Startseite Fiscal Decentralization and Fiscal Multiplier in China
Artikel
Lizenziert
Nicht lizenziert Erfordert eine Authentifizierung

Fiscal Decentralization and Fiscal Multiplier in China

  • Fei Guo ORCID logo EMAIL logo , Eric Evans Osei Opoku , Kate Hynes und Isabel Kit-Ming Yan
Veröffentlicht/Copyright: 18. November 2021
The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics
Aus der Zeitschrift The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics Band 22 Heft 2

Abstract

A fundamental aspect of China’s transition to a market economy is the change in fiscal decentralization marked by the tax reform in 1993. This paper examines the effect of revenue and expenditure decentralization and their divergences on fiscal spending multipliers in China using nationally aggregate and provincial-level data from 1978 to 2017. Our investigations show that expenditure decentralization weakens the efficacy of spending policies, while revenue decentralization enhances the efficacy. Moreover, the divergence of revenue and expenditure decentralization has significantly decreased the provincial spending multiplier, while its effect on the aggregate spending multiplier is insignificant. The provincial results are robust to the inclusion of off-budgetary expenditure and revenue, using different estimates of multipliers and different measures of fiscal decentralization, considering from a long-run perspective, and addressing the endogeneity issue.

Keywords: fiscal decentralization; government spending; fiscal multiplier; tax reform; China
JEL Classification: E62; H5; H72; R5
Corresponding author: Fei Guo, School of Economics and Management, Ningxia University, No. 489, Helanshan West Road, Yinchuan, 750021, China, E-mail:

Funding source: City University of Hong Kong

Award Identifier / Grant number: 7004995

Appendix
Table A1:

FD divergence in different provinces (before and after the fiscal reform).

Region FCS TSS
FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD
divergence 1 divergence 2 divergence 3 divergence 4 divergence 1 divergence 2 divergence 3 divergence 4
Average Average Average Average Average Average Average Average
(1978–1993) (1987–1993) (1978–1993) (1987–1993) (1994–2017) (1994–2010) (1994–2017) (1994–2010)
Metropolitan cities 0.796 0.258 3.160 0.804 0.090 0.080 0.223 0.206
 Beijing 0.471 0.125 1.471 0.353 0.076 0.058 0.188 0.154
 Shanghai 1.331 0.465 6.461 1.670 0.060 0.057 0.186 0.186
 Tianjin 0.586 0.183 1.548 0.388 0.135 0.126 0.295 0.277
Coastal provinces 0.222 0.083 0.243 0.095 0.182 0.133 0.203 0.150
 Fujian 0.082 0.026 0.069 0.025 0.128 0.089 0.171 0.118
 Guangdong 0.086 0.024 0.098 0.036 0.075 0.057 0.117 0.091
 Hainan 0.441 0.267 0.279 0.250 0.480 0.350 0.386 0.279
 Hebei 0.071 0.020 0.062 0.017 0.247 0.180 0.225 0.170
 Jiangsu 0.295 0.104 0.359 0.132 0.069 0.052 0.109 0.081
 Liaoning 0.404 0.072 0.656 0.113 0.264 0.206 0.343 0.276
 Shandong 0.146 0.019 0.133 0.018 0.113 0.083 0.143 0.105
 Zhejiang 0.254 0.133 0.290 0.171 0.076 0.049 0.126 0.082
Inland provinces 0.112 0.061 0.099 0.050 0.395 0.303 0.313 0.233
 Anhui 0.094 0.061 0.059 0.037 0.372 0.281 0.245 0.175
 Chongqing – – – – 0.361 0.294 0.302 0.232
 Heilongjiang 0.176 0.074 0.233 0.081 0.482 0.347 0.442 0.340
 Henan 0.056 0.018 0.037 0.012 0.300 0.219 0.224 0.160
 Hubei 0.092 0.017 0.085 0.015 0.308 0.237 0.273 0.197
 Hunan 0.067 0.017 0.052 0.012 0.357 0.272 0.271 0.195
 Jiangxi 0.145 0.089 0.099 0.057 0.372 0.268 0.252 0.173
 Jilin 0.219 0.155 0.210 0.149 0.523 0.429 0.499 0.397
 Shaanxi 0.144 0.102 0.100 0.068 0.476 0.394 0.362 0.272
 Shanxi 0.068 0.022 0.061 0.018 0.371 0.269 0.286 0.213
 Sichuan 0.063 0.059 0.055 0.050 0.426 0.326 0.292 0.213
Minority provinces 0.530 0.272 0.432 0.210 0.850 0.652 0.585 0.429
 Gansu 0.235 0.154 0.165 0.094 0.934 0.697 0.483 0.356
 Guangxi 0.225 0.158 0.128 0.087 0.448 0.322 0.285 0.195
 Guizhou 0.321 0.123 0.154 0.057 0.831 0.657 0.355 0.244
 Inner Mongolia 0.678 0.328 0.543 0.258 0.549 0.467 0.596 0.461
 Ningxia 0.922 0.483 0.751 0.369 0.939 0.756 0.716 0.539
 Qinghai 0.904 0.485 0.896 0.419 1.543 1.135 1.142 0.793
 Xinjiang 0.722 0.339 0.679 0.338 0.769 0.558 0.658 0.491
 Yunnan 0.236 0.104 0.136 0.060 0.785 0.627 0.446 0.355
Total average 0.329 0.146 0.547 0.185 0.429 0.329 0.347 0.261
Average without 0.275 0.133 0.246 0.113 0.467 0.356 0.361 0.267
metropolitan cities

  1. The classification follows Zhang and Zou (1998). Significant values of the interested variable are highlighted in bold.

Table A2:

The effect of the FD divergence on fiscal spending multipliers (SVAR Estimates).

Dependent variable Spending multiplier using SVAR (a 2 = 0) Spending multiplier using SVAR (b 2 = 0)
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) (8)
Measure of FD FD FD FD FD FD FD FD
FD divergence divergence 1 divergence 2 divergence 3 divergence 4 divergence 1 divergence 2 divergence 3 divergence 4
Panel A: OLS regressions
FD divergence −0.126** −0.147** −0.067*** −0.191*** −0.080*** −0.091*** −0.046*** −0.128***
[0.048] [0.066] [0.025] [0.064] [0.025] [0.030] [0.014] [0.047]
GDP per capita 0.007 0.008 0.023 0.018 −0.016 −0.015 −0.005 −0.009
[0.034] [0.035] [0.031] [0.032] [0.021] [0.021] [0.020] [0.020]
Exchange regime −0.041 −0.042 −0.023 −0.033 −0.021 −0.021 −0.009 −0.016
[0.031] [0.033] [0.028] [0.029] [0.015] [0.016] [0.014] [0.014]
Region 0.075 0.070 0.089 0.081 0.032 0.029 0.041 0.036
[0.098] [0.099] [0.097] [0.098] [0.077] [0.077] [0.077] [0.078]
Cons 0.816** 0.807** 0.595* 0.704** 0.573*** 0.564*** 0.434*** 0.507***
[0.354] [0.373] [0.301] [0.322] [0.161] [0.168] [0.136] [0.147]
Obs. 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
R-squared 0.204 0.194 0.195 0.196 0.069 0.053 0.064 0.063
Panel B: 2SLS regressions using initial FD divergences as instruments of FD divergences
FD divergence −0.151** −0.169** −0.068*** −0.215*** −0.071** −0.089*** −0.043*** −0.146***
[0.061] [0.077] [0.024] [0.060] [0.028] [0.031] [0.014] [0.038]
GDP per capita 0.003 0.006 0.023 0.017 −0.015 −0.014 −0.005 −0.010
[0.033] [0.034] [0.030] [0.031] [0.021] [0.021] [0.019] [0.019]
Exchange regime −0.045 −0.045 −0.023 −0.034 −0.020 −0.021 −0.010 −0.017
[0.031] [0.032] [0.027] [0.028] [0.015] [0.016] [0.013] [0.014]
Region 0.076 0.069 0.089 0.082 0.032 0.029 0.041 0.037
[0.094] [0.095] [0.093] [0.094] [0.073] [0.074] [0.074] [0.075]
Cons 0.865** 0.841** 0.595** 0.721** 0.555*** 0.561*** 0.433*** 0.519***
[0.350] [0.367] [0.287] [0.306] [0.161] [0.164] [0.130] [0.137]
Obs. 56 56 56 56 56 56 56 56
R-squared 0.203 0.193 0.195 0.196 0.068 0.053 0.064 0.062

  1. (i) Heteroscedasticity robust standard errors are in square brackets; *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1, (ii) Significant values of the interested variable are highlighted in bold.

References

Akai, N., and M. Sakata. 2002. “Fiscal Decentralization Contributes to Economic Growth: Evidence from State-Level Cross-Section Data for the United States.” Journal of Urban Economics 52 (1): 93–108. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0094-1190(02)00018-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Auerbach, A. J., Y. Gorodnichenko, and D. Murphy. 2020. Fiscal Policy and Covid19 Restrictions in a Demand-Determined Economy (No. w27366). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w27366Suche in Google Scholar

Blanchard, O., and R. Perotti. 2002. “An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 117 (4): 1329–68. https://doi.org/10.1162/003355302320935043.Suche in Google Scholar

Canavire-Bacarreza, G., J. Martinez-Vazquez, and B. Yedgenov. 2020. “Identifying and Disentangling the Impact of Fiscal Decentralization on Economic Growth.” World Development 127: 104742. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.worlddev.2019.104742.Suche in Google Scholar

Chen, S., L. Ratnovski, and P. Tsai. 2018. “Credit and Fiscal Multipliers in China.” In BOFIT Discussion Paper.10.2139/ssrn.3104543Suche in Google Scholar

Ding, Y., A. McQuoid, and C. Karayalcin. 2019. “Fiscal Decentralization, Fiscal Reform, and Economic Growth in China.” China Economic Review 53: 152–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2018.08.005.Suche in Google Scholar

Enikolopov, R., and E. Zhuravskaya. 2007. “Decentralization and Political Institutions.” Journal of Public Economics 91 (11–12): 2261–90. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2007.02.006.Suche in Google Scholar

Farhi, E., and I. Werning. 2016. “Fiscal Multipliers: Liquidity Traps and Currency Unions.” In Handbook of Macroeconomics, 2, 2417–92. Amsterdam, The Netherlands: Elsevier.10.1016/bs.hesmac.2016.06.006Suche in Google Scholar

Gemmell, N., R. Kneller, and I. Sanz. 2013. “Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth: Spending Versus Revenue Decentralization.” Economic Inquiry 51 (4): 1915–31. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1465-7295.2012.00508.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Guo, G. 2009. “China’s Local Political Budget Cycles.” American Journal of Political Science 53 (3): 621–32. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-5907.2009.00390.x.Suche in Google Scholar

Guo, Q., C. Liu, and G. Ma. 2016. “How Large is the Local Fiscal Multiplier? Evidence from Chinese Counties.” Journal of Comparative Economics 44 (2): 343–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2015.06.002.Suche in Google Scholar

He, C., Y. Zhou, and Z. Huang. 2016. “Fiscal Decentralization, Political Centralization, and Land Urbanization in China.” Urban Geography 37 (3): 436–57. https://doi.org/10.1080/02723638.2015.1063242.Suche in Google Scholar

Huang, B., and K. Chen. 2012. “Are Intergovernmental Transfers in China Equalizing?” China Economic Review 23 (3): 534–51. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2012.01.001.Suche in Google Scholar

Huidrom, R., A. Kose, J. J. Lim, and F. L. Ohnsorge. 2020. “Why Do Fiscal Multipliers Depend on Fiscal Positions?” Journal of Monetary Economics 114: 109–25.10.1016/j.jmoneco.2019.03.004Suche in Google Scholar

Ilzetzki, E., E. G. Mendoza, and C. A. Végh. 2013. “How Big (Small?) Are Fiscal Multipliers?” Journal of Monetary Economics 60 (2): 239–54. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmoneco.2012.10.011.Suche in Google Scholar

Ilzetzki, E., C. M. Reinhart, and K. S. Rogoff. 2017. “Exchange Arrangements Entering the 21st Century: Which Anchor Will Hold?” In NBER Working Paper No. w23134.10.3386/w23134Suche in Google Scholar

Inman, R. P. 2003. “Transfers and Bailouts: Enforcing Local Fiscal Discipline with Lessons from US Federalism.” In Fiscal Decentralization and the Challenge of Hard Budget Constraints, 35, 48–9. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.10.7551/mitpress/3021.003.0006Suche in Google Scholar

Jia, J., Q. Guo, and J. Zhang. 2014. “Fiscal Decentralization and Local Expenditure Policy in China.” China Economic Review 28: 107–22. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2014.01.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Jin, J., and H. F. Zou. 2005. “Fiscal Decentralization, Revenue and Expenditure Assignments, and Growth in China.” Journal of Asian Economics 16 (6): 1047–64. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asieco.2005.10.006.Suche in Google Scholar

Kaplan, G., and G. L. Violante. 2014. “A Model of the Consumption Response to Fiscal Stimulus Payments.” Econometrica 82 (4): 1199–239.10.3982/ECTA10528Suche in Google Scholar

Kaplan, G., G. L. Violante, and J. Weidner. 2014. The Wealthy Hand-to-Mouth (No. w20073). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w20073Suche in Google Scholar

Keen, M., and M. Marchand. 1997. “Fiscal Competition and the Pattern of Public Spending.” Journal of Public Economics 66 (1): 33–53. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2727(97)00035-2.Suche in Google Scholar

Kitchen, H., M. McMillan, and A. Shah. 2019. Local Public Finance and Economics. Switzerland: Springer Nature Switzerland AG.10.1007/978-3-030-21986-4Suche in Google Scholar

Ko, K., and H. Zhi. 2013. “Fiscal Decentralization: Guilty of Aggravating Corruption in China?” Journal of Contemporary China 22 (79): 35–55. https://doi.org/10.1080/10670564.2012.716943.Suche in Google Scholar

La Porta, R., F. Lopez-de-Silanes, A. Shleifer, and R. Vishny. 1999. “The Quality of Government.” Journal of Law, Economics, and Organization 15 (1): 222–79. https://doi.org/10.1093/jleo/15.1.222.Suche in Google Scholar

Lai, J. T., E. P. So, and I. K. Yan. 2014. “Intergovernmental Fiscal Arrangements and Provincial Consumption Risk Sharing in China.” Emerging Markets Finance and Trade 50 (3): 45–58. https://doi.org/10.2753/ree1540-496x500303.Suche in Google Scholar

Li, R., and Y. Zhou. 2021. “Estimating Local Fiscal Multipliers Using Political Connections.” China Economic Review 66: 101599. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2021.101599.Suche in Google Scholar

Lin, J. Y., and Z. Liu. 2000. “Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Growth in China.” Economic Development and Cultural Change 49 (1): 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1086/452488.Suche in Google Scholar

Loo, B. P., and S. Y. Chow. 2006. “China’s 1994 Tax-Sharing Reforms: One System, Differential Impact.” Asian Survey 46 (2): 215–37. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.2006.46.2.215.Suche in Google Scholar

Martinez‐Vazquez, J., S. Lago‐Peñas, and A. Sacchi. 2017. “The Impact of Fiscal Decentralization: A Survey.” Journal of Economic Surveys 31 (4): 1095–129.10.1111/joes.12182Suche in Google Scholar

Nakamura, E., and J. Steinsson. 2014. “Fiscal Stimulus in a Monetary Union: Evidence from US Regions.” The American Economic Review 104 (3): 753–92. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.104.3.753.Suche in Google Scholar

Nickel, C., and A. Tudyka. 2014. “Fiscal Stimulus in Times of High Debt: Reconsidering Multipliers and Twin Deficits.” Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking 46 (7): 1313–44. https://doi.org/10.1111/jmcb.12148.Suche in Google Scholar

Oates, W. E. 1972. Fiscal Federalism. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.Suche in Google Scholar

Oates, W. E. 1999. “An Essay on Fiscal Federalism.” Journal of Economic Literature 37 (3): 1120–49. https://doi.org/10.1257/jel.37.3.1120.Suche in Google Scholar

Oates, W. E. 2005. “Toward a Second-Generation Theory of Fiscal Federalism.” International Tax and Public Finance 12 (4): 349–73. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10797-005-1619-9.Suche in Google Scholar

Perez-Sebastian, F., and O. Raveh. 2012. “The Natural Resource Curse, Fiscal Decentralization, and Agglomeration Economies.” Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource-Rich Economies 112: 1–47.10.2139/ssrn.1742482Suche in Google Scholar

Perotti, R. 2004. “Public Investment: Another (Different) Look.” In IGIER Working Paper No. 277.10.2139/ssrn.637190Suche in Google Scholar

Persson, T., and G. Tabellini. 1994. “Is Inequality Harmful for Growth?” The American Economic Review 84 (3): 600–21.Suche in Google Scholar

Price, R. W., T. T. Dang, and J. Botev. 2015. “Adjusting Fiscal Balances for the Business Cycle: New Tax and Expenditure Elasticity Estimates for OECD Countries.” In OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 1275. Paris: OECD.Suche in Google Scholar

Prud’homme, R. 1995. “On the Dangers of Decentralization.” The World Bank Research Observer 10 (2): 201–20.10.1093/wbro/10.2.201Suche in Google Scholar

Qian, Y., and B. R. Weingast. 1997. “Federalism as a Commitment to Reserving Market Incentives.” The Journal of Economic Perspectives 11 (4): 83–92. https://doi.org/10.1257/jep.11.4.83.Suche in Google Scholar

Qiao, B., J. Martinez-Vazquez, and Y. Xu. 2008. “The Tradeoff Between Growth and Equity in Decentralization Policy: China’s Experience.” Journal of Development Economics 86 (1): 112–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdeveco.2007.05.002.Suche in Google Scholar

Ramey, V. A. 2011. “Identifying Government Spending Shocks: It’s All in the Timing.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 126 (1): 1–50. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjq008.Suche in Google Scholar

Rodden, J. 2003. “Reviving Leviathan: Fiscal Federalism and the Growth of Government.” International Organization 57 (4): 695–729. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0020818303574021.Suche in Google Scholar

Shah, A. 1994. The Reform of Intergovernmental Fiscal Relations in Developing and Emerging Market Economies. Washington: The World Bank.10.1596/0-8213-2836-0Suche in Google Scholar

Sun, Z., C. P. Chang, and Y. Hao. 2017. “Fiscal Decentralization and China’s Provincial Economic Growth: A Panel Data Analysis for China’s Tax Sharing System.” Quality and Quantity 51 (5): 2267–89. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11135-016-0386-2.Suche in Google Scholar

Tanzi, V. 1996. “Fiscal Federalism and Decentralization: A Review of Some Efficiency and Macroeconomic Aspects.” In Proceedings of the Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics, Vol. 1995, edited by M. Bruno, and B. Pleskovic, 295–316. Washington: World Bank.Suche in Google Scholar

Tiebout, C. M. 1956. “A Pure Theory of Local Expenditures.” Journal of Political Economy 64 (5): 416–24. https://doi.org/10.1086/257839.Suche in Google Scholar

Valla, N. 2020. “Boosting the Economic Recovery or Closing a Green Deal in Europe? or Both?” Intereconomics 55 (6): 350–2. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10272-020-0930-0.Suche in Google Scholar

Wang, S. 1997. “China’s 1994 Fiscal Reform: An Initial Assessment.” Asian Survey 37 (9): 801–17. https://doi.org/10.1525/as.1997.37.9.01p02764.Suche in Google Scholar

Wang, X., and Y. Wen. 2019. “Macroeconomic Effects of Government Spending in China.” Pacific Economic Review 24 (3): 416–46. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0106.12242.Suche in Google Scholar

Woodford, M. 2020. Effective Demand Failures and the Limits of Monetary Stabilization Policy (No. w27768). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.10.3386/w27768Suche in Google Scholar

Wu, G. L., Q. Feng, and P. Li. 2015. “Does Local Governments’ Budget Deficit Push up Housing Prices in China?” China Economic Review 35: 183–96. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2014.08.007.Suche in Google Scholar

Yang, Z. 2016. “Tax Reform, Fiscal Decentralization, and Regional Economic Growth: New Evidence from China.” Economic Modelling 59: 520–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.07.020.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, G. 2018. “The Revolutions in China’s Inter-governmental Fiscal System.” Public Money & Management 38 (6): 419–26. https://doi.org/10.1080/09540962.2018.1486104.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, T., and H. F. Zou. 1998. “Fiscal Decentralization, Public Spending, and Economic Growth in China.” Journal of Public Economics 67 (2): 221–40. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0047-2727(97)00057-1.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, W. 2019. “Political Incentives and Local Government Spending Multiplier: Evidence for Chinese Provinces (1978–2016).” Economic Modelling 87 (2020): 59–71.10.1016/j.econmod.2019.07.006Suche in Google Scholar

Zhang, W., Y. Zhang, X. Zheng, and L. Zhang. 2019. “China’s Fiscal Multiplier and its State Dependence.” The Manchester School 87 (2): 205–27. https://doi.org/10.1111/manc.12235.Suche in Google Scholar

Zhu, M., and A. Peyrache. 2017. “The Quality and Efficiency of Public Service Delivery in the UK and China.” Regional Studies 51 (2): 285–96. https://doi.org/10.1080/00343404.2015.1080992.Suche in Google Scholar
Received: 2020-12-18
Revised: 2021-10-17
Accepted: 2021-11-02
Published Online: 2021-11-18

© 2021 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Advances
  3. Uncertainty, Financial Markets, and Monetary Policy over the Last Century
  4. Collateral Constraints, Wage Rigidity, and Jobless Recoveries
  5. Revisiting the Link between House Prices and Monetary Policy
  6. Front-Loading Agricultural Subsidies: Quantifying Public Savings
  7. Contributions
  8. Equilibrium Tax Rates under Ex-ante Heterogeneity and Income-dependent Voting
  9. Financial Reforms and Consumption Smoothing
  10. The Government in SNA-Compliant DSGE Models
  11. Accounting for the International Great Depression: Efficiency, Distortions and Factor Utilization during the Interwar Period
  12. Assessing the Role of Sentiment in the Propagation of Fiscal Stimulus
  13. Fiscal Decentralization and Fiscal Multiplier in China
  14. Effect of Feed-In Tariff with Deregulation on Directed Technical Change in the Energy Sector
  15. Pay-as-You-Go Social Security and Educational Subsidy in an Overlapping Generations Model with Endogenous Fertility and Endogenous Retirement
https://doi.org/10.1515/bejm-2020-0275
Schlagwörter für diesen Artikel
fiscal decentralization; government spending; fiscal multiplier; tax reform; China

Artikel in diesem Heft

  1. Frontmatter
  2. Advances
  3. Uncertainty, Financial Markets, and Monetary Policy over the Last Century
  4. Collateral Constraints, Wage Rigidity, and Jobless Recoveries
  5. Revisiting the Link between House Prices and Monetary Policy
  6. Front-Loading Agricultural Subsidies: Quantifying Public Savings
  7. Contributions
  8. Equilibrium Tax Rates under Ex-ante Heterogeneity and Income-dependent Voting
  9. Financial Reforms and Consumption Smoothing
  10. The Government in SNA-Compliant DSGE Models
  11. Accounting for the International Great Depression: Efficiency, Distortions and Factor Utilization during the Interwar Period
  12. Assessing the Role of Sentiment in the Propagation of Fiscal Stimulus
  13. Fiscal Decentralization and Fiscal Multiplier in China
  14. Effect of Feed-In Tariff with Deregulation on Directed Technical Change in the Energy Sector
  15. Pay-as-You-Go Social Security and Educational Subsidy in an Overlapping Generations Model with Endogenous Fertility and Endogenous Retirement
Jetzt anmelden und 20% sparen
Institutioneller Zugang
Wie funktioniert Authentifizierung?
Haben Sie eine Idee, wie wir unsere Website verbessern können?
Bitte schreiben Sie uns.
© 2025 De Gruyter Brill
Heruntergeladen am 27.9.2025 von https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1515/bejm-2020-0275/html
Button zum nach oben scrollen