Skip to main content

Fiscal Policy

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Economic Growth and Development

Part of the book series: Springer Texts in Business and Economics ((STBE))

  • 1063 Accesses

Abstract

This chapter highlights the important role played by the government in jump starting and sustaining economic growth. The government provides the country’s infrastructure or public capital—laws, roads, education, public health, and utilities—that secure property rights and raise the productivity of private capital. Growth in public capital keeps the marginal return to private capital from falling dramatically during industrialization, helping to explain G1. The need for government to lay the foundation for growth helps explain the vast differences in experiences of developing countries after WWII, summarized in G6. Growth Miracles and Growth Disasters are largely driven by especially good and especially bad government policy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 69.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 109.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    Mulligan and Tsui (2015) present a theory, based on the threat of political entry, that can be viewed as making γ endogenous.

  2. 2.

    For notational simplicity only, we assume the government’s time discount factor is the same as that used by private households. One could allow the discount factor to differ from private households to study how the government’s time preference affects policy.

  3. 3.

    We assume that the government can commit to its policy choices in advance. For a discussion of commitment issues in regard to the setting of fiscal policy see Lundquist and Sargent (2004, Chapter 22).

  4. 4.

    See Chap. 5 for a sketch of the derivation in a somewhat more complicated economy that includes the current model as a special case.

  5. 5.

    Gordon (2016, Figure 1–2).

  6. 6.

    OECD (2015, Table A1).

  7. 7.

    See, for example, Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014).

  8. 8.

    See Viig (2011) and Gordon (2016).

  9. 9.

    Kotlikoff (2015, Chart 2).

  10. 10.

    Dobrescu et al. (2012).

  11. 11.

    See Friedman and Mandlebaum (2012), Malinovskaya and Wessel (2017), and Stupak (2018).

  12. 12.

    Aghion et al. (2013).

  13. 13.

    Viig (2011).

  14. 14.

    Viig (2011).

  15. 15.

    OECD (2014, Figure 2).

  16. 16.

    Gordon (2016, p.513) and Katz (2005, pp.270–274)).

  17. 17.

    Carneiro and Heckman (2005, Figure 2.2 (a)) and Turner (2004, Figures 1.1, 1.2).

  18. 18.

    Turner (2004, Figure 1.5).

  19. 19.

    National Center for Education Statistics (2015).

  20. 20.

    NSC Research Center (2015).

  21. 21.

    See Adams (2016) and Hanushek (2005, pp.252–259) for U.S. SAT scores and Rothwell (2016) for OECD scores of basic workforce skills.

  22. 22.

    Bennet and Wilezol (2013, Chapter 4).

  23. 23.

    Bennet and Wilezol (2013, p.139).

  24. 24.

    Bennet and Wilezol (2013, p.146).

  25. 25.

    Abel and Deitz (2015).

  26. 26.

    For the United States see Caneiro and Heckman (2005) and Putnam (2015). For the UK and the OECD as a group, see Aghion et al. (2013) and OECD (2014, p.45).

  27. 27.

    Heckman et al. (2010).

  28. 28.

    Caneiro and Heckman (2005).

References

  • Abel, J., and Deitz, R., 2014, “Do the Benefits of College stiil Outweigh the Costs?” Current Issues, New York: Federal Reserve of New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Adams, C., 2016, “2015, SAT, ACT Suggest that Many Students are Not College-Ready,” Education Week, 35(3),6.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aghion, P., Belsey, T., Browne, J., Caselli, F., Lambert, R., Lomax, R., Pissarides, C., Stern, N., and Van Reenen, J., 2013, Investing for Prosperity, Report of the LSE Growth Commission.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfaro, L., 2016, “Gains from Foreign Direct Investment: Macro and Micro Approaches,” World Bank Economic Review: Advanced Access, March 23, 2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashauer, D., 1989, “Is Public Expenditure Productive?” Journal of Monetary Economics, 23, 177–200.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ashauer, D., 2000, “Public Capital and Economic Growth: Issues of Quantity, Finance, and Efficiency,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48, 391–406.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bennett, W., and Wilezol, D., 2013, Is College Worth It, Nashville: Thomas Nelson.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bivens, J., 2012, “Public Investment: The Next New Thing for Powering Economic Growth,” EPI Briefing Paper #338, Washington Economic Policy Institute.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brynjolfsson, E., and McAfee, A., 2014, The Second Machine Age, New York: Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carneiro, P., and Heckman, J., 2005, “Human Capital Policy,” in J. Heckman and A. Krueger, Inequality in America, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chakraborty, S. and Dabla-Norris, E., 2011, “The Quality of Public Investment,” B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 11, 1–29.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collier, P., 2009, War, Guns, and Votes, New York: Harper Collins.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Kotlikoff, Laurence J. & Motta, Alberto, 2012. “Why aren’t Developed Countries Saving?,” European Economic Review, 56(6), 1261–1275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Friedman, T., and Mandlebaum, M., 2012, That Used to be Us, Picodar: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gloom, G. and Ravikumar, B., 1997, “Productive Government Expenditures and Long-run Growth,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21, 183–204.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gordon, R., 2016, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War, Princeton University Press: Princeton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hanushek, E., 2005, “Comments,” in J. Heckman and A. Krueger, Inequality in America, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., and Krueger, A., 2005, Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies?, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Heckman, J., Moon, S., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P., and Yavitz, 2010, The Rate of Return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program, Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hunt, J., and Gauthier-Loiselle, M., 2010, “How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2, 31–56.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivanyna, M., Mourmouras, A., and Rangazas, P., 2018, The Macroecoomics of Corruption, Switzerland: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., 2002, “Sources of U.S. Economic Growthin a World of Ideas,” American Economic Review, 92(1), 220–239.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jones, C., and Vollrath, D., 2013, Introduction to Economic Growth, New York: W.W. Norton.

    Google Scholar 

  • Katz, L., 2005, “Comments,” in J. Heckman and A. Krueger, Inequality in America, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kotlikoff, L., 2015, “America’s Fiscal Insolvency and its Generational Consequences,” Testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, February 25, 2015.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kose, M., Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., and Wei, S., 2009, “Financial Globalization: A Reappraisal,” IMF Staff Papers, 56 (1), 8–62.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kraay, A., and McKenzie, D., 2014, “Do Poverty Traps Exist? Assessing the Evidence,” Journal of Economic Perpsectives, 28(3), 127–0145.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ljungquist, L., and Sargent, T., 2004, Recursive Macroeconomic Theory, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Malinovskaya, A., and Wessel, D., 2017, "The Hutchins Center Explains: Public Investment," Upfront, Washington DC: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Manuelli, R., and Seshadri, A., 2014, “Human Capital and the Wealth of Nations,” American Economic Review, 104 (9), 2736–2762.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mulligan, C., and Tsui, K., 2015, “Political Entry, Public Policies, and the Economy,” Research in Economics, 69, 377–397.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • National Center for Education Statistics, 2015, “Immediate Enrollement Rates,” The Condition of Education 2015, Washington: U.S. Department of Education.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD, 2014, Policy Challenges for the Next Fifty Years, Economic Policy Paper No. 9, Paris; OECD Publishing.

    Google Scholar 

  • OECD, 2015, The Future of Productivity, Paris: OECD Publishing.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Parente, S. and Prescott, E., 2000, Barriers to Riches, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Putnam, R., 2015, Our Kids, New York: Simon and Schuster.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rangazas, P. , 2002, The quantity and quality of schooling and U.S. labor productivity growth (1870-2000). Review of Economic Dynamics 5(4): 932–964.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rothwell, J., 2016, “The Declining Productivity of Education,” Social Mobility Memo, Washington: Brookings Institution.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stupak, J., 2018, “Economic Impact of Infrastructure Investment,” Congressional Research Service, www.crs.gov.

  • Turner, S. 2004, “Going to College and Finishing College: Explaining Different Educational Outcomes” in Caroline Hoxby editor College Decisions: How Students Actually Make Them and How They Could, Chicago : University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Viig, J., 2011, The American Technological Challenge, Algora Press: New York.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wadhwa, V., 2012, The Immigrant Exodus, Philadelphia: Warton Digital Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Appendix

Appendix

1.1 Tax Rates

In the text, we consider the value of the wage tax rate that maximizes the height of the transition equation for the private capital-labor ratio. Maximizing the growth in private capital intensity is not necessarily a reasonable objective. Instead we might consider the tax rate that maximizes state worker productivity (τ∗∗∗) or steady state household utility (τ∗∗). One can compute these tax rates as well (see Problems 9–11). The comparison of the three tax rates is

$$ \tau \ast \ast \ast =\frac{\mu \left(1-\alpha \right)}{\mu \left(1-\alpha \right)+\alpha }> $$
$$ \tau \ast \ast =\frac{\mu \left(1-\alpha \right)}{\mu \left(1-\alpha \right)+\alpha}\left(\frac{1+\beta }{\left(\frac{1}{\mu \left(1-\alpha \right)+\alpha}\right)+\beta}\right)=\mu \left(1-\alpha \right)\left(\frac{1+\beta }{1+\beta \left(\mu \left(1-\alpha \right)+\alpha \right)}\right)> $$
$$ \tau \ast =\mu \left(1-\alpha \right), $$

because μ(1 − α) + α < 1.

The tax rate that maximizes steady utility is perhaps the most compelling. It is higher than the tax rate that maximizes steady state capital intensity because there is a benefit to households of keeping the private capital intensity lower than the maximum. All households are savers, so a higher return to capital, other things constant, raises household welfare. The desire to keep the return to capital high creates an incentive to keep private capital intensity low. This consideration causes the policy maker to set the tax rate higher than the one that maximizes the steady state value of k.

The highest tax rate is the one that maximizes steady state worker productivity. This tax rate is higher than the rate that maximizes steady state utility because it does not account for the fact that a higher tax rate on wages lowers the after-tax wage that determines household consumption and instead only focuses on the before-tax wage associated with worker productivity.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Das, S., Mourmouras, A., Rangazas, P. (2018). Fiscal Policy. In: Economic Growth and Development. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89755-4_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics