Faut-il brûler les règles budgétaires ? Leçons de l’expérience américaine (1988-2017)
Etienne Farvaque (),
Marcelin Joanis and
Post-Print from HAL
The study of fiscal rules in force in the American states, most of them for a very long time, allows us to judge whether their effect is pro- or counter-cyclical in front of a shock. We analyze the fiscal adjustments implemented, not only by studying changes in spending and taxes, but also by considering the variations in public employment. We use a more detailed classification of fiscal rules than is commonly used in the literature and also incorporate rainy day funds, which provide a smoothing instrument, for those states that have them. We show that, for American states in an annual budget cycle, budget rules are not neutral: the number of budget rules in the implementation phase of the budget has a limiting function on the budget, especially if they are constitutional in nature. It is these rules that force governors to engineer adjustments, with an amplified effect depending on the strength of the unanticipated shock (thus generating procyclical behavior).
Note: View the original document on HAL open archive server: https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-03594227
References: Add references at CitEc
Citations: Track citations by RSS feed
Published in Revue Française d'Economie, Association Française d'Économie, 2022, XXXVI (3), pp.103-154. ⟨10.3917/rfe.213.0103⟩
There are no downloads for this item, see the EconPapers FAQ for hints about obtaining it.
Journal Article: Faut-il brûler les règles budgétaires ? Leçons de l’expérience américaine (1988-2017) (2021)
This item may be available elsewhere in EconPapers: Search for items with the same title.
Export reference: BibTeX
RIS (EndNote, ProCite, RefMan)
Persistent link: https://EconPapers.repec.org/RePEc:hal:journl:hal-03594227
Access Statistics for this paper
More papers in Post-Print from HAL
Bibliographic data for series maintained by CCSD ().