Fiscal space is a multi-dimensional concept reflecting whether a government can raise spending or lower taxes without endangering market access and debt sustainability. Making such a determination requires a comprehensive approach considering, among other things, initial economic and structural conditions, market access, the level and trajectory of public debt, present and future financing needs, and dynamic analysis of the liquidity and solvency of the fiscal position under alternative policies. Balancing these considerations involves careful analysis and judgment. Fund staff has over the years developed a variety of indicators to inform assessments of fiscal space in bilateral and multilateral surveillance. The Fund’s core operational framework for such analysis is the debt sustainability framework, which includes a number of indicators, while allowing room for staff judgment. Surveillance also relies importantly on indicators developed by the Fiscal Affairs Department (FAD)––including those that have been used in the internal Vulnerability Exercise and Fiscal Monitors––while more recent methods based on fiscal stress tests and probabilistic approaches proposed in IMF (2016) are also promising. In addition, teams have used scenario analysis and general equilibrium modeling approaches to evaluate fiscal policy choices and their implications for sustainability. When applied to fiscal space, each indicator and approach has pros and cons and none covers all the relevant factors. Ultimately, therefore, assessing fiscal space requires judgment, informed by a broad range of tools. This note seeks to bring together various approaches developed by Fund staff to outline a consistent set of considerations and indicators to help inform assessments of fiscal space, especially for advanced and emerging markets. The intent is to facilitate continued consistency between country team assessments by providing some common considerations and approaches to inform their judgment. The proposed framework will support Fund surveillance and policy advice going forward, informing discussions of the appropriate fiscal stance at all stages of the economic cycle.

This paper reviews the experience with the fiscal space assessment framework that was piloted during 2017–18. In 2016, staff proposed an operational definition of fiscal space and a new four-stage framework for its assessment. These were discussed informally by the Board in June, and a Board paper “Assessing Fiscal Space: An Initial Consistent Set of Considerations” incorporating Directors’ views was published in December. Fiscal space was narrowly defined as the room for undertaking discretionary fiscal policy relative to existing plans without endangering market access and debt sustainability. The framework was developed in response to the need to provide a more systematic approach to assessing fiscal space in the Fund’s surveillance. It was designed as a tool to inform the availability of fiscal space over a 3 to 4 year horizon for discretionary action, as opposed to the optimality of its use. Indeed, it was stressed that the availability of space does not necessarily mean that it should be used or should not be further expanded. The framework was piloted in the Article IV consultations of 34 advanced economies and emerging markets, comprising almost 80 percent of global GDP in PPP terms.

Topics discussed in this publication include: an introduction to theoretical and practical aspects of fiscal sustainability; theoretical prerequisites for fiscal sustainability analysis; debt indicators in the measurement of vulnerability; cyclical adjustment of budget surplus; pro-cyclical fiscal policy using Mexico's fiscal accounts as a case study; fiscal rules and the experience of Chile; currency crises and models for deal with financing costs.

This paper explores how fiscal policy can affect medium- to long-term growth. It identifies the main channels through which fiscal policy can influence growth and distills practical lessons for policymakers. The particular mix of policy measures, however, will depend on country-specific conditions, capacities, and preferences. The paper draws on the Fund’s extensive technical assistance on fiscal reforms as well as several analytical studies, including a novel approach for country studies, a statistical analysis of growth accelerations following fiscal reforms, and simulations of an endogenous growth model.

Recently, monetary authorities have increasingly focused on implementing policies to ensure price stability and strengthen central bank independence. Simultaneously, in the fiscal area, market development has allowed public debt managers to focus more on cost minimization. This “divorce” of monetary and debt management functions in no way lessens the need for effective coordination of monetary and fiscal policy if overall economic performance is to be optimized and maintained in the long term. This paper analyzes these issues based on a review of the relevant literature and of country experiences from an institutional and operational perspective.

Traditionally, economics training in public finances has focused more on tax than public expenditure issues, and within expenditure, more on policy considerations than the more mundane matters of public expenditure management. For many years, the IMF's Public Expenditure Management Division has answered specific questions raised by fiscal economists on such missions. Based on this experience, these guidelines arose from the need to provide a general overview of the principles and practices observed in three key aspects of public expenditure management: budget preparation, budget execution, and cash planning. For each aspect of public expenditure management, the guidelines identify separately the differing practices in four groups of countries - the francophone systems, the Commonwealth systems, Latin America, and those in the transition economies. Edited by Barry H. Potter and Jack Diamond, this publication is intended for a general fiscal, or a general budget, advisor interested in the macroeconomic dimension of public expenditure management.

This paper reviews the experience with the fiscal space assessment framework that was piloted during 2017–18. In 2016, staff proposed an operational definition of fiscal space and a new four-stage framework for its assessment. These were discussed informally by the Board in June, and a Board paper “Assessing Fiscal Space: An Initial Consistent Set of Considerations” incorporating Directors’ views was published in December. Fiscal space was narrowly defined as the room for undertaking discretionary fiscal policy relative to existing plans without endangering market access and debt sustainability. The framework was developed in response to the need to provide a more systematic approach to assessing fiscal space in the Fund’s surveillance. It was designed as a tool to inform the availability of fiscal space over a 3 to 4 year horizon for discretionary action, as opposed to the optimality of its use. Indeed, it was stressed that the availability of space does not necessarily mean that it should be used or should not be further expanded. The framework was piloted in the Article IV consultations of 34 advanced economies and emerging markets, comprising almost 80 percent of global GDP in PPP terms.