Politická ekonomie 2008, 56(4):484-504 | DOI: 10.18267/j.polek.649

Rozpočtová pravidla a rozpočtový proces: Teorie, empirie a realita České republiky

Martin Gregor
Institut ekonomických studií, Univerzita Karlova v Praze.

Budgetary rules and budget process: Theory, empirics, and the case of the Czech Republic

We survey theories of impacts of budgetary rules in the budget process, review empirical evidence and on the basis of comparative studies attempt to design the optimal shape of the Czech budgetary rules. The theoretical part focuses on conventional and non-intuitive effects of spending caps and spending targets under alternative electoral systems. The empirical part conveys a meta-analysis of five studies on fiscal governance in Central and Eastern European countries. The final part recommends changes in the Czech budget process.

Keywords: public finance, budget process, fiscal rules, fiscal governance
JEL classification: H11, H61, H62

Published: August 1, 2008  Show citation

ACS AIP APA ASA Harvard Chicago IEEE ISO690 MLA NLM Turabian Vancouver
Gregor, M. (2008). Budgetary rules and budget process: Theory, empirics, and the case of the Czech Republic. Politická ekonomie, 56(4), 484-504. doi: 10.18267/j.polek.649
Download citation
  • BibTeX (.bib)
  • Bookends (.ris)
  • EasyBib (.ris)
  • EndNote (.enw)
  • EndNote 8 (.xml)
  • ISI WoS (.isi)
  • Medlars (.medlars)
  • Mendeley (.ris)
  • MODS (.xml)
  • Papers (.ris)
  • RefWorks (.txt)
  • RefManager (.ris)
  • RIS (.ris)
  • MS Word (.xml)
  • Zotero (.ris)
    • Open full article

    References

    1. ALESINA, A.; DEVLEESCHAUWER, A.; EASTERLY, W.; KUDLAT, S.; WARCIARG, R. 2003. Fractionalization. Journal of Economic Growth, 2003, vol. 8, no. 2, s. 155-194. Go to original source...
    2. ALESINA, A.; HAUSMANN, R.; HOMMES R.; STEIN E. 1999. Budget institutions and fiscal performance in Latin America. Journal of Development Economics, 1999, vol. 59, no. 2, s. 253-273. Go to original source...
    3. ASHWORTH, J.; GEYS, B.; HEYNDELS, B. 2005. Government Weakness and Local Public Debt Development in Flemish Municipalities. International Tax and Public Finance, 2005, vol. 12, s. 395-422. Go to original source...
    4. BRANSON, W. H.; MACEDO J. G.; VON HAGEN J. 1998. Macroeconomic Policy and Institutions During the Transition to European Union Membership [Working Paper No. 6555]. Cambridge (MA) : NBER, 1998. Go to original source...
    5. ČSÚ. 2006. Demografická příručka 2006. Praha : Český statistický úřad. http://www.czso.cz/csu/2006edicniplan.nsf/publ/4032-06-2006.
    6. DHARMAPALA, D. 1999. Comparing tax expenditures and direct subsidies: the role of legislative committee structure. Journal of Public Economics, 1999, vol. 72, s. 421-454. Go to original source...
    7. DHARMAPALA, D. 2003. Budgetary policy with unified and decentralized appropriations autority. Public Choice, 2003, vol. 115, s. 347-367. Go to original source...
    8. EARHART, K.; GARDNER, R.; VON HAGEN, J.; KESER C. 2007. Budget Processes: Theory and Experimental Evidence. Games and Economic Behavior, 2007, vol. 59, no. 2, s. 279-295. Go to original source...
    9. FABRIZIO, S.; MODY, A. 2006. Can budget institutions counteract political indiscipline? Economic Policy, October 2006, vol. 48, s. 689-740. Go to original source...
    10. FEDELI, S.; FORTE F. 2007. Measures of the Amending Power of Government and Parliament. The Case of Italy 1988-2002. Economics of Governance, 2007, vol. 8, no. 4, s. 309-338. Go to original source...
    11. FILC, G.; SCARTASCINI, C. 2005. Budget institutions and fiscal outcomes. Ten years of inquiry on fiscal matters at the Research Department of the Inter-American Development Bank. International Journal of Public Budget, 2005, vol. 33, no. 59.
    12. GLEICH, H. 2003. Budget Institutions and Fiscal Performance in Central and Eastern European Countries [Working Paper No. 215]. Frankfurt : European Central Bank, 2003. Go to original source...
    13. GREGOR, M. 2004. Governing Fiscal Commons in the Enlarged EU [Working Paper No. 56]. Praha : Institut ekonomických studií, Fakulta sociálních věd UK, 2004.
    14. GROSSMANN, G. M.; HELPMAN, E. 2001. Special Interest Politics. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press, 2001.
    15. HAGEN, T. P.; VABO, S. I. 2005. Political characteristics, institutional procedures and fiscal performance: Panel data analyses of Norwegian local governments, 1991-1998. European Journal of Political Research, 2005, vol. 44, s. 43-64. Go to original source...
    16. HALLERBERG, M. 2004. Domestic Budgets in a United Europe: Fiscal Governance from the End of Bretton Woods to EMU. Ithaca : Cornell University Press, 2004. ISBN 978-0-8014-4271-1.
    17. HALLERBERG, M.; STRAUCH, R.; VON HAGEN J. 2007. The Design of Fiscal Rules and Forms of Governance in European Union Countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 2007, vol. 23, no. 2, s. 338-359. Go to original source...
    18. HEINEMANN, F. 2006. Planning or Propaganda? An Evaluation of Germany's Medium-term Budgetary Planning. Finanzarchiv: Public Finance Analysis, 2006, vol. 62, no. 4, s. 551-578. Go to original source...
    19. HELLER, W. 1997. Bicameralism and Budget Deficits: The Effect of Parliamentary Structure on Government Spending. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 1997, vol. 22, no. 4, s. 485-516. Go to original source...
    20. HUBER, H.; KOCHER, M.; SUTTER, D. 2003. Government Strength, Power Dispersion in Governments and Budget Deficits in OECD-Countries. A Voting Power Approach. Public Choice, 2004, vol. 116, no. 3-4, s. 333-350. Go to original source...
    21. IMF. 2004. Czech Republic: Report on the Observance of Standards and Codes-Fiscal Transparency Module-Update [Country Report 04/264]. Washington, DC : International Monetary Fund, 2004.
    22. LAO-ARAYA, K. 1997. The Effect of Budget Structure on Fiscal Performance: A Study of Selected Asian Countries [Working Paper]. Washington, DC : International Monetary Fund, 1997.
    23. LIENERT, I. 2005. Who Controls the Budget: The Legislature or the Executive? [Working Paper 05/115]. Washington, DC : International Monetary Fund, 2005. Go to original source...
    24. MAZZA, I.; VAN WINDEN, F. 2002. Does Centralization Increase the Size of Government? The Effects of Separation of Powers and Lobbying. International Tax and Public Finance, 2002, vol. 9, s. 379-389. Go to original source...
    25. MILESSI-FERRETTI, G. M.; PEROTTI, R.; ROSTAGNO, M. 2002. Electoral systems and public spending. Quarterly Journal of Economics, May 2002, s. 609-657. Go to original source...
    26. MOLANDER, P. 2001. Budgeting Procedures and Democratic Ideals: An Evaluation of Swedish Reforms. Journal of Public Policy, 2001, vol. 21, s. 23-52. Go to original source...
    27. OECD. 2003. Results of the Survey on Budget Practices and Procedures. Washington, DC : Organisation for Economic Cooperation and Development and World Bank. Dostupný z WWW: http://ocde.dyndns.org.
    28. PEROTTI, R.; KONTOPOULOS, Y. 2002. Fragmented fiscal policy. Journal of Public Economics, 2002, vol. 86, s. 191-222. Go to original source...
    29. PERSSON, T.; ROLAND, G.; TABELLINI, G. 2007. Electoral Rules and Government Spending in Parliamentary Democracies. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2007, vol. 2, no. 2, s. 155-188. Go to original source...
    30. PERSSON, T.; TABELLINI, G. 2000. Political Economics: Explaining Economic Policy. Cambridge, MA : MIT Press 2000. ISBN 0-262-16195-8.
    31. RICCUITI, R. 2004. Political fragmentation and fiscal outcomes. Public Choice, 2004, vol. 118, s. 365-388. Go to original source...
    32. ROUBINI, N.; SACHS, J. 1989. Political and economic determinants of budget deficits in the industrial democracies. European Economic Review, 1989, vol. 33, s. 903-938. Go to original source...
    33. SERRITZLEW, S. 2005. The Perverse Effect Of Spending Caps. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 2005, vol. 17, no. 1, s. 75-105. Go to original source...
    34. STATISTICAL OFFICE OF THE REPUBLIC OF SLOVENIA. 2004. Statistical Yearbook 2004. Dostupný z WWW: www.stat.si/eng/.
    35. TULLOCK, G. 1959. Some problems of majority voting. Journal of Political Economy, 1959, vol. 67, s. 571-579. Go to original source...
    36. TURNOVEC, F. 2007. New Measure in Voting Power. AUCO Czech Economic Review, 2007, vol.1, no.1, s. 4-14.
    37. YLÄOUTINEN, S. 2004a. Fiscal Frameworks in the Central and Eastern European Countries [Discussion Paper 72]. Helsinki : Ministry of Finance, Finland, 2004.
    38. YLÄOUTINEN, S. 2004b. The Role of Electoral and Party Systems in the Development of Fiscal Institutions in the Central and Eastern European Countries [Working Paper B13]. Mannheim : The Center for European Integration (ZEI), 2004.
    39. VOLKERINK, B.; DE HAAN, J. 2001. Fragmented government effects on fiscal policy: New evidence. Public Choice, 2001, vol. 109, s. 221-242. Go to original source...
    40. VON HAGEN, J. 1992. Budgeting Procedures and Fiscal Performance in the European Countries [Economic Papers, no. 96]. Brussels : European Commission, 1992.
    41. VON HAGEN, J. 2006. Political Economy of Fiscal Institutions. In WEINGAST, B. R.; WITTMAN, D. (eds.). Oxford Handbook of Political Economy. Oxford : Oxford University Press, 2006.
    42. WEHNER, J. 2006. Assessing the Power of the Purse: An Index of Legislative Budget Institutions. Political Studies, 2006, vol. 54, no. 4, s. 767-785. Go to original source...
    43. WOO, J. 2003. Economic, Political, and Institutional Determinants of Public Deficits. Journal of Public Economics, 2003, vol. 87, s. 387-426. Go to original source...
    44. WYPLOSZ, C. 2005. Fiscal policy: institutions versus rules. National Institute Economic Review, 2005, no. 191, s. 67-78. Go to original source...
    45. ZÁPAL, J. 2007. Judging the Sustainability of Czech Public Finances. AUCO Czech Economic Review, 2007, vol. 1, no. 1, s. 12-28.
    46. ZÁPAL, J.; SCHNEIDER, O. 2006. What Are Their Words Worth?: The Political Plans and Economic Pains of Fiscal Consolidations in the New EU Member States. Eastern European Economics, 2006, vol. 44, no. 5, s. 6-37. Go to original source...

    This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License (CC BY NC ND 4.0), which permits non-comercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original publication is properly cited. No use, distribution or reproduction is permitted which does not comply with these terms.


    Return to the content