Current SGP requirements have a number of drawbacks
The SGP currently has several requirements that guide and restrict governments’ fiscal policy. One of the most well-known requirements is the 3% limit for the public deficit (expressed as a percentage of gross domestic product). As the public deficit is highly sensitive to the state of the economy, the SGP rules also focus on the structural deficit, which adjusts the public deficit for cyclical effects. These effects are not observable, but are estimated and regularly adjusted afterwards. This makes the structural deficit an uncertain and volatile variable, which is less suitable for evaluating fiscal policy. Another well-known SGP requirement is the 60% limit for public debt (as a percentage of GDP). EU Member States are evaluated based on the development of their debt towards this limit: if their debt ratio exceeds 60% then, in accordance with the debt reduction rule, the excess must be reduced annually by an average of one twentieth. For countries with very high debt levels in particular, this may imply substantial fiscal tightening, even in bad economic times, which can be detrimental to the economy and which is often difficult to achieve, politically speaking. This is why there is some flexibility in enforcing the rule to allow for factors such as the state of the economy. However, more frequent reliance on such flexibility undermines the credibility of the rule.
The expenditure rule can contribute to responsible and realistic debt reduction
The expenditure rule is a worthy alternative to the current debt reduction rule. The expenditure rule is already part of the SGP. It sets a limit on public expenditure growth, which may not exceed long-term economic growth. In a revised SGP, the expenditure rule could play a more central role. This would serve to promote debt reduction, particularly by setting the expenditure growth limit in such a way that the debt ratio reaches the 60% limit within a pre-specified period of time, while also taking account of long-term economic growth. For example, if economic growth in a Member State is projected to be higher in the long term, then the government may spend more, and vice versa. Thus, under this revised expenditure rule, Member States will be evaluated on the development of their public expenditure that is consistent with long-term debt reduction, rather than on the annual development of public debt, as under the current 1/20th debt reduction rule. Compared to the current rule, the expenditure rule provides a more realistic debt reduction path and provides greater scope for investment, which is also essential for growth and convergence. When setting the limit on expenditure growth, a correction is also made for tax measures that structurally increase public revenues. An increase in expenditures offset by an increase in taxes is therefore permitted under this rule.
Greater scope for countercyclical fiscal policy
An advantage of the expenditure rule is that, by taking long-term growth into account, it offers scope for countercyclical fiscal policy. For example, if economic growth is below its long-term trend, such as during a crisis, expenditure growth can be maintained and there will be no need to make spending cuts. Under the 1/20th debt reduction rule, a decline in economic growth actually results in less fiscal space, thus giving rise to procyclical fiscal policies, which may exacerbate an existing crisis. This makes it more likely that governments will fail to comply with the rules, which weakens the credibility of the fiscal rules. Another advantage of the expenditure rule is that expenditure growth is a quantifiable measure that is also more under the control of governments than the debt ratio; indeed, it is up to governments to determine how much they spend, whereas other measures are also influenced by the business cycle.