The Case for Restricting Fiscal Policy Discretion

By Antonio Fatás, I. Mihov. 2003

755 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Political Science and International Relations

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/f73559305a58a92b23218653f1886d7552038761

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

In Political Science and International Relations

Citations in the corpus

The Impact of Banking Sector Stability on the Real Economy (2013, background): “11 This is in line with the negative link between variance and growth identified by Ramey and Ramey (1995) and Fatás and Mihov (2003).”
The Geography of Output Volatility (2009, neutral): “[35] Fatás, A.”
Why Do More Polarized Countries Run More Procyclical Fiscal Policy? (2009, methodology): “Ramey and Ramey (1995) and Fatas and Mihov (2003) use this type of measure 28In other words, greater polarization means larger fiscal deficits today and more drastic spending cuts tomorrow.”
The Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Rules in the US States (2006, positive): “This conclusion confirms our analysis for a large sample of countries where we also showed that constraints on fiscal policy reduce the volatility of the business cycle(see Fatás and Mihov (2003)).”
Cyclical Fiscal Policy, Credit Constraints, and Industry Growth (2014, positive): “Yet, as an additional test that our results are not driven by endogeneity considerations, we produce additional regressions where we instrument for scal policy cyclicality.(26) Our data sample focuses on 15 industrialized OECD countries plus the US.”
Economic growth, size of the agricultural sector, and urbanization in Africa (2011, neutral): “The main message of these results is that increases in the urbanization 10 This methodology is commonly used in the empirical macro literature (see for example, Blanchard and Perotti, 2002; Fatas and Mihov, 2003; or Bruckner, 2011)”
Growth and Volatility (2007, background): “Fatas and Mihov (2003) nd that the component of aggregate volatility detrimental to growth is precisely that arising from exogenous scal shocks.”
Targeting the Structural Balance (2007, positive): “Fatàs and Mihov (2003) for a sample of ninety nine countries find that government spending is an important source of output volatility.”
Public Debt and Growth (2010, positive): “21 While there is significant evidence that fiscal volatility is positively correlated with output volatility and that output volatility is negatively associated with growth (Fatás and Mihov, 2003; Ramey and Ramey, 1995), there is little analysis in the literature regarding the relationship between ”
Business Cycles and Macroeconomic Policy in Emerging Market Economies (2003, background): “Fatas and Mihov (2002) provide some recent empirical evidence on the effectiveness of institutional restrictions on fiscal policy. the tax base and improve compliance would be helpful on the revenue side.”
Fiscal Policies and Business Cycles in an Enlarged Euro Area (2008, positive): “Although the result may be surprising, it is in accordance with the findings in Fatas and Mihov (2003a) , where the robustness of the finding is thoroughly examined and confirmed to apply to the high-income OECD countries as well.”
The Positive Link between Financial Liberalization, Growth and Crises (2004, positive): “21 Ramey and Ramey (1995) and Fatas and Mihov (2002) show that fiscal policy-induced volatility is bad for economic growth.”