Fiscal impulse measures are used in the WEO and elsewhere to indicate the changing impact of the budget on the economy. Such measures are intended to provide more accurate indications of whether the budget is becoming more or less expansionary than would just observing moments in the actual budget balance. However, they have been criticized for lacking an analytical rationale. This paper uses a simple framework to show that the fiscal impulse measure can be analytically derived. While this removes one source of criticism, the measure, nevertheless, should be used carefully when making inferences of fiscal impact.

Fiscal impulse measures are used in the WEO and elsewhere to indicate the changing impact of the budget on the economy. Such measures are intended to provide more accurate indications of whether the budget is becoming more or less expansionary than would just observing moments in the actual budget balance. However, they have been criticized for lacking an analytical rationale. This paper uses a simple framework to show that the fiscal impulse measure can be analytically derived. While this removes one source of criticism, the measure, nevertheless, should be used carefully when making inferences of fiscal impact.

The concept of fiscal impulse is defined, discussed, and differentiated from measures that attempt to summarize the macroeconomic effects of fiscal policy. Two methodologies are briefly discussed and their corresponding measures presented for the G-7 countries over the ten-year period ending in 1989. Controversies about the measure are highlighted and potential improvements are also discussed.

This paper reviews the theoretical and empirical literature on the effectiveness of fiscal policy. The focus is on the size of fiscal multipliers, and on the possibility that multipliers can turn negative (i.e., that fiscal contractions can be expansionary). The paper concludes that fiscal multipliers are overwhelmingly positive but small. However, there is some evidence of negative fiscal multipliers.

Fiscal policy seeks to equilibrate the public sector's financing needs with the private sector's demand for investment and a sustainable balance of payments. Correct measurement of the public sector's net use of resources is therefore an important prerequisite for managing the macroeconomy. This volume, edited by Mario I. Blejer and Adrienne Cheasty, is organized around four issues: the adequacy of summary measures of the fiscal deficit, conventional and adjusted deficits, coverage (size) of the public sector, and the public sector's intertemporal budget constraint.

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.

This paper provides new evidence of the macroeconomic effects of public investment in advanced economies. Using public investment forecast errors to identify the causal effect of government investment in a sample of 17 OECD economies since 1985 and model simulations, the paper finds that increased public investment raises output, both in the short term and in the long term, crowds in private investment, and reduces unemployment. Several factors shape the macroeconomic effects of public investment. When there is economic slack and monetary accommodation, demand effects are stronger, and the public-debt-to-GDP ratio may actually decline. Public investment is also more effective in boosting output in countries with higher public investment efficiency and when it is financed by issuing debt.