Fiscal Space Has Limits, Too

In the battle against the economic impact of COVID-19, governments around the world are pulling out all the stops. In advanced economies, leading central banks have pushed interest rates to zero or below. And, a recent IMF estimate puts the combination of discretionary spending and automatic fiscal stabilizers (including unemployment insurance and progressive income taxation) at $9 trillion―more than 10 percent of global GDP.

With bond yields low or negative, the limits to monetary policy are clear (see our pre-COVID post). How large is the scope for additional countercyclical fiscal policy? With sovereign yields so low, the cost of additional financial expansion looks to be minimal, at least for now (see, for example, Blanchard).

Nevertheless, each time public debt-to-GDP ratios ratchet higher—as they did in the 2007-09 crisis and are now doing again—the question of “fiscal space” reemerges. When the next economic shock hits, will governments again be able to provide relief and stimulus on the scale required to meet society’s needs?

In this post, we highlight recent fiscal developments in advanced economies, and review the factors affecting the sustainability of their high and rising levels of debt. To foreshadow our conclusion, the fact that many countries’ fiscal positions were precarious even before the COVID crisis does not weaken the current case for stimulus. But, doubts about fiscal space are growing. So, it is important that governments find a way to make a credible commitment to future fiscal consolidation when their economies have returned to full employment. Failure to do so could threaten confidence both in government finances and in economic performance….

The Case for Strengthening Automatic Fiscal Stabilizers

For decades, monetary economists viewed central banks as the “last movers.” They were relatively nimble in their ability to adjust policy to stabilize the economy as signs of a slowdown arose. In contrast, discretionary fiscal policy is difficult to implement quickly. In addition, allowing for the possibility of a constantly changing fiscal stance adds to uncertainty and raises the risk that short-run politics, rather than effective use of public resources, will drive policy. So, the ideal fiscal approach was to set policy to support long-run priorities, minimizing short-run discretionary changes that can reduce economic efficiency.

Today, because conventional monetary policy has little room to ease, the case for using fiscal policy as a cyclical stabilizer is far stronger. Unless something changes, there is a good chance that when the next recession hits, monetary policymakers will once again find themselves stuck for an extended period at the lower bound for policy rates. In the absence of a monetary policy offset, fiscal policy is likely to be significantly more effective.

Against this background, a new book from The Hamilton Project and the Washington Center for Equitable Growth, Recession Ready: Fiscal Policies to Stabilize the American Economy, makes a compelling case for strengthening automatic fiscal stabilizers. These are the tax, transfer and spending components that change with economic conditions, as the law prescribes….

Commentary

Money, Banking, and Financial Markets