Abstract
Given that exchange rate devaluations are no longer available in a monetary union, fiscal devaluations are one potential way to address divergence in competitiveness and trade imbalances. Employing a DSGE model calibrated to the euro area, we quantify the international effects of a fiscal devaluation implemented as a revenue-neutral shift from employers’ social contributions to the value added tax. We find that a fiscal devaluation carried out in the South has a strong positive effect on output, which is five times larger than under a wage tax cut. However, the effect on the trade balance and the real exchange rate is mild. The negative effect on the North’s output is weak.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Source: Eurostat (2013).
Source: World Bank (2013).
Inflation and interest rates are expressed in annualized percentage points and basis point deviations, respectively. Deviations of trade balances are expressed in percentage of the initial GDP. For all other variables we report percentage deviations from their steady state values.
Bold blue lines: Devaluation that cuts labor income taxes. Plain lines: Devaluation that cuts the SCR. Inflation and interest rates are expressed in annualized percentage points and basis point deviations, respectively. Deviations of trade balances are expressed in percentage of the initial GDP. For all other variables, we report percentage deviations from their steady-state values. (Color figure online).
Bold blue lines: Devaluation that cuts labor income taxes. Plain lines: Devaluation that cuts the SCR. Inflation and interest rates are expressed in annualized percentage points and basis point deviations, respectively. Deviations of trade balances are expressed in percentage of the initial GDP. For all other variables, we report percentage deviations from their steady-state values.
Solid lines: Adjustment under respective model variation. Dashed lines: Adjustment in the benchmark model.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
Since we have included Ireland in this group, a more precise denomination would be “Ireland and Southern European countries” but in what follows we will use “the South” for simplicity.
CPB (2013, Section 2) surveys the literature on fiscal devaluations.
Farhi and others (2014) use a two-country model to show that a fiscal devaluation can replicate the effects of a nominal exchange rate devaluation, but they numerically evaluate the effects of a fiscal devaluation on a small open economy (Spain). In addition, they do not analyze the role of sticky wages in the transmission of fiscal shocks. Lipinska and von Thadden (2012) model fiscal devaluation as a reduction in labor income taxes, rather than in SCR (see more detailed discussion below). As such, this is not a “pure” fiscal devaluation. Franco (2010) develops a two-country model of a monetary union, but calibrates it to Portugal, virtually ignoring the international transmission of fiscal devaluations.
The household in the North has the following consumption index (the North’s variables are denoted by an asterisk):
$$C_{t}^{*} = \left\{ {\left( {1 - \omega^{*} } \right)^{{\frac{1}{\sigma }}} \left( {C_{t}^{*N} } \right)^{{\frac{\sigma - 1}{\sigma }}}\,+\,(\omega^{*} )^{{\frac{1}{\sigma }}} \left( {C_{t}^{*S} } \right)^{{\frac{\sigma - 1}{\sigma }}} } \right\}^{{\frac{\sigma }{1 - \sigma }}} ,$$where \(\omega^{*}\) is the share of imported goods.
To check the validity of this approach, we compared the convergent impulse responses with the steady state that would result from the new tax rates.
Ivanova (2012), on the other hand, finds that reducing taxes on labor may actually worsen the current account balance.
De Mooij and Keen’s (2013) estimates, using statutory tax rates, show that a 1 percentage point increase of the VAT rate (SCR) increases (reduces) net exports by 0.23 (0.11) percent. These estimates imply that raising the VAT rate by 1 percentage points and reducing the SCR by 1.7 percentage points improves net exports by \(\left( { - 0.11 \times - 1.7} \right) + \left( {0.23 \times 1} \right) = 0.417\) percent of GDP.
Farhi and others (2014) numerically evaluate the effects of a fiscal devaluation on a small open economy, calibrated to match the features of Spain.
Another difference between Lipinska and von Thadden’s (2012) and our approach is their assumption that governments balance their real budgets every period by adjusting labor tax rates every period. We, in contrast, assume that that all government spending is for public transfers to households and that a fiscal devaluation is revenue neutral in the long term. In our model, public transfers in the South increase very mildly in the short term. This implies that our finding that a fiscal devaluation is effective in the short term does not come from lower distortionary taxes that are financed by lump sum taxes or debt in the short term.
In addition, part of the difference in results between our results and those of Lipinska and von Thadden (2012) can be explained by different solution methods. Lipinska and von Thadden (2012) use a first-order approximation, which ignores the cross term, i.e., the change in the tax base times the change in the tax rate. The use of the second-order approximation, in our model, increases the effect of fiscal devaluation on South’s output in the short term by 10 percent.
Drautzburg and Uhlig (2013) use a similar approach.
References
Adolfson, M., Laseen, S., Linde, J., and Villani, M., 2007, “Bayesian Estimation of an Open Economy DSGE Model with Incomplete Pass-Through,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 72, pp. 481–511.
Arnold, J. M., Brys, B., Heady, C., Johansson, A., Schwellnus, C., and Vartia, L., 2011, “Tax Policy for Economic Recovery and Growth,” Economic Journal, Vol. 121, pp. F59–F80.
Bank of Portugal, 2011, “The Impact of a Tax Change Aimed at Increasing the External Competitiveness of the Portuguese Economy,” Economic Bulletin, Vol. 17, pp. 39–42.
Bils, M., and Klenow, P. J., 2004, “Some Evidence on the Importance of Sticky Prices,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 112, pp. 947–985.
Boscá, J. E., Doménech, R., and Ferria, J., 2012, “Fiscal Devaluations in EMU” BBVA Working Paper 12/11.
Calvo, G. A., 1983, “Staggered Prices in a Utility Maximizing Framework,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 12, pp. 383–398.
Campbell, J. Y., and Mankiw, N. G., 1990, “Permanent Income, Current Income, and Consumption,” Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, Vol. 8, pp. 265–279.
Centraal Planbureau (CPB), 2013, “Study on the Impacts of Fiscal Devaluation,” European Commission Taxation Papers (Working Paper No. 36-2013).
Coenen, G., Lombardo, G., Smets, F., and Straub, R., 2010, “International Transmission and Monetary Policy Cooperation,” in International Dimensions of Monetary Policy, ed. by J. Gali, M. J. Gertler (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 157–192.
de Mooij, R., and Keen, M., 2013, “‘Fiscal Devaluation’ and Fiscal Consolidation: The VAT in Troubled Times,” in Fiscal Policy after the Financial Crisis, ed. by A. Alesina, F. Giavazzi (Chicago: University of Chicago Press), pp. 443–485.
Drautzburg, T., and Uhlig, H., 2013, “Fiscal Stimulus and Distortionary Taxation,” FRB of Philadelphia Working Paper No. 13-46.
Druant, M., Fabiani, S., Kezdi, G., Lamo, A., Martins, F., and Sabbatini, R., 2009, “How Are Firms’ Wages and Prices Linked: Survey Evidence in Europe,” European Central Bank Working Paper Series 1084.
European Central Bank, 2012, “Competitiveness and External Imbalances Within the Euro Area,” ECB Occasional Paper series.
European Commission, 2006, “Macroeconomic Effects of a Shift from Direct to Indirect Taxation: A Simulation for 15 EU Member States,” Note presented by the EC services at the 72nd meeting of the OECD Working Party No. 2 on Tax Policy Analysis and Tax Statistics, Paris.
Eurostat, 2013, Statistics, Available online at http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/statistics/themes. Accessed 1 Nov 2013
Farhi, E., Gopinath, G., and Itskhoki, O., 2014, “Fiscal Devaluations,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 81, No. 2, pp. 725–760.
Feenstra, R. C., Obstfeld, M., and Russ, K. N., 2012, “In Search of the Armington Elasticity,” unpublished.
Franco, F., 2010, “Improving Competitiveness Through Fiscal Devaluation, the Case of Portugal,” unpublished.
——, 2011, “Adjusting to External Imbalances within the EMU, The Case of Portugal,” unpublished.
Galí, J., 2011, Unemployment Fluctuations and Stabilization Policies: A New Keynesian Perspective. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
Galí, J., López-Salido, J. D., and Vallés, J., 2007, “Understanding the Effects of Government Spending on Consumption,” Journal of the European Economic Association, Vol. 5, pp. 227–270.
IMF, 2011, Fiscal Monitor: Addressing Fiscal Challenges to Reduce Economic Risks. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Ivanova, A., 2012, “Current Account Imbalances: Can Structural Policies Make a Difference?” International Monetary Fund Working Paper 12/61. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Kemmerling, A., 2009, Taxing the Working Poor: The Political Origins and Economic Consequences of Taxing Low Wage. (Cheltenham: Edward Elgar Publishing).
Keynes, J. M., 1931, Addendum to: Great Britain. Committee on Finance and Industry Report [Macmillan Report] (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1931) 190–209. Reprinted in Donald Moggridge, The Collected Writings of John Maynard Keynes, Vol. 20 (London: Macmillan and Cambridge: Cambridge Press for the Royal Economic Society, 1981), pp. 283–309.
Kimball, M., and Shapiro, M., 2008, “Labor Supply: Are Income and Substitution Effects Both Large or Both Small,” NBER Working Paper 14208.
Kormilitsina, A., and Nekipelov, D., 2012, “Approximation Properties of Laplace-Type Estimators,” in Balke, N., Canova, F., Milani, F., Wynne, M. A. (eds.) DSGE Models in Macroeconomics: Estimation, Evaluation, and New Developments. (Bingley: Emerald Group Publishing), pp. 291–318.
Lipinska, A., and von Thadden, L., 2012, “On the (In)Effectiveness of Fiscal Devaluations in a Monetary Union,” Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System: Finance and Economics Discussion Series 2012-71.
Mian, A., and Sufi, A., 2010, “Household Leverage and the Recession of 2007–09,” IMF Economic Review, Vol. 58, No. 1, pp. 74–117.
Schmitt-Grohé, S., and Uribe, M., 2003, “Closing Small Open Economy Models,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 61, pp. 163–185.
Taylor, J. B., 1993, “Discretion versus Policy Rules in Practice,” Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, Vol. 39, pp. 195–214.
World Bank, 2013, World DataBank, Available online at http://databank.worldbank.org/data/home.aspx. Accessed 28 Oct 2013.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Supplementary information accompanies this article on the IMF Economic Review website (www.palgrave.com/journals)
*Philipp Engler is Junior professor of Monetary Macroeconomics at Freie Universität Berlin; his email address is: philipp.engler@fu-berlin.de. Giovanni Ganelli is Senior Economist in the IMF's Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific in Tokyo; his email address is: gganelli@imf.org. Juha Tervala is a University Lecturer at the University of Helsinki; his email address is: juha.tervala@helsinki.fi. Simon Voigts is Ph.D. student at Humboldt-Universität zu Berlin; his email address is: s.voigts@hu-berlin.de.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
