Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-hc48f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:23:26.590Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

When is a Policy Instrument not an Instrument? Fiscal Marksmanship in Britain, 1951–84

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  28 November 2008

Paul Mosley
Paul Mosley
Affiliation:
University of Bath
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The paper considers the size and the implications of the errors made by the British Treasury in forecasting the budget over the period 1951–84. On average the Treasury underestimated the public sector fiscal deficit by 0.5 per cent of GDP; this is about half the average amount by which Chancellors attempted to change aggregate demand by means of their budgets. The general pattern was for tax revenue to be under-predicted, but for public expenditure to be under-predicted by even more. The government's fiscal deficit and thus the reflationary effect of government policy was therefore greater than the Treasury intended.

A decomposition exercise carried out on the Treasury's own model for the fiscal year 1980/81 suggests that only about half of this error is due to errors in the specification of the model; the other half is due to errors in data estimation and in forecasting exogenous variables. Hence, the scope for improving forecasts by improvements to the model is limited. The paper considers three alternative methods by which forecasts could be improved: the application of realisation functions relating forecast to actual values; more frequent budgeting; and an attempt to derive more tax revenue from those categories (such as excise duties on alcohol, petrol and tobacco) whose yield is easiest to predict.

Type
Articles
Information
Journal of Public Policy , Volume 5 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 69 - 85
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Allan, C. M., 1965, ‘Fiscal marksmanship, 1951–1963’, Oxford Economic Papers, vol. 17, pp. 317–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blackaby, F., 1982, ‘Forecasting and economic policy’, National Institute Economic Review, no. 100 (05), pp. 14–17CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brainard, W., 1967, ‘Uncertainty and the effectiveness of policy’ American Economic Review, Proceedings, vol. 57 (05), pp. 411–25.Google Scholar
Britton, A. J. C. and Campbell, A., 1982, Treasury forecasts, outturns and policy adjustments, Government Economic Service working paper 58, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
Buiter, W., 1983, ‘Measurement of the public sector deficit and its implications for policy evaluation and design’ IMF Staff Papers, vol. 30 (06), pp. 366–409Google Scholar
Chouraqui, J.-C. and Price, R., 1983, Medium-term financial strategy: the co-ordination of monetary and fiscal policies, Paris: OECD Economics and Statistics Department.Google Scholar
Heclo, H. and Wildavsky, A., 1974, The private government of public money, London: Macmillan.Google Scholar
Mosley, P. and Cracknell, R., 1984, ‘Endogenous government policy in a model of the British economy’, Applied Economics, vol. 16, pp. 633–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mosley, P., 1984, The making of economic policy: theory and evidence from Britain and the U.S. since 1945, Brighton: Harvester Press.Google Scholar
Mowl, C, 1980, Simulations on the Treasury model, Government Economic Service working paper 34, London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 1981, ‘Assessing economic forecasts’, National Institute Economic Review, no. 95 (February), pp. 21–31Google Scholar
National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 1982, ‘Intermediate targets and economic policy’, National Institute Economic Review, no. 99 (February), pp. 61–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
National Institute of Economic and Social Research, 1983, ‘The assessment of the National Institute's forecasts of GDP 1959–82’ National Institute Economic Review, no. 105 (August), pp. 29–35CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reischauer, R. D. 1981, ‘“The Budget” for the United States’, paper presented at Olivetti Foundation Conference on Major Budgetary Problems in the Eighties, Siena, November.Google Scholar
Robinson, A., and Sandford, C., 1983, Tax policy-making in the United Kingdom, London: Heinemann Educational Books.Google Scholar
Savage, D., 1979, ‘Monetary targets and the control of the money supply’, National Institute Economic Review, no. 89 (August), pp. 44–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, P., 1980, ‘The simulation of macro-economic policy in a teaching environment’, University of Southampton discussion paper in economics and econometrics no. 8022.Google Scholar
Theil, H., 1958, Economic Forecasts and Policy, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Theil, H., 1966, Applied Economic Forecasting, Amsterdam: North-Holland.Google Scholar
Tinbergen, J., 1952, On the Theory of Economic Policy, Amsterdam North-Holland.Google Scholar
HM Treasury. 1982a. HM Treasury macroeconomic model: technical manual. London: HM Treasury.Google Scholar
HM Treasury, 1982b, Financial Statement and Budget Report 1981/82. London: HMS:Google Scholar
United Kingdom, 1978, Report of the committee on policy optimisation (chairman R. J. Ball), London: HMSO.Google Scholar
United Kingdom, House of Commons, 1981, Third Report from the Treasury and Civil Service Committee (session 1980–81): Monetary Policy. London: HMSO, 3 vols.Google Scholar
Westlake, M., 1979, ‘The need for budgetary reform’, Fiscal Studies, vol. 1 no. 1 (11), pp. 51–9CrossRefGoogle Scholar