3, pages 379-389, September.
    8. Baldi, Guido, 2013. "Fiscal Policy Institutions and Economic Transition in North Africa," MPRA Paper 48677, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    9. Michał Mackiewicz, 2006. "Przyczyny deficytu finansów publicznych w świetle nowej ekonomii politycznej," Gospodarka Narodowa. The Polish Journal of Economics, Warsaw School of Economics, issue 3, pages 1-22.
    10. Asatryan, Zareh & Castellón, César & Stratmann, Thomas, 2018. "Balanced budget rules and fiscal outcomes: Evidence from historical constitutions," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 167(C), pages 105-119.
    11. Jeffrey Frankel, 2013. "A Solution to Fiscal Procyclicality: The Structural Budget Institutions Pioneered by Chile," Central Banking, Analysis, and Economic Policies Book Series, in: Luis Felipe Céspedes & Jordi Galí (ed.),Fiscal Policy and Macroeconomic Performance, edition 1, volume 17, chapter 9, pages 323-391, Central Bank of Chile.
    12. Grigoli, Francesco & Mills, Zachary & Verhoeven, Marijn & Vlaicu, Razvan, 2012. "MTEFs and fiscal performance: panel data evidence," Policy Research Working Paper Series 6186, The World Bank.
    13. Makoto Nakanishi, 2019. "Budgetary institutions with or without coalition government: political economy of parliamentary democracies," International Journal of Economic Policy Studies, Springer, vol. 13(1), pages 193-216, January.
    14. Mark Hallerberg & Lúcio Vinhas de Souza & William Roberts Clark, 2002. "Political Business Cycles in EU Accession Countries," European Union Politics, , vol. 3(2), pages 231-250, June.
    15. Alesina, A. & Passalacqua, A., 2016. "The Political Economy of Government Debt," Handbook of Macroeconomics, in: J. B. Taylor & Harald Uhlig (ed.), Handbook of Macroeconomics, edition 1, volume 2, chapter 0, pages 2599-2651, Elsevier.
    16. Michele Salvi & Christoph A. Schaltegger & Lukas Schmid, 2020. "Fiscal Rules Cause Lower Debt: Evidence from Switzerland’s Federal Debt Containment Rule," Kyklos, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 73(4), pages 605-642, November.
    17. Reuter, Wolf Heinrich, 2015. "National numerical fiscal rules: Not complied with, but still effective?," European Journal of Political Economy, Elsevier, vol. 39(C), pages 67-81.
    18. Veronica Grembi & Tommaso Nannicini & Ugo Troiano, 2011. "Policy Responses to Fiscal Restraints: A Difference-in-Discontinuities Design," Working Papers 397, IGIER (Innocenzo Gasparini Institute for Economic Research), Bocconi University.
    19. David Howarth & Lucia Quaglia, 2015. "The political economy of the euro area's sovereign debt crisis: introduction to the special issue of the Review of International Political Economy," Review of International Political Economy, Taylor & Francis Journals, vol. 22(3), pages 457-484, June.
    20. Gamalerio, Matteo & Trombetta, Federico, 2021. "Fiscal Rules and the selection of politicians : theory and evidence from Italy," QAPEC Discussion Papers 10, Quantitative and Analytical Political Economy Research Centre.
    21. Marcela Eslava, 2011. "The Political Economy Of Fiscal Deficits: A Survey," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 25(4), pages 645-673, September.

    More about this item

    Keywords

    ambiguous consensus; comparative politics; eurozone governance; fiscal rules; ideationa lambiguity; social democratic parties;
    All these keywords.

    NEP fields

    This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:

    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:zbw:maxpod:204. 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: ZBW - Leibniz Information Centre for Economics (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/maxpofr.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.