This paper analyses the impact of fiscal rules on different public spending categories, namely public expenditure and investment, at the subnational level in Europe. Building on the notion of the deficit bias, we suspect that in the presence of fiscal rules, politicians have an incentive to reduce public spending through disproportionate cuts in investments. To empirically test this hypothesis, we focus on subnational administrative levels since budget reallocations can be expected to be pronounced at these levels and because the empirical evidence here is scarce. We introduce a new index based on partially ordered set theory (POSET), using the EC's fiscal rules dataset, which allows us to analyze the stringency of fiscal rules for different levels of government. Our balanced dataset covers 179 NUTS2 regions in 14 EU member states from 1995 to 2018. The empirical analysis is based on Within, GMM, and instrumental variable estimators. Our empirical findings are highly robust. In our baseline model, a one standard-deviation increase in our fiscal rules stringency index reduces overall public expenditure by up to 1.28 percent, while investment declines by more than 4 percent. The results imply that more stringent fiscal rules lead to a disproportionate reduction in public investment as compared to overall expenditure.

The authors explore the relationship between fiscal rules and capital budgeting. The current budgetary approach to limit deficits to a fixed portion of GDP or to balance budgets could undermine incentives to invest in public capital with long-run returns since politicians concerned about electoral prospects would favor expenditures providing immediate benefits to their voters. An alternative budgetary approach is to separate capital from current revenues and expenditures and relax fiscal constraints by allowing governments to finance capital expenditures with debt, as suggested by the golden rule approach to capital funding. But the effect of capital budgeting would be to provide opportunities to politicians to escape the fiscal rule constraints by shifting current expenditures into capital accounts that are difficult to measure properly, thereby leading to increased borrowing. As an alternative, the authors propose a modified golden rule limiting debt finance to a proportion of the government's investment in self-liquidating assets.

The paper provides evidence that fiscal rules can limit the political budget cycle. It focuses on the application of the Italian fiscal rule at the sub-national level over the period 2004-2006 and shows that: 1) municipalities are subject to political budget cycles in capital spending; 2) the Italian subnational fiscal rule introduced in 1999 has been enforced by the central government; 3) municipalities subject to the fiscal rule show more limited political budget cycles than municipalities not subject to the rule. In order to identify the effect, we rely on the fact that the domestic fiscal rule does not apply to municipalities below 5,000 inhabitants. We find that the political budget cycle increases real capital spending by about 35 percent on average in the years prior to municipal elections and that the sub-national fiscal rule reduces these figures by about two thirds.

The authors explore the relationship between fiscal rules and capital budgeting. The current budgetary approach to limit deficits to a fixed portion of GDP or to balance budgets could undermine incentives to invest in public capital with long-run returns since politicians concerned about electoral prospects would favor expenditures providing immediate benefits to their voters. An alternative budgetary approach is to separate capital from current revenues and expenditures and relax fiscal constraints by allowing governments to finance capital expenditures with debt, as suggested by the golden rule approach to capital funding. But the effect of capital budgeting would be to provide opportunities to politicians to escape the fiscal rule constraints by shifting current expenditures into capital accounts that are difficult to measure properly, thereby leading to increased borrowing. As an alternative, the authors propose a modified golden rule limiting debt finance to a proportion of the government's investment in self-liquidating assets.

We show that some types of fiscal rules can mitigate the well-known procyclical bias in public capital expenditures. Past research has found that fiscal adjustment episodes coincide with large public investment cuts, a pattern we also document in a sample of 75 advanced and emerging economies during 1990-2018. However, we find that the behavior of public investment during fiscal consolidations differs significantly depending on fiscal rule design. Fiscal rules can be flexible, meaning that they include mechanisms to accommodate exogenous shocks (e.g., cyclically adjusted fiscal targets, well-defined escape clauses, and differential treatment of investment expenditures) or rigid, meaning they establish numerical limits on fiscal aggregates without taking into account flexible features. We find that in countries with either no fiscal rule or with a rigid fiscal rule, a fiscal consolidation of at least 2 percent of GDP is associated with an average 10 percent reduction in public investment. Under flexible fiscal rules, the negative effect of fiscal adjustments on public investment vanishes. These results hold after controlling for possible endogeneity bias in the estimations. We show that by reducing procyclical biases in public investment, flexible fiscal rules can add a growth-enhancing dimension to fiscal sustainability concerns that have typically been the focus of fiscal rules in the past.

Fiscal rules are a frequent policy measure to restrict deficit-taking among incumbent politicians. In times of increased and sustained investment needs to mitigate the consequences of climate change, and to promote the digital and structural transformation, fiscal rules have become subject to criticism for undermining public investments. We review 20 existing empirical studies examining the impact of numerical fiscal rules on public investments. We also discuss whether more public investments typically come at the cost of higher deficits and whether the effect on public investments differs between rigid and more flexible fiscal rules. Overall, we do not find systematic evidence for a negative effect of fiscal rules on overall public investments. Rigid fiscal rules seem to deter public investments as compared to more flexible and investment-friendly rules which, by contrast, rather increase public investments. Existing evidence does not suggest that public investments systematically come at the cost of higher public deficits (except for more flexible fiscal rules). The design of fiscal rules appears to be crucial for higher public investments.

This paper assesses the impact of different types of flexible fiscal rules on the procyclicality of fiscal policy with propensity scores-matching techniques, thus mitigating traditional self-selection problems. It finds that not all fiscal rules have the same impact: the design matters. Specifically, investment-friendly rules reduce the procyclicality of both overall and investment spending. The effect appears stronger in bad times and when the rule is enacted at the national level. The introduction of escape clauses in fiscal rules does not seem to affect the cyclical stance of public spending. The inclusion of cyclical adjustment features in spending rules yields broadly similar results. The results are mixed for cyclically-adjusted budget balance rules: enacting the latter is associated with countercyclical movements in overall spending, but with procyclical changes in investment spending. Structural factors, such as past debt, the level of development, the volatility of terms of trade, natural resources endowment, government stability, and the legal enforcement and monitoring arrangements backing the rule also influence the link between fiscal rules and countercyclicality. The results are robust to a wide set of alternative specifications.