## Annex I.

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [Annex I.](https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2024/english/wpiea2024210-print-pdf.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2024/english/wpiea2024210-print-pdf.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/files/publications/wp/2024/english/wpiea2024210-print-pdf.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction
- Dataset coverage:
  - 17 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economies during 1978-2020.
  - 14 economies in Latin America and the Caribbean during 1989-2020.
- Basis and methodological lineage:
  - Builds on methodology and earlier work by Devries and others (2011), Carriere-Swallow and others (2021), Alesina and others (2018), Ramey and Shapiro (1998), Ramey (2011), Romer and Romer (2010).
- Rationale for historical, action-based approach:
  - Avoids problems with cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance (CAPB) including measurement errors and correlation with economic developments.
  - Uses contemporaneous policy documents to identify measures motivated primarily by deficit reduction.
- Historical sources examined:
  - Budget Reports, central bank reports, Convergence Programmes, Stability Programmes submitted to the European Commission, IMF reports, and OECD Economic Surveys.
- Sample composition:
  - 242 cases of fiscal policy consolidation in 17 OECD economies during 1978-2020. The 17 countries are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
  - 82 cases of fiscal policy consolidation in 14 Latin American and Caribbean economies during 1989-2020. The 14 economies are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.
- Annex tables:
  - Tables A1 and A2 tabulate the full set of fiscal consolidation cases and provide a breakdown into spending and tax measures.

### II. Methodology
- Motivation of measures:
  - Core inclusion criterion: fiscal actions primarily motivated by desire to reduce the budget deficit (shoring up government financial sustainability).
  - Exclude measures primarily motivated by restraining domestic demand for cyclical reasons.
  - If consolidation measures are followed by discretionary countercyclical stimulus motivated by cyclical considerations, include only the deficit-reduction measures (example: Japan 2019 consumption tax hike included despite offsetting discretionary support).
  - If consolidation is offset by non-cyclical measures, net the measures and record consolidation only if the overall change yields budgetary savings (example: France 2018).
- Budgetary effects recording conventions:
  - Use contemporaneous estimates contained in historical sources (following Romer and Romer (2010)); record the budgetary effect in the year measures come into effect.
  - Government concept: general government unless otherwise stated.
  - Scale budgetary impacts in percent of GDP.
  - Implementation filter: measures announced but not implemented are excluded (example: Spain 2015–16 measures initially envisaged but not implemented).
  - Distinguish permanent versus temporary measures:
    - Temporary measure: recorded as positive impact when it comes into effect and negative impact when it expires (example: one-year tax increase of $1 billion recorded as $1 billion in year t and –$1 billion in year t+1).
    - Permanent measure: recorded as positive impact when it comes into effect and zero thereafter (example: permanent tax hike of $1 billion coded as $1 billion in year t and zero thereafter).
  - Overall, budgetary effects can be both negative and positive.

### II. 17 OECD Economies (dataset construction and sources)
- Data construction by period and sources:
  - 1978-2009: use Devries and others (2011) dataset with 173 cases of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction.
  - 2010-2014: use Alesina and others (2018) as main source; Netherlands not included in Alesina et al. (2018) for 2010-14—three cases added after review; Japan 2014 case added based on consumption tax hike not in Alesina et al. (2018).
  - 2015-2020: review historical record and identify 9 cases of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction (Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Spain, United Kingdom).
  - In the remaining ten economies for 2015-2020, find little evidence of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction in main historical sources (example: Germany; example: Italy).
- Consistency check between datasets:
  - Regression D = α + βA + ε comparing Devries (D) and Alesina (A) series for 1981-2009:
    - R-squared = 96 percent.
    - Slope coefficient (β) = 1.0 (t-statistic = 112.6).
    - Intercept (α) = –0.01 (t-statistic = –1.39).
  - Conclusion: close similarity justifies combining datasets.
- Overall total:
  - Dataset for the 17 OECD economies contains 242 identified cases of fiscal consolidation during 1978-2020.

### Country-selected episodes and key statistics
- Finland (selected new episodes identified 2015–2016):
  - Finland 2015:
    - Total action-based fiscal consolidation: 1.0 percent of GDP.
    - Composition:
      - Tax hikes (net of tax cuts): 0.35 percent of GDP.
      - Spending cuts: 0.65 percent of GDP.
    - Revenue measures (total 0.35 percent of GDP):
      - Decreasing the effective income tax rate: 0.05 percent of GDP.
      - Increasing taxes on capital income: 0.05 percent of GDP.
      - Lowering other direct taxes: 0.05 percent of GDP.
      - Increasing other indirect taxes: 0.2 percent of GDP.
      - Increasing social security contributions: 0.2 percent of GDP.
    - Spending measures (total 0.65 percent of GDP):
      - Reducing consumption expenditure: 0.2 percent of GDP.
      - Lowering transfers to businesses and industry: 0.05 percent of GDP.
      - Lowering transfers to households: 0.2 percent of GDP.
      - Lowering other transfers: 0.15 percent of GDP.
      - Lowering real investment: 0.05 percent of GDP.
  - Finland 2016:
    - Total action-based fiscal consolidation: 0.65 percent of GDP.
    - Composition:
      - Spending cuts: 0.4 percent of GDP.
      - Tax measures: 0.25 percent of GDP.
    - Measures described: expenditure cuts amount to 0.4 percent of GDP; measures increasing general government revenues include increase in unemployment insurance contribution and increase of tobacco, waste and energy taxes.
- France:
  - France 2015:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 1.0 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
    - “The Spending Containment Package” included €50 billion of expenditure containment over 2015-17; cuts frontloaded: €21 billion in 2015, €16 billion in 2016, €13 billion in 2017.
  - France 2018:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.4 percent of GDP (0.5 percent of GDP in spending cuts offset by 0.1 percent of GDP in tax cuts).
    - 2018 IMF Staff Report estimated 0.6 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.3 percent of GDP in tax cuts for 2018; 2019 IMF Staff Report updated 2018 estimates to 0.5 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax cuts.
- Japan:
  - General context: multi-year plan reaffirmed in June 2013 to halve primary deficits by FY2015 (vs. FY2010) and achieve a primary surplus by FY2020; consumption tax increases central to the plan.
  - Japan 2014:
    - Fiscal consolidation totaled 1.125 percent of GDP based on tax hikes.
    - Full-year budgetary impact of April 2014 consumption tax increase (5→8 percent) is 1.5 percent of GDP; allocated as 1.125 percent of GDP in 2014 (= 1.5 percent × (3/4)) and 0.375 percent of GDP in 2015 (= 1.5 percent × (1/4)).
    - Prospective two-step increase from 5 to 10 percent had estimated budgetary impact of 2.5 percent of GDP; the October 2015 increase (8→10 percent) was estimated at 1.0 percent of GDP.
  - Japan 2015:
    - Fiscal consolidation totaled 0.375 percent of GDP based on tax hikes (allocation from April 2014 increase).
    - The planned October 2015 increase was postponed (initially to April 2017) and not recorded as implemented in 2015.
  - Japan 2019:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.25 percent of GDP based on tax hikes.
    - October 2019 consumption tax hike (8→10 percent) had full-year budgetary impact estimated at 1.0 percent of GDP; allocated as 0.25 percent of GDP in 2019 (= 1.0 percent × (1/4)) and 0.75 percent of GDP in 2020 (= 1.0 percent × (3/4)).
    - Countercyclical fiscal support measures implemented alongside the hike to smooth demand were not recorded as consolidation.
  - Japan 2020:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.75 percent of GDP based on tax hikes (allocation from October 2019 increase).
    - Significant fiscal support measures in response to COVID-19 in 2020 are omitted from the consolidation dataset.
- The Netherlands:
  - 2011: Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.3 percent of GDP (0.2 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax increases).
  - 2012: Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.5 percent of GDP (0.4 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax hikes).
  - 2013: Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.6 percent of GDP (0.5 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax hikes).
  - Post-2013: fiscal stance set to return to neutral; 2014 IMF Staff Report notes shift to a broadly neutral fiscal stance.
- Spain:
  - Spain 2017:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.5 percent of GDP based on tax measures.
    - Corporate tax measures projected to yield about 0.4 percent of GDP in 2017; improved VAT administration yielded around €600 million in the first five months of 2017 (about 0.1 percent of GDP annualized).
  - 2015–16 and 2018–19: little evidence of implemented action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction; fiscal stance turned expansionary in 2015–16 and eased in 2018–19.
- United Kingdom:
  - United Kingdom 2015:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.25 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
    - Total expenditure projected to fall by 1 percentage point to 42½ percent of GDP in FY2014/15; budgetary impact in calendar-year 2015 recorded as 0.25 percent of GDP (¼ × 1 percent of GDP).
    - Fiscal year convention: FY runs April 1–March 31; measures in “FY t/t+1” split ¾ to year t and ¼ to year t+1.

### Latin America and the Caribbean — summary and selected episodes
- Regional summary (14 economies):
  - Starting point: dataset of Carriere-Swallow, David, and Leigh (2021) covering 14 countries during 1989–2016.
  - Extended sample through 2020 identifies 6 cases of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction during 2017–2020 pertaining to Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador.
- Argentina:
  - Argentina 2018:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 1.5 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
    - Motivation: multi-year plan to achieve federal government primary balance by 2020; front-loaded effort with targeted primary deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP in 2018 and 1.3 percent of GDP in 2019.
    - July 2018 IMF Staff Report estimated budgetary impact of measures at 1.5 percent of GDP (not including 0.2 percent of GDP in asset sales).
  - Argentina 2019:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 2.4 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
    - The 2019 consolidation figure excludes 0.4 percent of GDP in asset sales (not recorded in the dataset).
- Brazil 2017:
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.9 percent of GDP.
    - 0.66 percent of GDP from spending cuts.
    - 0.24 percent of GDP from tax measures.
  - Motivation: restoring fiscal sustainability with support from the constitutional expenditure ceiling and social security reform.
  - Authorities’ 2017 target and measures: aim to bring the primary deficit to –2.1 percent of GDP; introduced adjustment measures of 0.9 percent of GDP.
- Colombia 2017:
  - Fiscal consolidation in 2017 amounted to 0.7 percent of GDP based on tax increases.
  - Motivation: comply with Colombia’s medium-term fiscal rule and place government debt on a downward path.
- Ecuador:
  - Ecuador 2018:
    - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 3.3 percent of GDP.
      - 2.3 percent of GDP in spending cuts.
      - 1.0 percent of GDP in tax measures.
    - Reduction in non-oil primary deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP in 2016 to 5.3 percent of GDP in 2018; deficit reduction in 2018 largely a product of a reduction in capital spending (of 2.3 percent of GDP).
    - Temporary tax amnesty added 1 percent of GDP to nonoil revenues in 2018; its 2019 budgetary impact is recorded as –1.0 percent of GDP.
  - Ecuador 2019:
    - Action-based fiscal consolidation in 2019 is recorded as totaling 1.0 percent of GDP.
      - 2.0 percent of GDP from spending cuts.
      - –1.0 percent of GDP from tax measures (reflecting the fading of the temporary 2018 tax amnesty).
    - Dataset records 2.0 percent of GDP for 2019 spending cuts (2019 IMF Staff Report quantified spending cuts at 2.3 percent of GDP; 2021 IMF Staff Report quantified spending cuts at 2.0 percent of GDP).

### Dataset scope, exclusions, and recording conventions (summary)
- Focus on action-based fiscal consolidation measures; asset sales and asset monetization proceeds are not recorded as fiscal consolidation.
- Country-level consolidation amounts derived from contemporaneous sources including Budget issues, IMF Staff Reports, IMF Country Reports, IMF Ex-Post Evaluations, OECD Economic Surveys.
- Calendar-year allocation conventions applied for fiscal-year measures and multi-year measures (examples: Japan and United Kingdom allocations shown above).
- Annex tables summarize deficit-driven fiscal consolidation across:
  - 17 OECD countries (Table A1).
  - 14 economies in Latin America and the Caribbean (Table A2).

*Source: IMF WORKING PAPERS — An Updated Action-based Dataset of Fiscal Consolidation (Annex I, wpiea2024210-print-pdf).*

### Annex I. ...............................................................................................................

### Annex I.

### I. Introduction
- Dataset covers:
  - 17 Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) economies during 1978-2020.
  - 14 economies in Latin America and the Caribbean during 1989-2020.
- Builds on methodology and earlier work by:
  - Devries and others (2011),
  - Carriere-Swallow and others (2021),
  - Alesina and others (2018),
  - Ramey and Shapiro (1998), Ramey (2011), Romer and Romer (2010) methodological approach.
- Rationale for historical, action-based approach:
  - Avoids problems with cyclically-adjusted primary budget balance (CAPB) including measurement errors and correlation with economic developments.
  - Uses contemporaneous policy documents to identify measures motivated primarily by deficit reduction.
- Historical sources examined include:
  - Budget Reports, central bank reports, Convergence Programmes, Stability Programmes submitted to the European Commission, IMF reports, and OECD Economic Surveys.
- Sample composition:
  - 242 cases of fiscal policy consolidation in 17 OECD economies during 1978-2020. The 17 countries are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Japan, the Netherlands, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom and the United States.
  - 82 cases of fiscal policy consolidation in 14 Latin American and Caribbean economies during 1989-2020. The 14 economies are Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Chile, Colombia, Costa Rica, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Mexico, Paraguay, Peru, and Uruguay.
- Tables A1 and A2 in Annex I tabulate the full set of fiscal consolidation cases and provide a breakdown into spending and tax measures.

### II. Methodology
- Motivation of Measures
  - Core criterion: include fiscal actions primarily motivated by the desire to reduce the budget deficit (to shore up government financial sustainability) and exclude measures primarily motivated by restraining domestic demand for cyclical reasons.
  - If consolidation measures are followed by discretionary countercyclical stimulus motivated by cyclical considerations, include only the deficit-reduction measures in the database (example: Japan 2019 consumption tax hike included despite offsetting discretionary support).
  - If consolidation is offset by non-cyclical measures (e.g., tax cuts motivated by long-run supply-side considerations), net the measures and record consolidation only if the overall change yields budgetary savings (example: France 2018).
- Budgetary Effects
  - Use contemporaneous estimates contained in historical sources (following Romer and Romer (2010)); record the budgetary effect in the year measures come into effect.
  - Government concept: general government unless otherwise stated.
  - Scale budgetary impacts in percent of GDP.
  - Implementation filter: measures announced but not implemented are excluded (example: Spain 2015–16 measures initially envisaged but not implemented).
  - Distinguish permanent versus temporary measures:
    - Temporary measure: recorded as positive impact when it comes into effect and negative impact when it expires (example: one-year tax increase of $1 billion recorded as $1 billion in year t and –$1 billion in year t+1).
    - Permanent measure: recorded as positive impact when it comes into effect and zero thereafter (example: permanent tax hike of $1 billion coded as $1 billion in year t and zero thereafter).
  - Overall, budgetary effects can be both negative and positive.

### II. 17 OECD Economies (dataset construction and sources)
- Composition of dataset:
  - For 1978-2009: use Devries and others (2011) dataset with 173 cases of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction.
  - For 2010-2014: use Alesina and others (2018) as main source (they follow Devries et al. methodology and extend to 2009-2014 for 16 OECD economies; they reviewed and made minor adjustments for 1981-2009).
  - Netherlands: not included in Alesina et al. (2018) for 2010-14; after review, identify three cases of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction for those years.
  - Japan: add 2014 case based on consumption tax hike not in Alesina et al. (2018).
  - 2015-2020: review historical record and identify 9 cases of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction (Denmark, Finland, France, Japan, Spain, United Kingdom).
  - In the remaining ten economies for 2015-2020, find little evidence of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction in main historical sources (example: Germany; example: Italy).
- Consistency check:
  - Regression D = α + βA + ε comparing Devries (D) and Alesina (A) series for 1981-2009:
    - R-squared = 96 percent.
    - Slope coefficient (β) = 1.0 (t-statistic = 112.6).
    - Intercept (α) = –0.01 (t-statistic = –1.39).
  - Conclusion: close similarity justifies combining datasets.
- Overall total: dataset for the 17 OECD economies contains 242 identified cases of fiscal consolidation during 1978-2020.

### A. Finland — selected new episodes identified (2015–2016)
- Finland 2015
  - Total action-based fiscal consolidation: 1.0 percent of GDP.
  - Composition:
    - Tax hikes (net of tax cuts): 0.35 percent of GDP.
    - Spending cuts: 0.65 percent of GDP.
  - Motivation: progress toward aligning Finland’s budget deficit with the medium-term objective (MTO) under the EU Stability and Growth Pact (European Commission Assessment of the 2015 Stability Programme for Finland, p. 3: “Finland is currently subject to the preventive arm of the Stability and Growth Pact and should ensure sufficient progress towards its MTO.”).
  - Revenue measures (total 0.35 percent of GDP) detailed:
    - Decreasing the effective income tax rate: 0.05 percent of GDP.
    - Increasing taxes on capital income: 0.05 percent of GDP.
    - Lowering other direct taxes: 0.05 percent of GDP.
    - Increasing other indirect taxes: 0.2 percent of GDP.
    - Increasing social security contributions: 0.2 percent of GDP.
  - Spending measures (total 0.65 percent of GDP) detailed:
    - Reducing consumption expenditure: 0.2 percent of GDP.
    - Lowering transfers to businesses and industry: 0.05 percent of GDP.
    - Lowering transfers to households: 0.2 percent of GDP.
    - Lowering other transfers: 0.15 percent of GDP.
    - Lowering real investment: 0.05 percent of GDP.
- Finland 2016
  - Total action-based fiscal consolidation: 0.65 percent of GDP.
  - Composition:
    - Spending cuts: 0.4 percent of GDP.
    - Tax measures: 0.25 percent of GDP.
  - Motivation: continued progress toward aligning with the MTO under the EU Stability and Growth Pact (see entry for 2015); the 2017 IMF Staff Report notes (p. 1): “The authorities are implementing a multi-year consolidation plan to address long-term sustainability concerns.”
  - Measures description (European Commission Assessment of the 2016 Stability Programme for Finland, p. 8): “Most important among the measures taken for 2016 are expenditure cuts which, based on the Stability Programme, amount to 0.4% of GDP. Measures increasing general government revenues include the increase in unemployment insurance contribution and increase of tobacco, waste and energy taxes.”
  - Total action-based fiscal consolidation in 2016 thus amounted to 0.65 percent of GDP, with 0.25 percent of GDP in tax hikes and 0.4 percent of GDP in spending cuts.

*IMF WORKING PAPERS — An Updated Action-based Dataset of Fiscal Consolidation (Annex I).*

### 0.4 percent of GDP in spending cuts.

### wpiea2024210-print-pdf - 0.4 percent of GDP in spending cuts.

### Overview
- The document records action-based fiscal consolidation episodes across multiple countries and years, allocating calendar-year budgetary impacts exactly as reported.
- Motivations for consolidation are categorized (e.g., deficit reduction, medium-term fiscal health, growth/competitiveness), and where measures are partly offset (spending cuts vs. tax cuts) net (overall) budgetary impacts are computed.
- For multi-year measures and measures enacted in fiscal years that span calendar years, budgetary impacts are allocated to calendar years according to the conventions described in the source.

### Germany, Italy, Finland (background notes)
- Germany: 2015 IMF Staff Report Press Release (No.15/337) notes “healthy fiscal position” and “neutral fiscal stance”; 2016–19 IMF Staff Reports provide little evidence of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction.
- Italy: 2015 budget cut labor taxes by 0.7 percent of GDP and contains 0.6 percent of GDP in expenditure cuts (net: no action-based fiscal consolidation). 2016 further tax cuts and easing of fiscal policy; 2018–19 show expansionary fiscal policy and a “large fiscal stimulus” with a slightly expansionary stance in 2019.
- Finland: sources consulted include European Commission Assessment of the Convergence Programme, the IMF Staff Report, and OECD Economic Surveys.

### France
- France 2015
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 1.0 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
  - Motivation: addressing medium-term challenges (raise growth, reduce unemployment, gradually consolidate via spending containment).
  - “The Spending Containment Package” included €50 billion of expenditure containment over 2015-17; cuts frontloaded: €21 billion in 2015, €16 billion in 2016, €13 billion in 2017.
  - For 2015, action-based fiscal consolidation recorded as 1.0 percent of GDP based on spending measures.
- France 2018
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.4 percent of GDP (0.5 percent of GDP in spending cuts offset by 0.1 percent of GDP in tax cuts).
  - Motivation: promoting medium-term public financial health and making France’s economy more dynamic and public finances sustainable.
  - 2018 IMF Staff Report (“Baseline Expenditure and Tax Measures,” p. 15) estimated 0.6 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.3 percent of GDP in tax cuts for 2018.
  - 2019 IMF Staff Report updated 2018 estimates to 0.5 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax cuts, implying net fiscal consolidation of 0.4 percent of GDP.

### Japan
- General context
  - Multi-year plan reaffirmed in June 2013: halving primary deficits by FY2015 (vs. FY2010) and achieving a primary surplus by FY2020.
  - Consumption tax increases central to the plan: two-step increase from 5 to 8 percent in April 2014 and to 10 percent in October 2015.
- Japan 2014
  - Fiscal consolidation totaled 1.125 percent of GDP based on tax hikes.
  - Full-year budgetary impact of April 2014 consumption tax increase (5→8 percent) is 1.5 percent of GDP; allocated to calendar years as 1.125 percent of GDP in 2014 (= 1.5 percent × (3/4)) and 0.375 percent of GDP in 2015 (= 1.5 percent × (1/4)).
  - The prospective two-step increase from 5 to 10 percent had estimated budgetary impact of 2.5 percent of GDP; the October 2015 increase (8→10 percent) was estimated at 1.0 percent of GDP.
- Japan 2015
  - Fiscal consolidation totaled 0.375 percent of GDP based on tax hikes (allocation from April 2014 increase).
  - The planned October 2015 increase was postponed (initially to April 2017), therefore not recorded as implemented in 2015.
- Japan 2019
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.25 percent of GDP based on tax hikes.
  - October 2019 consumption tax hike (8→10 percent) had full-year budgetary impact estimated at 1.0 percent of GDP; allocated as 0.25 percent of GDP in 2019 (= 1.0 percent × (1/4)) and 0.75 percent of GDP in 2020 (= 1.0 percent × (3/4)).
  - Countercyclical fiscal support measures implemented alongside the hike to smooth demand were not recorded as consolidation in the dataset.
- Japan 2020
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.75 percent of GDP based on tax hikes (allocation from October 2019 increase).
  - Significant fiscal support measures in response to COVID-19 in 2020 are omitted from the consolidation dataset (convention: record actions primarily motivated by deficit reduction).

### The Netherlands
- The Netherlands 2011
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.3 percent of GDP (0.2 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax increases).
  - Motivation: multi-year plan to ensure return to sound public finances; legislation included the 2011 Deficit Reduction Act.
  - 2011 measures included public sector wage moderation, across-the-board spending cuts, and higher tax and social insurance contributions.
- The Netherlands 2012
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.5 percent of GDP (0.4 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax hikes).
- The Netherlands 2013
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.6 percent of GDP (0.5 percent of GDP in spending cuts and 0.1 percent of GDP in tax hikes).
- Post-2013
  - After several years of consolidation, fiscal stance set to return to neutral; 2014 IMF Staff Report notes shift to a broadly neutral fiscal stance.

### Spain
- Spain 2017
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.5 percent of GDP based on tax measures.
  - 2017 budget aimed to reduce the deficit through revenue measures of about ½ percent of GDP.
  - Corporate tax measures projected to yield about 0.4 percent of GDP in 2017.
  - Measures to improve VAT administration and compliance yielded around €600 million more in VAT in the first five months of 2017 (about 0.1 percent of GDP annualized).
  - Action-based fiscal consolidation recorded as 0.5 percent of GDP (0.4+0.1).
- 2015–16 and 2018–19
  - 2015–16: little evidence of implemented action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction; fiscal stance turned expansionary in 2015–16.
  - 2018–19: little evidence of action-based consolidation; fiscal stance easing in 2018 with measures supporting pensioners and low-income households.

### United Kingdom
- United Kingdom 2015
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.25 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
  - Part of a multi-year program started after the global financial crisis, motivated by ensuring medium-term fiscal health.
  - Total expenditure projected to fall by 1 percentage point to 42½ percent of GDP in FY2014/15; budgetary impact in calendar-year 2015 recorded as 0.25 percent of GDP (¼ × 1 percent of GDP).
  - Fiscal year convention: FY runs April 1–March 31; measures in “FY t/t+1” split ¾ to year t and ¼ to year t+1.

### Latin America and the Caribbean — summary and Argentina
- Regional summary (14 economies)
  - Starting point: dataset of Carriere-Swallow, David, and Leigh (2021) covering 14 countries during 1989–2016.
  - Extended sample through 2020 identifies 6 cases of action-based fiscal consolidation motivated by deficit reduction during 2017–2020 pertaining to Argentina, Brazil, Colombia, and Ecuador.
- Argentina 2018
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 1.5 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
  - Motivation: multi-year plan to achieve federal government primary balance by 2020; front-loaded effort with targeted primary deficit of 2.7 percent of GDP in 2018 and 1.3 percent of GDP in 2019.
  - Supported by a three-year Stand-By Arrangement approved on June 20.
  - July 2018 IMF Staff Report estimated budgetary impact of measures at 1.5 percent of GDP (not including 0.2 percent of GDP in asset sales).
  - Measures included reductions in both capital and current government spending; December 2018 IMF Staff Report assessed primary federal deficit likely to close 2018 at (or slightly below) the 2.7 percent of GDP target.
- Argentina 2019
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 2.4 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
  - Consolidation part of the multi-year plan motivated by reducing the budget deficit and putting government debt on a downward trajectory (see entry for 2018).

*Source: IMF WORKING PAPERS An Updated Action-based Dataset of Fiscal Consolidation (wpiea2024210-print-pdf)*

### 1995. The sources consulted for the United Kingdom are various issues of the Budget, the IMF Staff Report, and OECD

### An Updated Action-based Dataset of Fiscal Consolidation

### Overview and methodology
- The dataset focuses on action-based fiscal consolidation measures, recording tax and spending measures and excluding asset sales: "Since the analysis focuses on tax and spending measures, we do not record asset sales as fiscal consolidation."
- Country-level consolidation amounts are based on sources including Budget issues, IMF Staff Reports, IMF Country Reports, IMF Ex-Post Evaluations, and OECD Economic Surveys as specified for each country.

### Argentina (2019)
- Action-based fiscal consolidation recorded as totaling 2.4 percent of GDP based on spending cuts.
- The 2019 consolidation figure excludes 0.4 percent of GDP in asset sales (not recorded in the dataset).
- Narrative from the 2021 IMF Ex-Post Evaluation: primary balance targets were met mainly by lowering expenditures; measures were "generally of low—and decreasing—quality throughout the program."

### Brazil (2017)
- Fiscal consolidation amounted to 0.9 percent of GDP.
  - 0.66 percent of GDP from spending cuts.
  - 0.24 percent of GDP from tax measures.
- Motivation: restoring fiscal sustainability with support from the constitutional expenditure ceiling and social security reform.
- Authorities' 2017 target and measures: aim to bring the primary deficit to –2.1 percent of GDP; introduced adjustment measures of 0.9 percent of GDP, including cuts in discretionary spending of 2/3 percent of GDP and a partial roll-back of payroll tax exemptions.
- Outcome: the primary fiscal deficit declined to 1.7 percent of GDP in 2017, below authorities’ target, reflecting under-execution of discretionary expenditures.

### Colombia (2017)
- Fiscal consolidation in 2017 amounted to 0.7 percent of GDP based on tax increases.
- Source: a revenue-augmenting tax reform with an estimated budgetary impact of 0.7 percent of GDP.
- Motivation: comply with Colombia’s medium-term fiscal rule and place government debt on a downward path; central government deficit expected to narrow to 3.6 percent of GDP with the tax reform proceeds (0.7 percent of GDP) protecting social expenditure programs.

### Ecuador (2018–2019)
- Ecuador 2018:
  - Fiscal consolidation amounted to 3.3 percent of GDP.
    - 2.3 percent of GDP in spending cuts.
    - 1.0 percent of GDP in tax measures.
  - Drivers and reforms: new fiscal framework combining a formal debt anchor with a rule capping the growth of public spending (at Ecuador’s long-term growth rate), supported by escape clauses and automatic correction mechanisms.
  - Reduction in non-oil primary deficit from 7.6 percent of GDP in 2016 to 5.3 percent of GDP in 2018; the deficit reduction in 2018 was largely a product of a reduction in capital spending (of 2.3 percent of GDP).
  - Temporary tax amnesty added 1 percent of GDP to nonoil revenues in 2018; its 2019 budgetary impact is recorded as –1.0 percent of GDP.
  - Asset monetization proceeds in 2019 of 0.8 percent of GDP (including from the concession of a hydroelectric plant) are noted in the 2019 IMF Staff Report but are not recorded in the dataset as tax hikes or spending cuts.
- Ecuador 2019:
  - Action-based fiscal consolidation in 2019 is recorded as totaling 1.0 percent of GDP.
    - 2.0 percent of GDP from spending cuts.
    - –1.0 percent of GDP from tax measures (reflecting the fading of the temporary 2018 tax amnesty).
  - The 2019 IMF Staff Report quantified spending cuts at 2.3 percent of GDP in 2019, but the 2021 IMF Staff Report quantified spending cuts at 2.0 percent of GDP; the dataset records 2.0 percent of GDP for 2019 spending cuts.

### Dataset scope and annex material
- Annex tables summarize deficit-driven fiscal consolidation across:
  - 17 OECD countries (Table A1).
  - 14 economies in Latin America and the Caribbean (Table A2).
- References cited in the source include academic papers and institutional reports used to construct and contextualize the dataset (Alesina et al. 2018; Carriere-Swallow, David, and Leigh 2021; Devries et al. 2011; European Commission; IMF Staff Reports and publications; National Bank of Belgium Annual Reports; OECD Economic Surveys).

*IMF Working Papers — An Updated Action-based Dataset of Fiscal Consolidation*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/files/publications/wp/2024/english/wpiea2024210-print-pdf.pdf_