scholarly journals Distinguished Lecture on Economics in Government—Setting National Priorities: 1992

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 3-12
Author(s):  
Edward M Gramlich

More than two decades ago the Brookings Institution first published a book with the title of this lecture. The idea behind the book was straightforward—rather than being led by events, or falling into the trap of incremental budgeting, budgetary planners should try to set priorities. They should figure out where the country and its government budget should be some years hence, and use this priority-setting exercise as a road map on how to get there. In this lecture, I revisit the topic of setting national priorities. The ultimate message is that both the peace dividend and the recession should be viewed as highly visible diversions from what should be the main economic priorities this year. This year, as in other years, economic policy should go beyond advocating simple shifts of resources and delve into deeper questions of structural reforms.

2016 ◽  
pp. 5-33 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Mau

The paper deals with 2015 trends and challenges for social and economic policy in the nearest future. The analysis of global crisis includes: uneven developments in the leading advanced and emerging economies; new models of economic growth which look differently in different countries; prospects of globalization and challenges of ‘regional globalization’; currency configurations of the future; energy prices dynamics and its influence on political and economic prospects of particular states. Current challenges are discussed in the context of previous 30 years. Among the main topics on Russia, there are approaches to a new growth model, structural transformation (including import substitution issues), economic dynamics, budget and monetary outlines, social issues. The priorities of economic policy are also considered.


Trials ◽  
2018 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Anna Rosala-Hallas ◽  
Aneel Bhangu ◽  
Jane Blazeby ◽  
Louise Bowman ◽  
Mike Clarke ◽  
...  

2000 ◽  
Vol 60 (4) ◽  
pp. 1061-1087
Author(s):  
Niall Ferguson ◽  
Brigitte Granville

This article offers a comparative analysis of the inflationary exeriences of Weimar Germany and post-Soviet Russia, applying theories about money and government budget constraints in the manner of Thomas Sargent and François Velde. The comparison looks beyond economic policy itself to the political and social consequences of the two inflationary crises. The parallel is fairly close: close enough to suggest that Russia, despite its recent quiescence, may not have seen the end of its monetary—or political—travails.


2012 ◽  
Vol 108 (1) ◽  
pp. 42-52 ◽  
Author(s):  
S.J. Howell ◽  
J.J. Pandit ◽  
D.J. Rowbotham

Author(s):  
Latifa Ghalayini

This paper estimates the output Gap for Lebanon to analyze the economic policy and to judge the stance of the economy. Therefore, a Cobb-Douglas production function is estimated for the period Q11998 to Q42015 and potential output calculated by substituting for potential levels of the factors in the estimated production function. The calculation of potential labor required the calculation of the NAIRU. This paper calculates therefore three types of NAIRU. The results of output gap calculations show that the Lebanese economy is working over its capacity and that it hits his limits. Furthermore, findings show that the labor market is characterized by high levels of NAIRU which restricted potential output growth. Therefore, any policy aiming to increase economic growth, while neglecting structural reforms will prove to be unsustainable.


2010 ◽  
pp. 4-25 ◽  
Author(s):  
V. Mau

The paper discusses Russian economic policy under the 2009 global crisis and traces lessons to be learned by Russian policy makers. Special attention is paid to the priorities of economic policy through 2010 as well as to important risks for sustainable development in the foreseeable future. The world has entered the "turbulent decade" when deep structural reforms are to be implemented.


Author(s):  
Annette Bongardt ◽  
Francisco Torres

The Lisbon (2000–2010) and its successor, the Europe 2020 strategy (2011–2020), denote EU-wide exercises in economic policy coordination for economic and institutional modernization. They set an ample reform agenda with common targets to transform a host of common challenges facing the EU and its members (as varied as globalization, the paradigm shift to a knowledge economy, demographic aging, or climate change) into economic opportunities and quality growth. The economic and political economy arguments for EU-level coordination rested on positive spillovers from trade and peer pressure, respectively. The Europe 2020 strategy, a revised Lisbon rather than a new strategy, set a renewed vision of a European social market economy that also plays an important role in the global context (the 2030 Agenda for Sustainable Development). Built on the Lisbon strategy’s governance framework, Europe 2020 inherited a problem-laden legacy with respect to governance and ownership of reforms and in addition faced the impact of large negative transnational spillovers, which put in sharp focus that there was an as-yet-unaccounted-for euro-area dimension to the reform agendas. The sovereign debt crisis (2010–2014) added urgency to dealing with the EU’s structural weaknesses and economic governance building. The European Semester was set up as the chief instrument to help overcome compliance and implementation problems, inserted within broadened economic policy coordination, of which structural reforms under the Europe 2020 strategy constitute one of three blocks. The OMC method affords member states the possibility of finding their own consensual path toward agreed economic reform targets within the strategy’s adequate, 10-year timeframe. The central idea continues to be the promotion of reforms tailored to member states’ heterogeneous situations and preferences and that so are also politically sustainable. Without being framed and perceived in terms of desirable reforms in line with socioeconomic objectives and preferences, reforms carry potential for a political backlash. The Europe 2020 strategy also captures the fundamental and long-term issues for economic development and competitiveness, notably institution building, and outlines a forward-looking model of society with social and environmental dimensions. The European Commission came to base its assessment of the implementation of structural reforms on the broader objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy and also included the respect for the European social pillar in the European Semester. Nonetheless, Europe 2020 results have been mixed. The OMC does not feature sanctions for non-compliance. The sovereign crisis context added compliance-enhancing mechanisms that were absent before (market and peer pressure, conditionality in countries subject to adjustment programs) although those came essentially to a halt when financial market pressure subsided, and ECB actions had the side effect of relieving pressure. Efforts undertaken to improve implementation include a structural reform support program to make country-specific recommendations more effective. Yet, close to the end of its term the Europe 2020 strategy continues to be held back by member states taking insufficient ownership of reforms and not prioritizing the relevant ones from an EU point of view, a lack of visibility and ultimately, governance (the unanimity requirement).


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document