Fact-checked by Grok 2 weeks ago

Balanced budget amendment

A balanced budget amendment (BBA) is a proposed modification to the United States Constitution intended to mandate that federal outlays not exceed revenues in any fiscal year, thereby prohibiting routine deficits and compelling Congress to enact spending cuts or revenue increases to achieve equilibrium, subject to narrow exceptions such as for declared wars or supermajority-approved emergencies.^[1] Such amendments aim to institutionalize fiscal restraint at the federal level, mirroring requirements already embedded in nearly all state constitutions, where empirical analyses indicate that stricter balanced budget rules correlate with higher year-end surpluses, lower debt accumulation, and more prudent long-term fiscal management.^[2]^[3] Proposals for a federal BBA date to the 1930s, with more than 100 resolutions introduced in Congress over subsequent decades, reflecting persistent concerns over unchecked deficit spending and the resulting explosion in national debt, which exceeded $34 trillion by 2023.^[1] The effort gained momentum in the 1980s amid rising deficits under Presidents Reagan and successors, culminating in near-successes like the 1995 House passage of a BBA resolution (which the Senate rejected by a single vote) and repeated Senate approvals in the 1980s that stalled in the House.^[4] Advocates, drawing from first-principles of limited government and evidence of state-level efficacy, assert that constitutional entrenchment is essential to override political incentives for overspending, as statutory caps like the 1985 Gramm-Rudman-Hollings Act proved easily evaded through accounting maneuvers and waivers.^[2]^[5] Controversies surrounding BBAs center on their potential macroeconomic impacts, with critics warning of procyclical austerity that could deepen recessions by barring countercyclical deficits, though state data suggest such rules foster overall stability without evident harm to growth and often enable quicker recoveries through disciplined baselines.^[6]^[3] Typical BBA drafts incorporate supermajority thresholds (e.g., three-fifths of Congress) for waiving the balance requirement and caps on debt issuance, but debates persist over enforcement mechanisms, such as judicial review or automatic sequestrations, and whether they unduly constrain Congress's enumerated powers under Article I. Despite repeated introductions— including by figures like Senator Orrin Hatch into the 2010s—no BBA has secured the requisite two-thirds congressional approval for transmittal to the states, underscoring the high bar for constitutional change amid polarized views on government's role in economic management.^[1]^[7]

Conceptual Foundations

Definition and Variations

A balanced budget amendment (BBA) is a constitutional provision mandating that a government's total outlays for a fiscal year not exceed its total receipts, thereby requiring expenditures to equal revenues and prohibiting deficits except as explicitly allowed.^[8] This rule aims to enforce long-term fiscal discipline by protecting the balance requirement from routine legislative changes or temporary political pressures.^[8] In the United States, proposed federal BBAs typically apply this standard annually, distinguishing them from statutory budget rules that can be altered by simple majorities.^[9] Variations in BBA proposals reflect debates over rigidity versus practicality. Strict formulations demand precise equality between outlays and receipts each year with no exceptions, while more flexible versions incorporate waivers for specific circumstances, such as declared wars, military engagements, or economic recessions (e.g., two consecutive quarters of GDP growth below 1%).^[8] These waivers often require supermajority approval, such as a three-fifths vote in both houses of Congress, to authorize temporary deficits and prevent abuse.^[8]^[6] Other common variations include supplementary limits on aggregate spending, such as capping outlays at 18% to 19% of GDP, and restrictions on raising the public debt ceiling, which similarly demand supermajority consent.^[8] Proposals may also exempt certain revenues or expenditures, like Social Security trust fund surpluses, to avoid unintended disruptions to dedicated programs, though such exclusions have sparked contention over their potential to undermine overall balance.^[8] Enforcement typically emphasizes political accountability over judicial remedies, confining courts to declaratory roles to avert constitutional crises.^[8] At the state level, balanced budget requirements range from lenient mandates for governors to submit balanced proposals to stringent rules requiring legislatures to enact and adhere to them, illustrating a spectrum of implementation approaches.^[10]

Theoretical Arguments in Favor

Proponents of a balanced budget amendment (BBA) argue from public choice theory that democratic governments systematically overspend due to politicians' incentives to promise benefits financed by deficits, which diffuse the immediate tax costs across current voters while deferring burdens. Economist James Buchanan, a pioneer in public choice analysis, contended that this "fiscal illusion" enables unchecked growth in public expenditures, as deficits mask the true opportunity costs of government programs and encourage rent-seeking by interest groups. A constitutional BBA, by mandating annual balance except in narrowly defined emergencies requiring supermajorities, enforces pay-as-you-go discipline, aligning fiscal decisions with the long-term preferences of taxpayers rather than short-term electoral gains.^[11]^[12] Theoretically, a BBA promotes intergenerational equity by preventing the accumulation of public debt that transfers resources from future generations to current ones through mandatory interest payments and potential monetization. In models of overlapping generations, persistent deficits represent an implicit tax on posterity, as unborn citizens inherit liabilities without corresponding benefits, violating principles of just fiscal policy where governments should not consume capital stocks beyond replacement levels. Buchanan emphasized that balanced budgets uphold classical public finance norms, ensuring that expenditures reflect contemporaneous willingness to pay via taxes, thereby avoiding the moral hazard of debt-financed largesse that erodes national savings and productive capacity over time.^[11]^[13] From a macroeconomic perspective, BBAs instill fiscal rules that counteract time-inconsistency problems in policy-making, where discretionary deficits exacerbate boom-bust cycles by crowding out private investment through higher interest rates and inflationary pressures. Analyses drawing on rational expectations frameworks, such as those by Kydland and Prescott, support binding constraints to precommit governments against ex-post temptations for excessive borrowing, fostering stable growth paths with lower volatility in debt-to-GDP ratios. Empirical analogs in U.S. states demonstrate that strict balanced budget requirements achieve fiscal restraint—reducing per capita spending growth and deficits—without inducing higher output fluctuations, suggesting theoretical benefits extend to federal levels by prioritizing efficient resource allocation over ad hoc stimulus.^[12]^[14]^[15]

Criticisms and Empirical Rebuttals

Critics argue that a balanced budget amendment (BBA) would impose excessive rigidity on fiscal policy, preventing the government from running deficits during economic downturns or emergencies, thereby exacerbating recessions through forced spending cuts or tax increases.^[6] ^[16] This view, endorsed by a 2016 statement from over 30 Nobel laureate economists, posits that such rules would mandate "perverse actions" like reducing outlays when tax revenues fall, countering Keynesian prescriptions for countercyclical stimulus.^[16] Additional concerns include the potential for budgetary gimmicks to evade the rule's intent, such as one-time asset sales or accelerated revenue recognition, as observed in some state practices.^[9] Opponents also highlight enforcement challenges and risks of political gridlock, noting that supermajority requirements for deficits or debt increases—often proposed in BBA variants—could enable minority factions to extract concessions or trigger defaults.^[17] For instance, a three-fifths congressional vote threshold for borrowing might politicize routine fiscal adjustments, amplifying brinkmanship akin to debt ceiling crises since 2011.^[17] These critiques, frequently advanced by organizations favoring expansive government roles, emphasize that federal monetary sovereignty (e.g., dollar reserve status) distinguishes it from states, rendering state analogies inapplicable.^[6] Empirical evidence from U.S. states, where 49 impose some BBR form as of 2023, largely rebuts claims of inherent economic harm.^[18] Studies show stricter BBRs correlate with reduced expenditures, smaller deficits, and higher year-end surpluses, without evidence of induced recessions; for example, end-of-year balance mandates significantly boost general fund surpluses by constraining overspending.^[2] ^[19] States with rigorous rules, requiring governor certification and legislative approval before finalizing budgets, achieve tighter fiscal outcomes, including 1-2% lower spending growth relative to looser regimes, per analyses of data from 1970-2010.^[2] ^[20] While some research notes increased fiscal volatility under strict BBRs—potentially amplifying revenue swings via procyclical cuts—this effect is mitigated by tools like rainy-day funds, which 45 states maintained averaging 5-10% of budgets by 2022, enabling counter-recession buffers without formal deficits.^[21] Historical state data from 1946-1990 further indicate BBRs reduce public deficits without impairing growth, as compliant states exhibit comparable GDP trajectories to non-compliant peers but with lower debt-to-GDP ratios.^[3] Enforcement rigor matters: weakly interpreted rules yield minimal benefits, but strict ones, as in Wyoming or Tennessee, sustain balance through tax adjustments and spending restraint, challenging narratives of inevitable harm.^[22] At the federal level, analogous fiscal rules in countries like Sweden (post-1990s) have curbed deficits without derailing recoveries, suggesting BBAs can foster discipline when paired with escape clauses for verified crises.^[15]

Historical Development

Early Conceptual Roots

The conceptual roots of balanced budget requirements in the United States originated in the Founding era's emphasis on fiscal prudence and aversion to sustained public debt. Leaders including George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and Benjamin Franklin consistently prioritized balancing revenues with expenditures, treating deficits as exceptional responses to crises like war rather than routine policy.^[23] This approach aligned with Enlightenment-influenced views that equated governmental profligacy with moral and economic decay, echoing classical economists like Adam Smith who warned against the inflationary and burdensome effects of chronic borrowing in The Wealth of Nations (1776). Early federal practices under the Constitution reinforced this norm, as the document's borrowing clause (Article I, Section 8) was invoked sparingly, with Revolutionary War debts systematically retired by 1835.^[1] For nearly 150 years following ratification, U.S. presidents and Congresses adhered to near-annual budget balance, viewing excessive debt as a threat to republican liberty and future generations' autonomy.^[24] Alexander Hamilton's assumption of state debts in 1790 was framed not as endorsement of perpetual deficits but as a one-time consolidation to enable repayment through tariffs and excises, reflecting a consensus that public credit should serve productive ends without entrenching indebtedness. Jefferson, in his 1801 inaugural address, explicitly called for retiring the remaining federal debt to preserve self-government, underscoring a first-principles commitment to living within means as essential to sovereignty.^[1] These principles manifested in state constitutions earlier than federal proposals, with provisions emerging in the early 19th century to curb legislative tendencies toward overspending amid territorial expansion and infrastructure demands. By the 1840s, as states grappled with canal and railroad financing, balanced budget mandates gained traction at the subnational level. Between 1842 and 1860, 13 of 19 states incorporating such requirements into their constitutions observed debt reductions, validating the mechanism's efficacy in enforcing discipline absent centralized oversight.^[25] Connecticut's 1818 constitution, for instance, implicitly barred deficit appropriations by mandating revenue alignment, predating widespread adoption and influencing peers amid post-War of 1812 fiscal strains. This state-level experimentation laid groundwork for viewing constitutional entrenchment as a safeguard against political incentives for short-term borrowing, though federal aversion to rigid amendment persisted until economic upheavals of the 20th century prompted explicit proposals.^[26]

20th Century Proposals and Enactments

The initial proposal for a constitutional balanced budget amendment at the federal level was introduced in 1936 by Representative Harold Knutson (R-MN) as H.J. Res. 579, amid concerns over New Deal-era deficits.^[24] This marked the beginning of recurring efforts, with dozens of similar proposals introduced in Congress from the 1930s onward, often tied to periods of fiscal strain such as post-World War II spending and the inflationary deficits of the 1970s.^[1]^[27] Renewed momentum built in the late 1970s and early 1980s, as federal deficits exceeded $100 billion annually, prompting 32 state legislatures by 1982 to petition Congress for a constitutional convention specifically to propose a balanced budget amendment—a threshold that activated Article V's convention mechanism but was later rescinded by some states.^[4] On August 4, 1982, the Senate approved S.J. Res. 58 by a 69-31 vote, with support from 47 Republicans and 22 Democrats, requiring outlays not to exceed revenues except in cases of war or national emergency declared by Congress.^[4] The measure stalled in the House, where it failed to garner the necessary two-thirds majority despite parallel efforts. Proposals intensified in the 1990s following the 1994 Republican congressional gains, with the House passing H.J. Res. 1 on January 26, 1995, by 300-132, mandating balance by fiscal year 2002 or two years post-ratification.^[28] The Senate version fell short on March 2, 1995, with a 65-35 tally, one vote shy of the two-thirds threshold needed for constitutional amendment.^[28] Earlier, in 1992, a similar Senate effort under S.J. Res. 276 failed 62-38 amid debates over supermajority waiver provisions for tax increases.^[29] At the state level, enactments of balanced budget requirements expanded during the 20th century, building on 19th-century precedents; by the 1990s, 37 states mandated governors to submit balanced operating budgets, with most incorporating such rules into constitutions or statutes to constrain annual appropriations excluding capital projects.^[25]^[30] These provisions typically required legislative approval of balanced plans and executive enforcement, though enforcement varied, with some states like California facing repeated challenges during recessions despite Article IV, Section 1 mandates.^[30] No federal enactment succeeded, as all proposals required supermajorities in both chambers and ratification by three-fourths of states under Article V.^[1]

Post-2000 Global Spread

Following the fiscal challenges of the early 2000s and the 2008 global financial crisis, several countries enacted constitutional balanced budget provisions or equivalent debt brakes to impose structural limits on deficits and prevent debt accumulation. These measures often built on Switzerland's model, emphasizing cyclically adjusted balances to allow flexibility during economic downturns while enforcing long-term discipline. By 2012, at least eight countries had incorporated such rules into their constitutions, with notable post-2000 adoptions concentrated in Europe amid pressures from rising sovereign debt and, in the eurozone, demands for stability under the Maastricht criteria.^[31]^[32] Switzerland led this trend with its debt brake, approved via national referendum on September 18, 2001, with 85% voter support, and implemented starting in the 2003 federal budget. The rule, enshrined in Article 126 of the constitution, requires that expenditures not exceed revenues over the economic cycle, permitting deficits only during recessions compensated by surpluses in booms; violations trigger automatic expenditure cuts unless overridden by a qualified parliamentary majority. This framework has maintained Switzerland's public debt-to-GDP ratio below 40% since implementation, even through crises, by structurally balancing the budget without stifling growth.^[33]^[34] Germany followed in 2009, amending its Basic Law (Articles 109, 115, and 143) to introduce the Schuldenbremse (debt brake), effective from 2016 for the federal government and immediately for states. The provision caps the federal structural deficit at 0.35% of GDP and requires Länder (states) to achieve balance, with exceptions for natural disasters or emergencies exceeding 1.3% of GDP. Adopted amid post-crisis debt spikes—Germany's ratio hit 83.7% in 2010—the rule reflected a commitment to fiscal conservatism, influenced by the eurozone's Stability and Growth Pact, and has since kept new borrowing within limits despite temporary suspensions.^[35]^[36] The 2011 eurozone debt crisis accelerated further adoptions. Spain amended Article 135 of its 1978 constitution on September 2, 2011, mandating that public debt not exceed 60% of GDP and requiring budgets to balance revenues and expenditures, with deficits only for extraordinary circumstances approved by a qualified majority. Italy similarly revised Article 81 in 2012 (effective 2014), obligating the state to balance budgets annually, adjusted for economic cycles, and to ensure debt sustainability, a response to yields on Italian bonds exceeding 7% amid market turmoil. Slovenia incorporated a fiscal rule into its constitution in 2013, followed by the Fiscal Rule Act in 2015, targeting a structural deficit below 0.2% of GDP and debt under 60%, aligning with EU requirements while allowing escape clauses for severe shocks. These European measures, often negotiated under EU pressure, prioritized debt containment over Keynesian stimulus, though compliance has varied with economic conditions.^[37]^[38]^[39] Outside Europe, adoption was sparser but included structural rules with constitutional backing in select cases. Chile's 2000 fiscal responsibility law, while predating 2001, evolved post-2000 into a voluntary structural surplus target (initially 1% of GDP, later adjusted), effectively mimicking a balanced budget by offsetting cyclical revenues with sovereign wealth funds; this reduced debt from 13% of GDP in 2000 to near zero by 2007. In Asia and Latin America, statutory fiscal frameworks proliferated—such as Brazil's 2000 Fiscal Responsibility Law requiring balanced budgets at subnational levels—but few rose to constitutional amendments post-2000, reflecting greater reliance on political commitments amid volatile commodity cycles. Overall, these rules' spread correlated with high debt episodes, aiming to embed fiscal restraint against short-term political incentives, though empirical success depends on enforcement mechanisms like independent councils.^[40]^[31]

Implementations by Jurisdiction

United States

In the United States, balanced budget requirements exist primarily at the state level through constitutional provisions or statutory mandates, enforcing fiscal discipline by prohibiting structural deficits in operating budgets. These rules typically mandate that expenditures not exceed revenues in a given fiscal year, with variations in enforcement timing—such as prospective requirements (balancing at the start of the budget process) or retrospective ones (balancing by fiscal year-end). At the federal level, no such constitutional amendment has been ratified, despite numerous congressional proposals dating back to the 1930s, reflecting ongoing debates over fiscal restraint versus economic flexibility during downturns. State-level implementations have generally succeeded in preventing persistent operating deficits, though they do not preclude off-budget liabilities like pension shortfalls or capital borrowing.^[10]^[41]

State-Level Rules

Forty-nine of the fifty states impose balanced budget requirements (BBRs) via their constitutions or statutes, with Vermont as the sole exception relying on informal practices to achieve balance. These rules evolved from 19th-century precedents, where 13 of 19 states adopting early BBRs between 1842 and 1860 reduced their debt loads, contrasting with debt accumulation in non-adopting states. Modern BBRs vary: 37 states require balance at enactment, 16 mandate end-of-year adjustments, and 45 allow supermajority legislative approval for deficits in emergencies. For instance, Indiana's 2018 voter-approved constitutional amendment reinforced strict balancing, contributing to post-adoption fiscal surpluses and debt reduction. Compliance is high, with states closing fiscal years without operating deficits in over 95% of cases since the 1970s, though mechanisms like rainy-day funds and debt restructuring address shortfalls without violating core rules. Critics note that BBRs can constrain countercyclical spending, but empirical data show states with stringent rules exhibit lower per-capita debt and more stable revenues compared to looser regimes.^[25]^[42]^[41]^[43]

Federal-Level Efforts

Proposals for a federal balanced budget amendment (BBA) to the U.S. Constitution first emerged in the 1930s, with formal introductions in Congress by the 1940s, including Senator Millard Tydings' Senate Joint Resolution 36. Early momentum built in the 1980s amid rising deficits; the Senate approved S.J. Res. 58 on August 4, 1982, by a 69-31 vote, but it stalled in the House. Renewed pushes in the 1990s under Republican majorities saw the House pass H.J. Res. 1 in 1995 (300-132) and 1996, yet Senate votes fell short at 65-35 in 1995 and 1996, missing the two-thirds threshold. Post-2000 efforts include over a dozen resolutions per Congress, such as the 2024 bipartisan H.J. Res. 11 by Representatives Marie Gluesenkamp Perez and Don Bacon, mandating balanced budgets absent a supermajority override or recession declaration. No proposal has achieved ratification, hampered by concerns over rigidity in crises—like the 2008 financial meltdown—and partisan divides, with Democrats often citing risks to automatic stabilizers per analyses from the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. Proponents, including Heritage Foundation scholars, argue historical failures stem from insufficient GOP unity and highlight state successes as evidence of feasibility.^[4]^[1]^[44]^[6]

State-Level Rules

Forty-nine of the fifty U.S. states impose balanced budget requirements (BBRs) through constitutional provisions or statutes, generally prohibiting expenditures from exceeding revenues in the general fund or operating budget.^[18]^[10] Vermont lacks a formal constitutional or statutory mandate but maintains balance through consistent legislative practice and fiscal oversight.^[45]^[46] These rules vary in stringency and application. As of 2021, forty-five states require the governor to submit a balanced budget proposal to the legislature, forty-four mandate that the legislature enact a balanced budget, and forty-one enforce balance at fiscal year-end through executive certification or judicial review.^[18]^[10] Prospective requirements focus on budget adoption, while retrospective ones address actual outcomes, with stricter end-of-year rules correlating with lower deficits in empirical analyses of state fiscal data from 1970 to 1991.^[2] Many states permit limited exceptions, such as short-term borrowing for cash flow, capital projects funded separately, or emergency declarations, but prohibit structural deficits in operating budgets.^[18] Enforcement typically involves gubernatorial veto power, legislative supermajorities for overrides, or court intervention, though compliance relies heavily on political norms rather than automatic mechanisms.^[47] States like California and New York incorporate additional fiscal controls, such as rainy day funds tied to BBRs, to mitigate procyclical spending.^[10]

Federal-Level Efforts

Proposals for a constitutional balanced budget amendment at the federal level have been introduced in Congress since the 1930s, primarily as joint resolutions requiring a two-thirds majority in both chambers followed by ratification by three-fourths of states.^[24] The earliest such measure was H.J. Res. 579, introduced by Representative Harold Knutson (R-MN) in 1936, mandating that total expenditures not exceed revenues except in cases of war or national emergency declared by Congress.^[24] Efforts gained traction in the post-World War II era, with the first floor consideration occurring in the Senate Appropriations Committee in 1947, though no amendment advanced.^[48] Renewed pushes emerged in the 1970s amid rising deficits, culminating in President Ronald Reagan's endorsement in 1982, which emphasized the need for constitutional restraint on spending.^[23] By the 1990s, proposals typically included provisions allowing deficits only with a three-fifths supermajority vote and prohibiting tax increases without similar thresholds.^[4] The closest federal success came in 1995, when the House approved H.J. Res. 1 by a 300-132 vote, requiring balance by fiscal year 2002 or two years post-ratification.^[24] The Senate version failed later that year, falling short of the two-thirds threshold.^[28] A follow-up in 1997 saw the Senate reject S.J. Res. 1, 66-34, again one vote shy of the required 67.^[49] Post-2000 efforts have persisted but without major floor votes, often introduced by Republican lawmakers amid growing national debt, which exceeded $34 trillion by 2023.^[4] In the 119th Congress (2025-2026), H.J. Res. 11 and H.J. Res. 110 proposed amendments limiting outlays to receipts unless overridden by supermajority, with H.J. Res. 110 introduced on July 23, 2025, by Representative Eric Burlison (R-MO) to cap debt and enforce annual balance.^[50]^[51]^[52] No federal amendment has passed, distinguishing U.S. efforts from state-level rules in 49 jurisdictions.^[53]

Europe

In Europe, fiscal rules resembling balanced budget requirements have proliferated since the early 2000s, particularly in response to rising public debts and the establishment of the euro, with many enshrined in national constitutions or equivalent legal frameworks to promote long-term sustainability. These rules typically target structural (cyclically adjusted) balances to accommodate economic fluctuations, often featuring expenditure ceilings, debt anchors, or deficit limits, and are reinforced by supranational obligations under the European Union's Stability and Growth Pact (SGP), which requires member states to aim for balanced budgets or surpluses over the economic cycle while keeping deficits below 3% of GDP and debt trajectories downward from 60% of GDP.^[54]^[55] By 2019, all euro area countries had implemented general government balanced budget rules, though enforcement varies due to escape clauses for crises and national discretion in calculating structural positions.^[55]

Structural Features Across Countries

European balanced budget rules commonly incorporate cyclically adjusted targets to avoid procyclical tightening during recessions, with mechanisms like automatic stabilizers preserved and compensatory adjustments required in booms. Expenditure rules predominate over pure revenue-spending balances, capping nominal or structural spending growth to revenue forecasts, as seen in debt brake models that prevent chronic deficits by linking outlays to expected inflows adjusted for the business cycle. Debt rules often serve as anchors, mandating declining debt-to-GDP ratios, while balanced budget provisions frequently apply to central or general government levels, with subnational tiers subject to separate constraints. Escape clauses for emergencies, such as wars or pandemics, are standard, but rules emphasize ex-post compliance monitoring and sanctions, including constitutional court oversight in nations like Germany. Alignment with SGP medium-term objectives allows flexibility, yet national rules provide stricter, domestically enforceable discipline, with features like multi-year ceilings to curb one-off measures.^[56]^[57]

Case Studies: Germany, Switzerland, and Others

Germany's debt brake (Schuldenbremse), introduced via a 2009 constitutional amendment to Article 109 and 115 of the Basic Law, limits the federal structural deficit to 0.35% of GDP (equivalent to projected long-term revenue) and mandates balanced budgets for Länder states, with exceptions only for natural disasters, extraordinary emergencies, or EU-approved cyclical divergences exceeding 0.35% of GDP. Modeled on Switzerland's framework, it was spurred by a 2003 Federal Constitutional Court ruling deeming prior fiscal policies unsustainable, and includes provisions for borrowing up to €6 billion annually for infrastructure if offset by future surpluses. Compliance is monitored by the Stability Council, with violations risking court challenges; post-2009, it contributed to deficit reduction from 4.1% of GDP in 2010 to near-balance by 2019, though a 2023 court invalidation of €60 billion in off-budget COVID funds exposed evasion risks via special funds. In March 2025, amid economic stagnation and geopolitical pressures, the Bundestag approved amendments exempting defense spending above 1% of GDP (potentially €40-50 billion annually), permitting Länder collective borrowing up to 0.35% of GDP (€16 billion), and authorizing €500 billion in debt over 12 years for infrastructure and climate via special funds outside the brake, while retaining core limits to avert a constitutional crisis.^[58]^[59]^[60]^[61] Switzerland's debt brake, approved by referendum on September 23, 2001, and effective from 2003 as Article 126 of the Federal Constitution, imposes a federal expenditure ceiling aligned with cyclically and structurally adjusted revenue projections over multi-year periods, aiming for a balanced budget in structural terms without rigid annual requirements. Surpluses are carried forward to future ceilings, while deficits trigger mandatory expenditure cuts or revenue increases in subsequent periods, with compliance assessed ex-post by Parliament and potential referenda for overrides limited to emergencies. Applying solely to the federal level (cantons retain autonomy), it has stabilized debt at around 40% of GDP since implementation, avoiding increases during the 2008-2009 recession through compensatory measures, though critics note reliance on conservative revenue forecasts and occasional political debates over flexibility.^[33]^[62]^[56] Among other European nations, Austria's debt brake, effective from 2017 under the Fiscal Responsibility Act and aligned with EU transposition, mandates a structurally balanced federal budget (deficit below 0% cyclically adjusted), with automatic stabilizers and escape clauses for output gaps exceeding 1.5%, enforced via independent fiscal councils. Italy incorporated a balanced budget rule into its constitution via amendments in 2012 (Article 81), requiring structural balance or surplus, with multi-year plans and expenditure rules, though frequent use of one-offs has undermined outcomes, leading to persistent deficits above 3% of GDP in some years. Sweden maintained a surplus target of 0.33% of GDP over the business cycle until 2026 under its fiscal framework, complemented by expenditure ceilings and a 35% public debt anchor, but in October 2024 announced a shift to a balanced budget target from 2027 to enable higher investment in defense and infrastructure, reflecting post-pandemic pressures while preserving independent oversight by the Fiscal Policy Council.^[63]^[64]^[65]

Structural Features Across Countries

European countries have predominantly adopted balanced budget rules in response to the 2012 Treaty on Stability, Coordination and Governance in the Economic and Monetary Union (Fiscal Compact), which mandates that signatories incorporate a structural balance rule into national frameworks, targeting a deficit not exceeding a country-specific medium-term objective (MTO) typically near balance or surplus.^[66] These rules emphasize the structural (cyclically adjusted) budget balance to accommodate automatic stabilizers like unemployment benefits during downturns, rather than rigid annual targets, with the MTO varying by initial debt levels—ranging from -0.5% to +1% of GDP—and requiring adjustment paths toward it during excessive deficit procedures.^[67] Enforcement mechanisms commonly include independent fiscal councils for monitoring compliance and automatic correction mechanisms, such as expenditure cuts or revenue increases, though implementation strength varies, with constitutional entrenchment providing greater credibility against political override.^[68] A key structural feature is the allowance for escape clauses in severe economic shocks, defined under EU rules as recessions exceeding 0.75% GDP contraction or cumulative declines over cycles, enabling temporary deviations while requiring compensatory measures in subsequent periods; for instance, the updated 2024 EU fiscal framework introduces multi-year net expenditure paths tailored to debt sustainability analyses, blending balanced budget principles with flexibility for investments in green and digital transitions.^[69] Multi-annual averaging over the business cycle is standard to smooth procyclicality, distinguishing European approaches from stricter annual U.S. state-level balanced budgets, though subnational rules in federal systems like Germany impose zero-deficit norms on regions to prevent spillover risks.^[55] Variations across countries include legal bindingness and scope: constitutional amendments in nations like Germany (2009 debt brake limiting federal structural deficits to 0.35% of GDP) and Italy (2012 Article 81 revision mandating balance) offer higher enforceability via judicial review, whereas statutory laws in France and Spain rely on parliamentary approval for trajectories, leading to frequent revisions amid political pressures.^[70] Debt rules complement balanced budget provisions in most cases, capping gross debt at 60% of GDP or requiring declines toward it by 1/20th annually, with prevalence of balanced budget rules highest among EU states as of 2021, often paired with expenditure ceilings to curb spending growth.^[71] Non-EU European countries like Switzerland feature similar cyclically neutral debt brakes since 2003, constitutionally limiting expenditures to revenues over time with parliamentary overrides possible only in extraordinary crises.^[55]

Case Studies: Germany, Switzerland, and Others

Germany's debt brake, formally introduced through amendments to Articles 109 and 115 of the Basic Law in 2009, mandates that the federal government's structural deficit not exceed 0.35 percent of nominal GDP annually, while the states (Länder) are required to maintain balanced budgets without new net borrowing.^[72] The rule took effect for the states in 2011 and for the federal level in 2016, with provisions for cyclical adjustments and exceptions during natural disasters, severe economic crises, or extraordinary emergencies, such as wartime conditions.^[35] Implementation has included automatic stabilizers and escape clauses, but compliance relies on independent fiscal councils for structural gap assessments; the rule was suspended during the COVID-19 pandemic via a 2021 amendment allowing off-budget financing for related expenditures, and further modified in 2022 and 2025 to exempt certain defense spending exceeding 1 percent of GDP.^[36] Post-enactment outcomes demonstrate fiscal consolidation, with the general government debt-to-GDP ratio declining from approximately 81 percent in 2010 to 60 percent by 2019, contributing to lower borrowing costs and enhanced credibility in EU fiscal coordination efforts.^[73] Switzerland's debt brake, enshrined in Article 126 of the Federal Constitution following a 2001 popular referendum and effective from 2003, establishes a cyclically adjusted expenditure ceiling for the federal budget, requiring deficits incurred during economic downturns to be offset by surpluses in boom periods through a compensation account mechanism.^[33] This rule targets structural balance over the business cycle, with annual assessments by the federal administration adjusting for revenue windfalls or shortfalls, and enforcement via parliamentary oversight rather than judicial penalties, though persistent violations could trigger expenditure cuts.^[62] The framework has proven resilient amid shocks, including the 2008 financial crisis and COVID-19, stabilizing federal debt at around 40 percent of GDP and reducing the overall public debt ratio from 54 percent in 2003 to 35 percent by 2015, while maintaining low debt levels relative to peers at approximately 30 percent of GDP as of 2023.^[56]^[74] Empirical analyses attribute an average improvement in the federal budget balance of 2.6 to 3.7 percentage points post-implementation, underscoring its role in promoting expenditure restraint without rigid annual balancing.^[75] Among other European jurisdictions, Austria implemented a debt brake in 2013 via the Fiscal Responsibility Act, defining a structurally balanced general government budget as a maximum structural deficit of 0 percent of GDP, with multi-year expenditure paths and escape clauses for crises, which has supported debt stabilization efforts amid EU fiscal pressures.^[76] Spain amended Article 135 of its Constitution in 2011 to mandate a balanced budget rule prohibiting structural deficits across all public administrations and capping public debt at 60 percent of GDP, supplemented by the 2012 Organic Law on Budgetary Stability requiring zero structural deficits for central government and limited allowances for regions, though compliance has varied with frequent suspensions during recessions and resulting in persistent deficits exceeding targets.^[77]^[78] Sweden, while lacking a constitutional balanced budget amendment, operates a fiscal framework since 1997 featuring a 0.33 percent GDP surplus target over the cycle, expenditure ceilings, and a debt anchor below 35 percent of GDP, which halved public debt from over 70 percent in the mid-1990s to around 35 percent by 2019 but faces proposed loosening for infrastructure and defense investments as of 2024.^[79]^[65] These cases illustrate variations in stringency and enforcement, with stricter constitutional mechanisms in Germany and Switzerland yielding more consistent debt reductions compared to framework-based approaches elsewhere.

Other Regions

Asia: Hong Kong and Japan

Hong Kong's Basic Law, enacted in 1990, includes Article 107, which mandates that the government "shall follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues" when formulating budgets, establishing a constitutional commitment to fiscal prudence without allowing deficits as a norm.^[80] This principle has historically supported surpluses, but cyclical pressures have led to temporary deficits, such as the projected HK$48.1 billion shortfall for fiscal year 2024-25 amid economic recovery efforts.^[81] International assessments, including from the IMF, have endorsed extensions of deficit periods—such as delaying a balanced budget until fiscal year 2027/28—to accommodate slack in the economy while upholding the revenue constraint.^[82] Compliance relies on executive discretion rather than automatic enforcement mechanisms, contributing to overall fiscal stability despite occasional deviations. Japan lacks a constitutional balanced budget amendment but maintains a fiscal framework emphasizing primary balance targets, where expenditures excluding interest payments are to be covered by revenues.^[83] In 2010, legislation set a goal for achieving a primary surplus by fiscal year 2025, though projections in January 2025 revised this to fiscal 2026 due to revenue shortfalls and spending pressures, forecasting an 800 billion yen surplus.^[84] The system combines strict initial budget controls with flexible supplementary budgets for emergencies, which has enabled deficit financing amid persistent high public debt exceeding 250% of GDP.^[85] Local governments have faced scrutiny for creative accounting practices, such as stock-flow adjustments to mask deficits, highlighting enforcement challenges in subnational fiscal rules.^[86] Despite these targets, Japan's approach prioritizes medium-term consolidation over annual balance, with the 2025 budget reaching a record ¥115.5 trillion, reflecting ongoing reliance on bond issuance.^[87]

Latin America and Emerging Markets

In Latin America, fiscal rules incorporating balanced budget elements have proliferated since the early 2000s, often as responses to debt crises, with Chile's 2001 structural balanced budget rule serving as a benchmark for countercyclical management by targeting a zero structural deficit adjusted for economic cycles.^[88] This rule, enforced through independent estimates of potential output and commodity prices, has sustained surpluses during booms and moderated deficits, contributing to debt reduction from 13% of GDP in 2001 to lower levels by the 2010s.^[88] Colombia's fiscal rule, introduced in 2011, mandates gradual reduction of the central government's structural deficit to zero by 2020 (later adjusted), combining budget balance targets with debt anchors to enhance credibility amid volatile commodity revenues.^[89] Regional compliance varies, with a 2022 index showing mixed adherence; for instance, Brazil's Fiscal Responsibility Law of 2000 imposes balanced current revenue-expenditure matching but has been undermined by legal overrides during recessions.^[90] Emerging markets beyond Latin America, such as those in Asia and Africa, have adopted hybrid rules favoring debt limits over strict annual balances to accommodate growth needs, though Latin American experiences inform broader designs emphasizing deficit elimination for sustainability.^[91] In Peru, a 1999 fiscal rule caps expenditures and requires debt stabilization, achieving compliance rates above 80% in the 2010s through independent monitoring.^[92] Empirical analyses indicate that stronger rules correlate with lower deficits, but evasion via off-budget funds or rule suspensions—evident in Argentina's repeated fiscal pacts—undermines long-term efficacy, particularly in politically volatile contexts.^[93] Overall, these rules have shifted focus from nominal balances to structural metrics, yet persistent challenges include weak enforcement institutions and commodity dependence, with post-pandemic revisions incorporating escape clauses for crises.^[94]

Asia: Hong Kong and Japan

In Hong Kong, the Basic Law—serving as the region's mini-constitution since its enactment in 1990 and implementation on July 1, 1997—imposes a fiscal discipline principle via Article 107, requiring the government to "follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget."^[95] ^[96] This provision, intended to promote prudent management and low taxation under the "one country, two systems" framework, effectively mandates balanced budgets without permitting structural deficits, though cyclical or temporary shortfalls are not explicitly barred.^[97] In practice, Hong Kong maintained surpluses for decades post-handover, accumulating fiscal reserves exceeding HK$800 billion by 2023, but post-COVID-19 deficits emerged, including a projected HK$100 billion consolidated deficit for the 2024-25 fiscal year, prompting expenditure cuts and revenue measures to restore balance by 2026-27.^[98] ^[99] Japan's Constitution of 1947 contains no explicit balanced budget amendment, allowing deficits as evidenced by the nation's public debt surpassing 250% of GDP by 2024.^[84] Instead, fiscal restraint is pursued through statutory measures, notably the 2009 Public Finance Act, whose Article 4(1) establishes a balanced budget principle by prohibiting structural deficits and obligating annual efforts to achieve balance, supplemented by medium-term targets for primary balance (excluding interest payments).^[100] The government has repeatedly aimed for a primary surplus, targeting fiscal year 2025 (ending March 2026) since 2010 guidelines, but projections as of January 2025 forecast a delay to fiscal 2026 with an estimated 800 billion yen surplus, amid persistent shortfalls driven by aging demographics, defense spending, and stimulus.^[101] ^[102] These targets, while legally non-binding in enforcement, reflect iterative policy adjustments rather than rigid constitutional limits, contributing to Japan's FY2025 budget of 115.2 trillion yen, the largest nominally.^[103]

Latin America and Emerging Markets

Chile implemented a structural balanced budget rule in 2001, targeting a cyclically adjusted fiscal surplus equivalent to 0.5% of GDP over the economic cycle, with adjustments for copper prices and long-term trends to insulate spending from commodity volatility.^[88]^[93] This rule, overseen by an independent fiscal council, has generally constrained deficits during booms while allowing countercyclical flexibility, resulting in accumulated surpluses invested in a sovereign stabilization fund.^[104] Brazil's Fiscal Responsibility Law, enacted on May 4, 2000, mandates balanced current revenues and expenditures for states and municipalities, caps personnel spending at 60% of net current revenues for states and 54% for municipalities, and prohibits deficits exceeding certain thresholds without corrective plans.^[89] The law includes escape clauses for emergencies but enforces penalties like salary suspensions for non-compliance, aiming to curb subnational fiscal imbalances that contributed to the 1990s debt crises.^[93] Peru adopted a fiscal responsibility and transparency law in 1999, later amended to include a debt ceiling of 30% of GDP for subnational governments and balanced budget requirements tied to revenue performance, with multi-year expenditure limits to prevent procyclical policies.^[89] Colombia's 1991 constitution and subsequent fiscal rule, strengthened in 2011, require gradual reduction of the structural deficit to zero by 2020 (extended), focusing on central government operations with independent estimates of potential output.^[89]^[105] Mexico's balanced budget rule, active from 2006 to 2014, sought nominal balance but faced evasion through off-budget spending and revenue overestimation, leading to its replacement with expenditure ceilings.^[106] Across Latin America, these rules often blend budget balance targets with debt or expenditure limits, though compliance indices show variability, with structural variants like Chile's outperforming simple nominal rules amid commodity cycles.^[90]^[107] In other emerging markets, such as South Africa, fiscal anchors emphasize primary surpluses and debt stabilization rather than strict balanced budget mandates, with the 2025 budget projecting deficits narrowing to 4.6% of GDP by 2027/28 without constitutional enforcement.^[108] India's Fiscal Responsibility and Budget Management Act of 2003 sets deficit targets (e.g., 3% of GDP by 2026) but lacks a hard balanced budget requirement, relying on statutory glide paths prone to extensions during shocks.^[109] These frameworks prioritize flexibility over rigidity, reflecting resource constraints and growth priorities in non-Latin American emerging economies.

Empirical Evidence and Economic Impacts

Fiscal Discipline Outcomes

In the United States, empirical analyses of state-level balanced budget requirements, which mandate balanced operating budgets in 49 states as of 2023, demonstrate a correlation with reduced deficit spending and lower long-term debt accumulation. States with stricter end-of-year balance mandates exhibit significantly higher general fund surpluses, with one study finding that such rules increase surpluses by constraining overspending during revenue upswings.^[2] Research using panel data from 1970 to 1992 indicates that these institutions limit the persistence of deficits and moderate expenditure growth relative to revenue, though effects vary by rule stringency, such as supermajority requirements for deficits.^[47] However, while deficits decline, some evidence suggests shifts toward off-budget borrowing or deferred obligations, partially offsetting discipline gains.^[20] In Europe, constitutional balanced budget rules have yielded measurable fiscal restraint. Switzerland's federal debt brake, implemented in 2003, improved the structural budget balance by approximately 3.7 percentage points of GDP in the post-adoption period through 2020, as estimated via synthetic control methods comparing Swiss outcomes to counterfactual scenarios without the rule.^[75] Cantonal-level debt brakes similarly enforced sound finances by curbing deficits during expansions, though evasion via asset sales occurred in weaker implementations.^[110] Germany's debt brake, effective from 2009, constrained structural deficits to 0.35% of GDP, contributing to debt-to-GDP stabilization post-financial crisis, though recent suspensions for crises like COVID-19 highlight enforcement challenges amid political pressures.^[111] Cross-country surveys of fiscal rules, including balanced budget variants, consistently link their adoption to improved primary balances and slower debt growth, with effects strongest when rules are constitutionally entrenched and monitored independently.^[112] Historical data from over 100 countries since 1800, analyzed via synthetic controls, show that constitutional balanced budget rules reduce government debt levels by constraining expenditures, particularly in non-cyclical periods, though outcomes depend on complementary institutions like transparent accounting.^[113] These findings underscore causal mechanisms where rules alter incentives, favoring discipline over discretionary spending, but underscore the need for robust enforcement to prevent creative accounting or rule circumvention.^[114]

Growth and Stability Effects

Empirical analyses of balanced budget rules (BBRs) indicate a generally positive association with long-term economic growth, primarily through reduced public debt levels that mitigate crowding-out effects on private investment and enhance the productivity of capital. In Switzerland, the 2003 constitutional BBR, which allows cyclical flexibility, boosted annual GDP per capita growth by an estimated 0.95 percentage points relative to a synthetic counterfactual constructed from peer economies like Canada and the United States, with effects driven by higher total factor productivity via increased research and development investment.^[115] Cross-country panel studies corroborate this, finding that BBRs elevate growth rates by improving debt efficiency, with robustness checks confirming causality through instrumental variables and alternative specifications.^[116] These benefits stem from lower interest burdens and fiscal credibility, which support sustained capital accumulation without the distortions of excessive taxation or inflation risks.^[112] On macroeconomic stability, BBRs reduce output volatility and sovereign default probabilities by enforcing counter-cyclical fiscal adjustments, such as building rainy-day funds during booms. U.S. state-level evidence shows that stringent BBRs lower end-of-year deficits by curbing expenditures rather than raising taxes, leading to accumulated surpluses that buffer downturns and stabilize state economies.^[2] In Switzerland, the rule improved the cyclically adjusted budget balance by 3.7 percentage points on average in the initial post-adoption years (2003–2007), fostering debt sustainability around 30–40% of GDP despite global shocks like the financial crisis and COVID-19.^[75] Well-designed BBRs with escape clauses further diminish pro-cyclical spending biases, lowering public expenditure volatility across advanced economies.^[112] However, rigid BBR implementations can constrain short-term stabilization during severe recessions by limiting deficit-financed stimulus, potentially amplifying contractions if flexibility mechanisms are absent. Some consolidation episodes under fiscal rules have correlated with 10% reductions in public investment, which may temporarily hinder infrastructure-driven growth recovery in high-debt contexts.^[112] Nonetheless, long-run stability gains from averted debt crises outweigh these risks, as unchecked deficits historically exacerbate boom-bust cycles through higher borrowing costs and investor flight.^[112]

Instances of Evasion or Failure

Despite constitutional or statutory balanced budget requirements in 49 U.S. states, governments have employed various accounting gimmicks to achieve nominal compliance while deferring or masking underlying fiscal imbalances. Common evasion tactics include delaying payments to vendors and employees, inter-fund borrowing, asset sales, and using one-time revenues for recurrent expenditures. For instance, in 2009, California issued approximately $3.4 billion in IOUs to creditors and vendors amid a severe budget crisis, effectively postponing payments to meet its balanced budget mandate without immediate spending cuts or tax increases. ^[117] Similarly, states have swept billions from special-purpose funds—such as unemployment insurance or tobacco settlement accounts—into general funds for temporary balancing, only to repay them later or not at all, distorting the true fiscal health. ^[20] These practices, documented in analyses of state fiscal stress periods, often exacerbate long-term liabilities, as seen in Illinois borrowing over $3 billion from its teacher retirement system in the 2010s to close general fund gaps. ^[118] In the European Union, the Stability and Growth Pact's fiscal rules—limiting deficits to 3% of GDP and debt to 60%—have faced systemic enforcement failures and evasion through creative accounting and political exemptions. Large member states like France and Germany repeatedly exceeded limits without sanctions; in November 2003, the Economic and Financial Affairs Council (ECOFIN) voted against imposing fines on both countries despite deficits of 4.1% and 4.0% of GDP, respectively, prioritizing national sovereignty over rule adherence. ^[119] Empirical studies reveal governments manipulate fiscal data, particularly around elections, with adjustments equivalent to about 1% of GDP to feign compliance, including reclassifying current spending as capital investment or underreporting liabilities. ^[120] ^[121] The Pact's 2005 reform, prompted by these breaches, introduced greater flexibility but diluted enforcement, contributing to the eurozone debt crisis where countries like Greece concealed deficits through off-balance-sheet entities and derivative swaps pre-2008. ^[122] Switzerland's debt brake, implemented in 2003, has proven more resilient but not immune to circumvention via exceptions and structural workarounds. The rule allows suspension for extraordinary events, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, where federal expenditures exceeded the cap by CHF 12.5 billion in 2020, with compensation required in subsequent boom years; however, full offsetting has lagged, accumulating uncompensated spending of around CHF 2 billion by 2023. ^[40] Critics note incentives for shifting debt off-budget, including guarantees and contingent liabilities, which evade the structural deficit measure without violating the letter of the rule. ^[123] In Germany, the analogous debt brake, effective since 2009, has been suspended thrice— in 2020 for pandemic response (adding €190 billion in debt), 2022 for energy subsidies (€200 billion), and partially in 2025 for infrastructure—highlighting how crisis clauses enable fiscal expansion without reform, though judicial oversight by the Federal Constitutional Court has occasionally curbed excesses, as in its 2023 ruling invalidating off-budget climate funds. ^[73] ^[124] These instances underscore that while balanced budget rules impose discipline, their efficacy hinges on robust enforcement mechanisms and transparent accounting standards; weak political commitment or vague exceptions often leads to evasion, undermining long-term fiscal sustainability across jurisdictions. ^[3]

Contemporary Debates and Prospects

Arguments for Adoption Amid Rising Debt

Proponents argue that a balanced budget amendment (BBA) is essential to curb the unsustainable trajectory of federal debt, which surpassed $38 trillion in October 2025, equivalent to approximately 125% of GDP for fiscal year 2025.^[125]^[126] Without structural constraints, Congress has repeatedly authorized deficits exceeding $1 trillion annually, with fiscal year 2025's deficit estimated at $1.8 trillion, driven by entitlement spending and interest costs projected to exceed $1 trillion in the following year.^[127]^[128] A BBA would mandate that outlays not exceed revenues except in declared emergencies, compelling lawmakers to prioritize spending cuts or revenue measures over perpetual borrowing, thereby addressing the causal link between unchecked deficits and escalating debt accumulation.^[15] Empirical evidence from U.S. states supports the efficacy of balanced budget requirements in fostering fiscal restraint. All but one state impose some form of BBA, typically requiring legislatures to pass balanced budgets and governors to adhere to them, resulting in systematically lower state debt levels and deficits compared to the federal government.^[21] Research indicates these rules correlate with reduced overall spending and stronger rainy-day funds, as states with stricter provisions exhibit greater revenue stability and less reliance on debt during downturns, outcomes attributed to enforced trade-offs that prevent procyclical fiscal deterioration.^[21] Proponents extend this logic federally, asserting that a constitutional BBA would similarly discipline Congress, which lacks equivalent incentives, by institutionalizing annual balance requirements and supermajority votes for deficits, thus mitigating the moral hazard of deficit financing that has ballooned debt-to-GDP ratios from under 40% in 1980 to current highs.^[15] Amid projections of debt-to-GDP reaching 118% by 2035 and 156% by 2055 under current policies, advocates emphasize intergenerational fairness and macroeconomic risks as imperatives for adoption.^[129]^[130] Rising interest payments—now rivaling defense and Medicare outlays—crowd out productive investments, elevate borrowing costs for businesses and households, and heighten vulnerability to interest rate shocks or loss of investor confidence, potentially triggering inflation or austerity measures deferred to future taxpayers.^[131] A BBA, per organizations like the Heritage Foundation, would enforce causal realism in budgeting by aligning revenues with expenditures, averting a debt spiral where compounding interest exacerbates principal growth, and promoting long-term economic stability akin to household or business solvency principles.^[15] Critics of discretionary fiscal policy, including economists favoring rules-based approaches, argue this amendment counters political incentives for short-term spending, as evidenced by post-2008 debt surges despite economic recoveries, ensuring sustainability without relying on elusive bipartisan restraint.^[132]

Political and Legal Hurdles

Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution requires a two-thirds supermajority vote in both the House of Representatives and the Senate, followed by ratification by three-fourths of the states (38 out of 50).^[9] This threshold has proven politically insurmountable despite periodic surges in support amid rising deficits. For instance, in March 1994, the Senate rejected S.J. Res. 41 by a vote of 63-37, falling four votes short of the required 67.^[4] A subsequent effort in 1995 under H.J. Res. 1 passed the House but failed in the Senate 65-35, again missing the supermajority by two votes.^[28] These narrow defeats highlighted internal party divisions, with three Republican senators defecting in the 1990s due to concerns over fiscal rigidity.^[4] Partisan polarization exacerbates these challenges, as Democrats often oppose amendments fearing mandatory cuts to entitlement programs like Social Security and Medicare, while some Republicans worry about constraints during national emergencies or wars.^[6] Labor organizations such as the AFL-CIO have lobbied against it, arguing it could trigger austerity measures that harm workers during downturns.^[133] Public opinion favors the idea— a 2023 poll showed 80% of Americans supporting a balanced budget mandate within 10 years—but congressional incentives prioritize short-term spending to appease constituencies over long-term fiscal restraint.^[134] Recent proposals, including bipartisan efforts like H.J. Res. 11 in 2024 by Reps. Gluesenkamp Perez and Bacon requiring balanced budgets except in declared wars or emergencies, and Rep. Burlison's 2025 measure capping debt, have garnered introductions but no floor votes or passage, underscoring entrenched legislative inertia.^[44]^[52]^[50] Legally, a balanced budget amendment raises enforceability issues, potentially flooding courts with challenges over budget classifications, emergency exceptions, and compliance.^[135] Critics, including legal scholars, warn that vague definitions of "receipts" and "outlays"—such as whether to include off-budget items like Social Security—could invite endless litigation, with estimates of hundreds or thousands of lawsuits annually.^[135] Judicial enforcement might compel the Supreme Court to micromanage fiscal policy, conflicting with separation of powers principles and Article I's appropriation clause granting Congress spending authority.^[136] Provisions allowing supermajority overrides for deficits (typically three-fifths or two-thirds) risk political gridlock or extortion by minorities, as seen in debt ceiling debates, potentially amplifying economic volatility rather than curbing it.^[17] Moreover, the amendment could hinder responses to crises; historical analysis shows it might have delayed savings and loan bailouts in the 1980s or stimulus during recessions by mandating pro-cyclical cuts.^[6] Proponents counter that precise drafting, such as phased implementation over five years as in Rep. Obernolte's 2023 proposal, could mitigate these, but unresolved ambiguities persist in congressional reports.^[137]^[1]

Recent Developments (2020s)

In the early 2020s, amid escalating federal deficits exacerbated by pandemic-related spending and subsequent inflation, several members of Congress reintroduced balanced budget amendment proposals, though none advanced beyond introduction. For instance, in the 117th Congress (2021-2022), H.J. Res. 25 sought to require that total outlays not exceed total receipts unless approved by a three-fifths vote in both houses, but it garnered no committee action. Similar efforts in the 118th Congress (2023-2024), such as H.J. Res. 13, proposed prohibiting outlays from exceeding receipts absent a supermajority waiver, yet faced the same procedural stagnation. The 119th Congress (2025-2026) saw intensified activity, with multiple resolutions filed early in the session. On January 9, 2025, H.J. Res. 11 was introduced to amend the Constitution barring fiscal-year outlays from surpassing receipts, requiring a three-fifths vote for any excess.^[50] Likewise, H.J. Res. 17, introduced January 21, 2025, mirrored this language, emphasizing annual fiscal restraint without exceptions for economic downturns unless overridden.^[138] Republican lawmakers drove prominent 2025 initiatives, framing them as responses to unchecked spending. Representative Eric Burlison (R-MO) introduced a proposal on August 15, 2025, prohibiting expenditures beyond revenues and imposing a statutory debt cap, arguing it would "rein in federal spending" amid projections of trillions in added debt.^[52] Representative Nathaniel Moran (R-TX) reintroduced the Principles-Based Balanced Budget Amendment on July 23, 2025, mandating balance over a 10-year rolling window with limited emergency deficit allowances, positioning it as a mechanism to curb Washington's fiscal irresponsibility.^[139] These efforts aligned with broader advocacy from groups like Americans for Prosperity, which in August 2025 urged adoption to enforce discipline and mitigate inflation risks from deficit financing.^[132] Despite this resurgence, driven by national debt surpassing $35 trillion by mid-2025, no proposal has secured the two-thirds congressional approval needed for transmittal to states, reflecting persistent partisan divides and procedural hurdles.^[140] Analysts from the Concord Coalition noted in September 2025 that while deficits have prompted renewed BBA calls, historical failures underscore the amendment's challenges in addressing structural entitlements and revenue shortfalls.^[141]

References

[1]
A Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment - Congress.gov
Aug 22, 2019 · Since the 1930s, dozens of proposals have been made to require a balanced budget, to limit the size or growth of the federal budget or of the ...The Call for a Balanced... · III. Congressional... · VI. Analysis of Typical...
[2]
Balanced-budget rules and public deficits: evidence from the U.S. ...
The analysis finds that state end-of-the-year (not prospective) balance requirements do have significant positive effects on a state's general fund surplus.
[3]
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.
[4]
Considering a Balanced Budget Amendment: Lessons from History
On March 25, 1986, the Senate failed by one vote to adopt a balanced budget constitutional amendment (S.J. Res. 225). Forty-three Republicans and 23 Democrats ...Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[5]
Why a Tax Limitation/Balanced Budget Amendment is Needed to ...
Some proponents of a balanced budget amendment argue that eliminating the deficit would lead to dramatic reductions in interest rates. The scholarly research,7 ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[6]
Constitutional Balanced Budget Amendment Poses Serious Risks
Mar 16, 2018 · A balanced budget amendment to the U.S. Constitution would be an unusual and economically dangerous way to address the nation's long-term ...
[7]
Hatch Introduces Balanced Budget Constitutional Amendment
A Balanced Budget Amendment to the Constitution that will bring down the nation's skyrocketing national debt by requiring the government to balance its budget.Missing: definition | Show results with:definition
[8]
https://crsreports.congress.gov/product/pdf/R/R41907
[9]
Budget Basics: Balanced Budget Amendment — Pros and Cons
Nov 27, 2018 · A balanced budget amendment would add a budget rule to the Constitution that would require federal spending not to exceed federal receipts.
[10]
[PDF] Balanced Budget Requirements | Urban Institute
BBRs vary by state. Some states have lenient BBRs that only require governors to propose a balanced budget; stricter BBRs require that the.
[11]
[PDF] The Balanced Budget Amendment: Clarifying the Arguments Author(s)
The balanced budget norm is ultimately based on the acceptance of the classic principles of public finance.<|separator|>
[12]
[PDF] The Balanced Budget Amendment and Economic Thought.
The analysis has generally concluded that overspending and waste in government are inevitable. Two distinct paths have led to that conclusion.
[13]
[PDF] Budget Deficits and the Intergenerational Distribution of Lifetime ...
This raises concerns about both the intergenerational equity and the sustainability of present policy. One should keep in mind, however, the controversiality of ...
[14]
[PDF] The Costs and Benefits of Fiscal Rules: Evidence from U.S. States
This paper shows that in American states balanced budget rules are effective in enforcing fiscal discipline but they have no costs in terms of increased output ...
[15]
Why America Needs A Balanced Budget Amendment
Myth#1: A balanced budget amendment would introduce economic policy into the Constitution. ... theory of economics. This theory holds that government spending ...
[16]
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, ...<|separator|>
[17]
5 Reasons Why a Federal Balanced Budget Amendment Is a Bad Idea
Jul 28, 2014 · Threat of political extortion by a congressional minority. Requiring a super-majority to raise the debt ceiling or to run a deficit “is a ...
[18]
What are state balanced budget requirements and how do they work?
Balanced budget requirements (BBRs) are constitutional or statutory rules that generally prohibit states from spending more than they collect in revenue in a ...
[19]
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, ...
[20]
[PDF] Consequences of State Balanced Budget Restrictions: Fiscal ...
In this paper we provide evidence on these contrasting theories by investigating the extent to which states cut expenditures and/or raise taxes to meet the ...
[21]
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 when a ...<|separator|>
[22]
Balanced Budget Rules Work Only if Strictly Interpreted and Enforced
He bases his conclusion on evidence from balanced budget rules (BBRs) that restrict the fiscal policy of U.S. states.Missing: harm | Show results with:harm
[23]
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 amendment ...
[24]
S. Rept. 105-3 - THE BALANCED-BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL ...
Conclusion A balanced-budget amendment steers a disciplined course which protects our future economic strength and national standard of living.<|separator|>
[25]
Harrott Project: Balanced-budget Amendment - Ole Miss
A balanced budget refers to the situation in which government revenues equal government outlays, where there is no budget deficit. During the history of ...
[26]
LEGISLATIVE HISTORY OF BALANCED BUDGET LAW
Feb 19, 2002 · The balanced budget provision was most likely intended to prohibit the General Assembly from adopting a budget with a built-in deficit, but ...Missing: early | Show results with:early<|separator|>
[27]
Balanced budget amendment: deficit cure-all, political 'cover' or ...
Aug 10, 2011 · The first known congressional balanced budget amendment effort was led during the high-deficit New Deal by U.S. Rep. Harold Knutson, R-Minn., ...<|separator|>
[28]
Budget Amendment Sinks in Senate - CQ Almanac Online Edition
Proposals to add a balanced-budget amendment to the Constitution were introduced in both chambers Jan. 4, 1995. Senate Majority Leader Bob Dole, R-Kan., was the ...Go to Main Section of Page · Background · House Committee · House Floor Action
[29]
Balanced-Budget Amendment Defeated - CQ Almanac Online Edition
In May of 1992, the idea of amending the Constitution suddenly began gaining converts. Despite the budget agreement hammered out in 1990, deficits had continued ...Missing: historical origins concept
[30]
State Balanced Budget Amendments - 1/13/97
Jan 13, 1997 · Many states are required to balance their operating budgets, not their total budgets. States typically have an operating budget that funds ...Missing: enactments | Show results with:enactments
[31]
[PDF] Fiscal Rules at a Glance: Country Details from a New Dataset
This paper provides country-specific information on fiscal rules in use in 81 countries from 1985 to end-September 2012.
[32]
Balanced Budget Amendment Proposal Is Extreme by International ...
May 3, 2016 · Not one of the 89 countries had a constitutional balanced budget requirement that would require balancing the entire budget every year, with no ...
[33]
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 ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[34]
The Swiss Version of a Balanced Budget Amendment
Jun 11, 2010 · After years of rising deficits and debt in the 1990s, Switzerland's citizens adopted the debt brake as a constitutional amendment in 2001 (with ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[35]
[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 ...
[36]
The Debt Brake: Unsafe at Any Speed? | Richmond Fed
In 2009, in the wake of the GFC, Germany introduced a bold constitutional reform designed to enforce long-term fiscal discipline: the debt brake (or ...
[37]
Spain 1978 (rev. 2011) - Constitute Project
Spain's Constitution of 1978 with Amendments through 2011. ... It may modify them, wherever a tax law of a substantive nature so provides. Balanced budget, Budget ...
[38]
Italy parliament approves balanced budget law - Reuters
Dec 20, 2012 · The constitutional amendment comes into effect from 2014 and will allow future Italian governments to run budget deficits only in exceptional ...Missing: date | Show results with:date
[39]
[PDF] FISCAL RULE ACT
(2) The Fiscal Council shall adopt its rules of procedure within the period of three months from the appointment of members of the Fiscal Council.
[40]
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 ...
[41]
[PDF] NCSL FISCAL BRIEF: STATE BALANCED BUDGET PROVISIONS
The National Conference of State Legislatures (NCSL) has traditionally reported that 49 states must balance their budgets, with Vermont being the exception.
[42]
[PDF] Financial State of the States 2024 - Truth in Accounting
Every state except Vermont has balanced budget requirements, yet even with these rules, states have accumulated $811 billion in money needed to pay bills. How ...
[43]
How a balanced budget amendment can stop inflation in its tracks
Sep 26, 2025 · A BBA would enforce fiscal discipline by making it unconstitutional to run chronic deficits, although there are typically exceptions for ...Missing: provisions | Show results with:provisions
[44]
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|>
[45]
State Strategies for Closing FY 2020 with a Balanced Budget
Apr 2, 2020 · In some states, a budget must be balanced when introduced, passed by the legislature, or signed by the governor, but need not be adjusted if it ...
[46]
The Balance Budget Amendment (Bba)—A Path To Reduce the ...
Jun 26, 2023 · In the United States, 49 states have an explicit balanced budget requirement in their constitution; the lone exception (Vermont) balances its ...<|separator|>
[47]
[PDF] budget institutions and fiscal policy in the us states
Vermont is the only state without a balanced budget requirement of some type. Following NASBO (1992), the balanced budget requirements in the forty-nine states.
[48]
CRS Reviews Proposals for Balanced Budget Amendment - Tax Notes
The first congressional action beyond the introduction and referral of proposals occurred in 1947. By special arrangement, the Senate Appropriations Committee ...
[49]
A BALANCED BUDGET CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT
In the 105th Congress, the Senate has considered one such proposal (S.J.Res. 1), but the measure failed (66-34) to achieve the necessary two-thirds majority ...
[50]
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.
[51]
H.J.Res.110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Proposing a balanced ...
Jul 23, 2025 · Text for H.J.Res.110 - 119th Congress (2025-2026): Proposing a balanced budget amendment to the Constitution of the United States.
[52]
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: definition | Show results with:definition
[53]
Balanced Budget Amendments
A proposal for an amendment to the Constitution that would require a balanced budget was first introduced on the floor of Congress in the 1940s.Missing: history | Show results with:history<|separator|>
[54]
Stability and Growth Pact - Economy and Finance - European Union
The SGP is a set of rules designed to ensure that countries in the European Union pursue sound public finances and coordinate their fiscal policies.
[55]
Fiscal rules in the euro area and lessons from other monetary unions
All euro area countries now have a balanced budget rule in place restricting the general government budget, following the institutional changes mentioned above.
[56]
Experiences with Budget Rules in Switzerland and Germany
It therefore comes as little surprise that the Swiss debt brake, which in 2013 had been in place for ten years, has been met with considerable interest abroad ...
[57]
Fiscal Rules: International Strategies for Managing Government ...
Aug 6, 2025 · Germany adopted a debt brake in 2009, with the aim of restoring fiscal stability amid the global financial crisis.
[58]
The German debt brake: the merits and limitations of fiscal rules
Feb 13, 2024 · The recent decision of the German Federal Constitutional Court has fueled the debate on the debt brake, which imposes strict limits in terms of budget deficit.
[59]
€1 trillion impact: What easing debt brake means for Germany - DW
Mar 17, 2025 · Article 143h will be added to the Basic Law, stipulating that €500 billion in debt may be raised over the next 12 years for investment in ...
[60]
German Bundestag approves exemption from the debt brake ... - Noerr
Mar 21, 2025 · In the future, they will be permitted to collectively take on debt amounting to 0.35 percent of GDP without violating the ban on new borrowing.
[61]
https://www.bruegel.org/policy-brief/what-germanys-medium-term-fiscal-plan-means-europe
[62]
[PDF] A New Rule: "The Swiss Debt Brake - WP/02/18
Based on a constitutional amendment in 1998, the government set out to eliminate the federal deficit by 2001 (Stabilisierungsprogramm).
[63]
[XLS] Fiscal Rule database - Economy and Finance
The Debt Brake specifies that the Austrian federal budget has to be structurally balanced from 2017 onwards. Structural balance is defined as a structural ...
[64]
Sweden to Change Budget Rules to Allow More Public Spending
Oct 17, 2024 · Surplus requirement will be replaced by balanced-budget target · Revised goal to allow about $1.9 billion added annual spending.
[65]
Sweden to loosen budget rules to boost infrastructure, defence
Oct 17, 2024 · Sweden plans to ease tight budget spending rules as it looks to boost spending in areas like infrastructure and defence.
[66]
[PDF] Main elements of the fiscal compact
The fiscal rule is considered to be respected if the annual structural balance meets the country-specific medium-term objective and does not exceed a deficit. ( ...
[67]
Key elements of European Union budget rules - Reuters
Sep 8, 2022 · * Governments should seek as a rule to keep the part of their budget that does not fluctuate with the economic cycle in balance or in surplus.
[68]
Numerical Compliance with EU Fiscal Rules: Facts and Figures from ...
Jan 24, 2023 · If the budget balance of a country exceeds 3% of GDP, it can be asked to implement budgetary corrections under the Excessive Deficit Procedure ( ...
[69]
The European Union's new fiscal framework: a good start, but ...
Feb 17, 2025 · The main requirement of the EU's fiscal rules is that, whenever a country's public debt exceeds 60 percent of GDP, it should be put on a fiscal ...
[70]
Germany's Debt Brake: Pulling the EU Out of Its Debt Trap?
A German-style debt brake as a constitutional tool to prevent governments from excessive borrowing appears problematical. Yet there might be an alternative – ...
[71]
The Impact of Federal Fiscal Rules on Debt: Insights from the ...
Oct 15, 2024 · As depicted in Figure 1 below, many EU countries have adopted fiscal rules since 2000, providing a unique opportunity to examine the ...
[72]
[PDF] Germany's Federal Debt Rule (Debt Brake) - Bundesfinanzministerium
Feb 25, 2022 · In 2009 and 2010 the situation was exacerbated by the financial and economic crisis, so that in 2009 the Maastricht debt ratio rose to 73.2 ...<|separator|>
[73]
Why Germany Should Preserve Its Debt Brake and the US Should ...
Sep 19, 2024 · Germany's constitutional debt brake, or Schuldenbremse, is a critical fiscal policy tool designed to limit structural government deficits.
[74]
Swiss Brake Offers Model for Preventing Debt Spiralling out of Control
Nov 10, 2022 · In 2003, Switzerland introduced a “debt brake”, approved by 85 per cent of its public, as a constitutional amendment.Missing: date | Show results with:date
[75]
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 ...
[76]
[PDF] Austrian Draft Budgetary Plan 2024 - Economy and Finance
Oct 15, 2023 · • Rule on a structurally balanced general government budget (“debt brake”), with the structurally balanced budget defined as a structural ...
[77]
EUROPEAN COMMISSION Brussels, 22.2.2017 C(2017) 1201 final ...
Feb 22, 2017 · The balanced-budget rule is enshrined in Article 135 of the Spanish Constitution (as amended on 27 September 2011), which prohibits structural ...
[78]
Here Are the Details From Spain's New Balanced Budget Amendment
Aug 26, 2011 · The amendment states that public debt can not exceed 60% of GDP, thought exceptions would be made in case of a natural catastrophe, economic ...
[79]
[PDF] THE SWEDISH FISCAL POLICY FRAMEWORK | Government.se
The Swedish fiscal policy framework consists of targets and principles to ensure long-term sustainability and transparency of fiscal policy.
[80]
Policies and Principles of General Revenue of the Government ...
May 28, 2025 · The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget.
[81]
Turning the economy around - China Daily HK
Feb 29, 2024 · For the fiscal year of 2024-25, the administration is expecting another budget deficit of HK$48.1 billion after taking into account bond ...
[82]
[PDF] people's republic of china—hong kong special administrative region ...
Jan 23, 2025 · The plan to delay the attainment of a balanced budget until FY2027/28 is appropriate given the economic slack and the need to protect social.
[83]
[PDF] FY2025. - Japanese Public Finance Fact Sheet
Essentially, the government expenditure should be fully financed by tax and other revenues in the same year, but the current revenue accounts for only about ...Missing: amendment | Show results with:amendment
[84]
Japan projects primary budget surplus in fiscal 2026, delayed by a ...
Jan 17, 2025 · The latest estimate suggests a primary budget surplus of 800 billion yen ($5.15 billion) for fiscal 2026, indicating tax revenues will slightly ...Missing: rule amendment
[85]
[PDF] Fiscal framework in Japan
Jun 11, 2025 · Japan's fiscal framework has been based on a combination of strict initial budget controls and flexible supplementary budget formulation, which ...
[86]
Fiscal rules and creative accounting: Evidence from Japanese ...
We analyze creative accounting by stock-flow adjustments regarding the relationship between the change in debt stock and the deficit in Japanese municipalities.Missing: amendment | Show results with:amendment
[87]
Japan's Fiscal 2025 Budget Reaches Record High ¥115.5 Trillion
Jan 7, 2025 · Japan's government approved a ¥115.5 trillion budget for fiscal 2025 on December 27, 2024, which was a 2.6% year-on-year increase.Missing: rule amendment
[88]
Fiscal Policy Rules and Latin America: Lessons from the Crisis
Chile has been mentioned as the paradigmatic example of prudent fiscal management using a balanced structural budget (BSB) as a target for fiscal policy.
[89]
[PDF] Fiscal policy and the cycle in Latin America (EN) - OECD
For example, Colombia uses a budget balance rule that is focused on reducing structural deficits for the central government. The objective is to reduce ...
[90]
Are Latin American and Caribbean Countries Complying with Their ...
Oct 20, 2022 · In this blog we analyze compliance to fiscal rules by countries in Latin America and the Caribbean using a numerical compliance index.
[91]
1 Overview of Fiscal Policy Rules in Emerging Markets in
A major implication is that emerging market economies would benefit from fiscal rules that aim not only at eliminating deficits and reducing debt ratios, but ...Abstract · Introduction · Current practices · Political economy and...
[92]
Fiscal Rules: Challenges and Reform Opportunities for Emerging ...
Unveiling the Truth: How Sticking to Fiscal Rules Boosts Investment in Latin America. There is a widespread belief that fiscal rules hinder public investment.
[93]
[PDF] Fiscal rules in Latin America: a survey. - CORE
... rules in Latin America and their targets differ across countries. For example, rules on budget balance are subject to variations: overall balance, current ...
[94]
Fiscal Rules and Fiscal Councils: Recent Trends and Revisions ...
Oct 3, 2025 · Several countries have adopted pre-specified correction mechanisms—examples include Costa Rica, the Czech Republic, and the Slovak Republic. In ...
[95]
Why Hong Kong is constitutionally obliged to balance the books
Feb 28, 2024 · Article 107 says Hong Kong “shall follow the principle of keeping the expenditure within the limits of revenues in drawing up its budget.”
[96]
Fiscal Constitutionalism in Hong Kong - Austaxpolicy: The Tax and ...
Nov 22, 2021 · ' The balanced budget requirement. Article 107 of the Basic Law provides: The Hong Kong Special Administrative Region shall follow the principle ...<|separator|>
[97]
Fiscal constitution, income distribution and the Basic Law of Hong ...
Jul 28, 2006 · Articles 107 and 108 of the Basic Law, the so-called balanced budget and low tax policy articles, are the two most controversial articles of the ...
[98]
HKSAR to introduce fiscal measures to return to balanced budget
Dec 2, 2024 · The finance chief preliminarily estimates that the consolidated budget deficit in the 2024-25 financial year will reach about HK$100 billion ...Missing: requirement | Show results with:requirement
[99]
Public Finance - The 2025-26 Budget - Budget Speech
Feb 26, 2025 · We forecast that the Operating Account will largely achieve balance in 2025‐26 and return to a surplus starting from 2026‐27.
[100]
【#1095】Sound Public Finances Do Not Mean Balanced Budget
Nov 29, 2023 · Article 4 (1) of Japan's Public Finance Act, the basic law on national finances, provides for the balanced budget principle that denies ...
[101]
Japan vows to bring primary budget to surplus next fiscal year
Jun 21, 2024 · Japan on Friday affirmed its pledge to deliver a primary budget surplus by the next fiscal year, reflecting concerns that its exit from the ...
[102]
Japan now expects to miss its 2025 primary balance goal
Jan 17, 2025 · Japan's primary balance is once again set to miss its long-standing target of achieving a balanced budget by the year ending March 2026.
[103]
Diet passes 2025 budget bill after compromises made | The Asahi ...
Mar 31, 2025 · The 115.1978 trillion yen ($767.66 billion) budget was enacted by the Diet on the final day of fiscal 2024.
[104]
[PDF] Fiscal Rules at a Glance - International Monetary Fund (IMF)
Mar 1, 2017 · The dataset covers four types of rules: budget balance rules, debt rules, expenditure rules, and revenue rules, applying to the central or ...<|separator|>
[105]
Do governments stick to their announced fiscal rules? A study of ...
For LAC countries, we consider both rules separately: a fiscal balance rule, also known as the budget-balance rule (BBR), and a structural balance rule (SBR).
[106]
[PDF] FISCAL RULES IN LATIN AMERICA AND THE CARIBBEAN
From 2006 until 2014, Mexico had a balanced budget rule, which proved to be ineffective as a result of the following factors (Barreix and Corrales, forthcoming ...
[107]
[PDF] fiscal rules and economic size in latin america and the caribbean
Many countries now combine a budget balance rule with a debt rule, a budget balance rule with an expenditure rule, or a debt rule with an expenditure rule.
[108]
[PDF] May 2025 Budget Overview - National Treasury
May 21, 2025 · Growth in emerging markets and developing economies is expected to slow from 4.3 per cent in 2024 to 3.7 per cent in 2025, with the largest ...
[109]
II The Strategy for Budget System Reform in Emerging Market ...
This section examines the process of budget system reform required to move from traditional, centralized input-oriented systems to more modern, devolved, ...
[110]
[PDF] Vertical Effects of Fiscal Rules The Swiss Experience - ifo Institut
Empirical studies on Switzerland consistently find that cantonal deficit restrictions, i.e., debt brakes, trigger sound public finances within the constrained ...
[111]
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.
[112]
Do fiscal rules matter? A survey of recent evidence
Sep 13, 2024 · Our survey finds that fiscal rules are associated with improved fiscal performance as approximated by improved budget balances, lower debt and lower public ...
[113]
[PDF] Balanced Budget Rules and Fiscal Outcomes - Index of / - ZEW
Average government debt-to-GDP and spending-to-GDP ratios around the world roughly doubled in the fifty years after WWII. Compared to the few data points that ...<|control11|><|separator|>
[114]
[PDF] Dynamic Effects of Fiscal Rules - World Bank Documents & Reports
Fiscal rules have been shown to support fiscal discipline by improving government budget balances and restraining the growth of debt. However, questions remain ...
[115]
[PDF] Balanced Budget Rule and Economic Growth - Fansa Koné
Dec 11, 2024 · This paper studies the impact of a new Balanced Budget rule (BBR) on economic growth adopted in Switzerland's constitution in 2003. Its ...
[116]
Do balanced-budget rules increase growth? - ResearchGate
Aug 6, 2025 · The tests strongly support the hypothesis that BBRs increase growth by increasing the productivity of debt and withstand a variety of robustness ...
[117]
Budget Gimmicks Explained: Five Ways States Hide Deficits
Jun 23, 2011 · The last two years, California has saved about $100 million combined by cracking down on fraud in a program for in-home care for seniors and the ...
[118]
[PDF] working paper - Mercatus Center
Jul 1, 2010 · ... example of intergovernmental grant fraud ... definition of fiscal evasion; these include how states have applied balanced budget rules, defined.
[119]
France and Germany evade deficit fines | Business | The Guardian
Nov 25, 2003 · France and Germany evade deficit fines ... The EU's financial rulebook today lay in tatters as EU finance ministers blocked moves to impose fines ...
[120]
[PDF] fudge their fiscal data when struggling to comply with the deficit limit ...
⦁ Electoral incentives to evade supervision by tampering with accounting figures reached about 1% of GDP. ⦁ Non-compliance with the stability pact was not 'all ...
[121]
[PDF] Enforcement and the Stability and Growth Pact: How Fiscal Policy ...
The Pact has faced frequent criticism and suffered from significant enforcement problems. Many countries, including the largest members of EMU, did not follow ...
[122]
[PDF] The Stability and Growth Pact: crisis and reform
The Stability and Growth Pact was watered down, and the euro area's sovereign debt crisis is a symptom of policy failures in fiscal coordination.
[123]
https://www.degruyterbrill.com/document/doi/10.1111/geer.12033/html
[124]
How the judgment by the German Federal Constitutional Court on ...
Oct 19, 2024 · Failure to fulfil these obligations perpetuates a cycle of injustice, undermining global efforts towards a sustainable and equitable future. The ...
[125]
https://www.crfb.org/press-releases/gross-national-debt-reaches-38-trillion
[126]
Understanding the National Debt | U.S. Treasury Fiscal Data
The average GDP for fiscal year 2025 was $30.12 T, which was less than the U.S. debt of $37.64 T. This resulted in a Debt to GDP Ratio of 125 percent. Generally ...
[127]
CBO Estimates $1.8 Trillion Deficit for Fiscal Year 2025
Oct 8, 2025 · CBO Estimates $1.8 Trillion Deficit for Fiscal Year 2025 · Reopen the government without any strings that involve new borrowing attached; · Extend ...
[128]
Interest on the Debt to Grow Past $1 Trillion Next Year
Feb 6, 2025 · 2025-02-06-The Congressional Budget Office's (CBO) latest budget and economic outlook includes a troubling projection for net inte.
[129]
The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2025 to 2035
Jan 17, 2025 · In CBO's projections, the federal budget deficit is $1.9 trillion this year, and federal debt rises to 118 percent of GDP in 2035.Deficits · Outlays and Revenues · Economic Growth
[130]
https://fortune.com/2025/10/23/national-debt-38-trillion-gold-visas-budget-warning/
[131]
Interest Costs on the National Debt - Peterson Foundation
Every month, the U.S. Department of the Treasury releases data about the federal budget, including the interest costs that the federal government pays on ...
[132]
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<|control11|><|separator|>
[133]
Oppose the Balanced Budget Amendment - AFL-CIO
Jul 30, 2014 · Either way, a balanced budget amendment is absolutely unnecessary to achieve responsible fiscal policy and, if adopted, would pose grave risks ...Missing: hurdles | Show results with:hurdles
[134]
Steps Congress can take to balance the federal budget
Dec 26, 2024 · A 2023 poll revealed that 4 in 5 Americans support a constitutional amendment requiring the federal government to balance its budget within 10 years.Missing: hurdles | Show results with:hurdles
[135]
[PDF] The Balanced Budget Amendment: A Threat to the Constitutional ...
Nov 1, 2011 · Judge Bork believes that there "would likely be hundreds, if not thousands, of lawsuits around the country" challenging various aspects of the ...
[136]
[PDF] A Balanced Budget Amendment: The Perils of Constitutionalizing
Nov 30, 2011 · 1. Don't Leave Judicial Review to the Courts. Assuming that some version of a balanced budget constitutional amendment became law, it ...
[137]
Rep. Obernolte introduces constitutional amendment to balance the ...
Jan 17, 2023 · The Obernolte Balanced Budget Amendment implements a constitutional mandate to require that Congress balance the federal budget over five years.<|separator|>
[138]
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.Missing: proposals | Show results with:proposals
[139]
Press Releases - Nathaniel Moran
Jul 23, 2025 · Congressman Nathaniel Moran (TX-01) today reintroduced the Principles-Based Balanced Budget Amendment, a constitutional amendment designed to end Washington's ...Missing: developments 2020s
[140]
After Decades of Red Ink, a Fresh Push for a Balanced Budget ...
Oct 17, 2025 · The law will add $5.5 trillion in debt by 2034, according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget. That neither party has shown ...
[141]
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 ...