- Ahsan Mansur, Richard Haas, and Peter Heller
- Published Date:
- May 1986
© 1986 International Monetary Fund
Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data
Heller, Peter S.
A review of the fiscal impulse measure
(Occasional paper, ISSN 0251-6365; no. 44)
1. Fiscal policy. I. Haas, Richard D. II. Mansur, Ashan, 1951-. III. Title. IV. Series: Occasional paper (International Monetary Fund) ; no. 44)
HJ141.H37 1986 339.5’2 86-3027
ISBN 0-939934-60-4 (pbk.)
(US$4.50 to university libraries, faculty members, and students)
Address orders to:
External Relations Department, Publications Unit International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431
- Prefatory Note
- I. Introduction
- II. A Brief Review of Alternative Measures for Assessing the Stance and Thrust of Fiscal Policy
- III. Choice of Potential Growth Rate
- IV. Adjustments for Changes in Unemployment and Unemployment Compensation
- V. Treatment of Inflation-Induced Changes in the Budget Balance
- VI. Alternative Accounting Systems and the Fiscal Impulse
- VII. Estimation of Level of Structural Balance
- VIII. Summary and Conclusions
- 1. Seven Major Industrial Countries: Differences Between Fiscal Impulse Measures of OECD and IMF and Between Their Assumed Measures of the Fiscal Balance and Output Gap, 1981–84
- 2. OECD and IMF Models: Effect of a 1 Percentage Point Increase in Output Gap on Cyclically Adjusted Budget Balance of General Government
- 7. Seven Major Industrial Countries: Comparison of Alternative Adjustments for the Interest Impact of Inflation on the Central Government Budget Balance, 1975–85
- 8. Seven Major Industrial Countries: Comparison of Conventional and Inflation-Adjusted Central Government Budget Balances, 1975–85
- 9. Seven Major Industrial Countries: Comparison of Central Government Fiscal Stance and Impulse, With and Without Allowance for Inflation Adjustments, 1978–85
- 11. Seven Major Industrial Countries: Comparison of IMF and OECD Measures of the General Government Structural Deficit, 1978–83
- 12. Seven Major Industrial Countries: Central Government Structural Deficits With and Without Adjustment for Inflation, 1975–85
- 13. Seven Major Industrial Countries: General Government Structural Deficits With and Without Adjustment for Inflation, 1975–85
- 14. Seven Major Industrial Countries: Central Government’s Fiscal Impulse Implied by Proposed Changes in Treatment of Potential GDP, Unemployment Insurance Benefits, and Inflation Adjustment, 1976–85
- 15. Seven Major Industrial Countries: General Government’s Fiscal Impulse Implied by Proposed Changes in Treatment of Potential GDP, Unemployment Insurance Benefits, and Inflation Adjustment, 1976–85
The following symbols have been used throughout this paper:
- … to indicate that data are not available;
- — to indicate that the figure is zero or less than half the final digit shown, or that the item does not exist;
- – between years or months (e.g., 1984–85 or January-June) to indicate the years or months covered, including the beginning and ending years or months;
- / between years (e.g., 1985/86) to indicate a crop or fiscal (financial) year.
“Billion” means a thousand million.
Minor discrepancies between constituent figures and totals are due to rounding.
This study was prepared jointly by the Fiscal Affairs and Research Departments of the International Monetary Fund. Its authors were Peter S. Heller, Chief of the Government Expenditure Analysis Division in the Fiscal Affairs Department; Richard D. Haas, Senior Economist in the Research Department; and Ahsan H. Mansur, Economist in the Fiscal Affairs Department. Since the study was made in preparation for the World Economic Outlook exercise of April 1984, all estimates reflect data and analyses as of the end of February 1984.
The study has benefited from the helpful assistance of Jacques Artus, Carl Blackwell, Sheetal K. Chand, Jean-Claude Chouraqui, Andrew Crockett, Owen Evans, Robert Feldman, Ernesto Hernández-Catá, Menachem Katz, Malcolm Knight, George Mackenzie, Donogh McDonald, Patrice Muller, Robert Price, Teresa Ter-Minassian, and Vito Tanzi. However, the opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of other staff members or of the Fund. Research assistance was ably provided by Ziba Farhadian and Anthony Turner. Anamaria Handford and Gail Hinds provided vital secretarial assistance. The authors also wish to thank the editor, Paul Gleason of the External Relations Department of the Fund.