the MILAN - For the bank of Italy estimates of the Def are “ambitious”, to the Office of the parliamentary budget simply by having to repeat a year. For both institutions, however, the reason is the same: the framework programme of the public accounts of the painting by the government in the update Note of the Def, is too optimistic in its forecast for the year 2017. On the one hand, economists of the Upb wonder how the reduction of the deficit to support the growth, on the other, the technicians of the Bank of Italy’s doubt on the real impact of the stop to the increase in Vat. A concern also shared by the Court of Auditors, according to which the executive has overestimated the expansionary effect of the increase in public expenditure.
Office of the parliamentary budget. While the picture trend (i.e. the trend of economic legislation) has already been approved at the end of September, the framework plan (i.e. the trend in public finances by incorporating the effects of the provisions of the law that the government want to introduce it) will have to be validated by mid-October, in time for submission to the european Commission of the draft budgetary plan 2017. According to the body chaired by Giuseppe Pisauro, an independent authority that were introduced with the law on the implementation of the principle of a balanced budget, “in the light of available information”, the process of evaluation of the update Note of the Def “would lead to an outcome that is not positive of the planning framework, 2017, and, in particular, estimates of Gdp growth for the next year, both in real terms than nominal. Estimates, which are marked by an excess of optimism”.
In detail, according to the Upb are “significantly” out-of-line indications on the growth in programmatic in 2017, the Note is placed at 1%, giving a positive effect of 0.4 percentage points of Gdp to the budget of the next write. The growth foreseen in the light of the manoeuvre is, however, 0.3 percentage points higher than the average of the forecasts issued by independent institutes that make up the panel of the Upb. Looking at the single manoeuvre, those 0.4 points of benefits are twice as much as the Office considers it realistic. The tough stance of the Office of Pisauro is documented in a timely manner. For example, economists are struggling to understand how deficit reduction (-0,5%) expected to correct at least part of the increase in debt (+0.9%), and which serves to disable the safeguard clauses could have a “marginally expansive” (+0,1%). In practice, it is not clear how to tighten the Purse strings, face climb to the Gdp. Or even, are out of line with the forecast growth in programmatic by 2018. Scepticism, finally, to the fact that the safeguard clauses remain in the legislation in force for the 2018 and 2019, giving the “character of the provisional framework programme”. As to the request to the Eu to exploit an additional area of 0.4 percentage points of the deficit/gdp, reaching 2.4%, due to expenditure for migrants and earthquake, there are good prospects of acceptance in european union. “The limited history of application of the clauses for exceptional events at the supranational level leaves a margin of discretion”, note from the Upb: “There is therefore uncertainty about the possibility that the request to consider the expenses mentioned which related to the events unusual, in the limit of the amount of 4-tenths of Gdp, to be accepted at a european level”.
source: bank of Italy. a Few hours before had been the deputy director general of the bank of Italy, Luigi Federico Signorini warned the executive: “In the scenario programme for the 2017, the dynamic of the product is significantly greater than that of the framework of the trend. The goal is ambitious. In order to achieve the result of the next budget law will have to be defined with great care”. In particular, weigh on the braking of the Italian economy, especially the collapse of the internal demand, but to worry the technicians of the bank of Italy over “the unexpected setback of the Gdp in the second quarter,” is, above all, the weakness of investment despite the ease of access to credit thanks to the expansionary measures conducted by the Ecb: “The funding, says Signorini – are not broken down because of the lack of demand. And yet, the spread on the cost of the money with the rest of Europe has waned. The dynamics of investments is then slower than the rest of the Old continent and as well in consideration of the exit from the recession.” According to the deputy director of the bank of Italy “it is essential to continue with ever greater determination” on the road of the spending review, “if you want to keep the public finances under control without counting only on the level of today’s exceptionally low interest rates, and a collapse of investment, the revitalization is necessary for growth”. Doubts, however, about the estimates of the impact that would have frozen the Vat increase envisaged by the safeguard clauses: “The government considers to be a positive effect of 0.3 percentage points, but it is a calculation that has not hit in any estimation econometric”. “In the complex – said Signorini – the measures foreseen for 2017, entailing an increase in net debt of almost half a point” for Gdp and “an increase in the product of a similar amount”. The “multiplier implicit in this prediction is high, data also the delays that normally characterize the response of private spending to the budget measures”. In the scenario in the program, has pointed out, the government expects “a growth of the product is much higher” of the “trend”.
the Court of Auditors. On the same wavelength as the bank of Italy also the new president of the Court of Auditors, Arturo Martucci of Scarfizzi, that while believing “in his balanced set” the update of the Def” note how there are “elements of fragility, which you will need to pay attention” above all “on the front of the foreign demand and, therefore, of our exports”. It would imply “a downside risk” to the growth prospects with the resulting implications that are adverse on route programmatic public finance”. The Court of Auditors and stresses a certain imbalance in the evaluation of the positive effects of the extra deficit: according to the update of the Def is worth four-tenths of a point, but the judiciary in the accounting observes that “the expansionary effect now hypothesized remains much greater than that foreshadowed in the seat of the Def 2016″. In the document presented to the commissions Budget of the house and Senate, the Court of Auditors recalls that in April while in front of a debt the programmatic taller than 4 tenths of the trend is expected a growth of 1.4% compared to 1.2% programmatic “effects is still less pronounced were estimated” in 2015, always at the front of the 0.4 in most of the deficit. “Once again”, therefore, the ability to reduce the public expenditure “could prove to be a key factor in the judgment” on the “sustainability” of the choices on the budget: “The margins are tight places in a framework trend that countries that already have a profile reduction, significant expense, and by the respect of european standards, will make the assessment of the adequacy and feasibility of the covers, an exercise challenging”.
Istat. the More cautious judgement of the Statistical Institute according to which the predictions of the update Note of the Def on the 2016 “appear to be consistent with the data on the quarterly accounts of Gdp and of general government disclosed today.” This was stated by the president of Istat, Giorgio Alleva, in a hearing at the Commissions Budget of the house and Senate: “For the following years, the trend in public finance outlined in the current planning framework, which is more gradual compared to that expressed in the Def of April. This incorporates the desire to sterilize, in the next budget law, the safeguard clauses and consider, especially, the prediction of the worsening of the macroeconomic framework in the short to medium term”. Breeding has also pointed out that “an increase in taxes has a depressive effects on the consumption-side investments, the effects of a safeguard clause is not respected, it would certainly be depressive for the economy.”
| Balance | Imf – Weo July 2016 | Oecd – September 2016 | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | 2016 | 2017 | 2016 | 2017 | |
| Italy | 0,8 | 0,9 | 1 | 0,8 | 0,8 |
| France | 1,2 | 1,5 | 1,2 | 1,3 | 1,3 |
| Germany | 1,7 | 1,6 | 1,2 | 1,8 | 1,5 |
| Spain | 3,2 | 2,6 | 2,1 | 2,8* | 2,3* |
| euro Area | 1,6 | 1,6 | 1,4 | 1,5 | 1,4 |
| United Kingdom | 2,3 | 1,7 | 1,3 | 1,8 | 1 |
| USA | 2,4 | 2,2 | 2,5 | 1,4 | 2,1 |
| Japan | 0,5 | 0,3 | -0,1 | 0,6 | 0,7 |
*the June forecast, source: studies service the house and Senate
No comments:
Post a Comment