CEPAL Review no. 124

More documents

Recommendations

Info

CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018 209 IV. Fiscal sustainability of the Chilean economy 1. Static indicators of vulnerability and fiscal sustainability The following paragraphs discuss the ex post calculation of selected indicators of vulnerability and fiscal sustainability adapted to the Chilean reality. 9 The debt measurement presented below covers the budgetary central government, 10 thereby excluding from the analysis the assets and liabilities of the Central Bank of Chile, public enterprises, universities and municipalities. The measurement of the gross liabilities of the budgetary central government also excludes the stock of unpaid recognition bonds, which represent a liability owed to affiliates of the old pension regime who transferred to the pension fund management (AFP) system. As the stock of recognition bonds is judged to be a different type of liability than the traditional concept of central government debt, and in keeping with international practices, these statistics are presented in a complementary manner and tend not to be consolidated into central government debt statistics. Figure 2 depicts the evolution of central government finances as a percentage of GDP from 1990 to 2016, which initially give rise to the government’s debt situation and thus directly impact fiscal sustainability levels. Prior to the application of CAB, the global balance was already in surplus. The deficit years are generally associated with turbulence in the economy, particularly 2009, which reports the largest deficit of the entire period analysed (which included the international financial crisis and the fiscal stimulus plan). The deficit has also been trending upwards, marginally since 2013, at a rate of 0.6%, but much faster in the last three years, by an average of 2.1%. 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 -5 Figure 2 Central government income, expenditure and balance, 1990-2016 (Percentages of GDP) -10 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 Balance Income Expenditure Average balance Average income Average expenditure Source: Prepared by the authors, on the basis of information from the Budgetary Affairs Bureau (DIPRES). 9 The formula for calculating these indicators is presented in annex A1. 10 For an analysis that considers the central government together with public enterprises and the central bank, see Vergara (2002). Mauricio G. Villena, Cristóbal Gamboni and Andrés Tomaselli
210 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018 Table 1, below, reports the behaviour of the fiscal sustainability indicators, together with the impact on Chile’s fiscal position and debt sustainability caused by the 2008-2009 international financial crisis and the February 2010 earthquake and tsunami. The last row of the table shows the critical value or desirable range of each indicator, as a benchmark for comparison with each of the values recorded annually. Various criteria were used to obtain these values or ranges. The reference values published by the IMF were used when available; otherwise the value obtained from the definition of the indicator itself was assigned as a critical value. Year Table 1 Chile: static indicators of vulnerability and fiscal sustainability, 1990-2016 a (Percentages) Gross debt/GDP Net debt/ GDP Debt service (IV) Debt service acid test (V) Primary balance (IMF methodology) (VI) Primary balance (DIPRES methodology) 1990 44.0 29.4 23.5 29.7 5.4 5.4 1991 38.0 22.9 24.9 27.9 4.5 4.6 1992 31.2 15.1 19.5 21.4 4.4 4.5 1993 28.6 13.6 20.7 21.6 3.5 3.6 1994 23.0 8.2 15.6 16.8 3.4 3.4 1995 17.5 4.0 21.6 24.6 4.6 4.7 1996 14.8 1.5 16.7 18.1 3.5 3.5 1997 12.9 -0.4 11.8 12.9 3.2 3.2 1998 12.2 -0.3 12.8 13.2 1.6 1.6 1999 13.3 1.6 12.0 12.3 -0.8 -0.9 2000 13.3 3.1 8.5 9.0 0.5 0.5 (VII) Structural primary balance 2001 14.4 5.6 10.0 10.4 0.6 0.6 2.3 2002 15.2 7.7 13.6 14.0 -0.1 -0.1 1.9 2003 12.6 6.5 12.2 12.8 0.7 0.6 1.9 2004 10.3 4.0 13.5 16.2 3.0 2.9 2.0 2005 7.0 -0.1 15.2 19.4 5.2 5.0 1.8 2006 5.0 -6.6 8.0 12.3 8.0 7.7 1.8 2007 3.9 -13.0 6.7 9.9 8.3 7.8 1.1 2008 4.9 -19.3 6.3 8.2 4.4 3.7 2.9 2009 5.8 -10.5 6.3 7.3 -3.8 -4.3 -2.9 2010 8.6 -7.0 4.1 5.2 0.0 -0.2 -1.5 2011 11.1 -8.6 4.7 5.7 1.8 1.5 -0.5 2012 11.9 -6.8 6.2 7.2 1.1 0.8 -0.6 2013 12.7 -5.6 6.9 7.7 0.0 -0.3 -1.3 2014 14.9 -4.3 8.0 8.8 -1.0 -1.2 -1.5 2015 17.4 -3.5 8.6 9.1 -1.5 -1.7 -1.0 2016 21.3 1.0 42.3 43.0 -2.0 -2.3 -1.0 AVERAGE 15.8 1.4 13.3 15.0 2.2 2.0 0.3 Critical value or desirable range 25-30 (IMF) 42.8 b 25-35 (IMF) 25-35 (IMF) Value = 0 Value = 0 c Value = 0 Source: Prepared by the authors, on the basis of information from the Budgetary Affairs Bureau (DIPRES) and the Central Bank of Chile. a When measuring the indicators, the interest rate has been calculated as the implicit nominal rate on both loans and deposits. b Average of OECD countries (1993-2010), general government. c As this is a sustainable indicator, its average during the period constitutes a reference value for each year. The figures show gross debt trending down from 1990 until the financial crisis of 2009, when the trend reverses, after which net debt as a percentage of GDP rises again every year. These results are reflected in the behaviour of net debt as a percentage of GDP, which is calculated by subtracting Fiscal sustainability and the cyclically adjusted balance policy: methodology and analysis for Chile
Page 1:
APRIL • 2018 More unequal or less
Page 5 and 6:
Alicia Bárcena Executive Secretary
Page 7 and 8:
Explanatory notes - Three dots (...
Page 9 and 10:
8 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 20
Page 11 and 12:
Page 13 and 14:
Page 15 and 16:
Page 17 and 18:
Page 19 and 20:
Page 21 and 22:
Page 23 and 24:
Page 25 and 26:
Page 27 and 28:
Page 29 and 30:
Page 31 and 32:
Page 34 and 35:
Estimation of factors conditioning
Page 36 and 37:
CEPAL Review N° 124 • April 2018
Page 38 and 39:
Page 40 and 41:
Page 42 and 43:
Page 44 and 45:
Page 46 and 47:
Page 48 and 49:
Page 50 and 51:
Page 52 and 53:
Page 54 and 55:
Page 56:
Page 59 and 60:
Page 61 and 62:
Page 63 and 64:
Page 65 and 66:
Page 67 and 68:
Page 69 and 70:
Page 71 and 72:
Page 73 and 74:
Page 75 and 76:
Page 77 and 78:
Page 80 and 81:
Foreign direct investment and growt
Page 82 and 83:
Page 84 and 85:
Page 86 and 87:
Page 88 and 89:
Page 90 and 91:
Page 92 and 93:
Page 94 and 95:
Page 96 and 97:
Page 98 and 99:
Page 100 and 101:
The wealth gifted to the large-scal
Page 102 and 103:
Page 104 and 105:
Page 106 and 107:
Page 108 and 109:
Page 110 and 111:
Page 112 and 113:
Page 114 and 115:
Page 116 and 117:
Page 118 and 119:
Page 120:
Page 123 and 124:
122 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April
Page 125 and 126:
Page 127 and 128:
Page 129 and 130:
Page 131 and 132:
Page 133 and 134:
Page 135 and 136:
Page 137 and 138:
Page 139 and 140:
Page 141 and 142:
Page 143 and 144:
Page 145 and 146:
Page 147 and 148:
Page 149 and 150:
Page 151 and 152:
Page 153 and 154:
Page 155 and 156:
Page 157 and 158:
Page 159 and 160: 158 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April
Page 209: 208 CEPAL Review N° 124 • April
Page 236 and 237: Publicaciones recientes de la CEPAL
Page 238 and 239: estudios del cambio climático en a
Page 240: EDITORIAL BOARD Osvaldo Sunkel Chai
show all

CEPAL Review no. 124

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?