Inflation-Induced Distortions in Government and Private Saving Statistics
Inflation-Induced Distortions in Government and Private Saving Statistics
复制标题
通货膨胀引起的政府和私人储蓄统计数据的扭曲
DOI：
10.2307/1924834
复制
发表时间：
1979
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
J. Siegel
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
J. Siegel
衡量政府财政政策对经济影响的最重要统计数据可能是政府盈余或赤字的规模。无论合理与否，这一数字具有如此重要的意义，以至于1974年的《国会预算和拨款控制法》确立了一个程序，迫使国会考虑总体收入和支出，并根据一项具有约束力的决议承诺对这些总额做出承诺。由于预算数字的重要性，经济学家们一直在寻求修改原始数据，以更好地评估政府对总需求的影响。一个重大突破是“完全就业盈余”的概念，这一概念由经济顾问委员会在其1962年的报告中普及，尽管其根源可以追溯到第二次世界大战。i这一概念认识到，由于支出的内生性，特别是税收收入的内生性，实际预算赤字或盈余(未根据产出水平进行修正)提供了对财政政策立场的偏见指示。尽管充分就业盈余的概念有所改善，但对单一汇总统计数字的不满依然存在。几位经济学家对税收和支出的组成部分进行了不同的权重试验，认识到不同收入来源的不同支出倾向2这种方法并不成功，因为很难就权重方案达成共识。充分就业盈余的另一个问题是，未能根据不断变化的物价水平或通货膨胀率进行调整。固定名义收入税级、从量税以及名义利息和资本利得税都表明，预算的影响应考虑到价格水平变量的行为。3尽管将潜在产出的外生水平标准化似乎是合理的(考虑到正常的“增长”或“摩擦”失业)，但不存在与任何给定的产出水平相关的“正常”价格水平。此外，随着近年来菲利普曲线关系的破裂，似乎没有与充分就业水平的产出相关的正常通货膨胀率。本文试图证明，除了试图确定在充分就业时会存在什么样的价格水平行为外，价格水平的变化对于衡量财政影响也是重要的。由于赤字相当于向公众出售的政府债券的数量，4如果不考虑通货膨胀或通货紧缩造成的债务实际价值的变化，对债券供应的影响的分析是不完整的。实际价值权责发生制会计在私营部门账户中取得了相当大的进展，也可以用于公共部门。5按照这些思路重新定义赤字可以很容易地与充分就业盈余或任何不同的定义结合起来，以更好地衡量财政影响。本文第二部分对实际价值权责发生制会计进行了简要的理论探讨。第三部分于1977年4月4日收到出版。1978年4月28日接受修订以供出版。*宾夕法尼亚大学。我要感谢米尔顿·弗里德曼、本·麦卡勒姆以及芝加哥大学和弗吉尼亚大学货币与银行工作坊的成员，他们对本工作的早期版本提出了有益的意见。史蒂夫·汤普森提供了宝贵的研究援助和计算机编程。最初提到这一概念的是Ruml和Sonne(1944)、经济发展委员会(1947)和弗里德曼(1948)。有关这一概念的精彩讨论，请参阅奥肯和蒂特斯(1970)。2特别参看Gramlich(1966)、MusGrave(1964)、Okun和Teters(1970)以及Hymann和Wernette(1970)。沃伦·史密斯在奥肯和蒂特斯(1970)一书中给出了另一种影响统计数据。3关于价格水平标准化的尝试，见经济发展委员会(1947)、Gramlich(1968)和Okun and Teters(1970)。4.为简单起见，本文通篇假定货币供应量保持不变。或者，人们可以将稳定货币扩张的利润(铸币税)视为税收，因此货币融资仅被视为对实际现金余额征收的通胀税。5关于适用于公司部门的购买力权责发生制会计的出色摘要，见Shoven和Bulow(1975,1976)。
PROBABLY the single most important statistic measuring the impact of government fiscal policy on the economy is the magnitude of the government surplus or deficit. Justifiably or not, this single figure has taken on such importance that the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 established a process whereby the Congress is forced to consider overall receipts and outlays and commit itself under a binding resolution to these totals. Because of the importance of the budget figure, economists have continually sought to modify the raw data to better assess the impact of the government on aggregate demand. A major breakthrough was the concept of the " FullEmployment Surplus," which was popularized by the Council of Economic Advisers in their 1962 report, although its roots go back to World War II. I This concept recognized that due to the endogeneity of expenditures and particularly tax receipts, the actual budget deficit or surplus, uncorrected for the level of output, gives a biased indication of the stance of fiscal policy. Although the concept of the full employment surplus was an improvement, dissatisfaction with the single summary statistic remained. Several economists have experimented with different weights on the components of taxes and spending, recognizing the differential spending propensities out of the different sources of income.2 This approach has not been successful due to the difficulty of reaching a consensus on a weighting scheme. Another problem with the full employment surplus was the failure to adjust for changing price levels or rates of inflation. Fixed nominal income tax brackets, specific taxes, and taxes on nominal interest and capital gains all suggest that the impact of the budget should allow for the behavior of price level variables.3 Although standardization to an exogenous level of potential output seems plausible (given normal "growth" or "frictional" unemployment), there is no "normal" price level associated with any given level of output. Furthermore, with the breakdown of the Phillip's Curve relationship in recent years, there appears to be no normal rate of inflation associated with a full employment level of output. This paper attempts to demonstrate that price level changes are important for measuring fiscal impact apart from any attempt to determine what price level behavior would exist at full employment. Since the deficit is equivalent to the amount of government bonds sold to the public,4 analysis of the impact of the supply of bonds is incomplete without allowing for changes in the real value of the debt caused by inflation or deflation. Real value accrual accounting, which is making considerable headway in private sector accounts, can also be employed in the public sector.5 A redefinition of the deficit along these lines can be integrated easily with the full employment surplus or any variant definition to yield a better measure of fiscal impact. Section II of this paper presents a brief theoretical discussion of real value accrual accounting. Section III Received for publication April 4, 1977. Revision accepted for publication April 28, 1978. * University of Pennsylvania. I would like to thank Milton Friedman, Ben McCallum, and the members of the University of Chicago's and University of Virginia's Money and Banking Workshops for their helpful comments on earlier versions of this work. Steve Thompson provided valuable research assistance and computer programming. 1 Initial references to the concept were Ruml and Sonne (1944), Committee for Economic Development (1947), and Friedman (1948). For an excellent discussion of the concept, see Okun and Teeters (1970). 2 In particular see Gramlich (1966), Musgrave (1964), Okun and Teeters (1970), and Hymans and Wernette (1970). Warren Smith in Okun and Teeters (1970) gives yet another impact statistic. 3 See Committee for Economic Development (1947), Gramlich (1968) and Okun and Teeters (1970) for attempts at price level standardization. 4 For simplicity it is assumed throughout this paper that the money supply is held constant. One can alternatively regard the profits (seigniorage) from steady-state monetary expansion as tax revenue, so that monetary financing is considered only as an inflationary tax on real cash balances. 5 For an excellent summary of purchasing-power accrual accounting as applied to the corporate sector, see Shoven and Bulow (1975, 1976).