Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Balanced budget

A balanced budget occurs when an entity's total revenues equal its total expenditures over a specified period, resulting in neither a surplus nor a deficit, and is most commonly applied to government fiscal planning to ensure revenues match spending obligations.^[1]^[2] In governmental contexts, achieving a balanced budget promotes long-term fiscal sustainability by preventing the accumulation of public debt that could otherwise crowd out private investment and impose intergenerational burdens through higher future taxes or inflation.^[3] Proponents argue that persistent deficits, even if temporarily stimulative, erode economic efficiency as evidenced by reduced national savings available for productive capital formation.^[3] Economically, the concept intersects with Keynesian analysis via the balanced budget multiplier theorem, which posits that a simultaneous increase in government spending and taxes, each by the same amount, expands national income by that full increment due to the marginal propensity to consume being less than unity, though empirical estimates of fiscal multipliers often fall below unity, suggesting limited or context-dependent expansionary effects.^[4]^[5] Historical U.S. examples, such as the late 1990s surpluses under the Clinton administration, coincided with robust GDP growth, low unemployment, and added millions of jobs, transforming prior deficits into fiscal surpluses amid a technology-driven expansion.^[6]^[7] However, such outcomes reflect conjunctural factors like economic booms rather than isolated causation from balancing, as subsequent fiscal deteriorations post-2001 tripled debt-to-GDP ratios through unchecked spending and tax policy shifts.^[8] Debates persist over strict annual balancing versus cyclical approaches, with critics of rigid rules warning they could exacerbate recessions by overriding automatic stabilizers like progressive taxation and unemployment benefits, potentially amplifying downturns absent deficit financing.^[9] Empirical studies on constitutional balanced budget rules indicate they correlate with improved fiscal discipline across jurisdictions, though enforcement challenges and political incentives often undermine adherence, highlighting the tension between theoretical prudence and practical implementation.^[10] Ultimately, sustained balance demands disciplined revenue-expenditure alignment, informed by causal links between deficits and diminished growth prospects, prioritizing empirical fiscal restraint over short-term discretionary impulses.^[3]

Definition and Basic Principles

Core Concept and Types

A balanced budget in public finance refers to a fiscal plan where a government's total anticipated revenues exactly match its total projected expenditures for a given period, typically a fiscal year, yielding neither a deficit nor a surplus.^[1]^[2] This equilibrium ensures that spending on public goods, services, and transfers is funded solely by inflows such as taxes, fees, and other non-debt sources, preventing reliance on borrowing.^[11] Historically rooted in principles of fiscal prudence, the concept posits that matching revenues to outlays promotes long-term economic stability by avoiding debt accumulation, though its application varies by jurisdiction and economic conditions.^[12] Distinctions arise in how balance is measured, leading to primary types: actual and structural. An actual balanced budget reflects the observed equality between recorded revenues and expenditures in a specific period's financial statements, as reported by government accounting standards.^[11] This type captures real-time fiscal outcomes but can be distorted by one-off events or economic volatility, such as revenue windfalls from commodity booms or spending spikes during emergencies.^[12] In contrast, a structural balanced budget adjusts the actual figures to estimate the underlying fiscal position absent cyclical influences from the business cycle, such as automatic stabilizers like progressive taxes that decline in recessions.^[13] Calculated by purging cyclical components—often using output gaps and elasticity estimates—it reveals whether recurring revenues sustainably cover recurring expenditures at potential output levels, providing a gauge of medium-term solvency.^[12]^[13] For instance, the International Monetary Fund defines the structural balance as the actual position minus estimated business cycle effects, enabling policymakers to assess true fiscal discipline beyond temporary downturns.^[13] Governments like those in the European Union often target structural balance under fiscal rules to enforce sustainability, as actual balances may misleadingly appear healthy during expansions due to inflated tax receipts.^[12] Additional variations include time-framed balances, such as annual (confined to one year) or biennial (spanning two years to allow minor fluctuations), but these pertain more to implementation than conceptual typology.^[2] Overall, prioritizing structural over actual balance mitigates risks of procyclical policy errors, where apparent equilibrium masks persistent imbalances.^[13]

Relation to Fiscal Deficits and Surpluses

A balanced budget exists when a government's revenues precisely match its expenditures in a given fiscal period, yielding a budget balance of zero and avoiding both deficits and surpluses.^[14] This equilibrium implies no net borrowing requirement for funding operations, as the fiscal balance—calculated as total revenues minus total expenditures—equals zero.^[15] In formula terms, if T represents tax revenues and other inflows while G denotes government spending on goods, services, and transfers, a balanced budget satisfies T = G.^[16] Fiscal deficits occur when G > T, forcing governments to finance the shortfall through borrowing, which adds to public debt accumulation.^[14] For instance, in the United States, annual federal budget deficits from fiscal year 1973 to 2022 cumulatively reached $22 trillion, reflecting persistent excess spending over revenues and contributing to rising national debt.^[17] Surpluses, conversely, arise when T > G, enabling debt reduction or accumulation of reserves; the U.S. recorded such surpluses in fiscal years 1946 through 1949, post-World War II, as revenues from economic recovery outpaced spending.^[18] The relationship underscores fiscal sustainability: balanced budgets stabilize debt-to-GDP ratios over time by eliminating deficit-induced growth in liabilities, whereas chronic deficits exacerbate debt burdens, potentially crowding out private investment or raising interest costs.^[19] Surpluses, though rarer in modern practice, reverse this dynamic by permitting deleveraging, as seen historically when U.S. debt levels declined relative to GDP during surplus periods.^[20] Primary balances, excluding interest payments, further refine this linkage, where even a balanced overall budget may mask underlying deficits if interest exceeds zero.^[21]

Historical Development

Classical Economics and Early Practices

In classical economic thought, public debt was regarded as a significant impediment to prosperity, with advocates emphasizing fiscal restraint to prevent resource misallocation and intergenerational inequity. Adam Smith, in An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations (1776), described public debt as "oppressive and ruinous," arguing that it diverts savings from productive private investments to government consumption, thereby elevating interest rates and stifling capital accumulation essential for growth.^[22] He critiqued the sophistry of claims that national debt merely represented money owed domestically—"we owe it to ourselves"—insisting that such debts impose real burdens through future taxation or inflation, hidden during wartime but ultimately paid by reduced private sector vigor.^[23] David Ricardo extended this critique, contending that unfunded debt distorts economic incentives by anticipating higher future taxes, which discourage saving and labor; he advocated financing expenditures, especially wars, through immediate taxation rather than borrowing to maintain fiscal transparency and avoid perpetual indebtedness.^[22]^[24] John Stuart Mill refined these arguments, acknowledging that debt could be tolerable if funded by "disposable" or foreign capital without crowding out domestic investment, but he warned against its use for unproductive ends, favoring gradual repayment through budget surpluses to ensure sustainability without abrupt tax hikes.^[22] Collectively, classical economists privileged balanced budgets in peacetime as a principle of sound fiscal husbandry, rooted in the causal link between government profligacy and diminished national wealth, contrasting sharply with mercantilist tolerance for deficits to amass bullion.^[25] Early governmental practices reflected these principles, with most 19th-century regimes striving for budgetary equilibrium outside of wartime exigencies to avert debt spirals. In Britain, post-Napoleonic War reforms under Robert Peel in the 1840s implemented income taxes and expenditure cuts to generate surpluses, reducing debt from over 200% of GDP in 1815 to about 30% by 1900 through consistent fiscal discipline.^[22] The United States similarly prioritized balance; from independence through the Civil War era, federal outlays averaged under 2% of GDP in peacetime, with surpluses post-1865—such as annual excesses averaging $100 million from 1866 to 1893—halving the war-incurred debt from $2.7 billion to $1 billion by century's end.^[26]^[27] This pattern held into the early 20th century, as from 1900 to 1916, receipts and expenditures balanced at roughly 2.1% of GDP, underscoring a norm where deficits were exceptional and swiftly rectified to preserve creditworthiness and low borrowing costs.^[27] Such practices empirically supported classical warnings, as unchecked debt in prior eras, like Britain's pre-Smith accumulation, had necessitated devaluations or austerity without yielding sustained growth advantages.^[22]

20th Century Shifts and Keynesian Influence

The orthodoxy of annually balanced budgets, rooted in 19th-century classical economics, faced severe challenges during the Great Depression starting in 1929, as fiscal austerity measures in countries like the United States and Britain exacerbated economic contraction by reducing aggregate demand.^[28] In the U.S., President Herbert Hoover's administration attempted spending cuts and tax increases, including the Revenue Act of 1932, which raised rates but failed to restore equilibrium, resulting in federal deficits averaging 3 percent of GDP from 1930 to 1932.^[28] These policies aligned with Treasury View doctrines in Britain, which prioritized budget balance over stimulus, contributing to prolonged unemployment rates exceeding 20 percent in both nations by 1933.^[29] John Maynard Keynes's The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, published in February 1936, provided a theoretical framework challenging this approach by arguing that insufficient private investment during downturns necessitated government deficit spending to boost demand via the multiplier effect, where initial expenditures generate amplified income through successive rounds of consumption.^[30] Keynes posited that rigid adherence to balanced budgets could trap economies in underemployment equilibrium, advocating instead for countercyclical fiscal policy—deficits in recessions funded by surpluses in booms—to achieve full employment without inflation.^[31] This marked a paradigm shift from viewing government budgets as inherently self-correcting to instruments of macroeconomic stabilization, influencing policymakers who observed that pre-Keynesian retrenchment had deepened the Depression rather than resolving it. Adoption accelerated post-1936, particularly after the 1937-1938 U.S. recession, when President Franklin D. Roosevelt shifted from initial budget-balancing efforts—such as the 1937 balanced budget rhetoric—to expanded deficit spending, increasing federal outlays to stimulate demand in line with Keynesian prescriptions.^[32] The New Deal programs, including Works Progress Administration expenditures peaking at $3.3 billion in 1938, exemplified this, though deficits reached 5.4 percent of GDP that year.^[33] World War II further entrenched the practice, with U.S. deficits surging to 26.9 percent of GDP in 1943 to finance mobilization, normalizing large-scale fiscal intervention and eroding taboos against peacetime imbalances.^[28] By the 1940s, Keynesian ideas permeated policy, as seen in the U.S. Employment Act of 1946, which mandated federal responsibility for maximum employment, effectively subordinating annual balance to economic objectives.^[34] This influence persisted into the postwar era, fostering a consensus where fiscal rules emphasized cyclical balance over strict annual orthodoxy, though critics later attributed rising structural deficits—U.S. federal budgets in surplus only four years from 1947 to 2000—to loosened discipline.^[35]

Economic Theory and Arguments

Case for Fiscal Discipline and Sustainability

Fiscal discipline through balanced budget policies prevents the accumulation of excessive public debt, which empirical studies associate with reduced economic growth. Research indicates that debt-to-GDP ratios exceeding 70-80% often trigger negative growth effects, as high indebtedness crowds out private investment by elevating interest rates and diverting resources to debt servicing rather than productive uses.^[36]^[37] A meta-analysis of studies estimates that each 1 percentage point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio lowers annual GDP growth by approximately 0.013 percentage points, compounding over time to significant output losses.^[38] Such discipline enhances sustainability by curbing rising interest payments, which in high-debt scenarios consume a growing share of budgets and limit fiscal flexibility for essential services or emergencies. For instance, sustained deficits lead to intergenerational inequity, as current expenditures are financed through future tax burdens or inflation, effectively transferring costs to unborn generations without their consent.^[39] Budget surpluses, conversely, function as national saving, boosting capital accumulation and long-term income levels by increasing available funds for private sector investment.^[40] From a causal perspective, unchecked deficits erode investor confidence, prompting risk premiums on government bonds that amplify borrowing costs and potential crises, as observed in episodes where debt spirals necessitated austerity or defaults. Balanced budgets signal commitment to solvency, stabilizing expectations and fostering environments conducive to steady growth, as evidenced by U.S. states with stringent balance requirements exhibiting lower deficits and surpluses during fiscal stress.^[41]^[10] Historical precedents, such as the late 1990s U.S. federal surpluses coinciding with robust expansion and low inflation, underscore how discipline can align fiscal policy with underlying economic capacity, avoiding the volatility of boom-bust cycles driven by debt-fueled stimulus.^[6]

Counterarguments: Countercyclical Needs and Modern Monetary Perspectives

Proponents of countercyclical fiscal policy argue that rigid balanced budget mandates prevent governments from using deficits to counteract economic contractions, where private sector demand falls short. John Maynard Keynes, in his 1936 work The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money, contended that during recessions, fiscal expansion—through higher government spending or lower taxes—boosts aggregate demand via the multiplier effect, leading to higher output without proportional inflation if idle resources exist.^[31] This approach views deficits not as fiscal sins but as tools to stabilize cycles, with automatic stabilizers like progressive taxes and unemployment benefits providing built-in countercyclical support; empirical estimates suggest these stabilizers reduce GDP volatility by 10-20% in advanced economies.^[42] Historical examples include the U.S. New Deal spending from 1933, which correlated with GDP growth averaging 9% annually through 1937, though causation remains debated due to concurrent monetary factors and incomplete recovery until World War II mobilization.^[43] Modern Monetary Theory (MMT), articulated by economists such as Warren Mosler and further popularized by Stephanie Kelton, challenges balanced budget orthodoxy by emphasizing that monetary sovereigns—like the U.S. with its dollar—face no inherent solvency risk from deficits, as they spend by crediting bank reserves rather than taxing or borrowing first.^[44] Under MMT, government deficits directly increase private sector net financial assets, enabling savings without corresponding private dis-saving; taxes serve primarily to curb inflation by reducing spending capacity, not to "fund" expenditures.^[45] Proponents claim this framework justifies sustained deficits to achieve full employment and public investment, as seen in Japan's 250% debt-to-GDP ratio since the 1990s without default or uncontrolled inflation, attributing stability to domestic currency issuance and demand leakage via aging demographics.^[46] However, mainstream critiques highlight MMT's dismissal of bond market dynamics and historical inflation episodes, such as the U.S. 1970s stagflation where deficits exceeded 4% of GDP amid oil shocks, underscoring that resource constraints can trigger price pressures regardless of monetary sovereignty.^[47] Empirical support for these counterarguments is mixed; while IMF analyses credit countercyclical deficits with shortening the 2008-2009 recession—U.S. stimulus under the 2009 American Recovery and Reinvestment Act added an estimated 2-3% to GDP by 2010 per Congressional Budget Office models—meta-studies find average fiscal multipliers below 1 in non-ZLB conditions, suggesting limited bang-for-buck and risks of crowding out private investment.^[48] MMT's predictions fare poorer, with no controlled tests isolating its mechanisms, and simulations indicating deficits above 5% of GDP persistently raise long-term rates by 20-50 basis points via inflation expectations.^[49] Thus, while offering theoretical flexibility, these perspectives often overlook causal evidence that procyclical austerity in Greece (2010-2018) deepened depression but U.S.-style deficits post-2020 fueled inflation exceeding 9% in 2022 without proportional growth.^[50]

Balanced Budget Multiplier Mechanics

The balanced budget multiplier describes the net impact on equilibrium national income from simultaneous and equal increases in government spending (ΔG) and taxation (ΔT = ΔG), under simplifying assumptions of a closed economy with fixed investment and net exports. In the canonical Keynesian framework, this multiplier equals 1, implying that output rises by exactly the amount of the spending increase, as the contractionary effect of higher taxes is partially offset by induced consumption from the initial spending injection.^[34] The mechanics derive from the standard expenditure multiplier model. Aggregate demand is Y = C + I + G + NX, where consumption follows C = c₀ + c₁(Y - T), with c₁ as the marginal propensity to consume (0 < c₁ < 1), I and NX fixed, and T denoting lump-sum taxes.^[34] Solving for equilibrium yields Y = \frac{1}{1 - c₁}(c₀ + I + G + NX - c₁ T).^[51] Under balanced budget conditions (ΔI = ΔNX = 0, ΔT = ΔG), the change in output simplifies to ΔY = \frac{1}{1 - c₁}(ΔG - c₁ ΔG) = \frac{1 - c₁}{1 - c₁} ΔG = ΔG, yielding a multiplier of \frac{ΔY}{ΔG} \vert_{ΔT = ΔG} = 1.^[34] ^[52] This result holds because government spending directly adds to demand, while the tax increase reduces disposable income and thus consumption by c₁ ΔT, leaving a secondary round of spending (1 - c₁) ΔG that propagates through the multiplier chain without further leakage from taxes. However, the derivation assumes non-distortionary lump-sum taxes, no forward-looking household behavior (e.g., Ricardian equivalence, where agents save taxes anticipating future reductions), fixed interest rates precluding crowding out of private investment, and a stable c₁ unaffected by fiscal composition. Extensions incorporating imperfect competition or endogenous labor supply can yield multipliers below, at, or even above 1, depending on parameters like wage rigidity.^[53] ^[54]

Empirical Evidence

Impacts on Debt Accumulation and Economic Stability

Empirical analyses of U.S. states, where 49 impose balanced budget requirements, reveal that stricter rules—particularly end-of-year mandates—correlate with substantially lower public debt accumulation. States enforcing such provisions from 1970 to 1991 maintained higher general fund surpluses, averaging reductions in deficits through spending cuts rather than revenue hikes, resulting in per capita debt levels approximately 20-30% below those in jurisdictions with weaker rules.^[55] ^[41] These effects persist in post-2000 data, with compliant states exhibiting debt-to-GDP ratios under 10% on average versus over 15% in less constrained peers, as fiscal discipline prevents deficit carryovers and rainy-day fund depletions during downturns.^[56] ^[57] Cross-national evidence reinforces this pattern: fiscal rules akin to balanced budgets, including expenditure caps, have reduced central government debt-to-GDP ratios by 5-10 percentage points in adopting economies from 1990 onward, with balanced budget variants outperforming debt or revenue rules alone in curbing accumulation.^[58] ^[59] In Germany, the 2009 debt brake—limiting structural deficits to 0.35% of GDP since 2016—stabilized the debt-to-GDP ratio at around 60-70% through the 2010s eurozone crisis and COVID-19, avoiding the spirals seen in peers like Italy (exceeding 130%) by enforcing automatic stabilizers without unchecked borrowing.^[60] ^[61] Regarding economic stability, lower debt trajectories from these rules diminish vulnerability to interest rate shocks and crowding out of private investment, as evidenced by U.S. states with robust requirements enjoying borrowing costs 10-20 basis points below national averages due to perceived lower default risks.^[56] ^[57] High debt burdens, conversely, empirically drag growth by 0.02-0.1% per percentage point increase in debt-to-GDP, amplifying instability via higher taxes or inflation to service obligations, a pattern observed in pre-rule eras of unchecked deficits.^[62] While some analyses highlight short-term procyclicality—such as amplified revenue shortfalls in recessions under strict enforcement—the net effect favors long-term stability through sustained fiscal space and reduced crisis probability, as debt-constrained regimes exhibit fewer boom-bust cycles than high-debt counterparts.^[63] ^[64]

Comparative Outcomes in Rule-Adopting Jurisdictions

In the United States, 49 of 50 states enforce balanced budget requirements through constitutional or statutory provisions, with outcomes varying by rule stringency. States mandating year-end balance demonstrate significantly higher general fund surpluses, as end-of-year requirements exert positive effects on fiscal balances compared to prospective-only rules.^[41] Empirical analysis from 1946 to 1994 reveals that strong balanced budget rules correlate with lower state borrowing costs, evidenced by interest rates 10-20 basis points below those in states with weaker rules, and contribute to sustained low deficits independent of economic rationales.^[65] Facing deficits, states with stringent provisions increase budgeted revenues and cut expenditures more aggressively; for example, a $100 deficit shock prompts a $44 spending reduction in strong-rule states versus only $11 in weaker ones.^[66]^[67] However, stricter rules can heighten fiscal volatility, as they compel procyclical adjustments like spending cuts or tax hikes during recessions, amplifying downturns in revenue-sensitive budgets.^[64] Switzerland's federal debt brake, approved by referendum in 2001 and effective from 2003, targets structural balance by offsetting extraordinary expenditures with compensatory measures over the cycle. Post-adoption, synthetic control evaluations estimate an average budget balance improvement of 3.6 percentage points from 2003 to 2014, stabilizing debt at around 40% of GDP by curbing deficits during booms and allowing flexibility in slumps.^[68] The rule has reformed budget processes, prioritizing expenditure restraint and long-term sustainability, with federal debt declining from 57% of GDP in 2001 to 20% by 2019 before pandemic effects.^[69] Cantonal adaptations show similar fiscal tightening, though partial coverage in some rules limits full effects on overall debt.^[70] Overall, the mechanism has fostered sound finances without evident growth suppression, as real GDP per capita rose 1.5% annually post-implementation.^[71] Germany's debt brake, constitutionally embedded in 2009 and applying from 2016, caps federal structural deficits at 0.35% of GDP (0% for states), aiming for debt stabilization below 60% of GDP. Pre-COVID, it facilitated debt-to-GDP reduction from 81% in 2010 to 59% in 2019 through enforced austerity, lowering primary deficits and public borrowing needs.^[72] Synthetic control studies confirm modest positive impacts on fiscal balances but highlight trade-offs, including restrained public investment that may have contributed to stagnant productivity growth averaging 0.5% annually from 2010-2019.^[73] Suspensions during the 2009 financial crisis and 2020 pandemic underscore escape clauses, yet critics argue the rule's rigidity exacerbates economic stagnation by limiting countercyclical spending, with Germany's GDP growth lagging eurozone peers at 1.3% versus 1.8% annually over 2010-2019.^[74]^[60] Cross-jurisdictional comparisons reveal that well-designed rules—featuring structural adjustments and enforcement mechanisms—consistently yield lower debt accumulation and improved primary balances, with adopters showing 1-4 percentage point better fiscal outcomes than non-adopters in panel data from advanced economies.^[58]^[75] U.S. states and Switzerland exemplify fiscal discipline enhancing stability, while Germany's experience illustrates design flaws amplifying procyclicality in low-growth contexts, though all cases affirm reduced long-term debt risks over unchecked deficits.^[10] Outcomes hinge on rule specificity, with overly rigid variants risking evasion or volatility, yet empirical aggregates favor adoption for sustainability absent robust alternatives.^[76]

Institutional and Legal Frameworks

United States: State Requirements and Federal Proposals

All 50 U.S. states impose balanced budget requirements, with 49 embedding them in their constitutions and Vermont relying on statutory provisions and historical practice to ensure expenditures do not exceed revenues in enacted budgets.^[77] These mandates typically require the governor to submit a balanced budget proposal, the legislature to enact one without deficit financing for ongoing operations, and the closure of any prior-year deficits before approving new spending; capital projects may be funded via bonds, but operating budgets must align revenues with expenditures annually.^[78] Such rules have contributed to states maintaining lower per capita debt levels compared to the federal government, with state debt-to-GDP ratios averaging around 15% in recent years versus federal figures exceeding 120%.^[79] State enforcement varies: most prohibit deficit carryover into the next fiscal year, compelling mid-year adjustments like spending cuts or revenue measures during downturns, as seen in responses to the 2008 recession where states reduced outlays by 5-10% on average without federal borrowing authority.^[77] Exceptions allow temporary borrowing or rainy-day funds, but these are capped—e.g., no more than 5% of general fund expenditures in many states—to prevent evasion; Wyoming and Alaska, reliant on volatile resource revenues, use constitutional savings mandates to buffer cycles. Compliance is high, with states achieving balance in 95% of fiscal years since 1970, fostering fiscal stability but occasionally amplifying recessions through procyclical cuts absent federal aid.^[77] The federal government lacks any constitutional balanced budget requirement, relying instead on statutory measures like the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, which sets non-binding targets, and the debt ceiling, which caps borrowing but has been raised over 100 times since 1917 without enforcing balance.^[80] Proposals for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) date to 1936, with renewed efforts during high-deficit periods; for instance, in 1982, the House passed a version by 301-123, but Senate ratification thresholds (two-thirds approval) proved insurmountable.^[81] The closest passage occurred in 1995, when the House approved H.J. Res. 1 by 300-132, and the Senate fell one vote short at 65-35, amid debates over supermajority waivers for war or recession spending.^[79] Recent federal BBA initiatives include a 2024 bipartisan proposal by Representatives Gluesenkamp Perez and Bacon (H.J. Res. 11), mandating balance within two years of ratification unless waived by three-fifths congressional vote for emergencies, aiming to curb chronic deficits that have driven national debt from $5.7 trillion in 2001 to $35.3 trillion by October 2024.^[82] Proponents, including governors like Ron DeSantis and Greg Gianforte, argue that state successes demonstrate feasibility, noting federal exemptions for Social Security and interest payments while requiring three-fourths state ratification; critics from institutions like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities contend it risks rigid austerity, though empirical state data shows enforced balance correlating with sustained growth post-adjustments.^[83]^[84] No BBA has achieved the requisite 38-state ratification, leaving federal fiscal policy unconstrained by such structural limits.^[80]

European Models: Germany's Debt Brake and Swiss Rules

Germany's Schuldenbremse (debt brake), enshrined in the Basic Law via amendments passed on June 23, 2009, and effective from 2011 for states and 2016 for the federal level, mandates that Länder (states) maintain balanced budgets while capping the federal structural deficit at no more than 0.35% of nominal GDP annually.^[85] This rule applies to cyclically adjusted figures to account for economic fluctuations, with exemptions permitted only for extraordinary events such as natural disasters or severe economic crises exceeding a defined threshold of output decline.^[60] Implementation involves independent assessments by bodies like the Federal Statistical Office and the Stability Council, which monitor compliance and recommend compensatory measures if deficits breach limits, such as spending cuts in subsequent years.^[85] Post-enactment, Germany's public debt-to-GDP ratio fell from 81% in 2010 to 59% by 2019, attributed in part to the rule's constraints amid favorable growth, though suspensions occurred during the 2008 financial crisis and the COVID-19 pandemic, during which federal deficits surged to 4.3% of GDP in 2020.^[86] Recent reforms have adjusted the framework for specific priorities: in 2022, off-budget funds were created for pandemic recovery, and on March 21, 2025, a constitutional change exempted defense expenditures exceeding 1% of GDP from the brake, enabling up to €500 billion in special funds for infrastructure and military needs, reflecting geopolitical pressures from Russia's invasion of Ukraine.^[87] Critics, including economists at the German Institute for Economic Research, argue the rule's rigidity has constrained countercyclical spending, contributing to subdued growth averaging 0.5% annually from 2019 to 2023, though proponents credit it with fostering fiscal discipline absent in peers like France, where debt-to-GDP exceeded 110% by 2023.^[74] Empirical analyses indicate the brake reduced structural deficits by enforcing multi-year adjustments, but evasion via one-off measures and guarantees has occasionally undermined transparency.^[88] Switzerland's debt brake, adopted by popular referendum on November 18, 2001, and implemented from 2003, operates as a constitutional expenditure rule rather than a strict deficit cap, limiting federal structural spending growth to match cyclically adjusted revenues, with deficits not exceeding 0.5% of GDP on average over the business cycle.^[89] Administered by the Federal Finance Administration, it distinguishes between ordinary expenditures (capped) and extraordinary ones (for crises like wars or pandemics, requiring repayment plans), using a three-year compensation mechanism to offset overruns in boom years against shortfalls in downturns.^[90] This design promotes procyclical revenue use for debt reduction while preventing spending spikes, with compliance enforced through parliamentary oversight and independent fiscal projections.^[91] Since inception, the rule has stabilized federal gross debt at around 40% of GDP through multiple cycles, including the 2008 crisis and COVID-19, where extraordinary spending reached CHF 20 billion in 2020 but was offset by subsequent surpluses, lowering the debt ratio from 42% in 2003 to 38% by 2022.^[92] Synthetic control studies estimate it improved the primary budget balance by 3.6 to 3.7 percentage points in the post-2003 period compared to counterfactual scenarios without the rule, fostering resilience without stifling growth, as Switzerland's GDP per capita rose 25% from 2003 to 2023.^[69] Unlike deficit-focused rules, its expenditure orientation has minimized procyclical risks, though cantonal variations exist without a national mandate.^[93] Both models share roots in reaction to rising debt in the early 2000s—Switzerland's influencing Germany's design—but diverge in mechanics: Switzerland's revenue-linked cap allows automatic stabilizers to function more freely, yielding consistent surpluses in expansions (e.g., 1.2% of GDP average 2010-2019), while Germany's tighter federal limit has prompted more frequent exemptions and debates over sustainability amid aging demographics.^[94] Empirical evidence suggests Switzerland's approach has proven more effective in long-term consolidation, with debt ratios declining 15 percentage points by 2010 pre-rule influences notwithstanding, versus Germany's post-2009 gains partly offset by crisis suspensions.^[71]

Other International Examples

Chile adopted a structural fiscal balance rule in 2001, requiring the central government to target a cyclically adjusted surplus equivalent to 0.5% to 1% of GDP, with adjustments for long-term copper price trends and economic output gaps to avoid procyclical policies.^[95] This framework, overseen by an independent fiscal council, facilitated countercyclical fiscal responses during commodity booms and busts, contributing to a sovereign wealth fund exceeding $20 billion by 2010 and debt reduction from 13% of GDP in 2000 to near zero by 2007.^[96] Empirical assessments indicate the rule enhanced fiscal sustainability without stifling growth, as evidenced by average annual GDP expansion of 4.5% from 2001 to 2011, though deviations occurred during the 2008-2009 recession when the target was temporarily suspended.^[95] New Zealand's Fiscal Responsibility Act of 1994 established non-binding principles for prudent fiscal management, mandating governments to articulate long-term objectives aimed at achieving and maintaining net worth sufficient for intergenerational equity, reducing debt to prudent levels, and pursuing operating surpluses on average over the economic cycle.^[97] The Act emphasizes transparency through regular fiscal strategy reports and pre-election economic and fiscal updates, which have constrained deficits by increasing public and political accountability.^[98] Post-enactment, New Zealand recorded operating surpluses from 1998 to 2008, reducing net debt from 36% of GDP in 1994 to a net creditor position by 2007, though adherence weakened during the global financial crisis with deficits peaking at 9.3% of GDP in 2009.^[99] Brazil enacted the Fiscal Responsibility Law (LRF) in 2000 amid recurring fiscal crises, imposing binding limits on primary deficits, public debt trajectories, and personnel expenditures (capped at 60% of revenues for states and municipalities), with automatic sanctions like spending freezes for non-compliance.^[100] Applicable to federal, state, and local governments, the LRF prohibited deficits exceeding revenue growth and required multi-year budgeting, which correlated with improved primary balances from -3.1% of GDP in 1999 to surpluses averaging 3.5% from 2003 to 2008.^[101] However, enforcement challenges persisted, including creative accounting and judicial overrides, leading to renewed debt accumulation post-2014 recession when public debt rose above 90% of GDP by 2020, prompting a 2023 fiscal framework revision targeting gradual deficit reduction to zero by 2026.^[102]

Political Implementation and Debates

Historical and Recent Policy Efforts

Efforts to mandate balanced budgets through constitutional or statutory measures in the United States began in the 1930s, with repeated proposals for a balanced budget amendment (BBA) introduced in Congress, though none achieved the required two-thirds approval in both chambers for submission to states.^[79] In 1982, President Ronald Reagan publicly supported a BBA, arguing it would enforce fiscal discipline absent from statutory controls.^[103] The Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985, known as Gramm-Rudman-Hollings, represented a key statutory push by setting binding deficit targets with automatic sequestration triggers, but the Supreme Court invalidated its automatic delegation of cuts to the Comptroller General in Bowsher v. Synar (1986), leading to revised versions that ultimately failed to eliminate deficits.^[80] By 1995, amid growing deficits, the House approved a BBA (H.J. Res. 1) requiring outlays not to exceed receipts by more than specified percentages, phasing to balance by fiscal year 2002, but the Senate fell two votes short of the two-thirds threshold needed.^[104] In the 2000s and 2010s, Tea Party-aligned Republicans revived BBA advocacy during debt ceiling crises, with House votes in 2011 (H.J. Res. 1) passing narrowly but stalling in the Senate, reflecting partisan divides where Democrats often opposed it as overly rigid amid recessions.^[79] Recent efforts intensified post-2020 amid surging debt from pandemic spending; in the 117th Congress (2021-2022), H.J. Res. 22 proposed prohibiting outlays exceeding receipts unless approved by three-fifths majorities, but advanced little.^[80] In the 119th Congress (2025-2026), Representatives introduced H.J. Res. 11 and H.J. Res. 17, both mandating annual outlays not exceed receipts without supermajority waivers, alongside Rep. Eric Burlison's August 2025 proposal adding a strict national debt cap at current levels adjusted only for inflation and population growth.^[105]^[106]^[107] These initiatives cite escalating deficits—projected at $2.7 trillion by 2035—as justification, though critics from institutions like the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities argue they risk procyclical austerity without addressing revenue shortfalls.^[108] Internationally, political campaigns for balanced budget rules gained traction in the late 20th century amid fiscal strains. Switzerland's "debt brake," limiting structural deficits to zero, passed via 2001 referendum with 85% voter approval, driven by conservative and centrist parties emphasizing long-term stability over short-term spending.^[109] In Europe, the 1997 Stability and Growth Pact (SGP) emerged from Maastricht Treaty negotiations, politically binding EU members to deficits under 3% of GDP and debt below 60%, though enforcement waned post-2008 crisis until reforms in 2011 imposed stricter penalties.^[109] Germany's 2009 debt brake, constitutionally enshrined after coalition negotiations between Christian Democrats and Social Democrats, capped structural deficits at 0.35% of GDP for federal budgets, reflecting post-financial crisis consensus on averting eurozone instability. Recent EU efforts culminated in the 2024 fiscal framework revision, politically adopted amid debates over green investments, requiring medium-term plans to achieve debt reduction while allowing flexibility for crises, as pushed by fiscal hawks in northern member states.^[110] In Latin America, Chile's 2000 structural balanced budget rule, legislatively enacted under President Ricardo Lagos's center-left administration, targeted cyclically adjusted surpluses, politically justified by copper revenue volatility and yielding average surpluses until commodity booms ended.^[111] These cases highlight recurring political tensions between deficit hawks prioritizing sustainability and opponents wary of constraining countercyclical policy.

Advocacy Versus Opposition Dynamics

Advocacy for balanced budget requirements, particularly constitutional amendments in the United States, has been led by fiscal conservative organizations and Republican lawmakers emphasizing the need for enforceable fiscal discipline amid persistent deficits and rising national debt exceeding $37 trillion as of 2025.^[112] Groups such as the Heritage Foundation argue that voluntary restraint has repeatedly failed, necessitating a constitutional mechanism to prevent overspending, reduce debt burdens on future generations, and promote long-term economic stability through mandatory balance or supermajority approval for deficits.^[113] Similarly, Americans for Prosperity has highlighted in 2025 that unchecked federal spending fuels inflation and erodes prosperity, positioning a balanced budget amendment as essential for restoring accountability without relying on political promises.^[114] Recent legislative efforts underscore this push, including H.J.Res. 17 introduced by Representative Eric Burlison on August 15, 2025, which proposes prohibiting federal outlays from exceeding receipts in any fiscal year, building on historical precedents like the Senate's 69-31 approval of a similar amendment in 1982.^[107] ^[106] ^[79] Opposition primarily emanates from progressive think tanks, labor unions, and Keynesian-oriented economists who contend that rigid balanced budget rules undermine countercyclical fiscal policy by forcing spending cuts or tax hikes during economic downturns, when revenues naturally decline and automatic stabilizers like unemployment benefits increase outlays.^[84] The Center on Budget and Policy Priorities warns that such amendments risk exacerbating recessions through procyclical austerity, potentially turning mild slowdowns into severe contractions absent flexibility for deficits.^[115] A 2016 statement by Nobel laureates and leading economists, coordinated by the Economic Policy Institute, asserted that balanced budget mandates would mandate perverse actions in recessions, ignoring empirical realities of falling tax collections and rising welfare needs.^[116] The AFL-CIO has echoed these concerns, opposing amendments since at least 2014 for compelling harmful fiscal tightening regardless of economic conditions, often prioritizing social program protections.^[117] The interplay between these camps reveals a partisan divide, with advocacy gaining traction among Republicans during periods of high deficits—such as post-2008 and post-COVID eras—while Democrats and allied groups resist, citing threats to entitlement spending and discretionary programs.^[118] Despite repeated congressional majorities supporting balanced budget amendments since the 1970s, achieving the two-thirds threshold for constitutional proposal has proven elusive, as seen in the 1995 House passage failing in the Senate by one vote, reflecting lobbying by interest groups fearing funding cuts and broader skepticism from surveys like the IGM Economic Experts Panel, where most economists oppose strict versions due to amplified output volatility.^[113] ^[119] This dynamic persists internationally, as in Europe's debt brake debates, where conservative proponents prioritize sustainability against left-leaning critiques of rigidity, though U.S. efforts remain the most prominent due to the absence of statutory equivalents.^[80]

Criticisms and Challenges

Risks of Procyclical Effects

Balanced budget requirements can induce procyclical fiscal policy by necessitating spending reductions or tax increases during economic downturns, when tax revenues decline and automatic stabilizers such as unemployment benefits increase outlays, thereby amplifying contractions rather than mitigating them.^[120] In expansions, such rules may constrain surpluses needed for saving or countering overheating, though the primary risk manifests in recessions where fiscal contraction deepens output declines.^[121] Empirical studies of U.S. states, nearly all of which mandate balanced budgets, demonstrate that stricter enforcement correlates with heightened procyclicality and exacerbated business cycles. For instance, states with rigorous balanced budget rules experienced more severe GDP drops during the 2008–2009 recession due to mandated cuts in spending and services, reducing multipliers that could have supported recovery.^[122] ^[123] Analysis of state-level data from 1970 to 2006 further shows that stringent rules lead to more procyclical current operations and health policies, lowering long-term growth by 0.5–1% annually in affected states compared to those with looser requirements. Internationally, Germany's debt brake, implemented in 2009 and requiring structural deficits below 0.35% of GDP, has faced criticism for procyclical effects stemming from imprecise cyclical adjustments in revenue forecasts, which force austerity during slumps despite escape clauses for emergencies.^[124] During the 2020 COVID-19 downturn, reliance on such adjustments delayed fiscal response, contributing to sharper initial output contractions before suspensions were enacted, highlighting how rigid rules can override countercyclical needs absent flexible implementation.^[125] Proponents argue that well-designed rules with buffers mitigate these risks, yet evidence from rule-adopting jurisdictions indicates persistent vulnerability without adequate rainy-day funds or indexed stabilizers.^[126]

Evasion Tactics and Enforcement Issues

Governments subject to balanced budget requirements frequently resort to accounting maneuvers to circumvent restrictions without formally violating them. Common tactics include the use of one-time revenues, such as proceeds from asset sales or legal settlements, to fund recurrent operating expenses, thereby artificially balancing current-year budgets while deferring fiscal imbalances.^[67]^[127] In U.S. states, for instance, officials have sold tobacco settlement rights or state properties to generate non-recurring income, masking structural deficits estimated to exceed $100 billion collectively during the 2008-2012 recession period.^[127] Other methods involve deferring expenditures, such as delaying vendor payments or shifting costs to future fiscal years, and accelerating revenue recognition through gimmicks like prepaying taxes.^[128] Off-balance-sheet financing exacerbates evasion, particularly for capital projects, where public-private partnerships or special-purpose entities are employed to exclude debt from official budget calculations.^[129] In jurisdictions distinguishing between operating and capital budgets, capital outlays are often financed through long-term borrowing not subject to annual balance mandates, leading to cumulative debt accumulation despite surface compliance.^[130] Proposals for federal balanced budget amendments in the U.S. anticipate similar loopholes, including reclassifying mandatory spending as discretionary or leveraging guarantees that avoid immediate scoring under congressional rules.^[80] Enforcement remains a persistent challenge due to the absence of robust, independent mechanisms in most systems. In 49 U.S. states with balanced budget provisions as of 2021, requirements typically mandate balanced proposals from governors and legislatures, but only 15 states empower courts to enforce compliance, with judicial intervention occurring in fewer than 5% of potential violations since the 1990s.^[57]^[131] The U.S. Government Accountability Office has documented lax oversight, noting that states often rely on self-reported compliance without standardized audits, enabling manipulations like pension fund diversions totaling billions during fiscal crises.^[132]^[128] Internationally, enforcement varies by institutional design. Germany's debt brake, embedded in the Basic Law since 2009, has faced evasion attempts through special funds for infrastructure, but the Federal Constitutional Court invalidated such shifts in 2021, ruling them unconstitutional and mandating repayment of €60 billion in evaded liabilities.^[133] Switzerland's debt brake, adopted in 2001, incorporates cyclically adjusted targets enforced by parliamentary review and automatic compensatory deficits in surplus years, achieving net debt reduction from 37% of GDP in 2003 to 25% by 2019, though critics note reliance on political consensus during exceptions like the COVID-19 suspension in 2020.^[89]^[90] Weak enforcement correlates with rule stringency; looser provisions invite more evasion, as evidenced by empirical studies showing U.S. states with statutory rather than constitutional mandates exhibiting 20-30% higher deficit persistence.^[10]

References

[1]
Balanced Budget: Definition, Example of Uses, and How to Balance
A balanced budget is a financial plan in which total expected revenues are equal to total planned spending, commonly applied to government budgets.What Is a Balanced Budget? · Understanding a Balanced... · Pros and Cons
[2]
Balanced Budget - Components, Examples, and Importance
A balanced budget is a budget (ie, a financial plan) in which revenues are equal to expenditures, such that there is no budget deficit or surplus.
[3]
The Budget Deficit and Long-Term Economic Growth | U.S. GAO
GAO noted that: (1) the rising budget deficit is increasingly absorbing the net national savings available for investment, and trends in expenditures for health ...
[4]
What is the balanced-budget multiplier? - Bill Mitchell
Dec 30, 2010 · A concept known as the “balanced-budget multiplier theorem” states that national income is raised, dollar for dollar, with any increase in government ...
[5]
Study on the Balanced Budget Multiplier - Academia.edu
Empirical estimates suggest government spending multipliers range between zero and 1.5, often closer to zero. Consumption may decrease in response to balanced ...<|separator|>
[6]
A Surplus, If We Can Keep It: How the Federal Budget Surplus ...
A $290 billion budget deficit has been transformed into a $100 billion surplus that is expected to quadruple in the decade ahead.
[7]
The Clinton Presidency: Historic Economic Growth - The White House
The results of President Clinton's economic leadership are clear. Record budget deficits have become record surpluses, 22 million new jobs have been created.
[8]
From Riches to Rags: Causes of Fiscal Deterioration Since 2001
Jan 10, 2024 · Since 2001, the United States turned a modest budget surplus into a $1.7 trillion budget deficit and has tripled the debt-to-GDP ratio from 32 ...
[9]
30.7 The Question of a Balanced Budget – Principles of Economics
A requirement that the budget be balanced each and every year would prevent these automatic stabilizers from working and would worsen the severity of economic ...
[10]
Balanced budget rules and fiscal outcomes: Evidence from historical ...
This paper studies the reduced-form effects of constitutional-level balanced budget rules (BBRs) on fiscal outcomes. Using historical data for a large set ...
[11]
Balanced Budget - Economics Help
Definition of Balanced budget: When total government spending equals government tax receipts. A budget surplus when spending is less than revenue is also ...
[12]
Achieving a Structurally Balanced Budget
A true structurally balanced budget is one that supports financial sustainability for multiple years into the future.
[13]
[PDF] The Structural Budget Balance The IMF's Methodology - WP/99/95
The structural budget balance is the government's actual fiscal position purged of the estimated budgetary consequences of the business cycle, and is designed ...
[14]
National Deficit | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
When there is no deficit or surplus due to spending and revenue being equal, the budget is considered balanced . The terms “national deficit”, “federal deficit ...
[15]
Fiscal Balance - Definition, Data & Forecasts - FocusEconomics
Fiscal balance, sometimes also referred to as the government budget balance, is calculated as the difference between a government's revenues.
[16]
Lesson summary: Deficits and debts (article) - Khan Academy
balanced budget, when a government's spending on goods, services, and transfer payments equals its tax revenues ; budget deficit, when a government spends more ...
[17]
Deficits, Debt, and the Economy: An Introduction - Congress.gov
Dec 20, 2022 · From FY1973 to FY2022, annual nominal budget deficits and surpluses of the federal government summed to $22.0 trillion; over the same period, ...
[18]
The History of U.S. Public Debt - The 1950s to 1980s - TreasuryDirect
Dec 28, 2023 · History at a Glance. 1946-1949 - The U.S. had a budget surplus. 1950 - The U.S. enters the Korean War. 1960 - Debt increases to $382.6 ...Missing: examples | Show results with:examples
[19]
[PDF] The Effect of Deficits - Treasury
The current international concern among policymakers with present and projected levels of budget deficits is of relatively recent origin.
[20]
History of the Debt - TreasuryDirect
By 1933, the budget deficit was nearly $3 billion, and the debt had risen to more than $22 billion. Many economists at the time disdained the attempt to balance ...
[21]
The US budget math is looking dangerous
Jul 1, 2025 · A primary surplus subtracts from the debt and a primary deficit adds to it. See Figure A-2 in the appendix for a set of simulations designed to ...<|separator|>
[22]
[PDF] Government debt in economic thought of the long 19th century
In this paper I will contrast the views of four classical British economists regarding the issue of public debt, namely those of Adam Smith, David Ricardo, ...
[23]
Adam Smith debunks that idea that when it comes to public debt “we ...
Adam Smith calls the Keynesian-like argument that a large public debt is not to be feared because “we owe it to ourselves” an example of “the sophistry of the ...
[24]
[PDF] David Ricardo on Public Debt - Resistir.info
We have seen too that Ricardo's views on public debt cast light on the ... may have been led to take a more balanced view of Ricardian method. 90 David ...
[25]
Classical Economists, Good or Bad? - FEE.org
Oct 1, 1996 · Most economists taught the sound principles of classical economics: free trade, balanced budgets, the gold standard, and laissez faire.
[26]
https://www.econlib.org/library/Enc/FederalBudget.html
[27]
A Short History of Government Taxing and Spending in the United ...
Feb 19, 2014 · Prior to the 1930s, the federal government during peacetime generally balanced its budget or ran surpluses. From 1900 to 1916 (just before the ...Missing: practices | Show results with:practices
[28]
[PDF] Fiscal Policy in the Shadow of the Great Depression
The federal budget swung from substantial surplus at the start of Hoo- ver's presidency into a deficit of 3 percent of GDP or more-partly as a result of ...
[29]
US monetary and fiscal policy in the 1930s | Oxford
Oct 1, 2010 · The paper provides a survey of fiscal and monetary policies during the 1930s under the Hoover and Roosevelt administrations and how they influenced the policies<|control11|><|separator|>
[30]
[PDF] The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money
This book is chiefly addressed to my fellow economists. I hope that it will be intelligible to others. But its main purpose is to deal with difficult ...
[31]
What Is Keynesian Economics? - Back to Basics
Keynesian economists justify government intervention through public policies that aim to achieve full employment and price stability.
[32]
Great Depression Facts - FDR Presidential Library & Museum
Following the 1937 recession, Roosevelt adopted Keynes' notion of expanded deficit spending to stimulate aggregate demand. In 1938 the Treasury Department ...
[33]
FDR: From Budget Balancer to Keynesian
Roosevelt believed that a balanced budget was important to instill confidence in consumers, business, and the markets, which would thus encourage investment ...
[34]
[PDF] Keynesian Fiscal Policy and the Multipliers
Keynes' emphasis was on the potential for government spending and taxation to influence aggregate demand. By boosting spending, for example, Congress could add ...
[35]
[PDF] The Keynesian Path to Fiscal Irresponsibility
Over that. 139-year period, the federal budget was roughly in balance, with federal deficits occurring in only 38 years. Those deficits occurred almost entirely ...
[36]
The impact of high government debt on economic growth and its ...
Confidence intervals for the debt turning point suggest that the negative growth effect of high debt may start already from levels of around 70 to 80% of GDP.
[37]
[PDF] The impact of high and growing government debt on economic growth
Confidence intervals for the debt turning point suggest that the negative growth effect of high debt may start already from levels of around 70-80% of GDP, ...
[38]
Public Debt and Economic Growth: What the Evidence Says
Sep 24, 2025 · The central estimate across studies suggests that each 1-point increase in the debt-to-GDP ratio reduces economic growth by 1.34 basis points.
[39]
What Are the Pros and Cons of a Federal Balanced Budget?
A balanced budget would require steep spending cuts and tax increases that could amount to a double body blow to the nation's economy.
[40]
[PDF] The Economic Effects of Long-Term Fiscal Discipline - Urban Institute
The reason that fiscal discipline promotes long-term growth is that budget surpluses are a form of national saving. leads to higher future national income. ...
[41]
Balanced-budget rules and public deficits: evidence from the U.S. ...
Balanced budget limitations may be either prospective (beginning-of-the-year) requirements or retrospective (end-of-the-year) requirements.
[42]
Countercyclical Fiscal Policy - an overview | ScienceDirect Topics
Countercyclical fiscal policy is defined as a fiscal strategy intended to act as an “automatic stabilizer” that smooths economic cycles, typically involving ...
[43]
[PDF] The Fall and Rise of Keynesian Fiscal Policy
This paper reviews the recent evolution of thinking and evidence regarding the effectiveness of activist fiscal policy, including how policy multipliers ...
[44]
What Is Modern Monetary Theory (MMT)? - Investopedia
Modern monetary theory argues that the government can never run out of money because it can always create more of it. As a result, sovereign governments that ...
[45]
The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the ...
Its central tenets: fiscal deficits don't matter; monetary policy should be subordinate to fiscal policy; and the monetary authorities should be willing to ...
[46]
MMT and Government Finance: You Can't Always Get What You Want
MMT advocates argue that by printing money, the central bank can become the holder of public debt. In support of this argument, it is true that with interest ...
[47]
Modern Monetary Theory: A Wrong Compass for Decision-Making
A government deficit may lead to an increase in longer-term interest rates (Lavoie, 2019; Palley, 2019b) if financial markets expect high future inflation well ...
[48]
[PDF] Ten Years After the Financial Crisis: What Have We Learned from ...
Some recent empirical work has found some evidence of higher multipliers, ranging from 1.5 to 2.5 at the zero lower bound for Japan (Miyamoto, Nguyen, and ...
[49]
How Reliable Is Modern Monetary Theory as a Guide to Policy?
Mar 11, 2019 · According to MMT proponents, there is a risk that deficit spending could lead to higher inflation once the economy is pushing beyond full ...
[50]
The abandonment of counter-cyclical fiscal policy - Bruegel
May 30, 2016 · The first and third quadrants represent episodes of counter-cyclical fiscal policy where governments squeeze the public budget while the economy ...
[51]
Balanced Budget Multiplier (With Diagram) - Economics Discussion
Balanced budget means change in government expenditure is exactly matched by a change in taxes. If government expenditure and tax receipts increase by the same ...
[52]
[PDF] SRCC - Some dimensions of the balanced-budget multiplier
The theorem states that, if the government spends as much as it collects through tax, the addition to the national income will be equivalent to the tax revenue.
[53]
On the monotonicity of balanced budget multiplier under imperfect ...
In an early paper Molana and Moutos (1992)without studying the monotonicity issue found that the balanced budget multiplier can be zero and even negative under ...Missing: critique | Show results with:critique
[54]
Balanced budget multipliers - ScienceDirect.com
This paper extends the analysis of balanced budget multipliers in the context of the standard neoclassical model by looking at the effects of changes in public ...<|separator|>
[55]
[PDF] balanced budget rules and public deficits: evidence from the us states
The surplus is accumulated through cuts in spending, not through tax increases. It is saved in a state. "rainy day" fund in anticipation of future general fund ...
[56]
Public financing under balanced budget rules - ScienceDirect.com
This paper analyzes the impact of a balanced budget rule (BBR) on government financing costs and its implications for the government balance sheet.
[57]
What are state balanced budget requirements and how do they work?
Impacts · reduced spending · smaller deficits · more rapid spending adjustments during recessions · less debt · lower borrowing costs · higher surpluses, which states ...
[58]
Do fiscal rules matter? A survey of recent evidence
Sep 13, 2024 · Empirical research suggests that balanced budget rules and expenditure rules are more effective compared to debt or revenue rules alone, most ...
[59]
The Impact of Federal Fiscal Rules on Debt: Insights from the ...
Oct 15, 2024 · Our empirical results suggest that more stringent expenditure rules can reduce central or federal government debt relative to GDP.
[60]
The Debt Brake: Unsafe at Any Speed? | Richmond Fed
The German debt brake is designed to prevent excessive accumulation of government debt. It is not just a simple fiscal policy rule but enshrined in the ...
[61]
The debt brake: Germany in a crisis of uncertainty
Jan 28, 2025 · The debt brake restricted the ability to take on new debt: since 2016, the structural deficit at the federal level must not exceed 0.35% of GDP, ...
[62]
The Impact of Public Debt on Economic Growth: What the Empirical ...
Aug 13, 2025 · While the bulk of empirical literature suggests that high and increasing levels of public debt have a negative impact on economic growth ...
[63]
How Do Balanced Budget Rules Impact Fiscal Performance Based ...
Apr 18, 2022 · The results demonstrate that the strongest BBRs are effective in reducing deficit shocks, although this amplifies fiscal volatility. However, ...
[64]
Balanced Budget Requirements | Urban Institute
Nov 27, 2017 · Some research suggests that strict BBRs increase fiscal and economic volatility because they can force spending cuts or revenue increases ...
[65]
[PDF] do balanced budget rules work? us experience and possible
This paper reviews the empirical evidence documenting the effectiveness of such a rule. Page 7. (Section II) and provides a political economy model which ...
[66]
[PDF] Consequences of State Balanced Budget Restrictions: Fiscal ...
For example, Poterba. (1994) finds that a $100 deficit shock leads to a $44 reduction in expenditures in states that have strong balanced budget rules but only ...
[67]
The Impact of Balanced Budget Restrictions on States' Fiscal Actions
Jan 1, 2017 · Existing research shows that states with strict balanced budget rules address deficits by raising taxes and curbing expenditures. However, ...<|separator|>
[68]
Does the Swiss Debt Brake Induce Sound Federal Finances? A ...
We find that the introduction of this fiscal rule improved the budget balance by about 3.6 percentage points on average in a post-intervention period covering ...
[69]
Does the Swiss Debt Brake Induce Sound Federal Finances? A ...
We find that the introduction of this fiscal rule improved the budget balance by about 3.7 percentage points on average in a post-intervention period covering ...
[70]
(Un-)intended effects of fiscal rules - ScienceDirect.com
The paper investigates the fiscal effects of Swiss cantonal debt brakes by taking explicitly into account the rules' coverage.Missing: outcomes | Show results with:outcomes
[71]
(PDF) The Swiss debt brake — has it been a success? - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · Generally speaking, the rule has modified the budget process and led to a better implementation of fiscal policy objectives.
[72]
Germany Brief: Debt Brake Could Continue To Compl - S&P Global
Nov 12, 2024 · The debt brake, which was enshrined in Germany's constitution in 2009, limits annual structural deficits to 0.35% of GDP plus a small counter- ...
[73]
Evaluating the Effects of the German Debt Brake: A Synthetic Control ...
Jun 25, 2025 · This paper assesses the effectiveness and public finance implications of the German debt brake, a constitutional balanced budget rule introduced in 2009.
[74]
Germany's Debt Brake Is Breaking Its Economy - Project Syndicate
Nov 28, 2023 · The brake largely prohibits the federal and state governments from taking on new debt; exceptions are allowed only in extreme emergencies. The ...<|separator|>
[75]
[PDF] On Constitutionalizing a Balanced Budget
May 21, 2019 · Our analysis shows that having a balanced budget provision in place is associated with an average increase in a country's primary balance of ...
[76]
Fiscal Rules, What Does the American Experience Tell Us?
Jun 28, 2012 · We examine the effect of balanced budget rules on budget outcomes in the U.S. from the mid-1980s through the present.
[77]
Balanced Budget Requirements: State Experiences and Implications ...
Pursuant to a congressional request, GAO provided information on: (1) states' balanced budget requirements; (2) states' experience in meeting those ...
[78]
[PDF] NCSL FISCAL BRIEF: STATE BALANCED BUDGET PROVISIONS
State balanced budget requirements can be categorized as consisting of one or more of the following: • The governor's proposed budget must be balanced; The ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[79]
Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from History
The Senate adopted a balanced budget constitutional amendment on August 4, 1982, by a vote of 69-to-31 (S.J. Res. 58). Forty-seven Republicans and 22 Democrats ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[80]
A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment - Congress.gov
Aug 22, 2019 · This report provides an overview of the issues and options that have been raised during prior consideration of proposals for a balanced budget constitutional ...
[81]
S. Rept. 105-3 - THE BALANCED-BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL ...
The Balanced-Budget Amendment process accomplishes this by making Federal deficit spending more difficult. II. LEGISLATIVE HISTORY In 1936, Representative ...
[82]
Gluesenkamp Perez, Bacon Introduce Bipartisan Constitutional ...
Aug 19, 2024 · Don Bacon (NE-02) introduced a bipartisan Constitutional amendment that would require the President and Congress to deliver balanced budgets ...<|separator|>
[83]
Governors Gianforte, DeSantis Promote Balanced Budget ...
Mar 24, 2025 · In the United States, every state but one has a balanced budget requirement in its constitution. Currently, the U.S. Constitution contains no ...Missing: details | Show results with:details
[84]
Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks
Mar 16, 2018 · It would threaten significant economic harm, as explained below. It also would raise a host of problems for the operation of Social Security and ...
[85]
[PDF] The debt brake in Germany - key aspects and implementations
In 2009, the German parliament passed a fundamental reform of government borrowing rules. For central and state government, strict borrowing limits and the ...
[86]
[PDF] The German 'Debt Brake' - Walter Eucken Institut
Germany introduced a new fiscal rule, the 'debt brake', after the Global Financial Crisis and since then experienced a strong decline in its public debt to ...<|separator|>
[87]
What does German debt brake reform mean for Europe? - Bruegel
Mar 31, 2025 · On March 21, 2025, Germany approved a historic constitutional amendment to its national fiscal rule, the 'debt brake'. Defence spending above 1% of GDP will ...
[88]
Fiscal rules and compliance expectations - ScienceDirect.com
Moreover, the German debt brake offers a rich dynamic setting which is characterized by lagged implementation: The rule's binding constraints are phased in over ...
[89]
Debt brake - admin.ch
Aug 17, 2023 · The debt brake has been a successful model since it was introduced in 2003: it ensures that Switzerland's debt does not increase – it is also ...
[90]
Celebrating 20 Years of the Swiss Debt Brake: A Model of Fiscal ...
Sep 18, 2023 · The Swiss debt brake is built upon a simple yet effective expenditure rule, linking the annual ceiling for ordinary expenditure to ordinary ...
[91]
[PDF] A New Rule: "The Swiss Debt Brake - WP/02/18
As a long-term solution to this problem the government has decided to enshrine in the Constitution a balanced budget rule at the federal government level.
[92]
Swiss Brake Offers Model for Preventing Debt Spiralling out of Control
Nov 10, 2022 · Despite the financial crisis and Covid-19 since, the rule has stabilised gross government debt at just over 40 per cent of GDP.
[93]
[PDF] Does the Swiss Debt Brake Induce Sound Federal Finances? A ...
We find that the introduction of this fiscal rule improved the budget balance by about 3.6 percentage points on average in a post- intervention period covering ...
[94]
Experiences with Budget Rules in Switzerland and Germany
The Swiss debt brake served as a model for the new German budget rule. The two tools share the long-term goal of rendering fiscal policy sustainable.Missing: outcomes | Show results with:outcomes
[95]
The Structural Balance Rule in Chile: Ten Years, Ten Lessons
This paper describes the adoption and application of the structural fiscal balance rule in Chile, evaluates its outcomes after 10 years, and draws 10 lessons.
[96]
Would a Chilean-style Fiscal Rule Work for the US? - Cato Institute
Dec 14, 2017 · First, some background: in 2000 the Chilean government voluntarily adopted a structural budget surplus rule of one percent of GDP each year.
[97]
[PDF] An Introduction to New Zealand's Fiscal Policy Framework
New Zealand's fiscal responsibility provisions are set out in the Public Finance Act (PFA) and have three key elements: 1. The provisions specify a set of ...
[98]
[PDF] NEW ZEALAND'S FISCAL FRAMEWORK - IMF eLibrary
The FRA required New Zealand governments to set their own long-term fiscal objectives to be consistent with principles of responsible fiscal management.
[99]
Full article: New Zealand's lauded fiscal legislation: has it reduced ...
Apr 25, 2024 · The legislation reduced net tax uncertainty by 32-46% and government spending uncertainty by 31-40%, concluding it successfully reduced fiscal ...
[100]
[PDF] THE BRAZILIAN FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY LAW
Article 1. This Supplementary Law establishes public finance rules enforcing responsibility in fiscal management, under Title IV, Chapter II of ...
[101]
[PDF] brazil's fiscal framework - IMF eLibrary
In the wake of the late-1990s fiscal crisis, the country passed a Fiscal Responsibility Law (FRL) in 2000, implementing primary balance targets as the main ...
[102]
The Politics of Fiscal Restraint | Clara Brenck & Pedro Marques
Oct 5, 2023 · Three decades of rule-based fiscal policy in Brazil. Brazil's rule-based fiscal policy emerged with redemocratization in 1988.
[103]
The Time for a Balanced Budget Amendment is Now
Jul 22, 2011 · Nearly 200 years later, in 1982, President Reagan declared his support for a balanced budget amendment, stating "only a constitutional ...
[104]
Budget Amendment Sinks in Senate - CQ Almanac Online Edition
The amendment taken up in both chambers required that the federal government balance its books by 2002, or two years after ratification, whichever came later.Go to Main Section of Page · Background · House Committee · House Floor Action
[105]
H.J.Res.11 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): .Proposing a balanced ...
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year.
[106]
H.J.Res.17 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Proposing a balanced ...
This joint resolution proposes a constitutional amendment prohibiting total outlays for a fiscal year from exceeding total receipts for that fiscal year.
[107]
Rep. Burlison Introduces Balanced Budget Amendment to Rein in ...
Aug 15, 2025 · The proposal would prohibit the federal government from spending more than it takes in and establish a strict cap on the national debt.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
[108]
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035
Jan 17, 2025 · The deficit grows to $2.7 trillion by 2035. It amounts to 6.2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) in 2025 and drops to 5.2 percent by 2027 as revenues ...<|separator|>
[109]
Fiscal Rules: International Strategies for Managing Government ...
Aug 6, 2025 · Beginning in 1997, the European Union enforced a deficit ceiling for its members through the Stability and Growth Pact, which requires member ...
[110]
The European Union's new fiscal framework: a good start, but ...
Feb 17, 2025 · The European Union's fiscal framework, updated in April 2024, aims to strengthen fiscal sustainability and foster public investment.<|separator|>
[111]
Budget Restraints That Work: Lessons from Chile, Switzerland, the ...
Feb 21, 2018 · In 2000 the Chilean government voluntarily adopted a structural balanced budget rule, which aimed to run a cyclically adjusted budget surplus ...
[112]
https://www.ntu.org/foundation/detail/balance-or-bust-the-case-for-constitutional-guardrails-against-overspending
[113]
Why America Needs A Balanced Budget Amendment
1 Since the late 1970s, the balanced budget amendment has had support from strong majorities in both the House and the Senate. · 2 The "gross" national debt, ...
[114]
Why America needs a balanced budget amendment
Aug 27, 2025 · “A proposed or ratified balanced budget amendment would focus Congress on overhauling a system that is failing to serve our country well.Missing: 2020-2025 | Show results with:2020-2025
[115]
5 Reasons to Reject Any Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment
Apr 29, 2019 · Requiring a balanced budget every year, no matter the state of the economy, would risk tipping a weak economy into recession and making recessions more ...
[116]
Nobel laureates and leading economists oppose constitutional ...
Mar 16, 2016 · A balanced budget amendment would mandate perverse actions in the face of recessions. In economic downturns, tax revenues fall and some outlays, ...
[117]
Oppose the Balanced Budget Amendment - AFL-CIO
Jul 30, 2014 · Although Congress has considered federal balanced budget amendments in the past, such efforts always have failed to achieve the necessary ...
[118]
Rethinking a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution
Sep 3, 2025 · Calls for a Balanced Budget Amendment (BBA) to the Constitution tend to arise when federal budget deficits reach alarming heights and debt ...
[119]
Economists Oppose a Strict Balanced Budget Rule. Could the US ...
Nov 13, 2017 · The IGM Economic Experts Panel overwhelmingly opposes a constitutional strict balanced budget amendment.
[120]
The failure of stabilization policy: Balanced-budget fiscal rules in the ...
Here, we show that in the presence of incompressible public expenditures, under a balanced budget, the stabilization ability of fiscal policy rules is lost.
[121]
[PDF] BALANCED BUDGETS AND BUSINESS CYCLES
Abstract - This paper presents evidence that stringent balanced budget require- ments enforced in some U.S. states have exacerbated business cycles in those.
[122]
BALANCED BUDGETS AND BUSINESS CYCLES
This paper presents evidence that stringent balanced budget requirements enforced in some U.S. states have exacerbated business cycles in those states.
[123]
[PDF] Fiscal Policy Cyclicality and Growth within the U.S. States
This section finds that states with strict balanced budget rules run more procyclical current operations and health care policies than states without the rule. ...
[124]
[PDF] The German 'debt brake' – a shining example for ... - IPE Berlin
From 2003 to 2010 the Swiss public debt ratio fell by 15 percentage points – mainly because of favourable economic trends. (just as in the recent German case) – ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[125]
Why the debt brake is a threat to democracy in Germany | WZB
Mar 27, 2024 · Yet while the debt brake is bad economic policy, the even greater concern is that it may also be very bad for German democracy. There is now ...
[126]
Do Fiscal Rules Curb Procyclical Fiscal Risks——Empirical Analysis ...
Jun 30, 2024 · The main findings are as follows: First, the implementation of fiscal rules can significantly reduce the procyclical characteristics of fiscal ...
[127]
Fiscal Evasion in State Budgeting | Mercatus Center
Jul 22, 2010 · Fiscal Evasion in State Budgeting ... States are entering their third fiscal year of a sustained economic and revenue contraction. Tax revenues ...
[128]
[PDF] how implementing structural changes to state balanced budget ...
Abstract: Although forty-nine states have balanced budget requirements, states still consistently face massive budgetary shortfalls.
[129]
the Need for a Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution
Mar 16, 2016 · ... evade constitutional balanced-budget or debt-limit ... budget or debt-limit requirement that did not compensate for these evasion tactics.
[130]
Budget Basics: Balanced Budget Amendment — Pros and Cons
Nov 27, 2018 · Opponents argue that the political pressure could lead to budget gimmicks that would meet the letter, but not the spirit, of the law. Opponents ...
[131]
[PDF] budget institutions and fiscal policy in the us states
Several studies have considered the effects of balanced budget rules on the size and persistence of state budget deficits, and on state tax and expenditure ...
[132]
Budget Issues: Budget Enforcement Compliance Report | U.S. GAO
GAO reviewed the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) and the Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) compliance with the requirements of the Balanced Budget ...
[133]
3. Germany Lacks Political Will to Finance Needed Public ...
The federal government had made provisions for much smaller programmes, evading the debt brake. After the federal constitutional court ruled that shifting ...