№ 2018/4
MacroeconomicsMOSKALENKO O. 1
1National Economic University named after Vadym Hetman
Economy and democracy in fiscal policy
ABSTRACT ▼
The problem formulation. The article analyzes the reasons for implementation of the austerity poli-cies that arose as a response to the debt crisis in the global economy and, according to neo-liberal logic, imply the expediency of reducing the government expenditures of countries in order to con-tain the growth of state and guaranteed state debt (external and internal), balancing the state budget and, most importantly, to restore the confidence to the authority institutions from the side of population, investors and other stakeholders. The ultimate goal of austerity policies is the recov-ery/revitalization of economic growth, which is very seldom achieved in practice. It is proved that the increase in the debt burden does not depend on the growth of the social sphere, but on the sup-port of the financial sector, and the rescue of the banking system in a situation of permanent crisis. Therefore, the austerity policies are controversial and are also generated by financial markets. The article considers the role of fiscal democracy as an instrument of influence on the redistribution of state budget revenues in correlation with austerity policies.
The purpose of the article: to analyze the reasons for the implementation and trends of austerity policies, to show the limitations of such a fiscal policy; to reveal the theoretical content of fiscal de-mocracy and determine its role in the distribution of budget expenditures in austerity policies; and to define the basic principles of fiscal democracy that hold back the growth of economic inequality in the countries. Methodological approaches: political and economic analysis, economic and statistical method; and logical method.
Conclusions. On the analysis of the Public Debt to GDP dynamics indicator in developed countries, it is determined that its normative value in 60% developed countries is not observed, even under austerity policies. The analysis has made it possible to draw conclusions about the directions of improving the public financial management of a country based on the principles of fiscal democracy, such as the principles of justice, equality, transparency, priority, and time and financial symmetry in the redistribution of state budget revenues, taking into account the operational and strategic needs and interests of the population. It is shown that, in developed countries, the fiscal democracy index approaches zero, which is a result of the dependence of the country's economy on external and internal debt: mandatory expenditures, including "soft investments", are financed by debts. A similar tendency is observed in Ukraine. It is substantiated that austerity policies as the tools of public fi-nancial management lead to opposite results in countries with different levels of economic devel-opment, and therefore they should be implemented taking into consideration the national specificity, economic structure and efficiency, as well as social consequences, in order to exclude their exces-sively negative extreme forms.
Keywords:fiscal democracy, austerity policies, economic growth, government debt
JEL: H2, H3, G00, E6, O23
Article in Russian (pp. 57 - 78) | Download | Downloads :593 |
Article in Ukrainian (pp. 57 - 78) | Download | Downloads :410 |
REFERENCES ▼
1. Atkison, E.B. (2018). Inequality. How to be with him. Moscow: Delo [in Russian].
2. Barnett, T. (2014). New Pentagon card. War and peace in the twenty-first century. Moscow [in Russian].
3. Gamble, E. (2018). Crisis without end? The collapse of Western prosperity. Moscow: Izd. dom Vysshej shkoly jekonomiki. doi:
https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-1522-8">doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-1522-8">https://doi.org/10.17323/978-5-7598-1522-8 [in Russian].
4. Piketty, T. (2015). Capital in the XXI century. Moscow: Ad Marginem Press [in Russian].
5. Schwab, K. (2018). Technologies of the Fourth Industrial Revolution. Moscow: Eksmo [in Russian].
6. Shene, M. (2017). Permanent crisis. The growth of the financial aristocracy and the defeat of democracy. Moscow: Higher School of Economics [in Russian].
7. Streeck, V., Mertens, D. (2015). State funding and reduction in the performance of states in a democratic capitalism. Politics in the era of austerity. Moscow: Nac. issledov. un-t - Vysshaya shkola ekonomiki [in Russian].
8. Yurchyshyn V. (2010). Freeze the difference in the levels of nominal incomes. Dialog ua / Razumkov Center. Retrieved from
old.razumkov.org.ua/ukr/article.php?news_id=792 [in Ukrainian]
9. Alesina, A.F., Ardagna S. (2009). Large Changes in Fiscal Policy: Taxes Versus Spending Working Paper 15438. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved from
www.nber.org/papers/w15438
10. Blyth, M. (2013). Austerity: the History of Dangerous Idea. Oxford University Press.
11. Genschel, P., Schwarz, P. (2012).Tax competition and fiscal democracy. TranState working papers, 161.
12. Herwartza, H., Theilenb B. (January, 2017). Ideology and redistribution through public spending. European Journal of Political Economy, 46, 74-90. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.11.002">doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.11.002">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejpoleco.2016.11.002
13. Kane L., Kiersz A. (Apr. 2, 2015). How much you have to earn to be considered middle class in every US state. Business Insider. Retrieved from
www.businessinsider.com/middle-class-in-every-us-state-2015-4
14. Konzelmann, Suzanne J. (2014). The political economics of austerity. Cambridge Journal of Economics, 38 (4), 701-741. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet076">doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet076">https://doi.org/10.1093/cje/bet076
15. Krugman, P. (June 6, 2013). How the Case for Austerity Has Crumbled? The New York Review of Books. Issue. Retrieved 27.01.2016 from
www.nybooks.com/articles/2013/06/06/how-case-austerity-has-crumbled/
16. Moskalenko, O.M. (2017). Neoliberal logics of the 'austerity' policies in Ukraine: the relationship with innovative growth. Scientific Bulletin of Polissia, 4 (12), 28-35. doi:
https://doi.org/10.25140/2410-9576-2017-1-4(12)-28-35">doi.org/10.25140/2410-9576-2017-1-4(12)-28-35">https://doi.org/10.25140/2410-9576-2017-1-4(12)-28-35
17. Profeta, P. & Puglisi, R., Scabrosetti, S. (August, 2013). Does democracy affect taxation and government spending? Evidence from developing countries. Journal of Comparative Economics, 41, 3, 84-718. doi:
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2012.10.004">doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2012.10.004">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2012.10.004
18. Reinhart, C.M., Rogoff, K.S. (January, 2010). Growth in a Time of Debt. Working Paper 15639. National Bureau of Economic Research. Retrieved 27.02.2017 from
www.nber.org/papers/w15639
19. Steuerle, C.E. (January 27, 2010). The U.S. Is Broke: Here's Why. USA Today. Retrieved from
blogs.usatoday.com/oped/2010/01/columntheusisbrokehereswhy.html
20. Steuerle, C. Eugene (2008). Contemporary U.S. Tax Policy. The Urban Institute.
21. Streeck, W. (2010). An Index of Fiscal Democracy (April 1, 2010). MPIfG Working Paper 10/3. doi:
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1817772">doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1817772">https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1817772