Public Choice

, Volume 144, Issue 3–4, pp 487–503 | Cite as

Sticking to fiscal plans: the role of institutions



The rules-based fiscal framework of the EMU relies heavily on the development of medium-term fiscal plans by the EU governments. In this paper, I present an empirical analysis of the deviations from the plans presented in the annual Stability and Convergence Programs. I focus on projections for real GDP growth and general government balances, revenues and spending at different time horizons. I show that deviations from the projections presented in these Programs since 1999 can be explained by institutional factors, i.e., the form of fiscal governance and the stringency of fiscal rules.


EMU Fiscal institutions Fiscal policy Stability and convergence programs Stability and growth pact 

JEL Classification

H62 H63 H87 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Annett, A. (2006). Enforcement and the stability and growth pact: how fiscal policy did and did not change under Europe’s fiscal framework. Working Paper 06/116, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund. Google Scholar
  2. Bouthaineville, C., Cour-Thimann, Ph., van den Dool, G., Hernandez de Cos, P., Langenus, G., Moor, M., Momigliano, S., & Tujula, M. (2001). Cyclically adjusted budget balances: an alternative approach. ECB Working Paper 77. Google Scholar
  3. Brück, T., & Stephan, A. (2006). Do Eurozone countries cheat with their budget deficit forecasts? Kyklos, 59, 3–15. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Commission (2007). Statistical annex. European Economy 2007. Brussels: European Commission. Google Scholar
  5. Feld, L. P., & Kirchgässner, G. (2001). Does direct democracy reduce public debt? Evidence from Swiss municipalities. Public Choice, 109, 347–370. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Hallerberg, M., & von Hagen, J. (1999). Electoral institutions, cabinet negotiations, and budget deficits within the European Union. In Poterba, J., & von Hagen, J. (Eds.), Fiscal institutions and fiscal performance (pp. 209–232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  7. Hallerberg, M., Strauch, R. R., & von Hagen, J. (2007). The design of fiscal rules and forms of governments in EU countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 23, 338–359. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hallerberg, M., Strauch, R. R., & von Hagen, J. (2009). Fiscal governance in Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Google Scholar
  9. Jonung, L., & Larch, M. (2006). Improving fiscal policy in the EU: the case for independent forecasts. Economic Policy, 21(47), 491–534. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Kirchgässner, G. (1983). The political business cycle if the government is not myopic. An integration of the long-run and short-run models of the political business cycle. Mathematical Social Sciences, 4, 243–260. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kirchgässner, G. (1984a). Wie gut sind die Prognosen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Forschungsinstitute in der Bundesrepublik Deutschland? Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 120, 279–300. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Kirchgässner, G. (1984b). On the theory of optimal government behavior. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 8, 167–195. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Kirchgässner, G. (1985). Sind die Prognosen der Arbeitsgemeinschaft wirtschaftswissenschaftlicher Forschungsinstitute schwach rational? Eine Antwort auf Neumann und Buscher. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv, 121, 331–345. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Kirchgässner, G. (1991). Sind die Prognosefehler der Konjunkturprognosen autokorreliert? ifo Studien, 37, 151–158. Google Scholar
  15. Kirchgässner, G. (1993). Testing the weak rationality of forecasts with different time horizons. Journal of Economic Forecasting, 12, 541–558. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kirchgässner, G., & Müller, U. K. (2006). Are forecasters reluctant to revise their predictions? Journal of Forecasting, 25, 401–413. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Krogstrup, S., & Wyplosz, C. (2010, forthcoming). A common pool theory of deficit bias correction. European Economic Review. Google Scholar
  18. Piña, A. M., & Venes, N. (2007). The political economy of EDP fiscal forecasts: an empirical assessment. Working Paper, School of Economics and Management, Technical University of Lisbon. Google Scholar
  19. Strauch, R., Hallerberg, M., & von Hagen, J. (2004). Budgetary forecasts in Europe: the track record of stability and convergence programs. European Central Bank Working Paper 307, Frankfurt: European Central Bank. Google Scholar
  20. Velasco, A. (1999). A model of endogenous deficits and delayed fiscal reforms. In Poterba, J., & von Hagen, J. (Eds.), Fiscal constitutions and fiscal performance (pp. 37–57). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Google Scholar
  21. van den Noord, P. (2000). The size and role of automatic fiscal stabilizers in the 1990s and beyond. OECD Economics Department Working Paper 230, Paris: OECD Publishing. Google Scholar
  22. von Hagen, J. (2006). Fiscal rules and fiscal performance in the European Union and Japan. Monetary and Economic Studies, 24, 25–60. Google Scholar
  23. von Hagen, J., & Harden, I. H. (1994). National budget processes and fiscal performance. European Economy Reports and Studies, 3, 311–418. Google Scholar
  24. von Hagen, J., & Harden, I. H. (1995). Budget processes and commitment to fiscal discipline. European Economic Review, 39, 771–779. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. von Hagen, J., & Wolff, G. (2006). What do deficits tell us about debt? Empirical evidence on creative accounting with fiscal rules in the EU. Journal of Banking and Finance, 30, 3259–3279. CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.IIWUniversity of BonnBonnGermany

Personalised recommendations