Back Matter

Back Matter

Author(s):
Jiro Honda, Manabu Nose, Cesar Sosa Padilla, Jose L. Torres, Murna Morgan, Fernando Im, and Natalia Koliadina
Published Date:
September 2017
    Share
    • ShareShare
    Show Summary Details
    Appendix I. SACU and SACU Revenues

    The Southern African Customs Union (SACU), the oldest customs union in the world, was established in 1910.1 It aims to (1) facilitate trade between SACU members, (2) generate trade benefits for all member states, (3) promote fair competition and open investment opportunities, and (4) promote economic development and competitiveness through integration into the global economy. All customs and excise revenues collected in the member states are pooled into the Common Revenue Pool (with South Africa as custodian) and shared among the members according to a revenue-sharing formula (RSF) that was last revised in 2002.2 The revenues are comprised of the following three components:

    • The customs revenues are allocated according to members’ share in intra-SACU trade.

    • The excise component, 85 percent of the total excise pool, is allocated based on members’ share in SACU’s GDP.

    • The development component, fixed at 15 percent of the total excise pool, is distributed to all SACU members according to the inverse of each country’s per capita GDP.

    Pooled SACU revenues are shared according to the following formula:

    where Ri is the total revenue received by country i, C, and E are total customs and excise revenue, GDPi is country i’s GDP, and GDPiPC is country’s i GDP per capita.

    The customs revenue base tends to move procyclically and display wider swings than output. Moreover, a high share of the customs pool comprises duties on imported vehicles, which tend to be even more volatile than overall imports. Ex ante revenues are estimated based on projected imports and excise collections, and are adjusted ex post with a two-year lag to reflect actual collections. As suggested by Figure A1, a shock could impart sizable changes in the SACU pool, including through retroactive adjustments. In 2010–11 Lesotho and Swaziland were hit twice: (1) by a lower forecast of current SACU revenues, and (2) by the downward adjustment of past SACU revenues. The size of adjustment was particularly significant for Lesotho and Swaziland—two countries with high dependency in SACU revenues.

    Figure A1.Retroactive Adjustments for SACU Revenues for Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, and Swaziland (BLNS)

    (Percent of GDP)

    As Cuevas 2015 points out, the revenue transfer and adjustment mechanism embedded in the current SACU revenue sharing agreement can augment the variability of actual SACU transfers (forecast amount plus adjustment) in the presence of serial correlation in revenues that feed into the SACU Common Revenue Pool, with the variance of SACU transfers estimated to be 38 percent higher than the variance of the actual revenues that Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, and Swaziland are entitled to receive.

    Appendix II. Fiscal Rules: International Experience

    Over the past two decades, a significant number of countries have adopted fiscal rules to deal with uncertain and highly volatile fiscal revenues. Emerging market and developing economies comprised close to two-thirds of countries maintaining fiscal rules (Schaechter and others 2012). The most prevalent fiscal rules are expenditure rules (ERs), albeit with differences in features between those in advanced and developing/low-income economies. The ERs tend to be combined with balance budget and/or debt rules to provide a stronger anchor for debt sustainability. This appendix summarizes the experiences of countries relevant for Swaziland and Lesotho.

    • Resource-rich countries often adopt fiscal rules to mitigate revenue volatility caused by commodity price fluctuations and to ensure intergenerational equity. These countries often target nonresource fiscal balances and choose price-based fiscal rules as fiscal policy anchors to mitigate boom-bust cycles and Dutch disease, and to address long-term vulnerabilities. These anchors allow the governments to smooth expenditures by delinking them from volatile revenues, helping to avoid procyclical policies. IMF 2012b points out that a price-based fiscal rule can mitigate the transmission of commodity price volatility in selected resource-rich countries.

    • Countries under pegged exchange rate regimes also have adopted fiscal rules to ensure fiscal discipline, given the limited role of monetary policy in these countries. All members of currency unions (and about one-quarter of countries with no separate legal tender), currency boards, and fixed exchange rate regimes maintain fiscal rules, compared with only 17 percent of countries with more flexible exchange regimes (Figure A2). Countries under fixed exchange rate regimes need ample reserves to maintain the credibility of their peg. Furthermore, countries with limited or no access to international financial markets need even higher reserves to avoid abrupt and costly adjustment during bad times. Several countries—Kosovo, Hong Kong SAR, Lithuania, and Cabo Verde—used rules-based fiscal policy to maintain external stability, including through adequate international reserves. The implementation of fiscal rules in countries with fixed exchange rate regimes has been uneven.1 Hong Kong SAR, for instance, has been compliant with its fiscal rule, while Ecuador, Kosovo and Cabo Verde often deviated from them, as the rules were unclear and/or frequently modified. Countries with a stronger track record in implementing fiscal rules seem to have greater market access, more efficient markets, and stronger Personal Financial Management.2

    Figure A2.Fiscal Rules and Exchange Rate Regimes

    Source: IMF, 2013 Fiscal Rule Dataset and staff estimates.

    1 Including countries with no separate legal tender, currency boards, and conventional pegs.

    Many countries with volatile fiscal revenues established nonrenewable resource funds that complement fiscal rules. Often these are stabilization funds, used as a mechanism for insulating the budget and the economy from revenue shocks. Experience to date has been mixed. Stabilization funds have contributed to enhancing the effectiveness of fiscal policy by making budget expenditure less driven by revenue availability and reducing fiscal policy procyclicality (Fasano 2000, 19). However, in some cases—Venezuela and Oman—stabilization funds were less successful owing to frequent changes in the funds’ rules and deviations from their intended purposes. While nonrenewable resource funds might enhance political acceptance for saving windfalls, they cannot substitute for sound fiscal management and may give rise to spending pressures (Davis and others 2001, 27).

    A stabilization fund or a special account may be needed to operationalize a fiscal rule. The fund needs to be carefully designed to strengthen government incentives to save/invest windfall revenues, and to prevent excessive spending. Some key features of a well-designed fund include (1) effective integration with the budget, (2) an appropriate asset-management strategy, and (3) mechanisms to ensure transparency and accountability (Davis and others 2001, 28). An independent civil service and political stability may contribute to the success of a stabilization fund (Bagattini 2011).

    Stabilization funds—if properly designed and implemented—can facilitate fiscal objectives and support the implementation of fiscal rules. Fiscal rules often determine the pace of accumulation of stabilization funds. For example, the replenishment of the Economic and Social Stabilization Fund in Chile is directly linked to budget performance. Similarly, the fiscal rule in Panama is consistent with the rate of resource accumulation in the Savings Fund. In Ecuador, the ceiling on government spending is supposed to secure resources for a partial transfer of oil revenues into the Oil Stabilization Fund, although this link is not direct. Some countries, like Costa Rica, do not have a stabilization fund because the fiscal rule (balanced budget rule) limits borrowing, without building a buffer.

    Table A1.Countries with Fiscal Rules and Managed Exchange Rate Regimes
    No separate legal tender (12)Currency Board (7)Currency unions (40)Conventional peg (30)Managed by central banks (52)1
    Ecuador

    Kosovo

    Panama
    Hong Kong SAR

    Bulgaria

    Estonia

    Lithuania
    Eastern Caribbean Currency

    Union (8)

    West African Economic and

    Monetary Union (8)

    Central African Economic and

    Monetary Community (6)

    Euro zone (18)
    Maldives

    Cabo Verde

    Denmark

    Latvia

    Namibia
    Croatia

    (sub-national)

    Jamaica

    Sri Lanka

    Botswana

    Costa Rica

    Liberia

    Singapore

    Nigeria

    Malaysia
    Note. Numbers in parentheses indicate the number of countries maintaining a certain exchange rate regime.

    Managed by central banks with different degrees of flexibility.

    Source: IMF, 2013 Fiscal Rule Dataset and staff estimates
    Appendix III. Baseline Calibration: Parameter Setting
    Structural ParametersValue
    Preference
    Degree of home biasφ0.54
    Elasticity of substitution between traded and nontraded goodsχ1.5
    Elasticity of substitution between varietyθ12
    Elasticity of substitution between consumption and money demandη8.5
    Frisch labor supply elasticityψ2.5
    Production
    Labor income shareαT, αN0.7
    Investment adjustment costκT, κN25
    Productivity of traded sector in the steady statezT¯1 (normalization)
    Persistence of learning-by-doing (LBD) externalityρZ0.03
    Depreciation of private capitalδ0.015
    Depreciation of public capitalδg0.02
    Steady-State ParametersLesothoSwaziland
    SACU revenue (in % GDP)A*¯27.418.4
    Share of public investment (out of total public spending)μs35.717.4
    Capital mobilityν500500
    Private consumption (in % GDP)8080.5
    Private investment (in % GDP)175
    Public consumption (in % GDP)28.121.1
    Public investment (in % GDP)12.64.5
    Export (in % GDP)42.256.1
    International reserve (in % GDP; equivalent to five months of imports)40.529.1
    Note: Parameter setting follows the Gleneagles model established by Berg and others 2010.
    Appendix IV. Baseline Calibration: Policy Parameters
    Policy ParametersBalanced Budget Rule (BBR)Structural Surplus Rule (SSR)
    Fiscal policy
    Spending policy (deposit accumulation)γ0 (no saving)1 (full saving)
    Efficiency of public spendings0.40.4
    Efficiency of aid-financed public spendingA0.40.4
    Monetary/Exchange rate policy
    Degree of sterilizationg00
    Inflation targeting coefficientϕπ1.51.5
    References

      Afonso, Antonio, and DavideFurcieri. 2008. “Government Size, Composition, Volatility and Economic Growth.” Working Paper Series 849, European Central Bank, Frankfurt.

      Aizenman, Joshua, and NancyMarion. 1993. “Policy Uncertainty, Persistence and Growth.” Review of International Economics1: 14563.

      Bagattini, GustavoYudi. 2011. “The Political Economy of Stabilisation Funds: Measuring Their Success in Resource-Dependent Countries.” IDS Working Paper 356, Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex, Brighton, England, January.

      Basdevant, Olivier. 2012. “Fiscal Policies and Rules in the Face of Revenue Volatility within Southern Africa Customs Union Countries (SACU).” IMF Working Paper 12/93, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Basdevant, Olivier, DalmacioBenicio, BorislavaMircheva, JoannesMongardini, GenevièveVerdier, SusanYang, and Luis-FelipeZanna. 2011. “The Design of Fiscal Adjustment Strategies in Botswana, Lesotho, Namibia, and Swaziland.” IMF Working Paper 11/266, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Berg, Andrew, JanGottschalk, RafaelPortillo, and Luis-FelipeZanna. 2010a. “The Macroeconomics of Medium-Term Aid Scaling-Up Scenarios.” IMF Working Paper 10/160, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Berg, Andrew, TokhirMirzoev, RafaelPortillo, and Luis-FelipeZanna. 2010b. “The Short-Run Macroeconomics of Aid Inflows: Understanding the Interaction of Fiscal and Reserve Policy.” IMF Working Paper 10/65, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Bi, Huixin, and MichaelKumhoff. 2011. “Jointly Optimal Monetary and Fiscal Policy Rules under Liquidity Constraints.” Journal of Macroeconomics33: 37389.

      Centre for International Economics. 2011. “Study on the Review of the Revenue Sharing Arrangement for SACU.” Camberra, Australia.

      CorbachoAna, and TeresaTer-Minassian. 2013. “Public Financial Management Requirements for Effective Implementation of Fiscal Rules.” In the International Handbook of Public Financial Management. PalgraveMacmillan. Editors: Allen, Richard, Hemming, Richard, Potter, B. (ed)

      Cuevas, Alfredo. 2015. “The SACU Transfer Over/Under-Payment Correction and the Volatility of Transfer Payments to the BLNS.” Unpublished manuscript.

      Cuevas, Alfredo, LarsEngstrom, VitaliyKramarenko, and GenevieveVerdier. 2012. “Southern African Customs Union Revenue Volatility: Roots and Options for Mitigation.” In Building a Common Future in Southern Africa. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

      DabanSanchez, Teresa. 2011. “Strengthening Chile’s Rule-based Fiscal Framework.” IMF Working Paper 11/17, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Davis, Jeffrey, RolandoOssowski, JamesDaniel, and StevenBarnett. 2001. “Stabilization and Savings Funds for Nonrenewable Resources: Experience and Fiscal Policy Implications.” Occasional Paper 205, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Fasano, Ugo. 2000. “Review of the Experience with Oil Stabilization and Savings Funds in Selected Countries.” IMF Working Paper 00/112, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Fatas, Antonio, and IlianMihov. 2003. “The Macroeconomic Effects of Fiscal Rules in the U.S. States,” Journal of Public Economics90: 10117.

      Furceri, Davide. 2007. “Is Government Expenditure Volatility Harmful for Growth? A Cross-Country Analysis.” Fiscal Studies28 (1): 10320.

      Garcia, Carlos, JorgeRestrepo, and EvanTanner. 2011. “Fiscal Rules in a Volatile World: A Welfare-Based Approach.” Journal of Policy Modelling33: 64976.

      Hnatkovska, Viktoria, and NormanLoayza. 2004. “Volatility and GrowthPolicy Research Working Paper No. 3184, World Bank, Washington, DC.

      Im, Fernando. 2015. “Some Stylized Facts of Fiscal Policy Making in Southern Africa.” Preliminary draft.

      Im, Fernando, CesarSosa-Padilla, and JoseTorres. 2015. “Volatility of SACU Receipts and Fiscal Rules in Swaziland: A Welfare-Based Approach.” Preliminary draft, World Bank Group, Washington, DC.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2009. “Fiscal Rules—Anchoring Expectations for Sustainable Public Finances.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2012a. “Fiscal Regimes for Extractive Industries: Design and Implementation.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2012b. “Macroeconomic Policy Frameworks for Resource-Rich Developing Economies—Background Paper 1—Supplement 1.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2012c. “Macroeconomic Policy Frameworks for Resource-Rich Developing Economies—Analytic Frameworks and Applications—Supplement 2.” IMF Policy Paper, Washington, DC.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2012d. Macroeconomic Policy Frameworks for Resource-Rich Developing Countries. Washington, DC.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2014. “Kingdom of Swaziland, 2014 Article IV Consultation Staff Report.” IMF Country Report 14/233, Washington, DC.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2015. “Kingdom of Swaziland, 2015 Article IV Consultation Staff Report.” IMF Country Report 15/353, Washington, DC.

      International Monetary Fund, Fiscal Affairs Department. 2016. “Kingdom of Lesotho, 2015 Article IV Consultation Staff Report.” IMF Country Report 16/33, Washington, DC.

      Kopits, George, and StevenSymansky. 1998. “Fiscal Policy Rules.” IMF Occasional Paper 162, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Kumhoff, Michael, and DouglasLaxton. 2009. “Simple, Implementable Fiscal Policy Rules.” IMF Working Paper 09/76, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC.

      Kumhoff, Michael, and DouglasLaxton. 2013. “Simple Fiscal Policy Rules for Small Open Economies.” Journal of International Economics91: 11327.

      Lensink, Robert, HongBo, and ElmerSterken. 1999. “Does Uncertainty Afect Economic Growth? An Empirical Analysis.” Weltwirtschaftliches Archives135 (3): 37996.

      Mongardini, Joannes, TamonAsonuma, OlivierBasdevant, AlfredoCuevas, XavierDebrun, LarsEngstrom, ImeldaFlores Vazquez, VitaliyKramarenko, LaminLeigh, PaulMasson, and GenevièveVerdier. 2013. Building a Common Future in Southern Africa. Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.

      Ramey, Garey, and ValerieRamey. 1995. “Cross-Country Evidence on the Link between Volatility and Growth.” American Economic Review85: 113851.

      Republic of Botswana. 2013. “Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability Assessment, August 2013”, pefa.org/sites/default/…/BW-Aug13-PFMPR-Public.pdf

      SchaechterAndrea, TidianeKinda, NinaBudina, and AnkeWeber. 2012. “Fiscal Rules in Response to the Crisis—Toward the ’Next Generation’ Rules. A New Dataset.” IMF Working Paper 12/187, International Monetary Fund, Washington, DC, July.

      Ter-Minassian, Teresa. 2010. “Preconditions for a Successful Introduction of Structural Fiscal Balance-Based Rules in Latin America and the Caribbean: A Framework Paper.” Inter-American Development Bank Discussion Paper IDB-DP-157, Inter-American Development Bank, Washington, DC.

    This appendix is based on Im 2015 and Centre for International Economics 2011.

    The initial RSF established under the 1910 agreement was revised in 1969 and 2002. The 1969 revision included excise duties in the pool and provided for a multiplier that enhanced revenues by 42 percent annually. It also linked the customs revenues to not only extra-SACU imports but also intra-SACU imports. The 2002 revisions defined customs revenues in relation to intra-SACU imports, separated the excise pool into the excise and development components, and agreed on the administrative institutional structure of the RSF.

    Strong legal basis ensured the compliance of fiscal rules in Hong Kong SAR. Hong Kong SAR has been maintaining a balanced budget rule since 2002. The authorities have maintained countercyclical fiscal policy and actual performance exceeded the budget in most years.

    The legal basis for fiscal rules ranges from political commitment to coalition agreement, guidelines, statutory norms, national law, and the constitution. Often the special legislation, particularly in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries, includes stringent procedural rules on accountability, transparency, and fiscal stability.

      You are not logged in and do not have access to this content. Please login or, to subscribe to IMF eLibrary, please click here

      Other Resources Citing This Publication