Tag: budget

There has been a lot of reporting about how the cumulative adjustment for the next few years is going to be higher than €7.5 billion and how this was the figure that was announced at the time of the last budget.

I was a bit puzzled by this reporting because I had been under the impression that the figure for cumulative adjustments was €8.5 billion. Here’s why. Here’s the Stability Programme Update released at the time of last year’s budget, which is the document provided to the European Commission to illustrate the details of our multiyear plan.

Click on the document and go to page 19. Table 9 describes €3 billion per year in additional measures to be “delivered” in 2011 and 2012 as being made up of €1 billion per year in capital program adjustments that were “already identified and incorporated into the base” and €2 billion per year of additional adjustments.

For this reason, page 20’s description of the adjustments in future years shows €2 billion in 2011, €2 billion in 2012, €1.5 billion in 2013 and €1 billion in 2014, which adds up to €6.5 billion. However, since Table 9 tells us that an additional €1 billion a year in capital adjustments had been identified and incorporated into the base, I had believed the profile for total adjustments planned was €3 billion in 2011, €3 billion in 2012, €1.5 billion in 2013 and €1 billion in 2014, which adds up to €8.5 billion.

However, it turns out that the baseline for capital spending is a continuation at prevailing levels. Table 10 shows Gross Voted Capital falling from €6.445 billion in 2010 to €5.5 billion in 2011 and staying there afterwards. You can add this €1 billion cut in 2011 to the €6.5 billion identified elsewhere in the table to get to the €7.5 billion.

What about the additional €1 billion of capital spending cuts that Table 9 tells us had been identified and incorporated into the base from 2012 onwards? Apparently, the 2012 element of these “identified cuts” doesn’t exist. (It appears that someone in Finance mixed up their levels and changes.)

So, €7.5 billion is indeed the correct figure. However, those of you who, like me, had thought that the government had been planning €3 billion in adjustments in 2012 haven’t had it right.

I have written an article on the debate about the upcoming budget for Business and Finance. It’s hidden behind a paywall, so I’ve attached the full text below the fold.

The idea that social welfare recipients should take cuts is normally considered politically unacceptable. I have mixed feelings about the measures taken today.

On the one hand, when one looks at measures not taken (whatever legal reasons there may be) such as the failure to cut pensions for retired public sector workers (traditionally linked to pay levels which have now been cut) and the failure to freeze public sector increments, as well as measures taken such as the VAT and excise cuts (costing €257 million on a full year basis) and the range of dubious so-called stimulus measures (vouchers for cheap rail travel for senior citizens visiting Ireland from abroad?) one could conclude that these cuts were avoidable.

On the other hand, against a background of significant deflation and with wage rates falling and the potential for serious poverty traps (where people are better off unemployed than in low-paid jobs), one can argue that cuts in unemployment benefits may unfortunately be a necessary part of any policy mix aimed at limiting unemployment over the next few years. (This particular argument does not apply, however, to disability or carer’s allowances). Moreover, with social welfare spending taking up such a large share of total expenditure, it was not realistic to draw a line in the sand and declare it to be off limits.

As an economist, I can manage to hold both sets of opinions at once.

The budget contains some measures that have been advertised as stimulus. The opposition parties will certainly argue that these measures didn’t go far enough.

I’ll take a contrary attitude here. All the parties put forward plans in which the net fiscal adjustment was about €4 billion so the fact is that all parties are agreed that the overall macroeconomic effect of the budget needed to be contractionary. It’s easy to paint a budget that has €5 billion in spending cuts and €1 billion in new spending initative as “having stimulus” and a budget with €4 billion in spending cuts and no new initatives as being “devoid of stimulus”.

The reality is that, by and large, these two hypothetical budgets will have the same effect. Of course, one can always argue that some types of tax cuts or spending increases are particularly stimulatory and that one can think of a better mix than the government put forward. But, by and large, this is a secondary issue to the principal one related to the overall macroeconomic stance.

My contrary attitude extends to the government’s own limited stimulus measures. The idea that the the half percentage point increase in the VAT rate triggered an huge increases in cross-border shopping was always ridiculous: See two articles from the early days of this blog by current adviser to the Minister for Finance and former blog alum Alan Ahearne (back then blog posts were written in the third person apparently!) and a later crankier post by me.

To my mind, cutting the VAT rate is just a kneejerk response to a wildly inaccurate public perception based on a desire to be seen to be doing something “positive”. Cutting excise duties on alcohol similarly won’t do much to reduce cross-border shopping. I wouldn’t care much if these were measures that didn’t give up much revenue. However, the summary of budget measures shows that these two decisions alone will cost €257 million on a full-year basis. For comparison, the cuts in child benefit will save €220 million.

And, of course, I never liked the scrappage idea. And I still don’t.