This paper undertakes a rigorous analysis of the effects of policies to respond to the looming demographic pressures in Europe and elsewhere. We examine the impact of fiscal adjustment by itself and when pursued in combination with tax, labor and product market reforms, using the IMF's Global Fiscal Model (GFM), calibrated to the German economy, the euro area, and the United States. We also explore the international spillover effects of demographic pressures and associated fiscal adjustment, and the benefits of cooperative action. in addition, we examine the extent to which structural reforms (including tax reform) to boost productivity growth, labor participation, and product market competition could ameliorate the adverse short-term effects of adjustment. the results suggest (i) substantial spill-over effects of aging on debt sustainability through international financial channels; (ii) the preferred adjustment package is broad-based relying on both revenue and expenditure measures while avoiding increases in direct taxes; and (iii) there are substantial benefits from fiscal cooperation. Nonetheless, even a cooperative response has initial contractionary effects, and we show that these effects can be offset by combining fiscal adjustment with expeditious implementation of structural reforms in product and labor markets, as envisaged in the Lisbon Agenda. Moreover, the benefits accrue early and to all income-groups if the reforms are implemented as part of a package.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BatiniN. and N'DiayeP., and RebucciA. 2005, “The Domestic and Global Impact of Japan's Policies for Growth,” IMF Working Paper 05/209 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
2.
BaylorM. 2005, “Ranking Tax Distortions in Dynamic General Equilibrium Models: A Survey,” Working Paper2005–06 (Ottawa: Department of Finance).
3.
BayoumiT. and BotmanD. 2005, Jam Today or More Jam Tomorrow? on Cutting Taxes Now Versus Later, Canada-Selected Issues, IMF Country Report No. 05/116 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
4.
BayoumiT.BotmanD., and KumarM.S. 2005, Effects of Social Security and Tax Reform in the United States, United States-Selected Issues, IMF Country Report No. 05/258 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
5.
BayoumiT.LaxtonD., and PesentiP. 2004, Benefits and Spillovers of Greater Competition in Europe: A Macroeconomic Assessment, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports. No. 182.
6.
BergerH. and DanningerS. 2005, “Labor and Product Market Deregulation: Partial, Sequential, or Simultaneous Reform?” IMF Working Paper 05/227 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
7.
BettsC., and DevereuxM. 2001, “The International Monetary Transmission of Monetary and Fiscal Policies in a Two-Country Model,” in Essays in Honor of Robert A. Mundell, ed. by M. Obstfeld, and CalvoG. (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
8.
BotmanD. and DanningerS. 2007, “Tax Reform and Debt Sustainability in Germany: An Assessment Using the Global Fiscal Model,” IMF Country Report No. 06/436 and IMF Working Paper 07/46 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
9.
BotmanD. and HonjoK. 2006, “Options for Fiscal Consolidation in the United Kingdom,” IMF Working Paper 06/89 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
10.
BotmanD. and KumarM.S. 2006, “Fundamental Determinants of the Effects of Fiscal Policy,” IMF Working Paper 06/208 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
11.
BotmanD.LaxtonD.MuirD., and RomanovA. 2006, “A New Open Economy Macromodel for Fiscal Policy Evaluation,” IMF Working Paper 06/45 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
12.
CampbellJ.Y. and MankiwN.G. 1991, “Permanent Income, Current Income, and Consumption,” NBER Working PaperNo. 2436 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
13.
CantonE.MinneB.NieuwenhuisA.SmidB., and M. van der Steeg, 2005, “Human Capital, R&D, and Competition in Macroeconomic Analysis,” CPB Document91, the Hague.
14.
CaselliP. 2001, “Fiscal Consolidation Under Fixed Exchange Rates,” European Economic Review, Vol. 45, pp. 425–50.
15.
Central Planning Bureau, 2006, “Five Lisbon Highlights: the Economic Impact of Reaching These Targets”, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (paper prepared for the Directorate General Enterprise & Industry of the European Commission).
16.
CorsettiG., and PesentiP. 2001, “Welfare and Interdependence Macroeconomic,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, pp. 421–45.
17.
European Commission (EC), 2006a, The Impact of Ageing on Public Expenditure: Projections for the EU25 Member States on Pensions, Health Care, Long-Term Care, Education and Unemployment Transfers (2004–2050), (Brussels).
18.
European Commission (EC), 2006b, Long-term Sustainability of Public Finances in the European Union, (Brussels).
19.
EveraertL. and SchuleW. 2006, “Structural Reforms in the Euro Area: Economic Impact and Role of Synchronization Across Markets and Countries”, IMF Working Paper 06/137 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
20.
EversM.de MooijA.R., and van VuurenD. J., 2005. What explains the Variation in Estimates of Labour Supply Elasticities?CesIFO Paper1633.
21.
Federal Ministry of Finance, Berlin, 2005, Bericht zur Tragfähigkeit der Öffentlichen Finanzen (Long-Run Fiscal Sustainability Report).
22.
FordR., and LaxtonD. 1999, “World Public Debt and Real Interest Rates,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 77–94.
23.
GanelliG. 2003, “The New Open Economy Macroeconomics of Government Debt,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 65, pp. 167–84.
24.
GriffithR. 2000, “How Important is Business R&D for Economic Growth and Should the Government Subsidise it?”, Institute for Fiscal Studies Briefing Notes, No. 12.
25.
GriffithR.ReddingS., and J. van Reenen, 2000, “Mapping the Two Faces of R&D:Productivity Growth in a Panel of OECD Industries,” CEPR Discussion Paper2457, London.
26.
HaunerD.LeighD., and SkaarupM. 2007, “Improving Fiscal Sustainability in G-7 Countries”, Forthcoming Working Paper, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF, January.
27.
IacovielloM. 2004, “Consumption, House Prices, and Collateral Constraints: A Structural Econometric Analysis,” NBER Working PaperNo. 589 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
28.
International Monetary Fund, 2006, “Germany: 2006 Article IV Consultation Staff Report,” IMF Country Report 06/438 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
29.
JacobsB.NahuisR., and TangP.J.G. 2002, “Sectoral-Productivity Growth and R&D Spillovers in the Netherlands,” De Economist, Vol. 150, pp. 181–210.
30.
JeanS. and NicolettiG. 2002, “Product Market Regulation and Wage Premia in Europe and North America: An Empirical Investigation,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 318, OECD Publishing.
31.
KellerW. 1997, “Trade and the Transmission of Technology,” NBER Working PaperNo. 6113 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
32.
LaxtonD. and PesentiP. 2003, Monetary Rules for Small, pen, Emerging Economies, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 1109–52.
33.
NadiriM.I. 1993, “Innovations and Spillovers Technological,” NBER Working Paper No.4423 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
34.
ObstfeldM., and RogoffK. 1995, “Exchange Rate Dyamics Redux,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 103, pp. 624–60.
35.
ObstfeldM., and RogoffK. 1996, Foundations of International Macroeconomics (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
36.
OECD, 2001, “Fiscal Implications of Age-Related Spending,” OECD Economics Department Working PaperNo. 305 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
37.
OliveiraM. J., ScarpettaS., and D. Pilat, 1996, “Mark-Up Ratios in Manufacturing Industries: Estimates for 14 OECD Countries,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 162, OECD Publishing.
38.
WerdingM. and KaltschützA.FoI Munich, 2005, IFO-beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung—Modellrechnungen zur Langfristigen Tragfähigkeit der Öffentlichen Finanzen.
