Table 5: Coefficients of fiscal variables in consecutive inclusion in baseline
|
impact in reform regression | ||||
|
determinant |
labour market |
financial sector |
tax policy____________ |
product market |
|
______________________________________________________deficit______________________________________________________ | ||||
|
NLGXQA |
-0.00052 (0.00031)* |
0.00162 (0.00184) |
0.00110 (0.00057)* |
-0.00053 (0.00061) |
|
ΔNLGXQA |
-0.00081 (0.00046)* |
-0.00188 (0.00309) |
-0.00225 (0.00084)*** |
-0.00041 (0.00091) |
|
NLGXQ_____ |
-0.00061 (0.00026)** |
0.00175 (0.00148) |
0.00092 (0.00046)** |
-0.00086 (0.00050)* |
|
ΔNLGXQ |
-0.00084 (0.00043)* |
-0.00395 (0.00261) |
-0.00134 (0.00081)* |
-0.00097 (0.00081) |
|
____________________________________________expenditure____________________________________________ | ||||
|
YPGXQA |
0.00037 (0.00035) |
0.00418 (0.00214)* |
-0.00010 (0.00056)* |
0.00090 (0.0006) |
|
Δ YPGXQA |
0.00095 (0.00070) |
0.00399 (0.00466) |
0.00162 (0.00130) |
0.00019 (0.00131) |
|
YPGXQ_____ |
0.00041 (0.00028) |
0.00204 (0.00165) |
-0.00038 (0.00043) |
0.00099 (0.00046)** |
|
ΔYPGXQ |
0.00081 (0.00063) |
0.00619 (0.00391) |
-0.00049 (0.00119) |
0.00052 (0.00114) |
|
SSPGGDP |
0.00045 (0.00044) |
0.00265 (0.00289) |
-0.00013 (0.00068) |
0.0024 (0.0008)*** |
|
Δ SSPGGDP |
0.00197 (0.00131) |
0.01078 (0.00880) |
-0.00322 (0.00232) |
0.0032 (0.0025)________ |
|
___________________________________________revenues___________________________________________ | ||||
|
YRGQA |
-0.00016 (0.00028) |
0.00463 (0.00179)* |
0.00043 (0.00055) |
0.00011 (0.00056) |
|
ΔYRGQA |
-0.00055 (0.00058) |
0.00455 (0.00398) |
-0.00174 (0.00106) |
0.00016 (0.00118) |
|
YRGTQ_____ |
-0.00017 (0.00029) |
0.00438 (0.00163)*** |
0.00101 (0.00049)** |
0.00010 (0.00512) |
|
ΔYRGTQ |
-0.00072 (0.00054) |
0.00259 (0.0035) |
-0.00191 (0.00096)** |
-0.00050 (0.00104) |
|
TYQA______ |
-0.00096 (0.00051)* |
0.00499 (0.00313) |
0.00128 (0.00103) |
0.00015 (0.00108) |
|
ΔTYQA_____ |
0.00007 (0.00089) |
0.00688 (0.00576) |
-0.00131 (0.00153) |
0.00048 (0.00184) |
|
TYQ_______ |
-0.00102 (0.00048)** |
0.00478 (0.00284)* |
0.00210 (0.00097)** |
-0.00028 (0.00094) |
|
Δ TYQ______ |
-0.00003 (0.00082) |
0.00181 (0.00509) |
-0.00140 (0.00150) |
-0.00141 (0.00157) |
*, **, ***: significant at 10 %, 5 %, 1 % level respectively
The primary balance has a robustly significant impact only in the labour market reform and the
tax reform processes. Labour market reforms tend to be accelerated by bad and deteriorating
budgetary data (both cyclically adjusted and non-adjusted), tax reforms are simplified by high
budgetary balances which tend to deteriorate. For labour market reforms, the look at both sides of
the budget does not show a typical compensation pattern with an increase in (social) spending.
Only the difference of social benefits reaches significance levels close to conventional
significance levels (0.13) and could be regarded as a weak hint towards compensation. A stronger
result is that for labour market reforms, relatively low tax receipts tend to be behind the relatively
poor budgetary balance.
The comfortable budgetary situation which characterizes periods of tax reforms is related to both
relatively low (cyclically adjusted) expenditure levels and high (non-adjusted) tax receipts.
Whereas the overall budgetary balance is largely insignificant in the product market reform
regression there are interesting findings for single budgetary categories: Product market reforms
appear to be prepared by higher social spending.
154