## _wp11173

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp11173](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11173.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11173.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11173.pdf.json)

---

### I. INTRODUCTION
- Crisis context and motivation:
  - The 2008-09 crisis created large fiscal deficits and ballooning government debts that added to inherited liabilities and intensifying demographic pressures on entitlement spending, producing a need for “ambitious and sustained consolidations.”
  - Markets reacted with pressure on vulnerable countries and rising government bond yields even in perceived safe havens.
- Existing tools and limitations:
  - Formal fiscal policy rules have long been used to contain fiscal profligacy (e.g. Fabrizio and Mody, 2006; and Debrun and others, 2008), but numerical rules have limitations—most notably inflexibility in unusual circumstances—which has prompted interest in non-partisan independent fiscal agencies to provide independent analysis, assessments, and forecasts.
  - There is no full-fledged theory establishing desirability or first-order design principles for independent fiscal agencies; literature provides taxonomies (Debrun and others, 2009; Calmfors, 2010) but no consensus on tasks, institutional form, or interaction with rules-based frameworks.
- Canonical rationale and paper aim:
  - Canonical rationale (Wyplosz, 2005) rests on: (1) systematic deviations of fiscal policy from social optimum (common pool, short-termism, time-inconsistency), (2) ineffectiveness of numerical rules in abnormal conditions, and (3) analogy with central bank independence—an analogy the paper later challenges.
  - Paper aim: assess theoretical framework for politically independent fiscal agencies; set up basic model (Section II); show flaws in central bank analogy and that models of fiscal bias do not explain why elected officials would create such agencies (Section III); argue any full theory should incorporate political nature of fiscal policy and focus on “commitment technologies” to encourage ex-post compliance with ex-ante commitments (Section IV); draw practical conclusions (Section V).

### II. AN ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL OF FISCAL POLICY
- Model framework (structure and assumptions):
  - Based on Alesina and Tabellini (1990); 2 periods; constant deterministic income.
  - Private agents maximize utility U separable over time and goods: U = E0 sum_{t=1}^{2} β^{t-1} [u(c_t) + v(q_t)] (equation (1) notation preserved).
  - Constant proportional income tax rate τ; private budget constraints given by (1 − τ)c1 = y − l and (1 − τ)c2 = y + Rl (text equations preserved).
  - Elected officials belong to party C or L indexed by Q; officials only value public goods when in office; preferences parametrized with ρ capturing re-election probability; formulation given in equation (2) with 10 ≤ ρ ≤ 1 (notation and inequality preserved).
  - Intertemporal budget constraints for public goods delivery given by (3a) and (3b): q1 = y − τ − b and q2 = R(y − τ) + Rb (equations as stated).
  - Public sector efficiency shocks δ_t ~ N(0, σ_δ^2), non-serially correlated; shocks affect public good delivery; fiscal policy decisions do not affect income (R given).
- Benchmark equilibria and deficit bias:
  - Social planner benchmark: with 1 = R = β and quadratic utility (u(x)=v(x)=(x−x̃)^2) yields balanced budget: q1* = q2* and b* = 0 (equation (4)).
  - Political equilibrium: incumbents discount future utility more (because value public goods in office only), producing deficit bias. Political solution b** satisfies b** = [(ρ/(1+ρ))] b̃ with b̃ = y − τ − q̃ (equation (5) preserved).
  - Boundary cases:
    - Certain re-election (ρ = 1) yields balanced budget: b* = b** = 0.
    - Certain loss of office (ρ = 0) yields b** = b̃.
  - Deficit bias (“short-termist”) occurs if b̃ > 0 (i.e., q̃ exceeds available tax revenue y − τ), representing common pool problem.
  - Model exhibits deficit bias even without formal democratic accountability (voters behavior exogenous).

### III. INSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS TO THE DEFICIT BIAS: THE CENTRAL BANK ANALOGY
- Monetary delegation recap and analogy:
  - Barro and Gordon (1983) and Kydland-Prescott (1977) highlighted time-inconsistency in monetary policy; politicians exploit nominal rigidities to lower unemployment, leading to higher equilibrium inflation.
  - Rogoff (1985) showed benefits of delegating monetary policy to an unelected, more inflation-averse official; ensuing literature produced incentive contracts and mandates for low stable inflation.
  - Delegation argument for fiscal policy assumes an “inflation contract” analogue—a deficit contract—cannot be renegotiated; constrained utility of an official under a deficit contract written as V_C = U_C − f(b) (equation (6) preserved).
  - An optimal fiscal contract exists that implements b*** = b** when f′(b) = (1 − ρ) b̃ (relation preserved as presented).
- Limits of the analogy and dynamic inconsistency:
  - In the monetary case, the socially-optimal inflation contract satisfies politician’s participation constraint (Prisoner’s Dilemma structure).
  - In the fiscal case, ex-ante optimal solution in political equilibrium is not the social optimum; formally E0[U_C(q*)] < E0[V_C(q*)] (text preserves the inequality statement implying politicians do not gain by delegating to unelected fiscal agents).
  - Fiscal institutions are dynamically inconsistent: they are fragile, frequently modified or scrapped, and subject to circumvention (examples cited in the source).
  - Independent fiscal councils may exist without constraining discretionary fiscal choices, or they may reflect motivations outside the simple model (e.g., partisan use to bind future governments).

### IV. DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
- Information problems and voter signal extraction:
  - Two assumptions: voters cannot observe policymakers’ intrinsic competence; public accounts are opaque so voters cannot separate luck from policy competence.
  - Only tax revenues and actual public-good output are perfectly observed; public sector efficiency shocks δ_t and true debt/deficit are unobservable ex-post.
  - Voters use observed q1 as a signal of competence; observed “notional” budget deficit reflects shock δ1 and noise ξ: y − τ − q1^C = δ1 + ξ (equation (7) preserved).
  - Voters solve signal-extraction (equation (8) preserved) to form E[δ1], treating δ as persistent with E[δ2|Q1]=λE[δ1] for incumbents and zero for challengers (λ in (0,1) preserved).
  - Re-election rule: re-election occurs if E_C[q1] − E_L[q1] > 0; perceived re-election probability at time 0 given by an expression involving y − τ − q and variances (formulaic relation preserved in text).
- Two offsetting motives for deficits:
  - Opportunistic motive: running a larger ex-ante deficit reduces likelihood voters detect adverse efficiency shocks, boosting re-election chances (reduces short-termist bias).
  - Short-termist motive: incumbents discount future public goods because of re-election uncertainty.
- Roles and limits of independent fiscal agencies:
  - Agencies could improve fiscal transparency to weaken opportunistic deficit motive by revealing true efficiency shocks.
  - A narrow agency focused only on transparency would eliminate opportunistic bias but maximize short-termist bias because voters would then base competence assessment on realized shocks (leading to ρ = 0.5 in the model).
  - A broader mandate—combining transparency, normative assessment, and monitoring compliance with fiscal rules—could replace noisy shocks as the trusted signal of competence, reduce confusion between bad luck and bad policy, reduce opportunistic motives, and reward compliant governments with greater re-election chances.
  - This effectiveness requires fiscal institutions to be genuinely “owned” by voters, implying the strictest guarantees of independence from politics.

### V. CONCLUDING REMARKS AND PRACTICAL IMPLICATIONS
- Core conclusion:
  - The delegation of macro-relevant fiscal policy prerogatives to unelected officials is unworkable from a positive perspective because it violates participation constraints of elected decisionmakers.
  - This positive result reinforces the normative argument against fiscal delegation advanced by Alesina and Tabellini (2007).
- Practical implications for agency design and mandate:
  - An independent fiscal agency is more likely to credibly enhance fiscal discipline if it has a broad mandate to address multiple manifestations of deficit bias:
    - creative accounting,
    - masking policy slippages,
    - biasing revenue forecasts.
  - The agency should have discretion to make normative assessments of the fiscal stance within the boundaries of elected politicians’ ex-ante commitments and in light of:
    - cyclical conditions,
    - public debt dynamics,
    - risks to public sector long-term solvency.
- Instruments to improve accountability:
  - The agency’s effectiveness improves if it receives instruments to trigger a public debate forcing elected officials to publicly explain slippages (with respect to ex-ante targets) deemed inappropriate by the agency.
  - By becoming a reliable source on the overall quality of fiscal policy, the agency helps voters identify ex-post deviations attributable to “bad policies” (as opposed to “bad luck”) and thus improves accountability.
  - Rules-based fiscal frameworks alone cannot deliver this task because mere deviations from preset benchmarks do not always signal policy mistakes.
- Political independence and financing:
  - Politicians may be reluctant to bear short-term costs of deviations from ex-ante commitments; hence an effective fiscal agency ideally requires:
    - a degree of political independence enshrined in primary legislation (Constitutional or framework law),
    - ring-fenced, multi-year budget appropriations or rules-based extra-budgetary financing (for example, through a fixed transfer from the central bank) commensurate with the agency’s tasks.

*Source: _wp11173 - References .............................................................................................................*

### References .............................................................................................................

### _wp11173 - References ...............................................................................................................

### I. INTRODUCTION
- The 2008-09 crisis created large fiscal deficits and ballooning government debts that added to inherited liabilities and intensifying demographic pressures on entitlement spending, producing a need for “ambitious and sustained consolidations.”
- Markets reacted with pressure on vulnerable countries and rising government bond yields even in perceived safe havens.
- Formal fiscal policy rules have long been used to contain fiscal profligacy (e.g. Fabrizio and Mody, 2006; and Debrun and others, 2008), but numerical rules have limitations—most notably inflexibility in unusual circumstances—which has prompted interest in non-partisan independent fiscal agencies to provide independent analysis, assessments, and forecasts.
- There is no full-fledged theory establishing desirability or first-order design principles for independent fiscal agencies; literature provides taxonomies (Debrun and others, 2009; Calmfors, 2010) but no consensus on tasks, institutional form, or interaction with rules-based frameworks.
- Canonical rationale (Wyplosz, 2005) rests on: (1) systematic deviations of fiscal policy from social optimum (common pool, short-termism, time-inconsistency), (2) ineffectiveness of numerical rules in abnormal conditions, and (3) analogy with central bank independence—an analogy the paper later challenges.
- Paper aim: assess theoretical framework for politically independent fiscal agencies; set up basic model (Section II); show flaws in central bank analogy and that models of fiscal bias do not explain why elected officials would create such agencies (Section III); argue any full theory should incorporate political nature of fiscal policy and focus on “commitment technologies” to encourage ex-post compliance with ex-ante commitments (Section IV); draw practical conclusions (Section V).

### II. AN ILLUSTRATIVE MODEL OF FISCAL POLICY
- Model framework:
  - Based on Alesina and Tabellini (1990); 2 periods; constant deterministic income.
  - Representative private agents maximize utility U separable over time and goods: U = E0 sum_{t=1}^{2} β^{t-1} [u(c_t) + v(q_t)] (equation (1) notation preserved).
  - Constant proportional income tax rate τ; private budget constraints given by (1 − τ)c1 = y − l and (1 − τ)c2 = y + Rl (text equations preserved).
  - Elected officials belong to party C or L indexed by Q; officials only value public goods when in office; preferences parametrized with ρ capturing re-election probability; formulation given in equation (2) with 10 ≤ ρ ≤ 1 (preserve notation and inequality as in source).
  - Intertemporal budget constraints for public goods delivery given by (3a) and (3b): q1 = y − τ − b and q2 = R(y − τ) + Rb (equations as stated).
  - Public sector efficiency shocks δ_t ~ N(0, σ_δ^2), non-serially correlated; shocks affect public good delivery; fiscal policy decisions do not affect income (R given).
- Benchmark equilibria:
  - Social planner with 1 = R = β and quadratic utility (u(x)=v(x)=(x−x̃)^2) yields balanced budget: q1* = q2* and b* = 0 (equation (4)).
  - Political equilibrium: incumbents discount future utility more (because value public goods in office only), producing deficit bias. Political solution b** satisfies b** = [(ρ/(1+ρ))] b̃ with b̃ = y − τ − q̃ (equation (5) preserved).
  - Boundary cases:
    - Certain re-election (ρ = 1) yields balanced budget: b* = b** = 0.
    - Certain loss of office (ρ = 0) yields b** = b̃.
  - Deficit bias (“short-termist”) occurs if b̃ > 0 (i.e., q̃ exceeds available tax revenue y − τ), representing common pool problem.
  - Model exhibits deficit bias even without formal democratic accountability (voters behavior exogenous).

### III. INSTITUTIONAL SOLUTIONS TO THE DEFICIT BIAS: THE CENTRAL BANK ANALOGY
- Central bank independence (CBI) recap:
  - Barro and Gordon (1983) and Kydland-Prescott (1977) highlighted time-inconsistency in monetary policy; politicians exploit nominal rigidities to lower unemployment, leading to higher equilibrium inflation.
  - Rogoff (1985) showed benefits of delegating monetary policy to an unelected, more inflation-averse official; ensuing literature produced incentive contracts and mandates for low stable inflation.
- Fiscal delegation analog:
  - Delegation argument assumes an “inflation contract” cannot be renegotiated; same logic can be applied to fiscal rules or an independent fiscal authority imposing a “deficit contract.”
  - Constrained utility of an official under a deficit contract written as V_C = U_C − f(b) (equation (6) preserved).
  - An optimal fiscal contract exists that implements b*** = b** when f′(b) = (1 − ρ) b̃ (text preserved: bf ~ (1−ρ)?? the source states bf ~(1)ρ− etc.; preserve presented relation).
- Key contrast with monetary delegation:
  - In monetary case, the socially-optimal inflation contract satisfies politician’s participation constraint (Prisoner’s Dilemma structure).
  - In fiscal case, ex-ante optimal solution in political equilibrium is not the social optimum; formally E0[U_C(q*)] < E0[V_C(q*)] (text states **0* q U E C V difference — preserve inequality meaning that politicians do not benefit).
  - Fiscal institutions are dynamically inconsistent: they are fragile, frequently modified or scrapped, and subject to circumvention (examples: High Council of Finance in Belgium; recent abolition of Hungarian Fiscal Council noted).
  - Independent fiscal councils may exist without constraining discretionary fiscal choices, or they may reflect motivations outside the simple model (e.g., partisan use to bind future governments).

### IV. DEMOCRATIC ACCOUNTABILITY AND INDEPENDENT AGENCIES
- Information problems and accountability:
  - Two assumptions: voters cannot observe policymakers’ intrinsic competence; public accounts are opaque so voters cannot separate luck from policy competence.
  - Only tax revenues and actual public-good output are perfectly observed; public sector efficiency shocks δ_t and true debt/deficit are unobservable ex-post.
  - Voters use observed q1 as a signal of competence; observed “notional” budget deficit reflects shock δ1 and noise ξ: y − τ − q1^C = δ1 + ξ (equation (7) preserved).
  - Voters solve signal-extraction (equation (8) preserved) to form E[δ1], treating δ as persistent with E[δ2|Q1]=λE[δ1] for incumbents and zero for challengers (λ in (0,1) per source).
  - Re-election occurs if E_C[q1] − E_L[q1] > 0; perceived re-election probability at time 0 given by expression involving y − τ − q and variances (text preserves formula structure).
  - Two offsetting motives for deficits:
    - Opportunistic motive: running a larger ex-ante deficit reduces likelihood voters detect adverse efficiency shocks, boosting re-election chances (reduces short-termist bias).
    - Short-termist motive: incumbents discount future public goods because of re-election uncertainty.
- Role of independent fiscal agencies:
  - Agencies could improve fiscal transparency to weaken opportunistic deficit motive by revealing true efficiency shocks.
  - A narrow agency focused only on transparency would eliminate opportunistic bias but maximize short-termist bias because voters would then base competence assessment on realized shocks (leading to ρ = 0.5 in the model).
  - A broader mandate—combining transparency, normative assessment, and monitoring compliance with fiscal rules—could replace noisy shocks as the trusted signal of competence, reduce confusion between bad luck and bad policy, reduce opportunistic motives, and reward compliant governments with greater re-election chances.
  - This effectiveness requires fiscal institutions to be genuinely “owned” by voters, implying the strictest guarantees of independence from politics.

### V. CONCLUDING REMARKS (Practical implications summarized in paper)
- The effectiveness of independent fiscal agencies depends on their capacity to address root causes of deficit bias, notably informational asymmetries between voters (the legitimate principal) and politicians (the agents).
- Practical implications emerging from the theoretical analysis (paper indicates a number of practical implications follow; full list appears in Section V of the source).

*Italic: Source: _wp11173 - References .............................................................................................................*

### 1. The delegation of fiscal policy prerogatives to unelected officials is unworkable from

### 1. The delegation of fiscal policy prerogatives to unelected officials is unworkable from

### Unworkability of fiscal delegation (positive and normative)
- The delegation of macro-relevant fiscal policy decisions (e.g., the level of the deficit) to unelected officials violates participation constraints of elected decisionmakers.
- This positive result reinforces the normative argument against fiscal delegation advanced by Alesina and Tabellini (2007).
- The decision to delegate fiscal prerogatives is therefore described as unworkable from a positive perspective.

### Design and mandate of an independent fiscal agency
- An independent fiscal agency is more likely to credibly enhance fiscal discipline if it has a broad mandate to address multiple manifestations of deficit bias:
  - creative accounting,
  - masking policy slippages,
  - biasing revenue forecasts.
- The agency should have discretion to make normative assessments of the fiscal stance within the boundaries of elected politicians’ ex-ante commitments and in light of:
  - cyclical conditions,
  - public debt dynamics,
  - risks to public sector long-term solvency.

### Instruments to improve accountability and policy quality
- The agency’s effectiveness improves if it receives instruments to trigger a public debate forcing elected officials to publicly explain slippages (with respect to ex-ante targets) deemed inappropriate by the agency.
- By becoming a reliable source on the overall quality of fiscal policy, the agency helps voters identify ex-post deviations attributable to “bad policies” (as opposed to “bad luck”) and thus improves accountability.
- Rules-based fiscal frameworks alone cannot deliver this task because mere deviations from preset benchmarks do not always signal policy mistakes.

### Political independence and financing
- Politicians may be reluctant to bear short-term costs of deviations from ex-ante commitments; hence an effective fiscal agency ideally requires:
  - a degree of political independence enshrined in primary legislation (Constitutional or framework law),
  - ring-fenced, multi-year budget appropriations or rules-based extra-budgetary financing (for example, through a fixed transfer from the central bank) commensurate with the agency’s tasks.

* _wp11173 - 1. The delegation of fiscal policy prerogatives to unelected officials is unworkable from*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11173.pdf_