Assessing Fiscal Space An Initial Consistent Set Of Considerations

Fiscal space is a multi-dimensional concept reflecting whether a government can raise spending or lower taxes without endangering market access and debt sustainability. Making such a determination requires a comprehensive approach considering, among other things, initial economic and structural conditions, market access, the level and trajectory of public debt, present and future financing needs, and dynamic analysis of the liquidity and solvency of the fiscal position under alternative policies. Balancing these considerations involves careful analysis and judgment. Fund staff has over the years developed a variety of indicators to inform assessments of fiscal space in bilateral and multilateral surveillance. The Fund’s core operational framework for such analysis is the debt sustainability framework, which includes a number of indicators, while allowing room for staff judgment. Surveillance also relies importantly on indicators developed by the Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD)––including those that have been used in the internal Vulnerability Exercise and Fiscal Monitors––while more recent methods based on fiscal stress tests and probabilistic approaches proposed in IMF (2016) are also promising. In addition, teams have used scenario analysis and general equilibrium modeling approaches to evaluate fiscal policy choices and their implications for sustainability. When applied to fiscal space, each indicator and approach has pros and cons and none covers all the relevant factors. Ultimately, therefore, assessing fiscal space requires judgment, informed by a broad range of tools. This note seeks to bring together various approaches developed by Fund staff to outline a consistent set of considerations and indicators to help inform assessments of fiscal space, especially for advanced and emerging markets. The intent is to facilitate continued consistency between country team assessments by providing some common considerations and approaches to inform their judgment. The proposed framework will support Fund surveillance and policy advice going forward, informing discussions of the appropriate fiscal stance at all stages of the economic cycle.

This paper reviews the experience with the fiscal space assessment framework that was piloted during 2017–18. In 2016, staff proposed an operational definition of fiscal space and a new four-stage framework for its assessment. These were discussed informally by the Board in June, and a Board paper “Assessing Fiscal Space: An Initial Consistent Set of Considerations” incorporating Directors’ views was published in December. Fiscal space was narrowly defined as the room for undertaking discretionary fiscal policy relative to existing plans without endangering market access and debt sustainability. The framework was developed in response to the need to provide a more systematic approach to assessing fiscal space in the Fund’s surveillance. It was designed as a tool to inform the availability of fiscal space over a 3 to 4 year horizon for discretionary action, as opposed to the optimality of its use. Indeed, it was stressed that the availability of space does not necessarily mean that it should be used or should not be further expanded. The framework was piloted in the Article IV consultations of 34 advanced economies and emerging markets, comprising almost 80 percent of global GDP in PPP terms.

Noting that the aftermath of the global financial crisis has left many advanced economies with very high sovereign debt ratios and some emerging markets with high debt, this report considers whether there are ways to expand fiscal space that do not involve countries paying down debt or promising to do so in the future, to make fiscal consolidation more growth-friendly. It explains that policymakers argue that their fiscal space is limited and that it would be difficult to take advantage of the opportunity of low interest rates to undertake fiscal expansion, and it considers a ways to raise fiscal space that does not require contractionary fiscal policy and whether there is a way to make fiscal consolidation more growth-friendly to produce larger gains in fiscal space. It argues that debt management policies may provide an answer to expanding fiscal space for a given path of primary fiscal balances by reducing the risk that a sovereign may default in bad states and generate a payoff in terms of reduced to real borrowing costs. It describes two debt management policies: issuance of GDP-linked debt and issuance of longer maturity bonds, as opposed to short-term debt. It focuses on the effect of these debt management policies on real borrowing costs and default risk for the sovereign and details the literature on GDP-linked debt and the maturity structure and how the report fills gaps in the literature; how uncertainty affects fiscal space and how debt management can play a role in increasing it, with estimates and simulations of potential gains in fiscal space flowing from debt management; and the sensitivity of the findings to underlying assumptions and policy implications.

This paper explores how fiscal policy can affect medium- to long-term growth. It identifies the main channels through which fiscal policy can influence growth and distills practical lessons for policymakers. The particular mix of policy measures, however, will depend on country-specific conditions, capacities, and preferences. The paper draws on the Fund’s extensive technical assistance on fiscal reforms as well as several analytical studies, including a novel approach for country studies, a statistical analysis of growth accelerations following fiscal reforms, and simulations of an endogenous growth model.

The pamphlet (which updates the 1995 Guidelines for Fiscal Adjustment) presents the IMF’s approach to fiscal adjustment, and focuses on the role that sound government finances play in promoting macroeconomic stability and growth. Structured around five practical questions—when to adjust, how to assess the fiscal position, what makes for successful adjustment, how to carry out adjustment, and which institutions can help—it covers topics such as tax policies, debt sustainability, fiscal responsibility laws, and transparency.

The SDN will focus mostly on EA countries but also touch on other AEs for comparison purposes. The SDN will make several original contributions in each of the areas above based on new DSGE-model-based analysis, cross-country panel regressions, and individual-level (firm- or household-level) empirical work where appropriate.

This paper highlights the case of Moldova including public investment, efficiency, and growth. The scale up of public investment in Moldova should account for absorption capacity constraints and high reliance on external financing, to ensure a positive impact on growth. It should also be accompanied by efforts to build capacity and strengthen institutions. Public investment in Moldova relies significantly on external loans and grants to finance capital spending. The share of foreign financing varies across sectors, with agriculture and health relying significantly on donor support and education financed mostly domestically. Critical infrastructure needs in Moldova broadly correspond to the priority sectors identified in the National Development Strategy Moldova 2020: energy, transport, agriculture, health, and education. In general, infrastructure in Moldova ranks better regarding coverage than quality. Moldova has a relatively high index of public investment efficiency; nonetheless there are a number of dimensions to improve investment process.

This Technical Assistance Report discusses the recommendations for supporting implementation of the expenditure rule through public financial management reforms in Brazil. To address rigidities in the budget and to create more fiscal space, authorities need to establish processes to build flexibility and improve efficiency. These include reviewing mandatory expenditures and indexation practices. Other options include a rolling program of spending reviews for large and fast-growing programs and efficiency dividends on ministries’ operational expenses. Authorities also need to begin to develop a medium-term budget framework to support strategic decision making.

This publication is a survey by the IMF staff, published twice a year, in the spring and fall, as part of the IMF’s World Economic and Financial Surveys. The current issue analyzes the latest public finance developments, updates medium-term fiscal projections, and assesses policies aimed at placing public finances on a sustainable footing. An analytical chapter employs extensive firm-level data sets as well as new sources of data on tax policy and tax administration for advanced economies, emerging market economies, and low-income developing countries to assess the extent of resource misallocation within countries, focusing on how the design of the tax system may affect resource allocation.