## _wp07196

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp07196](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/_wp07196.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/_wp07196.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/_wp07196.pdf.json)

---

### Overview and model
- Purpose: analyze macroeconomic effects of fiscal adjustment in Europe combined with tax, labor, and product market reforms using the IMF’s Global Fiscal Model (GFM).
- GFM: multicountry dynamic general equilibrium model with overlapping generations, a wide menu of taxes, stylized financial sector block; calibrated to Germany, the rest of the euro area, the United States, and the rest of the world.
- Key non-Ricardian features:
  - Overlapping generations (Blanchard-Weil); short planning horizons for some consumers.
  - Liquidity-constrained consumers (up to a third in advanced economies).
  - Distortionary taxation, endogenous labor supply, and capital accumulation.

### Demographic trends and projected age-related fiscal pressures (EU and cross-country)
- EU25: Eurostat projects doubling of old-age dependency ratio from 2005 to 2050; modal age-cohorts move from mid-30s to late 50s.
- Projected weighted average increases in age-related expenditures:
  - EU25: 3.4 percent of GDP
  - EU15: 3.7 percent of GDP
  - EU10: 0.2 percent of GDP
- Poland’s pension reform: decline in pension expenditures amounting to 5.9 percent of GDP.
- Excluding Poland: EU10 average age-related expenditures likely to increase by 4½ percent of GDP.
- Breakdown (pensions versus health and long-term care):
  - Pension increases: EU15 = 2.3 percent of GDP; EU10 = 0.3 percent of GDP; EU10 excluding Poland = 4.8 percent of GDP.
  - Health and long-term care increases: EU15 = 2.3 percent of GDP; EU10 = 1½ percent of GDP.
- Health care projection assumptions:
  - Short-term elasticity of demand = 1.1; elasticity declines to unity over the projection period.
- Cross-country aging magnitudes:
  - United States projected increase in age-related spending over 2005–50 = 5.9 percent of GDP.
  - U.S. structural primary balance (2005) ≈ -1.8 percent; implied U.S. sustainability gap ≈ 7 percent of GDP.
  - Sensitivity: a 1 percent interest rate/growth differential for the U.S. suggests a primary gap ≈ 7.2 percent.
  - Japan: a 1 percent interest rate/growth differential suggests a primary gap ≈ 5½ percent; aging costs account for around a third.
  - Emerging markets (nine largest): 65+ populations projected to increase between 150 and 400 percent over four to five decades; old-age dependency ratio expected to triple on average by 2050. Korea faces almost a five-fold increase in the 65+ share.

### GFM key features and calibration highlights
- Modeling choices:
  - No nominal rigidities; prices and wages fully flexible.
  - Perfect capital mobility; world interest rates set in world markets.
  - Four regional blocks in paper: Germany, rest of euro area, United States, rest of the world.
- Tax menu: social security contributions (workers and employers), corporate income tax on accounting profits, personal income tax on labor income/accounting profits/interest, VAT; most taxes modeled with a single marginal rate equalling the average rate.
- Financial sector: two asset types — government debt (internationally tradable) and equity (held domestically); government debt affects long-term interest rates internationally.
- Baseline macro and fiscal ratios (percent of GDP unless stated; Table 1):
  - Size (percent of world GDP): Germany 6.3; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 15.9; United States 27.5; Rest of the World 50.4.
  - Private consumption: Germany 63.3; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 62.8; United States 67.3; Rest of the World 63.3.
  - Government expenditure (net of transfers): Germany 18.6; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 16.6; United States 15.9; Rest of the World 21.2.
  - Investment: Germany 18.1; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 20.6; United States 16.8; Rest of the World 15.5.
  - Exports: Germany 31.3; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 31.3; United States 21.3; Rest of the World 32.4.
  - Capital income share: Germany 44.0; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 44.5; United States 39.2; Rest of the World 51.2.
  - Labor income share: Germany 56.0; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 55.6; United States 60.8; Rest of the World 48.9.
  - Government debt (% of GDP): Germany 67.5; Euro Area (excl. Germany) 70; United States 40; Rest of the World 40.
- Germany-specific parameters (Table 2 excerpts):
  - Rule-of-thumb versus forward-looking consumers: Rule of thumb 40 percent (these account for 15 percent of aggregate consumption); Forward looking 60 percent.
  - Nominal short term interest rate = 5.1; real short term interest rate = 3.0.
  - Price markups: Tradables 14.3 percent; Nontradables 26.7 percent.
  - Intertemporal Elasticity of Substitution: baseline 0.33; alternative -0.29.
  - Elasticity of labor supply: baseline 0.92; alternative -0.01.
  - Probability of survival: 0.90.
  - Elasticity of substitution between capital and labor: 0.75.
  - Social security contributions (workers) rate = 11.0; revenue = 8.7 (percent of GDP).
  - Personal income tax rate = 27.2; revenue = 8.9 (percent of GDP).
  - Social security contributions (employers) rate = 10.1; revenue = 8.7 (percent of GDP).
  - Consumption tax rate = 22.8; revenue = 6.2 (percent of GDP).
  - Corporate income tax rate = 29.0; revenue = 8.1 (percent of GDP).
  - Transfers = 19.7 percent of GDP.
- Behavioral baseline and alternatives:
  - Wedge between rate of time preference and yield on government bonds (planning horizon): baseline 10 percent (planning horizon 10 years); alternative 1 percent (planning horizon 100 years).
  - Fraction of liquidity-constrained consumers: baseline 40 percent (these consumers have no wealth and consume one-fourth of aggregate consumption); alternative 10 percent.
  - Frisch elasticity (sensitivity of labor supply): baseline -0.08; alternative -0.01.
  - Intertemporal elasticity of substitution: baseline -0.33; alternative -0.29.

### Germany: aging pressures, baseline policy assumptions, and debt dynamics
- Aging-related expenditure pressure assumption for Germany: 4 percent of GDP by 2050 (described as “in the middle range of existing estimates”).
- Policy/reform baseline assumptions:
  - VAT statutory rate increase from 16 percent to 19 percent in 2007 → additional revenue = 1 percent of GDP.
  - Effective VAT rate in 2006 = 10.1 percent of total consumption; increases by 1.9 percentage points from 2007 onward.
  - Payroll-tax relief equivalent = 0.4 percent of GDP, effective January 2007.
  - Reduction in CIT rate → revenue loss = ¼ percent of GDP from 2008 onward.
- Short-term structural deficit projection: structural deficit ≈ 2 percent of GDP by end-2008 after tax reform effects.
- Debt dynamics under baseline:
  - Debt declines moderately in short term following VAT rise and lower aging costs, but is unsustainable long term.
  - Debt never declines below the Maastricht limit under current policies and assumed aging profile.
- Sensitivity of debt to alternative aging cost estimates:
  - EU Aging Working Group estimate: 2¾ percent of GDP by 2050.
  - IFO institute pessimistic view: 7¾ percent of GDP by 2050.
  - Debt remains unsustainable under current policies across these estimates.
- Global aging spillovers:
  - Including aging pressures in rest of euro area and the United States raises world real interest rates, increasing Germany’s borrowing costs due to perfect capital mobility.
  - Caveats: entitlement reform expectations can induce preemptive saving; aging could raise capital-labor ratio and lower real rates; model does not assume a positive risk premium on government debt.

### Fiscal adjustment objectives and required effort for Germany
- Sustainability objective used: government debt-to-GDP ratio below 60 percent (text cutoff in source at exact target date).
- Medium-term consolidation path to move toward structural balance: about a ½ percentage point of GDP reduction in the deficit per year during 2008–11 (≈ 2 percent of GDP in total).
- Additional adjustment required to maintain debt below Maastricht limit until 2050; size and composition of adjustment are set exogenously so resulting debt trajectory remains below Maastricht limit.

### Alternative fiscal adjustment strategies (Table 3 summary and quantitative entries)
- Consolidation instruments compared: lower government consumption; lower government transfers; higher worker social security contributions; higher employer social security contributions; higher personal income tax rates; higher VAT; raising worker social security contributions combined with income tax base broadening; higher corporate income tax rates; and a combined "package".
- Adjustment scenario: additional ½ percent of GDP during 2007–11 on top of coalition agreement; all scenarios reach structural balance by 2011 with further adjustment to keep debt within Maastricht limit to 2050.
- Selected numeric entries:
  - VAT statutory rate: 2006 = 16.0; 2007 = 19.0; 2011 = 24.7; 2017 = 26.6.
  - VAT effective rate: 2006 = 10.1; 2007 = 12.0; 2011 = 15.6; 2017 = 16.8.
  - VAT revenue (percent of GDP): 2006 = 6.2; 2007 = 7.2; 2011 = 9.2; 2017 = 9.8.
  - Labor income tax workers effective rate: 2006 = 27.2; 2007 = 26.0; 2011 = 32.0; 2017 = 36.5.
  - Labor income tax workers revenue (percent of GDP): 2006 = 8.7; 2007 = 8.3; 2011 = 10.3; 2017 = 11.7.
  - Base broadening (reducing effective exemption rate, percent of GDP): 2011 = 1.5; 2017 = 1.5.
  - Labor income tax employers effective rate: 2006 = 22.8; 2007 = 22.8; 2011 = 29.5; 2017 = 40.3.
  - Personal income tax effective rate: 2006 = 11.0; 2007 = 11.0; 2011 = 13.0; 2017 = 14.4.
  - Corporate income tax effective rate: 2006 = 29.0; 2007 = 29.0; 2011 = 34.9; 2017 = 38.7.
  - Social security transfers in absence of adjustment (percent of GDP): 2006 = 19.7; 2007 = 19.6; 2011 = 19.1; 2017 = 19.8.
  - With fiscal adjustment, social security transfers (percent of GDP): 2006 = 19.7; 2007 = 19.6; 2011 = 17.1; 2017 = 17.6.
  - Government consumption (percent of GDP): 2006 = 18.6; 2007 = 18.6; 2011 = 16.6; 2017 = 16.4. Percentage reduction relative to 2007: -10.8; -11.8.
  - Package metrics: package spending 2006 = 18.6; 2007 = 18.6; 2011 = 18.1; 2017 = 18.1. Package social security transfers 2006 = 19.7; 2007 = 19.6; 2011 = 18.0; 2017 = 18.0.
  - Package revenue from reducing effective exemption rate: 2011 = 0.5; 2017 = 1.3 (percent of GDP).
  - Package VAT effective rate: 2006 = 10.1; 2007 = 12.0; 2011 = 12.6; 2017 = 12.6. Package VAT statutory rate: 2006 = 16.0; 2007 = 19.0; 2011 = 20.0; 2017 = 20.0.

### Macroeconomic effects of alternative consolidation methods
- Short-run growth slowdown from achieving structural balance varies by instrument:
  - Annual impact on growth between 2007–15 ranges between -0.2 percent and -0.3 percent depending on measures.
  - Growth costs of tax measures range from -0.1 percent to -0.3 percent.
  - VAT is less distortionary than payroll taxes because it taxes accumulated savings and reaches a broader base (including retirees).
  - Increasing payroll taxes on workers is more distortionary than base broadening because marginal tax rates on workers exceed the average rate.
  - Raising corporate or personal income taxes is roughly equally distortionary in terms of output loss.
- Expenditure measures:
  - Lowering social security transfers yields smallest growth impact per year when reductions are distributed in lump sum.
  - Cutting government consumption leads to larger growth slowdown due to home bias in government spending.
- Institutional constraint: under German law, social security accounts must balance, implying growing expenditures are likely to be met via higher social security contributions (payroll taxes), which is inefficient relative to alternatives.
- Feasibility:
  - Achieving the 2 percent of GDP adjustment during 2008–11 by a single measure is difficult; a mix of measures is likely required.
  - Limits exist on VAT increases (EU regulations); base broadening feasible by reducing items under the 7 percent VAT rate.
  - Raising direct taxation is distortionary and runs counter to incentives for labor participation and investment.

### Mixed policy package findings and prefunding effects
- Mixed package: lower government spending, lower social security transfers via entitlement reform, reductions in income tax exemptions (base broadening), small further increase in effective VAT (statutory 20 percent).
- Eliminating the structural deficit by 2011 via such a package:
  - Lowers medium-run growth by about 0.2 percent per year (decline in level of output relative to no-adjustment scenario).
  - Effects on consumption larger for labor-income-reliant consumers due to lower social security transfers.
  - Package may be less harmful to rule-of-thumb consumers than raising corporate income taxation, which affects optimizing consumers in short term and shifts incidence to workers in long term.
  - Short-term output decline could be larger if wages and prices are sticky.
- Prefunding future aging costs:
  - Prefunding reduces government debt over medium term and lowers interest burden, accommodating rising aging costs with limited debt increases up to 2050.
  - Prefunding reduces real interest rates by about 40 basis point in the medium term when government debt reaches a trough; magnitude depends on degree of non-Ricardian behavior.
  - Transmission: higher VAT and base broadening reduce labor participation incentives → decline in hours worked and increase in real wage; investment "crowds in" after debt decline; output gradually recovers; consumption declines drive real exchange rate depreciation and stronger trade surpluses; higher national saving increases net foreign assets and interest earnings.

### International cooperation, sequencing, and global spillovers
- Baseline finding: debt unsustainable in Germany, rest of euro area, and United States under unchanged policies.
- Sequencing scenarios:
  - Joint early adjustment: 0.5 percent of GDP a year; Germany and euro area adjust over six years; U.S. over 10 years.
  - Sequential stop-and-go: each country implements elements every three years (Germany starts 2007; rest of euro area 2008; U.S. 2009).
  - Delayed scenario: 10-year delay compensated by higher worker social security contributions to reach same 2050 debt target.
- Regional package assumptions (selected):
  - Euro area: aging costs by 2050 = 4.5; government debt by 2022 without adjustment = 87.5; package stabilizes debt by 2050 at 53.0.
  - United States: aging costs by 2050 = 6.0; government debt by 2022 without adjustment = 57.5; package stabilizes debt by 2050 at 33.0.
- International benefits of early cooperative adjustment:
  - Germany gains from lower world real interest rates driven by adjustment elsewhere; decline in interest rates more than offsets export declines, yielding investment rebound and higher domestic demand.
  - Delaying adjustment yields short-term benefits but larger medium-term costs: larger eventual adjustment required and higher interest rates during delay.
  - If all countries postpone, global economy faces higher interest rates and greater future adjustments.
- Net present value (NPV) of discounted output effects (discount rate = market real interest rate implied by simulation) — selected entries from Table 5 (units as reported in source):
  - Early cooperative adjustment: Germany 167; euro area 135; US 149.
  - Germany delays 10 years: Germany 148; euro area 128; US 141.
  - Euro area excl. Germany delays 10 years: Germany 135; euro area 79; US 116.
  - U.S. delays 10 years: Germany 91; euro area 61; US 52.
  - Germany and the rest of the euro area delay 10 years: Germany 116; euro area 71; US 108.
  - Germany and the U.S. delay 10 years: Germany 74; euro area 52; US 44.
  - Euro area excl. Germany and the U.S. delay 10 years: Germany 56; euro area 8; US 19.
  - 10 year delay Germany, rest of the euro area, and the U.S.: Germany 40; euro area 0; US 11.
- Aggregate statement: estimates suggest real GDP, in discounted terms, is on average 4 percent higher until 2050 from an early cooperative response.
- Sequencing tradeoffs:
  - Sequential implementation reduces short-term world GDP costs modestly vs simultaneous action but yields materially smaller medium-term benefits.
  - Political-economy risk: high policymaker discount rates can produce a prisoner’s dilemma of delay.

### Lisbon Agenda, complementary structural reforms, and reform scenarios
- Reform instruments analyzed:
  - A. Increasing labor participation:
    - Fiscal measure: lower direct taxation of labor and capital = one-half percent of GDP per year during 2009–12 (revenue-neutral via higher indirect taxation).
    - Labor supply reform: gradual reduction in elasticity of labor supply over 2007–15; target increase in labor participation = 5 percent of labor force over five years.
    - Macro effect: large positive effects on consumption and real GDP that offset most short-term fiscal adjustment costs; rule-of-thumb consumption increases markedly.
  - B. Higher R&D spending:
    - Germany R&D intensity assumed to rise from 2½ percent in 2004 to 3 percent by 2010.
    - Total elasticity from domestic R&D channels = 15 percent → a 1 percent of GDP increase in R&D stock leads to 0.15 increase in TFP growth and output growth.
    - Scenario: R&D ratio rising from 2½ percent to 3 percent implies a 20 percent increase in the R&D stock; simulation outcome: by 2025, GDP increases by about 3.3 percent.
  - C. Higher product market competition:
    - Baseline markups: tradables 14 percent; nontradables 27 percent.
    - Reform: gradual decline in markups by a quarter by 2015 → tradable markup = 11.1 percent; nontradables = 20.3 percent.
    - Outcome: significant medium- and long-run output gains; capital stock increases; real wages rise; rule-of-thumb consumption up.
- Lisbon implementation permutations:
  - Germany-only full Lisbon: output and consumption expand considerably; reforms largely offset fiscal adjustment losses.
  - Euro area-wide Lisbon (excluding Germany)/full euro area implementation: larger GDP and consumption effects for the euro area than Germany-only because of larger required R&D increases and markup reductions; euro area Lisbon more than compensates for output losses from fiscal adjustment at euro area level.
  - Partial/delayed Lisbon scenario (selected parameters):
    - Markups reduced by 12.5 percent by 2020.
    - R&D increases from 2.1 to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2015.
    - Labor participation increases from 63 to 67 percent by 2020.
    - Under partial/delayed Lisbon, short-term losses from prefunding are not mitigated; policymakers may be tempted to postpone consolidation.
- Modeling caveats: assumptions of announced, fully credible reforms and perfect information; synergies between labor and product market reforms; potential for reforms to lower government spending via lower prices for government procurement.

### Sensitivity analysis and behavioral robustness
- Sensitivity cases explored:
  - Longer consumer planning horizon = 100 years.
  - Lower labor supply elasticity (less responsive): absolute elasticity = 0.99 in sensitivity note.
  - Fewer liquidity-constrained consumers: fraction = 10 percent.
  - Lower intertemporal elasticity of substitution: elasticity = 0.29.
- Qualitative robustness:
  - Longer planning horizons (more Ricardian behavior) reduce initial output decline and medium-term consumption/output gains, but cooperative action still beneficial.
  - Making labor supply less elastic or reducing liquidity-constrained share makes economy more Ricardian; effects similar but quantitatively smaller.
  - Lower sensitivity of consumption to real interest rate increases gains from early adjustment and cooperation because prefunding produces larger declines in real interest rates benefiting investment and real GDP.

### Policy implications and recommendations (from simulations)
- Early fiscal adjustment is preferable to delayed action: net present value and medium-term growth benefits favor early cooperative adjustment across a wide range of discount rates.
- Fiscal consolidation should be multi-instrument:
  - Combine revenue and expenditure measures to achieve required adjustment (single-instrument reliance is infeasible or inefficient).
  - Prefer VAT increases with base broadening and entitlement reforms over higher payroll taxes where feasible because VAT is less distortionary and entitlement reform better preserves labor incentives.
- Prefunding aging costs (achieving structural balance by 2011 and additional adjustment through 2017) improves debt dynamics, lowers real interest rates (≈ 40 basis point medium-term decline when debt troughs), and cushions future aging-related spending pressures.
- Complementary structural reforms (labor participation, product market competition, higher R&D) materially reduce short-term contractionary effects of prefunding, raise medium- and long-run output, and are especially effective when implemented broadly (euro area-wide) and credibly.
- International cooperation magnifies benefits: early joint action across Germany, the rest of the euro area, and the U.S. lowers world real interest rates and raises investment and output relative to unilateral or delayed action.
- Partial or delayed implementation of Lisbon-type reforms weakens ability to offset short-term costs of prefunding and increases incentives for policymakers to postpone consolidation, with larger medium- and long-term costs.

*Source: _wp07196 — IMF Global Fiscal Model simulations and related text from the provided IMF chapter/section.*

### Introduction............................................................................................................

### Introduction

### Overview of the paper and model
- The paper analyzes the macroeconomic effects of fiscal adjustment in Europe combined with tax, labor, and product market reforms using the IMF’s Global Fiscal Model (GFM).
- GFM is a multicountry dynamic general equilibrium model with strong micro foundations, a wide menu of taxes, and a stylized financial sector block.
- A key feature: Ricardian equivalence does not hold owing to overlapping generations in the spirit of Blanchard-Weil, limited access of some consumers to financial markets, and distortionary taxation.
- The model is calibrated to a large open European economy (Germany), the rest of the euro area, the United States, and the rest of the world.

### Four core issues explored
- Fiscal pressures from population aging in Europe and the need for substantial fiscal adjustment, including entitlement reforms and the assessment of prefunding future health and pension spending.
- The international nature of aging pressures and implications for efficacy of fiscal adjustment through the lens of international capital flows and policy cooperation.
- Whether complementary policies (for example, increasing labor participation, product market liberalization, shifting from direct to indirect taxation, and higher incentives for innovation) can reduce the short-term contractionary effects of fiscal consolidation.
- Sensitivity of results to behavioral assumptions: (i) planning horizon of consumers; (ii) fraction of liquidity-constrained consumers; (iii) elasticity of labor supply; and the role of the intertemporal elasticity of substitution.

### Demographic trends and fiscal pressures (EU-wide projections)
- Eurostat projects, on average, a doubling of the old-age dependency ratio (population older than 65 relative to working-age population) from 2005 to 2050 in the EU25 countries.
- Over the same period, modal age-cohorts move from mid-30s to late 50s.
- Projected weighted average increases in age-related expenditures:
  - EU25: 3.4 percent of GDP
  - EU15: 3.7 percent of GDP
  - EU10: 0.2 percent of GDP
- Poland’s pension reform implies a marked decline in pension expenditures amounting to 5.9 percent of GDP.
- Excluding Poland, the average age-related expenditures for EU10 are likely to increase by 4½ percent of GDP.

### Breakdown: pensions versus health and long-term care
- Projected increases in pension expenditures:
  - EU15: 2.3 percent of GDP
  - EU10: 0.3 percent of GDP
  - EU10 excluding Poland: 4.8 percent of GDP
- Projected increases in health and long-term care spending:
  - EU15: 2.3 percent of GDP
  - EU10: 1½ percent of GDP
- Baseline assumption: increase in life-expectancy will lead to some postponement of the need for additional care.
- Health care projection assumptions:
  - Short-term elasticity of demand: 1.1
  - Elasticity is expected to gradually decline to unity over the projection period.

### Uncertainty and implications for potential growth
- Considerable uncertainty exists due to technology, evolution of health care costs, and demographics.
- Impact of aging on potential growth is subject to wide confidence intervals and has important implications for fiscal sustainability.

### Germany: projected pressures and fiscal gap
- According to EU estimates, projected increase in age-related spending in Germany is about 2 ¾ percent of GDP between 2004 and 2050.
- Components for Germany:
  - Increase in pension expenditures: around 1.7 (as reported in the source)
  - Increase in health-care expenditure: 1.2 percent of GDP
- The combination of these projections with Germany’s current budgetary position leads to a sustainability gap of 3½ percent to 4 percent of GDP.

### Model calibration and analysis scope
- Section IV calibrates GFM for Germany, the rest of the euro area, and the United States.
- The paper quantifies effects of alternative revenue- and expenditure-based consolidations on output, investment, and employment.
- The analysis includes:
  - Individual and comprehensive fiscal strategies for attaining debt sustainability in Germany.
  - Implications of cooperative fiscal consolidation in partner countries facing similar aging pressures.
  - Effects of implementing the Lisbon Agenda and complementary structural reforms on the macroeconomic outcomes of fiscal consolidation.

*Source: _wp07196 - Introduction.*

### Section IV below indicates, there are other estimates of aging costs for Germany that are

### _wp07196 - Section IV below indicates, there are other estimates of aging costs for Germany that are

### Aging-related fiscal pressures: cross-country perspective and magnitudes
- Projected increase in age-related spending over 2005–50 for the United States: 5.9 percent of GDP.
- Structural primary balance for the United States (2005): around -1.8 percent; implied U.S. sustainability gap: around 7 percent of GDP (OECD, 2001; and Hauner, Leigh, and Skaarup, 2007).
- Sensitivity to interest rate-growth differential: in the case of the United States, a 1 percent interest rate/growth differential suggests a primary gap of around 7.2 percent, with the age-related spending accounting for the bulk of that.
- Japan: a 1 percent interest rate/growth differential suggests a primary gap of around 5½ percent, with aging costs accounting for around a third of this, and the rest due to the high primary deficit and debt.
- Among the nine largest emerging markets (Argentina, Brazil, China, India, Indonesia, Korea, Mexico, Russia, and Turkey):
  - The 65+ part of the populations is projected to increase significantly in all countries (between 150 and 400 percent) over the next four to five decades.
  - The old-age dependency ratio is expected to, on average, triple by 2050 (see Kumar and Skaarup, 2007).
  - Korea faces almost a five-fold increase in the 65+ population share (albeit from a favorable starting period with a sizable structural surplus).
  - Projected increases of the old-age dependency ratio and age-related expenditures in these countries are markedly higher than in the G-7 countries (Kumar and Skaarup op. cit).

### Key features of the IMF’s Global Fiscal Model (GFM)
- Purpose: extend NOEM framework to incorporate sufficient non-Ricardianness to analyze fiscal policy effects and interdependence.
- Three reasons Ricardian equivalence does not hold fully in GFM:
  - Overlapping generations (Blanchard-Weil): consumers have short planning horizons; government debt perceived as net wealth.
  - Presence of liquidity-constrained consumers: up to a third of consumers in advanced economies; these agents consume their entire disposable income every period.
  - Endogenous labor supply and capital accumulation: allows distortionary taxes and responses of labor and capital to after-tax incentives.
- Additional modeling choices:
  - Absence of nominal rigidities; wages and prices are fully flexible.
  - Perfect capital mobility; world interest rates set in world markets.
  - World divided into four blocks in the paper’s version: Germany, rest of euro area, United States, rest of the world.
- Extensions and distinctions relative to other fiscal NOEMs:
  - Less restrictive utility function allowing alternative intertemporal elasticity of substitution.
  - Endogenous capital formation with Tobin’s Q investment dynamics and endogenous labor supply.
  - Traded and nontraded goods, allowing terms-of-trade effects and home bias in consumption.
  - Richer taxation menu: social security contributions (workers and employers), corporate income tax on accounting profits, personal income tax on labor income/accounting profits/interest income, and VAT; most taxes modeled with a single marginal rate equalling the average rate.
- Financial sector block: two asset types — government debt (internationally tradable) and equity (held domestically); changes in government debt affect long-term interest rates shared internationally due to perfect capital mobility.

### Calibration and baseline parameterization (Germany and other regions)
- Macro ratios set to 2006 values; fiscal variables calibrated to fiscal structure of Germany and other regions.
- Key baseline macro and fiscal ratios (Table 1, percent of GDP unless stated):
  - Size (percent of world GDP): Germany 6.3, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 15.9, United States 27.5, Rest of the World 50.4.
  - Private consumption: Germany 63.3, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 62.8, United States 67.3, Rest of the World 63.3.
  - Government expenditure (net of transfers): Germany 18.6, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 16.6, United States 15.9, Rest of the World 21.2.
  - Investment: Germany 18.1, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 20.6, United States 16.8, Rest of the World 15.5.
  - Exports: Germany 31.3, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 31.3, United States 21.3, Rest of the World 32.4.
  - Capital income share: Germany 44.0, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 44.5, United States 39.2, Rest of the World 51.2.
  - Labor income share: Germany 56.0, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 55.6, United States 60.8, Rest of the World 48.9.
  - Government debt (% of GDP): Germany 67.5, Euro Area (excl. Germany) 70, United States 40, Rest of the World 40.
- Germany-specific fiscal and parameter values (Table 2 highlights):
  - Rule-of-thumb versus forward-looking consumers: Rule of thumb 40 percent (share of variable: Rule of thumb 15.6 percent of consumption; Forward looking 84.4), Forward looking 60 percent.
  - Nominal short term interest rate: 5.1 (nominal short term).
  - Real short term interest rate: 3.0.
  - Price markups over marginal costs (in percent): Tradables 14.3, Nontradables 26.7.
  - Intertemporal Elasticity of Substitution: 0.33 (baseline) and alternative -0.29 in simulations.
  - Elasticity of labor supply: 0.92 (baseline) with alternative almost completely inelastic (-0.01).
  - Probability of survival: 0.90.
  - Elasticity of substitution between capital and labor: 0.75.
  - Home bias in government expenditure (excl. transfers): yes.
  - Nominal rigidities: no.
  - Social security contributions (workers): Rate 11.0; Revenue (to GDP) 8.7.
  - Personal income tax: Rate 27.2; Revenue (to GDP) 8.9.
  - Social security contributions (employers): Rate 10.1; Revenue (to GDP) 8.7.
  - Consumption tax: Rate 22.8; Revenue (to GDP) 6.2.
  - Corporate income tax: Rate 29.0; Revenue (to GDP) 8.1.
  - Transfers as a percent of GDP: 19.7.
- Behavioral parameter baselines and alternative simulations:
  - Wedge between rate of time preference and yield on government bonds (planning horizon): baseline 10 percent (planning horizon of 10 years); alternative 1 percent (planning horizon of 100 years).
  - Fraction of liquidity-constrained consumers: baseline 40 percent (these consumers have no wealth and consume one-fourth of aggregate consumption); alternative 10 percent. Note: although 40 percent of consumers, this group accounts for 15 percent of aggregate consumption in Table 2.
  - Sensitivity of labor supply to real after-tax wage (Frisch elasticity): baseline -0.08; alternative -0.01.
  - Elasticity of intertemporal substitution: baseline -0.33; alternative -0.29.

### Debt dynamics for Germany: assumptions and baseline projections
- Aging-related expenditure pressure assumption in Germany: 4 percent of GDP by 2050 (described as “in the middle range of existing estimates”).
- Policy and reform assumptions incorporated:
  - Three-percentage point increase in the standard VAT rate from 16 percent to 19 percent in 2007 — estimated to generate additional revenue of 1 percent of GDP.
  - Effective VAT rate mapping: effective VAT rate of 10.1 percent of total consumption in 2006, which increases by 1.9 percentage points from 2007 onward (to reflect exemptions and the 2007 increase).
  - Payroll-tax relief equivalent of 0.4 percent of GDP, effective January 2007.
  - Reduction in the CIT rate producing a revenue loss of ¼ percent of GDP from 2008 onward (simulation treats this as a marginal CIT rate reduction yielding a revenue loss of ¼ percent of GDP without offsetting base broadening).
- Short-term structural deficit projection: structural deficit around 2 percent of GDP by end-2008 after tax reform effects have fully worked out.
- Figure 2 (GFM simulations) summary:
  - Debt declines moderately in the short term following lower aging costs and higher VAT in 2007, but is unsustainable in the long term.
  - Debt never declines below the Maastricht limit under current policies and the assumed aging profile.
- Aging-cost scenarios and sensitivity:
  - Baseline aging cost profile: 4 percent of GDP by 2050 (from Braumann and others (2006)).
  - Alternative estimates referenced:
    - Authorities’ optimistic scenario (Federal Ministry of Finance, 2005; Werding and Kaltschütz, 2005) — not quantified here.
    - EU’s Aging Working Group: 2¾ percent (by 2050).
    - IFO institute pessimistic view: 7¾ percent (by 2050).
  - Figure 3 shows debt dynamics are sensitive to these alternative aging cost projections, but debt remains unsustainable under current policies even under lower aging-cost assumptions and even if ignoring population aging in other countries.
- Global aging spillovers:
  - Including aging pressures in the rest of the euro area and the United States increases Germany’s debt burden via higher world real interest rates.
  - Mechanism: other regions’ aging raises their fiscal deficits and current account deficits, leading to higher real interest rates; with perfect capital mobility, higher world rates raise Germany’s borrowing costs on newly issued debt.
  - Figure 4 (GFM simulations) illustrates that “global” aging plus Germany’s aging under current policies produces a more dramatic unsustainable debt trajectory.
- Caveats and mitigating channels:
  - If entitlement reform occurs or is expected, forward-looking consumers may save more today in anticipation of lower future state pension benefits, which could mitigate upward pressure on real interest rates.
  - Aging could raise the capital-labor ratio, putting downward pressure on real interest rates.
  - The simulated debt trajectories do not assume a positive risk premium related to government debt levels or net capital inflows, potentially understating likely interest-rate effects absent measures.

### Fiscal adjustment context and objectives for Germany
- Sustainability target used in analysis: government debt-to-GDP ratio below 60 percent by (text cutoff at end of available content).
- Key takeaway: under the baseline aging assumption (4 percent of GDP by 2050) and the fiscal measures described (VAT rise, payroll-tax relief, CIT cut), Germany’s debt path remains unsustainable in the long term under current policies; alternative aging cost estimates (2¾ percent to 7¾ percent of GDP by 2050) materially affect the debt trajectory but do not alter the conclusion of unsustainability without further adjustment or reform.

*Source: IMF Global Fiscal Model simulations and related text from the provided IMF chapter/section.*

### 2050. Thus, the size and composition of the fiscal adjustment are determined exogenously,

### Effects on German Debt Dynamics of Global Population Aging

### Fiscal sustainability and required adjustment
- Achieving fiscal sustainability requires additional efforts beyond those in the coalition’s tax reform package.
- Government aims to move towards structural balance over the medium-term; practically requires about a ½ percentage point of GDP reduction in the deficit per year during 2008–11 (some 2 percent of GDP in total).
- Additional adjustment is required to maintain debt below the Maastricht limit for the entire period until 2050.
- The size and composition of the fiscal adjustment are determined exogenously such that the resulting debt trajectory—determined endogenously in GFM—remains below the Maastricht Limit.

### Alternative fiscal adjustment strategies (summary of Table 3)
- GFM compares effects of consolidation methods: (i) lower government consumption; (ii) lower government transfers; (iii) higher worker social security contributions; (iv) higher employer social security contributions; (v) higher personal income tax rates; (vi) higher VAT; (vii) raising social security contributions of workers combined with income tax base broadening measures; (viii) higher corporate income tax rates; and a combined "package".
- Adjustment assumption: Adjustment of 1/2 percent of GDP during 2007-11 in addition to the coalition agreement. All scenarios achieve structural balance by 2011 with subsequent adjustment to maintain government debt within the Maastricht limit until 2050.
- Selected numeric entries from Table 3 (In percent unless otherwise indicated):
  - VAT statutory rate: 2006 = 16.0; 2007 = 19.0; 2011 = 24.7; 2017 = 26.6.
  - VAT effective rate: 2006 = 10.1; 2007 = 12.0; 2011 = 15.6; 2017 = 16.8.
  - VAT revenue (in percent of GDP): 2006 = 6.2; 2007 = 7.2; 2011 = 9.2; 2017 = 9.8.
  - Labor income tax workers effective rate: 2006 = 27.2; 2007 = 26.0; 2011 = 32.0; 2017 = 36.5.
  - Labor income tax workers revenue (in percent of GDP): 2006 = 8.7; 2007 = 8.3; 2011 = 10.3; 2017 = 11.7.
  - Base broadening: reducing effective exemption rate (in percent of GDP) in 2011 = 1.5; 2017 = 1.5.
  - Labor income tax employers effective rate: 2006 = 22.8; 2007 = 22.8; 2011 = 29.5; 2017 = 40.3.
  - Personal income tax effective rate: 2006 = 11.0; 2007 = 11.0; 2011 = 13.0; 2017 = 14.4.
  - Corporate income tax effective rate: 2006 = 29.0; 2007 = 29.0; 2011 = 34.9; 2017 = 38.7.
  - Social security transfers spending in absence of fiscal adjustment (aging effect): 2006 = 19.7; 2007 = 19.6; 2011 = 19.1; 2017 = 19.8 (in percent of GDP).
  - With fiscal adjustment, social security transfers spending: 2006 = 19.7; 2007 = 19.6; 2011 = 17.1; 2017 = 17.6 (in percent of GDP).
  - Government consumption spending (in percent of GDP): 2006 = 18.6; 2007 = 18.6; 2011 = 16.6; 2017 = 16.4. Percentage reduction (relative to 2007): -10.8; -11.8.
  - Package of measures (in percent of GDP): Spending 2006 = 18.6; 2007 = 18.6; 2011 = 18.1; 2017 = 18.1. Social security transfers 2006 = 19.7; 2007 = 19.6; 2011 = 18.0; 2017 = 18.0.
  - Package revenue from reducing effective exemption rate: 2011 = 0.5; 2017 = 1.3 (in percent of GDP).
  - Package VAT effective rate: 2006 = 10.1; 2007 = 12.0; 2011 = 12.6; 2017 = 12.6. Statutory rate in package: 2006 = 16.0; 2007 = 19.0; 2011 = 20.0; 2017 = 20.0.

### Macroeconomic effects of alternative adjustment strategies (findings from Figure 5 and discussion)
- Short-run growth slowdown from achieving structural balance varies with the type of consolidation measure.
- Impact on short run growth between 2007–15 varies between -0.2 percent and -0.3 percent each year, depending on measures, their distortionary effect, and impact on domestic demand.
- All individual consolidation measures and the package lead to the same debt profile until 2050.
- Revenue increases:
  - Negative growth impact of different tax measures ranges from -0.1 percent to -0.3 percent.
  - VAT is less distortionary than payroll taxes because it taxes accumulated savings and reaches a broader base (including retirees).
  - Increasing payroll taxes on workers is more distortionary than reducing tax exemptions (base broadening) because marginal tax rates on workers exceed the average rate.
  - Raising corporate or personal income taxes is roughly equally distortionary in terms of output loss.
- Expenditure cuts:
  - Lowering social security transfers has the smallest growth impact per year when reduced benefits are distributed in a lump sum manner.
  - Reductions in government consumption lead to larger slowing in growth due to home bias (current government spending biased toward domestic goods, nontradables).
- Under current German law, social security accounts must maintain balance, implying growing expenditures must be met with equivalent social security contributions (default response: higher payroll taxes), which is inefficient relative to alternatives.
- Achieving the 2 percent of GDP adjustment between 2008–11 by relying exclusively on a single measure is difficult; a combination of measures is likely required.
  - Reducing government spending by 2 percentage points of GDP by 2011 implies unrealistically large cuts in discretionary spending.
  - Further increases in VAT revenue are limited (including through EU regulations), though base broadening is possible (fewer items under the 7 percent VAT rate).
  - Raising direct taxation is distortionary and runs counter to government intentions to increase incentives for labor participation and investment.

### Effects of a mixed policy package (findings from Figures 5 and 7)
- Package comprises lower government spending, lower social security transfers through entitlement reforms, reductions in income tax exemptions (base broadening), and a small further increase in the effective VAT to a statutory rate of 20 percent.
- Eliminating the structural deficit by 2011 through such a package lowers medium-run growth by about 0.2 percent per year (decline in level of output relative to no-adjustment scenario).
- Effects on consumption are more sizable for consumers relying more on labor income due to lower social security transfers.
- The package may not be worse for rule-of-thumb consumers compared to long-term effects of raising corporate income taxation, which affects optimizing consumers in the short term and shifts incidence to workers in the long term via lower real wages.
- Short-term decline in output from fiscal adjustment could be larger if wages and prices are sticky.

### Debt dynamics and prefunding future aging costs
- Adjustment strategies achieve considerable improvement in debt dynamics (Figure 6).
- Eliminating the structural deficit by 2011, with further adjustment through 2017, implies substantial improvement in the overall fiscal balance and prefunds future aging costs.
- Prefunding reduces government debt over the medium term and lowers the interest burden, allowing rising aging costs to be accommodated with limited increases in debt up until 2050.
- The proposed adjustment prevents debt from rising above the Maastricht debt limit, but further measures will be required toward the end of the period.
- Prefunding future aging costs results in a reduction in real interest rates by about 40 basis point in the medium term when government debt reaches a trough; magnitude depends critically on how non-Ricardian consumers are.
- Effects on macro variables:
  - Higher VAT and base broadening imply reduced incentives for labor participation: decline in hours worked and increase in the real wage.
  - Investment responds positively through "crowding-in" after debt starts to decline.
  - Output gradually increases, taking a long time to return to pre-adjustment levels.
  - As consumption declines, the real exchange rate depreciates and the trade balance records stronger surpluses.
  - Higher national saving increases claims on the rest of the world via accumulation of net foreign assets.
  - Higher interest earnings from net foreign asset position imply current account remains above initial steady state level longer than consumption and trade balance.

### Global aging, international cooperation, and sequencing (findings from Section V and Table 4)
- Debt is unsustainable in Germany, the rest of the euro area, and the United States under unchanged policies; analysis examines implications of each implementing an adjustment package similar to Germany’s.
- Two sequencing scenarios analyzed: (i) adjustment implemented immediately (early); (ii) adjustment implemented after 10 years (late). Also consider sequential stop-and-go and pair-wise delays.
- Package details differ across regions to account for structural differences and starting points; assumptions:
  - Euro area: aging costs by 2050 = 4.5; government debt by 2022 without adjustment = 87.5; adjustment package stabilizes debt by 2050 at: 53.0.
  - U.S.: aging costs by 2050 = 6.0; government debt by 2022 without adjustment = 57.5; adjustment package stabilizes debt by 2050 at: 33.0.
- Package components (2006–2017, selected):
  - Euro area: Spending 2006–2017 around 16.6 to 16.1 (in percent of GDP). Social security transfers with adjustment 2006 = 22.5; 2007 = 23.3; 2011 = 22.7; 2017 = 22.7. Base broadening 2011 = 0.5; 2017 = 1.3 (in percent of GDP). VAT effective rate 2006 = 11.4; 2007 = 11.4; 2011 = 12.0; 2017 = 12.0 (percent).
  - U.S.: Spending 2006–2017 = 15.5 (in percent of GDP). Social security transfers with adjustment 2006 = 21.7; 2007 = 21.7; 2011 = 21.1; 2017 = 19.7. Base broadening 2011 = 0.5; 2017 = 1.3 (in percent of GDP). Indirect taxation effective rate 2006 = 7.6; 2007 = 7.6; 2011 = 8.2; 2017 = 12.7 (percent).
- Key international cooperation findings:
  - Germany benefits substantially from early fiscal adjustment in the rest of the euro area and in the U.S. through financial linkages: decline in real interest rates more than offsets export declines from lower external demand, yielding investment rebound and higher domestic demand in Germany.
  - Delaying adjustment in Germany yields short-term benefits but substantial medium-term costs: adjustment will need to be more sizeable and interest rates increase during the intervening period.
  - If all countries postpone adjustment, the global economy loses through higher interest rates and greater future adjustment needs.
  - Political economy: high policymaker discount rates could lead to non-cooperative delay (prisoner’s dilemma). Short-term negative effects of joint action could be larger if wages and prices are sticky, though monetary easing may mitigate output losses for the U.S. and the euro area.
  - Adverse effects on Germany, euro area and U.S. of cooperative adjustment are not too pronounced—substantially less than a 1/4-percentage point lower growth over the next decade relative to all delaying by a decade; the adjustment here is gradual.

*Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/_wp07196.pdf*

### 0.5 percent a year and occurs between six to ten years (there is some variation already in the

### 0.5 percent a year and occurs between six to ten years (there is some variation already in the

### Major scenarios and timing assumptions
- Joint action scenario: early, simultaneous, but gradual adjustment in Germany, the rest of the euro area, and the U.S.; adjustment pace exemplified as 0.5 percent of GDP a year and occurs between six to ten years (Germany and the euro area adjust over six years; the U.S. adjusts over 10 years).
- Sequential, stop-and-go scenario: each country implements an element of the adjustment package once every three years. Germany starts in 2007 (VAT increase) with next step in 2010; rest of the euro area starts in 2008 with next step in 2011; U.S. starts in 2009 with next step in 2012.
- Alternative delayed scenario: delaying adjustment by ten years and compensating through higher social security contributions on workers to target the same debt level by 2050 as under the early cooperative adjustment strategy.
- Rest of the world behavior: Japan, China, India and other emerging markets accounting for over 40 percent of world GDP are assumed not to undertake adjustment.

### Aggregate effects and tradeoffs
- Short-run negative effects of cooperative action on world GDP are larger under simultaneous significant rapid adjustment; a sequential approach yields more benign short-term effects but "considerably less" medium-term benefits than joint action.
- Delaying adjustment is costly; benefits of early cooperative action substantially exceed those of delayed action across a range of plausible discount rates.
- If a global slowdown occurs for other reasons, undertaking fiscal adjustment—even gradual—would be procyclical.

### Key quantitative results (net present value and growth)
- Net present value (NPV) of discounted output effects (discount rate equal to market real interest rate implied by the simulation) — selected entries from Table 5 (Net Present Value of GDP of Fiscal Cooperation):  
  - Early cooperative adjustment: Germany 167, euro area 135, US 149.  
  - Germany delays 10 years: Germany 148, euro area 128, US 141.  
  - Euro area excl. Germany delays 10 years: Germany 135, euro area 79, US 116.  
  - U.S. delays 10 years: Germany 91, euro area 61, US 52.  
  - Germany and the rest of the euro area delay 10 years: Germany 116, euro area 71, US 108.  
  - Germany and the U.S. delay 10 years: Germany 74, euro area 52, US 44.  
  - Euro area excl. Germany and the U.S. delay 10 years: Germany 56, euro area 8, US 19.  
  - 10 year delay Germany, rest of the euro area, and the U.S.: Germany 40, euro area 0, US 11.  
- Aggregate statement: estimates suggest real GDP, in discounted terms, is on average 4 percent higher until 2050 from an early cooperative response.
- Germany benefits relatively more from early joint action because its debt dynamics are more favorable given different aging profiles relative to the euro area and the U.S.

### Macroeconomic channels illustrated for Germany (Figure 9 summary)
- Early cooperative adjustment versus Germany acting alone:
  - Investment is significantly higher due to lower interest rates (interest rate channel).
  - Higher investment crowds in higher labor effort initially.
  - Consumption is higher; current account improves less under cooperative response than when Germany acts alone (i.e., reforming countries see smaller improvement in current account; rest of world sees consumption expansion via real exchange rate appreciation and higher investment due to lower interest rates).
- Key variables shown in simulation figures: Real GDP, Consumption (optimizing and rule-of-thumb consumers), Investment (percent), Capital stock, Labor effort (percent), Relative prices, Real wage, Real exchange rate, Real interest rate, Overall government deficit, Current account balance, Net foreign assets.

### Policy packages and complementary reforms
- Adjustment package instruments (as implemented in simulations):
  - Germany increased VAT rate in 2007 as part of the package.
  - Revenue-neutral tax reform to boost labor demand (example: VAT base broadening and VAT rate harmonization rather than raising the highest statutory tax rate).
- Lisbon Agenda–type complementary reforms analyzed:
  - A. Increasing labor participation:
    - Fiscal measure: lower direct taxation of labor and capital amounting to one-half percent of GDP per year during 2009–12 (revenue-neutral via higher indirect taxation).
    - Labor supply reform: gradual reduction in the elasticity of labor supply over 2007–15, implying reduced bargaining power of existing workers, reduced utility of leisure, and mitigation of payroll tax distortions.
    - Outcome targeted: increase in labor participation equal to 5 percent of the labor force over the five year period.
    - Macroeconomic effect: large positive effects on consumption and real GDP that offset most short-term costs from fiscal adjustment; consumption of rule-of-thumb consumers increases markedly.
  - B. Higher R&D spending:
    - Germany’s R&D intensity: 2½ percent in 2004 assumed to increase to 3 percent by 2010.
    - R&D assumed in private sector (no direct public finance effect).
    - Elasticities determining impact include: own-sector R&D spillover 5 percent; domestic spillover elasticity 10 percent (estimates and comparisons noted).

### Sensitivity analysis (Table 6 and parameter variants)
- Discount rate in simulations equals the market real interest rate determined endogenously and declines gradually over time as adjustment proceeds; higher discount rates make delaying adjustment less costly, but qualitative results are robust across reasonable discount rates.
- Sensitivity cases explored include:
  - Longer planning horizon of consumers: horizon equal to 100 years.
  - Lower elasticity of labor supply (workers less sensitive to after-tax real wage): absolute elasticity equal to 0.99.
  - Fewer liquidity-constrained consumers: fraction equal to 10 percent of consumers.
  - Lower intertemporal elasticity of substitution (consumers less sensitive to changes in the real interest rate): elasticity equal to 0.29.
- Qualitative findings from sensitivity:
  - Longer planning horizon (more Ricardian consumers) reduces initial decline in output and medium-term increases in consumption and output, but cooperative action still has relative benefits.
  - Making labor supply less elastic or reducing the share of liquidity-constrained consumers makes the economy more Ricardian; effects are similar but quantitatively smaller.
  - Lower sensitivity of consumption to real interest rate increases the gains from early adjustment and fiscal cooperation because prefunding leads to larger declines in the real interest rate, benefiting investment and real GDP in the medium term.

### Implementation timing tradeoffs and political economy considerations
- Sequential (stop-and-go) implementation reduces short-term global GDP costs modestly relative to simultaneous joint action but yields materially smaller medium-term benefits than joint action.
- The tradeoff between short-term output costs and medium-term gains depends substantially on policymakers’ discounting of future versus present; net present value comparisons favor early cooperative action under a wide range of plausible discount rates.

*Source: GFM simulations and figures/tables as presented in the source PDF.*

### 7.4 percent); and (c) The international spillover elasticity—which is assumed to be not

### _wp07196 - 7.4 percent); and (c) The international spillover elasticity—which is assumed to be not

### Effects of higher R&D spending in Germany
- Total elasticity from domestic R&D channels used in simulations: 15 percent.
- Implication: an increase in Germany’s R&D stock equivalent to 1 percent of GDP leads to a 0.15 increase in total factor productivity growth and output growth.
- Scenario: R&D ratio rises from 2½ percent to 3 percent of GDP, implying a 20 percent increase in the R&D stock over and above replacing depreciating R&D stock.
- Simulation outcome: by 2025, GDP increases by about 3.3 percent.
- Transmission channels and distributional effects:
  - Productivity increase lowers consumer, producer and export prices, causing a negative terms of trade effect.
  - Consumption increases by less than GDP due to the negative terms of trade effect.
  - Over time, real wages rise and consumption of rule-of-thumb consumers increases both relative to the initial steady state without additional R&D spending and relative to wealthier, optimizing consumers.
- Calibration notes:
  - Elasticity of .15 corresponds to a social rate of return of R&D spending of about 65 percent (after adjusting elasticity by initial R&D stock).
  - Reference ranges: social rate of return estimates usually in the range of 30–100 percent; Griffith, Redding, and van Reenen (2000) estimate about 50 percent for most OECD countries.
- Modeling assumption flagged: international spillover elasticity initially assumed not relevant because other euro area countries are not assumed to increase R&D spending (this assumption is relaxed in later experiments).

### Higher product market competition (Germany)
- Initial markup assumptions:
  - Tradable sector markup: 14 percent.
  - Nontradables sector markup: 27 percent.
- Reform simulated: gradual decline in markups by a quarter by 2015, yielding:
  - Tradable markup: 11.1 percent.
  - Nontradables markup: 20.3 percent.
- Alternative calibration in model via elasticity of substitution (θ):
  - Tradables: θ increases from 8 to 10.
  - Nontradables: θ increases from 4.8 to 5.9.
- Quantitative and qualitative outcomes:
  - Product market reform yields significantly positive effects on output in the medium and long-run.
  - Capital stock increases markedly as firms face reduced incentives to limit investment.
  - Real wages increase substantially, causing consumption of rule-of-thumb consumers to increase disproportionately.
  - If Germany reforms alone:
    - Real exchange rate depreciates relative to the initial steady state, causing total consumption to decline despite higher output.
    - Optimizing consumers are adversely affected by real exchange rate depreciation and lower equity values due to reduced profit margins.
    - Optimizing consumers need to save more to finance higher firm investment following output expansion and lower prices.
  - Output gains benefit capital more than labor effort in the long run because labor is the less elastic resource.
- Comparative perspective and spillovers:
  - Results are conservative relative to some other country studies (e.g., Bayoumi et al (2004), Everaert and Schule (2006)).
  - Spillover effects to trading partners are modest; in a common market like the EU, increased competition in one economy could raise competition in trading partners and make spillovers more sizable if markups are correlated across countries.

### Implementation of the Lisbon Agenda — scenarios and outcomes
- Two simulation sets:
  (i) Germany implements package of reforms (labor, R&D, product market).
  (ii) Both Germany and the euro area fully implement the Lisbon Agenda.
- Assumptions for euro area (excluding Germany) to meet Lisbon objectives:
  - Labor market reforms: current participation rate around 62½ percent; target of 70 percent participation rate requires relatively more reform.
  - Higher R&D spending: current R&D spending about 2.1 percent of GDP; to reach 3 percent of GDP by 2010, required increase is 40 percent.
  - Product market competition: average price markups assumed initially at 21.3 percent (tradable) and 40 percent (nontradables); assume reduction by 25 percent by 2015 to 16.3 percent and 29.6 percent respectively.
- (i) Germany implementing full Lisbon Agenda:
  - Output expands considerably.
  - Consumption of both optimizing and rule-of-thumb consumers increases, more than compensating for fiscal adjustment losses.
  - Fiscal adjustment and structural reform are complementary; near-term contractionary effects of fiscal adjustment are ameliorated by reforms.
- (iia) Effects on Germany when the entire euro area implements Lisbon:
  - Notable positive output gains for Germany due to higher exports as euro area aggregate demand expands.
  - Effects on labor effort and capital accumulation are modest.
  - Mechanism: spillovers operate mainly through trade channels rather than financial linkages.
  - Positive spillovers from euro area-wide reforms are outweighed by benefits from Germany implementing its own reforms.
- (iib) Effects on the euro area when full Lisbon Agenda is implemented:
  - GDP and consumption effects are larger for the euro area as a whole compared to Germany alone.
  - Reasons: larger declines in price markups, larger required increases in R&D investment (including international positive spillovers), and stronger labor participation policy action needed outside Germany.
  - Achieving Lisbon Agenda more than compensates for output losses from fiscal adjustment at the euro area level.
- Modeling caveats and complementarities:
  - Model assumes reforms are announced, fully credible, and all agents have perfect information.
  - In reality, reform credibility and uncertainty may differ.
  - Synergies may exist between labor and product market reforms (labor reforms more effective when product markets are deregulated).
  - Wage and price markups could be linked, enhancing complementarities of reforms.
  - Structural reforms could lower unemployment and government spending, and higher productivity growth could reduce initial stock of debt.
  - Product market reform could lower government spending by reducing prices the government pays for some services.
- Additional experiments:
  - Effects of delaying and partially implementing the Lisbon Agenda were explored (results referenced in Figures 15 and 16 in source), with scenarios involving reduced markups by both the euro area and Germany.

*Source: GFM simulations and associated analysis in the provided IMF content unit.*

### 12.5 percent by 2020; R&D spending increases from 2.1 to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2015 in

### _wp07196 - 12.5 percent by 2020; R&D spending increases from 2.1 to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2015 in

### Scenario description: delayed and partial Lisbon implementation
- Higher product market competition in the euro area reduces markups by 12.5 percent by 2020.
- R&D spending increases from 2.1 to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2015 in the euro area (and by 2.5 to 2.8 percent in Germany, in related scenarios).
- Measures increasing labor demand and labor supply increase labor participation from 63 to 67 percent by 2020 in the euro area (and 65 to 68 percent in Germany, in related scenarios).
- The scenario is explicitly characterized as a "partial and delayed achievement of the Lisbon objectives."

### Macroeconomic effects and key quantitative findings
- Short-term output and consumption losses from prefunding future aging costs are not mitigated under partial and delayed implementation of Lisbon objectives.
- Effects are particularly notable for rule-of-thumb consumers and for labor participation.
- Policymakers facing unoffset initial adverse effects of fiscal adjustment may be inclined to postpone, or implement more gradual, fiscal adjustment in both Germany and the rest of the euro area.
- To avoid large negative consequences for output and to maintain intra- and intergenerational equity, early fiscal adjustment and full implementation of structural reforms is essential.

### Comparative scenario parameters (as described in figures and notes)
- Alternative (full) scenario parameters referenced for comparison:
  - Higher product market competition in the euro area reduces markups by 25 percent by 2015.
  - R&D spending increases from 2.1 to 3 percent of GDP by 2010.
  - Measures increasing labor demand and labor supply increase labor participation from 63 to 70 percent by 2015.
- Delayed/partial scenario parameters:
  - Markups reduced by 12.5 percent by 2020.
  - R&D spending increases from 2.1 to 2.6 percent of GDP by 2015.
  - Labor participation increases from 63 to 67 percent by 2020.

### Policy implications and recommendations
- Early fiscal adjustment combined with full implementation of structural reforms is essential to:
  - Mitigate short-term contractionary consequences of prefunding aging-related costs.
  - Preserve output and consumption trajectories.
  - Maintain intra- and intergenerational equity.
- If reforms are only partially and/or delayed, short-term losses from fiscal prefunding cannot be mitigated, increasing incentives for policymakers to postpone or slow consolidation—producing larger medium- and long-term costs.
- Fiscal adjustment that combines both revenue and expenditure measures is recommended as the feasible and relatively efficient method to maintain debt sustainability; such a package should aim for a modest surplus in the primary balance over the next decade to prefund future aging costs while avoiding higher direct taxation.
- International cooperation on reforms can ameliorate short-term contractionary effects by maximizing reductions in borrowing costs; lack of cooperation (or widespread delay) would be highly adverse.

### Distributional and timing aspects of structural reforms
- The three components of the Lisbon Agenda (higher labor participation, R&D spending, and product market reform) imply different timing and distributional effects:
  - Higher labor participation and R&D spending offer earlier benefits in output and consumption for relatively wealthy consumers; benefits for less well-off consumers materialize later.
  - Product market reform delivers benefits with a different timing profile (later for some groups), so the package taken together yields early and broad-based benefits.

### Modeling framework (GFM) and transmission channels highlighted
- Analysis uses the IMF’s Global Fiscal Model (GFM), calibrated to Germany, the rest of the euro area, and the U.S., to study growth effects of fiscal adjustment strategies and structural reforms in the face of aging pressures.
- International spillovers of demographic pressures occur through both financial and trade channels:
  - Financial channel (higher borrowing costs and interest rates) dominates spillovers from fiscal adjustment.
  - Structural reform spillovers transmit mainly through higher international trade.
- The model distinguishes optimizing consumers and rule-of-thumb consumers; rule-of-thumb consumers experience larger short-term losses under prefunding without offsetting reforms.

*Source: GFM simulations; content from IMF working paper _wp07196*

### REFERENCES

### REFERENCES

### References (alphabetical)

- Batini, N. and P. N’Diaye, and A. Rebucci, 2005, “The Domestic and Global Impact of Japan’s Policies for Growth,” IMF Working Paper 05/209 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Baylor, M., 2005, “Ranking Tax Distortions in Dynamic General Equilibrium Models: A Survey,” Working Paper 2005–06 (Ottawa: Department of Finance).
- Bayoumi, T. and D. Botman, 2005, Jam Today or More Jam Tomorrow? On Cutting Taxes Now Versus Later, Canada-Selected Issues, IMF Country Report No. 05/116 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Bayoumi, T., D. Botman, and M.S. Kumar, 2005, Effects of Social Security and Tax Reform in the United States, United States-Selected Issues, IMF Country Report No. 05/258 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Bayoumi, T., D. Laxton, and P. Pesenti, 2004, Benefits and Spillovers of Greater Competition in Europe: A Macroeconomic Assessment, Federal Reserve Bank of New York Staff Reports. No. 182.
- Berger, H. and S. Danninger, 2005, “Labor and Product Market Deregulation: Partial, Sequential, or Simultaneous Reform?” IMF Working Paper 05/227 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Betts, C., and M. Devereux, 2001, “The International Monetary Transmission of Monetary and Fiscal Policies in a Two-Country Model,” in Essays in Honor of Robert A. Mundell, ed. by M. Obstfeld, and G. Calvo (Cambridge: MIT Press).
- Blanchard, O.J., 1985, “Debt, Deficits, and Finite Horizons,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 93, pp. 223–47.
- Botman, D. and S. Danninger, 2007, “Tax Reform and Debt Sustainability in Germany: An Assessment Using the Global Fiscal Model,” IMF Country Report No. 06/436 and IMF Working Paper 07/46 (Washington, D.C.: International Monetary Fund).
- Botman, D., H. Edison, and P. N’Diaye, 2007, “Strategies for Fiscal Consolidation in Japan-Selected Issues,” IMF Country Report No. 06/276 and IMF Working Paper 07/37 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Botman, D. and K. Honjo, 2006, “Options for Fiscal Consolidation in the United Kingdom,” IMF Working Paper 06/89 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Botman, D. and M.S. Kumar, 2006, “Fundamental Determinants of the Effects of Fiscal Policy,” IMF Working Paper 06/208 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Botman, D., D. Laxton, D. Muir, and A. Romanov, 2006, “A New Open Economy Macromodel for Fiscal Policy Evaluation,” IMF Working Paper 06/45 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Buiter, W.H., 1981, “Time Preference and International Lending and Borrowing in an Overlapping-Generations Model,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 89, pp. 769–97.
- Campbell, J.Y. and N.G. Mankiw, 1991, “Permanent Income, Current Income, and Consumption,” NBER Working Paper No. 2436 (Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research).
- Canton, E., B. Minne, A. Nieuwenhuis, B. Smid, and M. van der Steeg, 2005, “Human Capital, R&D, and Competition in Macroeconomic Analysis, ” CPB Document 91, The Hague.
- Caselli, P., 2001, “Fiscal Consolidation Under Fixed Exchange Rates,” European Economic Review, Vol. 45, pp. 425–50.
- Central Planning Bureau, 2006, Five Lisbon Highlights: The Economic Impact of Reaching These Targets, Netherlands Bureau for Economic Policy Analysis (paper prepared for the Directorate General Enterprise & Industry of the European Commission).
- Corsetti, G., and P. Pesenti, 2001, “Welfare and Macroeconomic Interdependence,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 116, pp. 421–45.
- Erceg, C.J., L. Guerrieri, and C. Gust, 2005, “Expansionary Fiscal Shocks and the Trade Deficit,” International Finance Discussion Paper, 825 (Washington: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, International Finance Division).
- European Commission (EC), 2006a, The Impact of Ageing on Public Expenditure: Projections for the EU25 Member States on Pensions, Health Care, Long-Term Care, Education and Unemployment Transfers (2004–2050) (Brussels).
- European Commission (EC), 2006b, Long-term Sustainability of Public Finances in the European Union (Brussels).
- Everaert L. and W. Schule, 2006, Structural Reforms in the Euro Area: Economic Impact and Role of Synchronization Across Markets and Countries, IMF Working Paper 06/137 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Evers M, R. A. de Mooij, and D. J. van Vuuren, 2005. What explains the Variation in Estimates of Labour Supply Elasticities?, CesIFO Paper 1633.
- Federal Ministry of Finance, Berlin, 2005, Bericht zur Tragfähigkeit der Öffentlichen Finanzen (Long-Run Fiscal Sustainability Report).
- Ford, R., and D. Laxton, 1999, “World Public Debt and Real Interest Rates,” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 15, pp. 77–94.
- Frenkel, J.A., and A. Razin, 1992, Fiscal Policies and the World Economy (Cambridge: MIT Press, Second edition).
- Ganelli, G., 2003a, “Useful Government Spending, Direct Crowding-Out and Fiscal Policy Interdependence,” Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 22, pp. 87–103.
- Ganelli, G., 2003b, “The New Open Economy Macroeconomics of Government Debt,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 65, pp. 167–84.
- Ghironi, F., T.B. Iscan, and A. Rebucci, 2005, “Net Foreign Asset Positions and Consumption Dynamics in the International Economy,” IMF Working Paper 05/82 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Ghironi, F., 2003a, “Macroeconomic Interdependence Under Incomplete Markets,” Mimeo, Boston College.
- Ghironi, F., 2003b, “Understanding Macroeconomic Interdependence: Do We Really Need to Shut Off the Current Account?,” Mimeo, Boston College.
- Griffith, R., 2000, How Important is Business R&D for Economic Growth and Should the Government Subsidise it?, Institute for Fiscal Studies Briefing Notes, No. 12.
- Griffith, R., S. Redding, and J. van Reenen, 2000, “Mapping the Two Faces of R&D: Productivity Growth in a Panel of OECD Industries,” CEPR Discussion Paper 2457, London.
- Hauner, D., D. Leigh, and M. Skaarup, 2007, “Improving Fiscal Sustainability in G-7 Countries”, Forthcoming Working Paper, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF, January.
- Iacoviello, M., 2004, “Consumption, House Prices, and Collateral Constraints: A Structural Econometric Analysis,” NBER Working Paper No. 589 (Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research).
- International Monetary Fund, 2006, “Germany: 2006 Article IV Consultation Staff Report,” IMF Country Report 06/438 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
- Jacobs, B., R. Nahuis, and P.J.G. Tang, 2002, “Sectoral Productivity Growth and R&D Spillovers in the Netherlands,” De Economist, Vol. 150, pp. 181–210.
- Jean, S. and G. Nicoletti, 2002, “Product Market Regulation and Wage Premia in Europe and North America: An Empirical Investigation,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 318, OECD Publishing.
- Keller, W., 1997, Trade and the Transmission of Technology, NBER Working Paper No. 6113 (Cambridge: National Bureau of Economic Research).
- Kumar, M. S. and M. Skaarup, 2007, “Budgetary Pressures from Aging in Emerging Market Economies,” Forthcoming Working Paper, Fiscal Affairs Department, IMF, March.
- Laxton, D. and P. Pesenti, 2003, Monetary Rules for Small, Open, Emerging Economies, Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 50, No. 5, pp. 1109–52.
- Nadiri, M.I., 1993, Innovations and Technological Spillovers, NBER Working Paper No. 4423 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
- Obstfeld, M., and K. Rogoff, 1995, “Exchange Rate Dynamics Redux,” Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 103, pp. 624–60.
- Obstfeld, M., and K. Rogoff, 1996, Foundations of International Macroeconomics (Cambridge: MIT Press).
- OECD, 2001, “Fiscal Implications of Age-Related Spending,” OECD Economics Department Working Paper No. 305 (Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development).
- Oliveira M., J., S. Scarpetta, and D. Pilat, 1996, “Mark-Up Ratios in Manufacturing Industries: Estimates for 14 OECD Countries,” OECD Economics Department Working Papers, No. 162, OECD Publishing.
- Weil, P., 1989, “Overlapping Families of Infinitely-Lives Agents,” Journal of Public Economics, Vol. 38, pp. 183–98.
- Werding, M. and A. Kaltschütz, IFO, Munich, 2005, IFO Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung—Modellrechnungen zur Langfristigen Tragfähigkeit der Öffentlichen Finanzen.

*Source: _wp07196 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2007/_wp07196.pdf_