IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/sce/scecf0/199.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

The Transitional Dynamics Of Fiscal Policy; Long-Run Capital Accumulation And Growth

Author

Listed:
  • Stephen J. Turnovsky

    (University of Washington)

Abstract

Recent research in growth theory has established the importance of the non-scale growth model, a key advantage of which is that they are consistent with balanced growth under quite general production structures. Indeed, if the knife-edge restriction that generates traditional endogenous growth models is not imposed, then any stable balanced growth equilibrium is characterized by the absence of scale effects. In this case the long-run equilibrium growth rate is determined by technological parameters and is independent of macro policy instruments.Despite the fact that the equilibrium growth rate is independent of macro policy, fiscal policy remains an important determinant of long-run economic performance. First, fiscal policy has significant effects on the levels of key economic variables, such as the per capita stock of capital and output. Moreover, the non-scale model typically yields slow asymptotic speeds of convergence, consistent with the empirical evidence of 2-3% per annum. This implies that policy changes can affect growth rates for sustained periods of time, so that the accumulated effects of policy changes during the transition from one equilibrium to another may therefore translate to potentially large impacts on steady-state levels. Thus, although the stock of capital grows at the same rates across steady states, the corresponding bases upon which the growth rates compound may be substantially different.These considerations suggest that attention should be directed to determining the impact of fiscal policy on the transitional dynamics. This is the focus of the present paper. The model we employ is of a one-sector economy in which output depends upon the stocks of both private and public capital, as well as endogenously supplied labor. Public capital introduces a positive externality in production, so that the complete production function is one of overall increasing returns to scale in these three productive factors. In addition to accumulating public capital, the government allocates resources to a utility-enhancing consumption good. These expenditures are financed by taxing capital, labor income, and consumption, or by imposing non-distortionary lump-sum taxation. We set out the dynamic equilibrium of this economy and show how the stable adjustment is characterized by a two dimensional locus in terms of the two stationary variables, referred to as "scale-adjusted" per capita stocks of private and public capital.Our analysis focuses on two aspects. First, we characterize the steady state equilibrium and analyze the effects of various fiscal changes on the long-run labor-leisure allocation, the long-run changes in the capital stocks, and output. We compare the long-run effects of the two forms of government expenditure ? investment versus consumption ? and changes in the alternative tax rates. Distortionary tax-financed increases in both forms of government expenditure are analyzed and shown to be amalgams of these effects. Most of our attention is devoted to calibrating the model to a benchmark economy and assessing the numerical effects of various types of policy shocks, relative to the benchmark. We consider both the long-run equilibrium response and the transitional adjustment paths. Particular attention is devoted to the welfare of the representative agent, both the time profile of instantaneous utility and the intertemporal welfare, as represented by the discounted sum of the short-run benefits. The implications for the government?s intertemporal budget balance are also addressed. Our numerical analysis yields many insights into the transitional dynamics, and the following are noted. 1. Despite the fact that fiscal policy in such an economy has no effect on the long-run equilibrium growth rate, the slow rate of convergence implies that fiscal policy exerts has a sustained impact on growth rates for substantial periods during the transition. These accumulate to substantial effects on the long-run equilibrium levels of crucial economic variables, including welfare.2. As examples of the accumulated impacts of policy, an increase in government investment from 0.08 to 0.14 of output raises the long level of output by 40%. Raising the tax on capital income from 0.28 to 0.40 reduces long-run output by 16%.3. For the calibrated economy allocating a fixed fraction of output to government investment is better than allocating the same resources to government consumption. However, the intertemporal time profiles of the respective benefits are different. The benefits of (lump-sum tax-financed) government consumption are uniformly positive; government investment involves short-run losses, which are more than more than offset over time. These comparisons depend upon the sizes of the two government expenditures, relative to their respective first-best optimal values and could be reversed in other situations.4. The time paths and growth rates of private and public capital contrast sharply for policies which impact on one or other directly; they move closely for those fiscal shocks which do not impact directly on either form of capital. The most dramatic contrasts in the time paths for the two types of capital occur with respect to an increase in government consumption expenditure, under the four alternative modes of tax financing. Long-run stocks of both increase proportionately under lump-sum taxes; remain unchanged under consumption tax-financing, decrease proportionately under wage tax-financing, and lead to a more than proportional decline in private capital under capital tax-financing.5. Our numerical simulations suggest the following ranking for the different modes of financing. For either form of expenditure, lump-sum tax financing dominates consumption tax financing, which in turn dominates wage tax financing and finally capital tax financing, in terms of long-run welfare. These rankings are reflected in the long-run output multipliers.6. The fact that wage tax-financing dominates capital tax-financing, despite the fact that a given increase in the former has a more adverse effect than does a comparable increase in the latter is of interest. It reflects the fact that being levied on a larger base, a smaller rise in the wage tax is required to generate the required revenue to finance the higher expenditure.7. The analysis highlights the intertemporal welfare tradeoffs involved in policy changes. For example, both the substitution of a consumption tax for a uniform reduction in the income tax and a revenue-neutral switch from government consumption to government investment lead to a short-run welfare losses, which in both cases are more than offset by long-run welfare gains. This is a consequence of the growth generated during the subsequent transition.

Suggested Citation

  • Stephen J. Turnovsky, 2000. "The Transitional Dynamics Of Fiscal Policy; Long-Run Capital Accumulation And Growth," Computing in Economics and Finance 2000 199, Society for Computational Economics.
    • Handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:199
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://fmwww.bc.edu/cef00/papers/paper199.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Stokey, Nancy L & Rebelo, Sergio, 1995. "Growth Effects of Flat-Rate Taxes," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(3), pages 519-550, June.
    2. Gramlich, Edward M, 1994. "Infrastructure Investment: A Review Essay," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 32(3), pages 1176-1196, September.
    3. Rebelo, Sergio, 1991. "Long-Run Policy Analysis and Long-Run Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 99(3), pages 500-521, June.
    4. Robert J. Barro, 1991. "Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 106(2), pages 407-443.
    5. Bond, Eric W. & Wang, Ping & Yip, Chong K., 1996. "A General Two-Sector Model of Endogenous Growth with Human and Physical Capital: Balanced Growth and Transitional Dynamics," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 68(1), pages 149-173, January.
    6. Easterly, William & Rebelo, Sergio, 1993. "Fiscal policy and economic growth: An empirical investigation," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 32(3), pages 417-458, December.
    7. Hall, Robert E, 1988. "Intertemporal Substitution in Consumption," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 96(2), pages 339-357, April.
    8. Jones, Larry E & Manuelli, Rodolfo E & Rossi, Peter E, 1993. "Optimal Taxation in Models of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 101(3), pages 485-517, June.
    9. Turnovsky, Stephen J., 1996. "Optimal tax, debt, and expenditure policies in a growing economy," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 60(1), pages 21-44, April.
    10. Ortigueira, Salvador & Santos, Manuel S, 1997. "On the Speed of Convergence in Endogenous Growth Models," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 87(3), pages 383-399, June.
    11. Theo Eicher & Stephen J. Turnovsky, "undated". "Transitional Dynamics in Non-Scale Growth Models," Computing in Economics and Finance 1997 105, Society for Computational Economics.
    12. Jonathan R. W. Temple, 1998. "Robustness tests of the augmented Solow model," Journal of Applied Econometrics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 13(4), pages 361-375.
    13. Masao Ogaki & Carmen M. Reinhart, 1998. "Measuring Intertemporal Substitution: The Role of Durable Goods," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(5), pages 1078-1098, October.
    14. repec:bla:scandj:v:95:y:1993:i:4:p:607-25 is not listed on IDEAS
    15. Bernard, Andrew B & Jones, Charles I, 1996. "Technology and Convergence," Economic Journal, Royal Economic Society, vol. 106(437), pages 1037-1044, July.
    16. Aschauer, David Alan, 1989. "Is public expenditure productive?," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 23(2), pages 177-200, March.
    17. Deaton, Angus, 1981. "Optimal Taxes and the Structure of Preferences," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 49(5), pages 1245-1260, September.
    18. Bernard, Andrew B & Jones, Charles I, 1996. "Comparing Apples to Oranges: Productivity Convergence and Measurement across Industries and Countries," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 86(5), pages 1216-1238, December.
    19. N. Gregory Mankiw & David Romer & David N. Weil, 1992. "A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic Growth," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 107(2), pages 407-437.
    20. Patterson, Kerry D & Pesaran, Bahram, 1992. "The Intertemporal Elasticity of Substitution in Consumption in the United States and the United Kingdom," The Review of Economics and Statistics, MIT Press, vol. 74(4), pages 573-584, November.
    21. Barro, Robert J, 1990. "Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 98(5), pages 103-126, October.
    22. Lucas, Robert Jr., 1988. "On the mechanics of economic development," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 22(1), pages 3-42, July.
    23. Charles I. Jones, 1995. "Time Series Tests of Endogenous Growth Models," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(2), pages 495-525.
    24. Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2000. "Fiscal policy, elastic labor supply, and endogenous growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 185-210, February.
    25. Bruce, Neil & Turnovsky, Stephen J, 1999. "Budget Balance, Welfare, and the Growth Rate: "Dynamic Scoring" of the Long-Run Government Budget," Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Blackwell Publishing, vol. 31(2), pages 162-186, May.
    26. Backus, David K. & Kehoe, Patrick J. & Kehoe, Timothy J., 1992. "In search of scale effects in trade and growth," Journal of Economic Theory, Elsevier, vol. 58(2), pages 377-409, December.
    27. Robert J. Barro & Paul Romer, 1993. "Economic Growth (1992)," NBER Books, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc, number barr93-1.
    28. Ladron-de-Guevara, Antonio & Ortigueira, Salvador & Santos, Manuel S., 1997. "Equilibrium dynamics in two-sector models of endogenous growth," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 21(1), pages 115-143, January.
    29. Lucas, Robert Jr. & Stokey, Nancy L., 1983. "Optimal fiscal and monetary policy in an economy without capital," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 55-93.
    30. Kneller, Richard & Bleaney, Michael F. & Gemmell, Norman, 1999. "Fiscal policy and growth: evidence from OECD countries," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 74(2), pages 171-190, November.
    31. Baxter, Marianne & King, Robert G, 1993. "Fiscal Policy in General Equilibrium," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 83(3), pages 315-334, June.
    32. N. Gregory Mankiw & Julio J. Rotemberg & Lawrence H. Summers, 1985. "Intertemporal Substitution in Macroeconomics," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 100(1), pages 225-251.
    33. Alwyn Young, 1998. "Growth without Scale Effects," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 106(1), pages 41-63, February.
    34. Segerstrom, Paul S, 1998. "Endogenous Growth without Scale Effects," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 88(5), pages 1290-1310, December.
    35. Jones, Charles I, 1995. "R&D-Based Models of Economic Growth," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 103(4), pages 759-784, August.
    36. Ireland, Peter N., 1994. "Supply-side economics and endogenous growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 33(3), pages 559-571, June.
    37. Lucas, Robert E, Jr & Rapping, Leonard A, 1969. "Real Wages, Employment, and Inflation," Journal of Political Economy, University of Chicago Press, vol. 77(5), pages 721-754, Sept./Oct.
    38. Nazrul Islam, 1995. "Growth Empirics: A Panel Data Approach," The Quarterly Journal of Economics, President and Fellows of Harvard College, vol. 110(4), pages 1127-1170.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Stephen Turnovsky, 2000. "Growth in an Open Economy: Some Recent Developments," Discussion Papers in Economics at the University of Washington 0015, Department of Economics at the University of Washington.
    2. Turnovsky, Stephen J. & Chatterjee, Santanu, 2002. "To Spend the U.S. Government Surplus or to Increase the Deficit? A Numerical Analysis of the Policy Options," Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, Elsevier, vol. 16(4), pages 405-435, December.
    3. Minea, Alexandru, 2008. "The Role of Public Spending in the Growth Theory Evolution," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 5(2), pages 99-120, June.
    4. Capolupo, Rosa, 2009. "The New Growth Theories and Their Empirics after Twenty Years," Economics - The Open-Access, Open-Assessment E-Journal (2007-2020), Kiel Institute for the World Economy (IfW Kiel), vol. 3, pages 1-72.
    5. Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2000. "Fiscal policy, elastic labor supply, and endogenous growth," Journal of Monetary Economics, Elsevier, vol. 45(1), pages 185-210, February.
    6. Norman Gemmell, 2001. "Fiscal Policy in a Growth Framework," WIDER Working Paper Series DP2001-84, World Institute for Development Economic Research (UNU-WIDER).
    7. Stephen Turnovsky, 1999. "Knife-Edge Conditions and the Macroeconomics of Small Open Economies," Working Papers 0031, University of Washington, Department of Economics.
    8. Eicher, Theo S. & Turnovsky, Stephen J., 2001. "Transitional dynamics in a two-sector non-scale growth model," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 25(1-2), pages 85-113, January.
    9. Dean Scrimgeour, 2015. "Dynamic Scoring in a Romer‐Style Economy," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 81(3), pages 697-723, January.
    10. Simon Wiederhold, 2012. "The Role of Public Procurement in Innovation: Theory and Empirical Evidence," ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, ifo Institute - Leibniz Institute for Economic Research at the University of Munich, number 43.
    11. repec:rre:publsh:v:34:y:2004:i:1:p:72-94 is not listed on IDEAS
    12. Dean Scrimgeour, 2015. "Dynamic Scoring in a Romer-Style Economy," Southern Economic Journal, Southern Economic Association, vol. 81(3), pages 697-723, January.
    13. Theo Eicher & Stephen J. Turnovsky, 2000. "Scale, Congestion and Growth," Economica, London School of Economics and Political Science, vol. 67(267), pages 325-346, August.
    14. Altar, Moisa & Necula, Ciprian & Bobeica, Gabriel, 2008. "Modeling The Economic Growth In Romania. The Influence Of Fiscal Regimes," Journal for Economic Forecasting, Institute for Economic Forecasting, vol. 5(4), pages 146-160, December.
    15. Nazrul Islam, 2003. "What have We Learnt from the Convergence Debate?," Journal of Economic Surveys, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 17(3), pages 309-362, July.
    16. repec:wly:soecon:v:81:3:y:2015:p:697-723 is not listed on IDEAS
    17. Chatterjee, Santanu, 2005. "Capital utilization, economic growth and convergence," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 29(12), pages 2093-2124, December.
    18. Hyun Park, 2010. "Fiscal Policy and Equitable Growth," Review of Development Economics, Wiley Blackwell, vol. 14(1), pages 121-140, February.
    19. José Manuel González-Páramo & Diego Martínez López, "undated". "Public Investment and Convergence in the Spanish Regions," Studies on the Spanish Economy 112, FEDEA.
    20. Manuel A. Gómez, 2008. "Fiscal Policy, Congestion, and Endogenous Growth," Journal of Public Economic Theory, Association for Public Economic Theory, vol. 10(4), pages 595-622, August.
    21. Mihaela Pintea, 2004. "Fiscal Policy in a Two-Sector Economy with Public Capital and Congestion," Computing in Economics and Finance 2004 55, Society for Computational Economics.
    22. Turnovsky, Stephen J. & Pintea, Mihaela, 2006. "Public and private production in a two-sector economy," Journal of Macroeconomics, Elsevier, vol. 28(2), pages 273-302, June.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:sce:scecf0:199. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Christopher F. Baum (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/sceeeea.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.