Is

 Ireland  really  the  role  model  for  

austerity?  

Stephen  Kinsella1  
Forthcoming  in  Cambridge  Journal  of  Economics  Special  Issue  on  Austerity  
 
Abstract  
This  paper  describes  the  causes  and  consequences  of  Ireland’s  economic  crisis  in  
the  context  of  the  policy  solution  implemented  to  contain  that  crisis:  protracted  
fiscal  austerity.  I  describe  the  causes  of  the  recent  crisis  in  Ireland,  and  look  at  
the  logic  of  austerity  with  a  simple  model.  I  compare  the  current  crisis  to  the  
crisis  of  the  1980s,  when  fiscal  austerity  was  touted  as  the  trigger  for  the  Celtic  
Tiger.  I  discuss  the  measures  implemented  to  date  in  the  current  crisis,  tracing  
their  effects  on  sectors  of  Ireland’s  macroeconomy,  and,  finally,  ask  whether  
Ireland  is,  indeed,  the  role  model  for  fiscal  austerity  in  the  Eurozone  and  beyond.  
 
JEL  Codes:  E00;  E30;  E62;  E63.  
Keywords:  Ireland;  Austerity;  Fiscal  Policy;  Monetary  Policy.  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                               
1  Department  of  Economics,  University  of  Limerick  and  Geary  Institute,  

University  College,  Dublin.  [email protected].  

  1  

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1929545

  
 
 
 

Introduction  &  Current  

Situation  

Motivation:  Ireland's  
Economic  Collapse  

Theory  of  Austerity  

Literature  on  Austerity  
(Perotti/Alesina/Lane/
Blanchard)  
Current  Programme  of  
Austerity,  cutbacks  to  
govt  spending.   Comparison  to  1980s  
capital  rather  than  
current  spending  
affected.  

Ireland  *not*  poster  boy  

as  reality  far  different  
from  assumptions  &  
theory  
 

Introduction  
 
Speaking  at  the  European  Parliament  on  March  24,  2010,  former  European  
Central  Bank  President  Jean  Claude  Trichet  held  up  Ireland  as  the  poster  child  
for  fiscal  austerity  in  2010  and  2011.  While  trying  to  push  through  similar  
austerity  measures  in  Greece  and  Portugal,  Mr.  Trichet  endorsed  Ireland’s  
approach  to  austerity,  saying:  “Greece  has  a  role  model  and  that  role  model  is  
Ireland”  (Trichet,  2011).      
When  the  ratings  agency  Moody’s  downgraded  Ireland’s  credit  rating  to  
junk  status  in  July  2011,  they  explained  what  was  need  to  change  the  ratings  
again:    “upward  pressure  on  the  rating  could  develop  if  the  government’s  
continued  success  in  achieving  its  fiscal  consolidation  targets,  supported  by  a  
resumption  of  sustained  economic  growth,  is  able  to  reverse  the  current  debt  

  2  

Electronic copy available at: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1929545

dynamics,  thereby  sustainably  improving  the  Irish  government’s  financial  
strength”  (Moody’s,  2011).    
 
This  paper  looks  at  the  logic,  theory,  and  evidence  for  the  two  statements  
above,  and  asks  whether  Ireland’s  approach  to  austerity  really  is  a  role  model  for  
small  countries  experiencing  fiscal  imbalances,  balance  sheet  crises,  and  banking  
crises.  
The  goal  of  the  paper  is  to  answer  this  question  by  looking  at  the  theory  
surrounding  austerity  measures  in  the  Irish  case,  examining  the  empirical  
evidence  for  those  claims,  and  making  a  historical  comparison  to  the  last  Irish  
experience  of  austerity  in  the  1980s.    
First,  I  give  a  general  overview  of  the  current  macroeconomic  situation  
and  the  genesis  of  the  current  crisis  that  necessitates  (at  least  in  the  eyes  of  
Ireland’s  policy  makers)  the  austerity  measures  Ireland  has  introduced.  Then  a  
brief  discussion  of  austerity  theory,  including  an  illustrative  model  and  recent  
literature  is  explored.  I  describe  Ireland’s  experience  of  austerity  in  the  1980s,  
and  conclude  with  a  discussion  of  whether  Ireland  is  indeed  a  role  model  for  
austerity,  as  Mr.  Trichet  believes.    

Ireland’s  current  situation  

 
Ireland  has  experienced  a  cumulative  nominal  gross  domestic  product  
(GDP)  decline  of  21  percent  from  Q4  2007  to  Q3  2010,  while  its  primary  fiscal  
balance  shifted  to  baseline  deficits  of  11-­‐12  percent  of  GDP  in  2009  and  2010.  
The  Irish  economy  experienced  the  largest  compound  decline  in  gross  national  
product  (GNP)  of  any  industrialised  economy  over  the  2007-­‐2010  period.  
Ireland’s  general  government  debt  (GGD)  has  increased  by  320%  over  the  
same  period.  The  level  of  national  debt  has  increased  rapidly  as  a  result  of  
successive  bank  bailouts,  allied  to  the  budget  deficits  associated  with  running  a  
pro-­‐cyclical  taxation  and  expenditure  mix.    
Bank  bailouts  alone  accounted  for  14.5%  of  nominal  GDP  in  2009  and  
32%  of  nominal  GDP  in  2010  (Kinsella  and  Lyons,  2011).  In  the  most  optimistic  
scenario,  Ireland’s  general  government  debt  is  projected  to  stabilize  at  108%  of  
GDP  by  2014.  

  3  
 Unemployment  has  grown  from  4.6%  in  2007  to  14.2%  in  June  2011.  
Over  55%  of  those  unemployed  are  long  term  unemployed  (greater  than  12  
months).  Domestic  price  levels  have  fallen  for  9  successive  quarters,  especially  in  
the  private  sector.    
There  has  been  a  collapse  of  private  credit  into  the  economy.  Banks  are  
deleveraging,  suddenly  unable  to  access  interbank  funding,  and  dependent  on  
liquidity  from  the  ECB  to  remain  nominally  solvent.  Figure  1  below  shows  the  
contraction  of  credit  in  Ireland  quite  starkly.  

140.00  

120.00  

100.00  

80.00  

60.00  

40.00  

20.00  

0.00  
Jul  

Jul  

Jul  

Jul  

Jul  

Jul  

Jul  

Jul  
Jan  

Jan  

Jan  

Jan  

Jan  

Jan  

Jan  

Jan  

Jan  
Apr  

Apr  

Apr  

Apr  

Apr  

Apr  

Apr  

Apr  

Apr  
Oct  

Oct  

Oct  

Oct  

Oct  

Oct  

Oct  

Oct  
2003   2003   2004   2004   2005   2005   2006   2006   2007   2007   2008   2008   2009   2010   2010  
2011  
 
Figure  1:  Outstanding  domestic  loans  in  Ireland,  January  2007=100.  Source:  Central  Bank  of  Ireland.  

Private  savings  rates  have  increased  from  1.6%  of  disposable  income  in  
2007  to  14.6%  in  2010  as  households  pay  down  debt  and  move  to  cope  with  
increased  uncertainty.  Figure  2  shows  the  net  savings  ratios  of  Ireland,  Germany,  
and  Estonia  from  2005  and  forecasted  for  2011  and  2012.  Clearly  precautionary  
savings  as  well  as  deleveraging  are  taking  place.  

  4  
 25  

20  

15  

10  

5  

0  
2005   2006   2007   2008   2009   2010   2011f   2012f  
-­‐5  

-­‐10  

-­‐15  
Estonia   Germany   Ireland  
 
Figure  2:  Household  (and  non-­‐profit  institutions  serving  households)  net  saving  ratio.  Source:  OECD  
Economic  Outlook  June  2011.      

The  drop  in  consumption  and  investment  following  the  bursting  of  the  
property  bubble  in  late  2007,  allied  to  drops  in  capital  spending  by  the  
government,  and  the  ramping  up  of  national  debt,  both  private  and  public,  has  
resulted  in  the  Irish  economy’s  highly  fragile  state.    
Table  1  shows  the  deterioration  the  components  of  gross  domestic  
product  and  gross  national  product  from  2005  to  2009.  (Please  note  the  large  
difference  in  GNP  and  GDP  due  to  net  factor  income  from  abroad:  Ireland  has  a  
large  multinational  sector  and  a  particular  taxation  system  which  encourages  the  
declaration  of  profits  in  Ireland  rather  than  elsewhere,  hence  the  large  
distortion).    
  2005     2006   2007   2008   2009   ‘05-­‐’09  
(∆%)   (∆%)   (∆%)   (∆%)   (∆%)   Average  
(∆%)  
Consumption     6.9   6.7   6.4   -­‐1.5   -­‐7   2.3  
Government   3.9   5.1   6.9   2.2   -­‐4.4   2.7  
Expenditure  
Investment   14.90   4.6   2.8   -­‐14.3   -­‐31   -­‐4.60  
Exports   4.80   4.8   8.2   -­‐0.8   -­‐4.1   2.60  
Imports   8.30   6.4   7.8   -­‐2.9   -­‐9.7   2.00  
GDP   6.00   5.3   5.6   -­‐3.5   -­‐7.6   1.20  
Value,  €m   162,314   177342   189374   179988   159647    
GNP   6.00   6.5   4.5   -­‐3.5   -­‐10.7   0.60  

  5  
Value,  €m   138,053   154078   162853   154671   131242    
Table  1:    Year  on  Year  percentage  change  in  components  of  GDP  and  GNP,  and  values  of  GNP  and  GDP,  
2005-­‐2009.  Source:  Irish  Department  of  Finance.  

Table  1  contains  some  striking  statistics.  Private  investment  in  Ireland  

has  collapsed,  recording  a  drop  of  31%  in  2009.  Consumption  has  also  dropped,  
but  government  expenditure  only  began  to  drop  (by  4.4%)  in  2009  after  an  
emergency  budget  was  introduced  to  curb  spending.  Only  exports  have  retained  
any  degree  of  growth,  and  all  recovery  plans  are  predicated  on  an  export-­‐led  
recovery.    
 Three  separate  reports  into  the  Irish  banking  crisis  have  established  that  
macro  prudential  regulation  of  banking  was  lax,  that  fiscal  policy,  and  in  
particular  Ireland’s  fiscal  stance,  was  inappropriate  given  its  membership  of  the  
Eurozone  during  a  period  of  low  real  interest  rates,  and  finally,  that  Ireland’s  
political  elite  was  inappropriately  enmeshed  with  property  developers,  whose  
interests  were  served  before  those  of  the  national  interest.  Each  report  has  noted  
with  dismay  the  failure  of  macroeconomic  models  used  by  Ireland’s  Department  
of  Finance  and  the  European  Central  Bank  to  accurately  predict  the  crisis  
(Honohan,  2010;  Regling  and  Watson,  2010;  Nyberg,  2011).    

Balance  sheet  effects  on  Irish  banks  and  the  State  

 
In  some  sense,  the  balance  sheet  is  the  fundamental  object  in  economics.  
As  Minsky  (1975,  p.  118)  has  written,  “an  ultimate  reality  in  a  capitalist  economy  
is  the  set  of  interrelated  balance  sheets  among  the  various  units,  so  that  one  way  
every  economic  unit  can  be  characterized  is  by  its  portfolio:  the  set  of  tangible  
and  financial  assets  it  owns  and  the  financial  liabilities  on  which  it  owes”.      
As  indicated  above,  Ireland’s  households  and  firms  are  saving  and  paying  
down  debt  for  precautionary  reasons,  as  uncertainty  about  the  economy  has  
increased,  but  also  because  the  supply  of  loanable  funds  has  diminished  
markedly  over  the  period  as  banks’  balance  sheets  have  become  impaired  with  
bad  loans  run  up  over  the  construction  boom.    
The  scale  of  the  boom  is  worth  reporting  here:  the  value  of  output  of  the  
construction  industry  was  80%  higher  in  2006  than  it  had  been  in  2000.  Over  the  
period,  the  structure  of  the  Irish  economy  became  increasingly  dependent  on  the  

  6  
construction  sector,  and  by  2006  construction  output  represented  24%  of  total  
GNP,  as  compared  with  an  average  ratio  of  12%  in  Western  Europe.  By  the  
second  quarter  of  2007,  construction  accounted  for  over  13%  of  all  employment  
(almost  19%  when  those  indirectly  employed  are  included),  and  generated  18%  
of  tax  revenues  (Gurdgiev  et  al,  2011).  Ireland’s  construction  boom  and  bust  is  a  
classic  asset  price  boom  described  by  a  Minsky  cycle  (Kelly  2007,  Kinsella,  2010).  
When  the  unstable  investment  process  eventually  collapsed,  Ireland’s  banks’  
balance  sheets  were  where  the  damage  was  most  obvious.  
The  first    
Figure  3  shows  the  year  on  year  percentage  change  in  the  numbers  of  
customer  loans  of  three  of  Ireland’s  largest  (and  most  wayward)  banks.  Clearly  
credit  constraints  are  and  will  be  a  problem  for  a  small  economy  whose  banks  
are  deleveraging  as  a  result  of  mandated  austerity  measures.  It  should  also  be  
noted  that  the  simple  austerity  logic  described  above  also  breaks  down  in  the  
presence  of  a  credit  constraint.    

50  

40  

30  

20  
%  

10  

0  
2001   2002   2003   2004   2005   2006   2007   2008  
-­‐10  

-­‐20  

Anglo  Irish  Bank   Bank  of  Ireland   AIB  

 
Figure  3:  year  on  year  percentage  change  in  the  numbers  of  customer  loans  of  Anglo  Irish  Bank,  
Bank  of  Ireland,  and  Allied  Irish  Bank  (AIB).  Source:  Central  Bank  of  Ireland.  

 
In  April  2009,  the  Irish  government  established  the  National  Asset  
Management  Agency  (NAMA),  to  purchase  the  universe  of  development-­‐related  
loans  (above  a  certain  value)  from  the  banks.  As  a  result  of  guaranteeing  the  
assets  and  liabilities  of  the  banking  system  in  September  2008  and  injecting  

  7  
almost  €70billion  into  its  banking  system,  the  balance  sheet  of  the  Irish  state  is  
in  rough  repair.  By  guaranteeing  existing  senior  bonds  and  some  types  of  
subordinated  debt,  the  capacity  to  allocate  some  part  of  the  ultimate  loan  losses  
to  bondholders  was  compromised,  raising  the  ultimate  cost  to  the    taxpayer  of  
resolving  the  banking  crisis  and  contaminating  the  public  balance  sheet  with  
private  assets  and  liabilities.    
Table  2  shows  the  latest  consolidated  balance  sheet  for  the  year  ending  
2010.  Please  note  that  the  general  government  deficit  (GGD)  does  not  include  the  
€30.7  billion  of  loans  for  NAMA.    
 
Assets   €bn   Liabilities   €bn  

A.  Cash   16.2   E.  Government   116.5  

securities/borrowings  
B.  Non-­‐bank  NPRF   15   F.  Provisory  notes   30.9  

C.  Non-­‐bank  fin.  Assets   31.2                    Anglo  Irish  bank   25.3  

D.  NPRF  investment  in  banks   9.4                    Irish  Nationwide   5.3  
Total  financial  assets  (C+D)   9.4                    EBS   0.3  
    G.  Special  investment  shares   0.7  
EBS/INBS  
    GGD  (E+F+G)   148.1  
    Net  government  debt  (GGD)-­‐non.   116.9  
Financial  assets,  (C).  
Loan  assets  of  NAMA   30.7   Bonds  issued  by  NAMA   30.7  
Table  2.  Ireland's  Assets  and  Liabilities  at  the  end  of  2010.  Source:  NTMA.

  8  
  
Ireland  cannot  borrow  from  the  international  debt  markets.  From  2010  to  
2014,  Ireland  is  reliant  on  liquidity  transfers  from  the  European  Central  Bank  to  
fund  its  banking  system,  totalling  157  billion  euros  at  the  end  of  2010,  and  loans  
from  the  European  Union,  the  United  Kingdom,  Sweden,  and  the  International  
Monetary  Fund  to  fund  a  rescue  package  of  €67.5  billion.  The  Irish  state  will  use  
€17.5  billion  of  its  own  reserves  in  the  rescue.  €35  billion  from  this  €85  billion  
fund  have  been  apportioned  to  recapitalising  Ireland’s  banks,  with  the  remainder  
plugging  the  gap  between  government  revenues  and  expenditures.    
This  emergency  funding  is  contingent  on  a  series  of  austerity  measures,  
detailed  below,  designed  to  correct  the  primary  fiscal  imbalance,  cleanse  
wayward  bank’s  balance  sheets,  repay  senior  and  subordinated  bondholders  in  
these  banks,  and  finally,  introduce  a  series  of  supply-­‐side  measures  designed  to  
improve  relative  wage  competitiveness  in  the  economy  (Kinsella  and  Leddin,  
2010;  Lane,  2011;  Lucey  et  al,  2011).    

Summary  of  Irish  austerity  measures    

 
The  conditionality  surrounding  Ireland’s  loan  agreement  from  the  EU  and  
IMF  entailed  a  series  of  austerity  measures  over  a  four-­‐year  period.  The  
International  Monetary  Fund’s  Memorandum  of  Understanding  (IMF,  2010)  sets  
out,  in  detail,  the  austerity  measures  the  Irish  will  undertake  until  2014.  Briefly,  
they  fall  under  the  following  categories  and  sub-­‐categories.  
1. Fiscal  consolidation.    
a. Taxes  are  to  be  raised.  Carbon,  property,  and  water  taxes  
are  to  be  introduced,  a  lowering  of  personal  income  tax  
bands  and  credits  is  to  be  pursued.  
b. Government  expenditure,  including  social  protection  
expenditure  and  numbers  of  public  sector  workers  is  to  be  
reduced.  
2. Financial  Sector  Reforms  
a. A  further  deleveraging  of  Irish  banks  by  €72  billion  over  3  
years.  

  9  
 b. There  will  be  a  reorganisation  of  the  banking  sector.  
Smaller  banks  are  being  merged  with  larger  ‘pillar’  banks.  
c. Increases  in  Tier  1  capital  ratios  of  ‘pillar’  banks.  
d. Burden  sharing  by  holders  of  subordinated  (not  senior)  
bond  debt.    
3. Structural  reforms  to  the  labour  market  
a. The  IMF  proposed  a  reduction  of  the  minimum  wage.  
b. Increase  workplace  training  and  internship  positions.  
c. Government  will  introduce  legislative  changes  to  remove  
restrictions  to  trade  and  competition  in  sheltered  sectors  
including  the  legal  and  medical  professions.  
  It  is  clear  from  the  list  about  that  the  proposed  and  implemented  solution  
to  the  problem  of  fiscal  imbalances  in  particular  is  a  range  of  austerity  measures  
across  the  real  and  financial  sectors  of  the  economy.    
In  particular,  government  receipts  are  to  be  increased  through  a  range  of  
new  taxes  and  higher  rates  of  existing  taxes  on  income  particularly,  and  
government  expenditures  on  goods  and  services  are  to  be  reined  in  through  cuts  
to  current  and  capital  expenditure.  The  fiscal  imbalance  is  of  primary  concern.  
 Figure  4  below  shows  the  effects  of  fiscal  measures  implemented  in  
recent  years,  as  well  as  the  divergence  in  government  receipts  and  expenditures  
since  2007.    The  series  begins  in  1983,  and  we  can  see  a  rough  correlation  
between  receipts  and  expenditures  up  until  recent  times,  even  though  
expenditure  was  less  and  receipts  in  only  4  instances  in  27  years.  
 

  10  
  
Figure  4.  Government  receipts  and  expenditures,  1983-­‐2010f.  Source:  Irish  Department  of  Finance.  

The  logic  of  austerity  measures  has  always  been  built  around  this  figure,  or  
allusions  to  it,  as  well  as  a  series  of  references  to  the  gains  enjoyed  during  the  
boom  years  of  2000-­‐2008.  In  terms  of  unemployment  and  wage  adjustments,  
most  of  this  has  taken  place  in  the  private  sector.  Self-­‐employed  pension  
coverage  was  down  to  36%  in  2009  and  is  likely  much  lower  in  2010  and  2011.  
Proponents  of  the  ‘we  all  partied’  view  point  out  that  there  was  no  growth  
in  jobs  numbers  in  the  internationally  trade-­‐able  goods  and  services  sectors  in  
1998-­‐2008  as  the  workforce  expanded  by  25%;  exports  increased  in  nominal  
terms  by  50%  in  2000-­‐2008  as  the  consumer  price  index  rose  35%.  Of  course  
additional  output  from  the  MNC  sector  is  not  permanent  wealth.  In  2000-­‐2008,  
GNP  increased  by  74%;  welfare  spending  increased  by  160%;  health  care  
expenditure  increased  by  186%;  expenditure  on  education  increased  by  128%.  
They  also  point  out  that  the  absolute  level  of  government  expenditure  has  risen    
even  during  the  crisis:  In  2010,  current  public  spending  was  €61  billion.  It  
was    €52.5  billion  in  2007.  In  2010,  gross  government  revenue  was  at    €47bn.  It  
was  €61bn  in  2007,  as  Figure  4  shows.  The  implication  here  is  that  any  decrease  
in  expenditure  through  austerity  measures  merely  cuts  the  fat  from  government  
services.  As  in  any  economic  debate,  of  course,  multiple  perspectives  are  brought  
to  bear  on  Ireland’s  approach  to  austerity.    
 

  11  
  
 
 
The  next  section  examines  the  theory  driving  this  debate  using  a  simple  model.  

Theory  of  austerity  

The  simple  macroeconomic  logic  underpinning  this  logic  stems  from  the  
postulates  of  Says’  law—that  supply  creates  its  own  demand.  Imagine  an  
economy  operating  below  its  ‘natural’  or  ‘warranted’  rate  of  output,  with  a  
government  running  a  budget  deficit.  The  government  reduces  spending  from  G  
to  G’,  and  increases  taxes  from  T  to  T’.    
The  decrease  in  government  spending  lowers  aggregate  demand,  of  
course,  and  output  decreases.  The  aggregate  supply  curve  also  shifts  backwards,  
reducing  the  prices  of  inputs  and  lowering  the  level  of  inflation.  In  the  medium  
term,  due  to  the  economy-­‐wide  deflation,  productive  resources  become  more  
attractive  as  investment  options,  and  so  investment  increases.    
The  deficit  reduction  leads  pari  passu  to  an  increase  in  investment.  There  
are  multiplier  effects  on  this  increase  in  investment  in  the  long  run,  of  which  
more  in  a  moment.  In  the  long  run,  standard  macroeconomic  theory  holds  that  
output  is  dependent  on  the  rate  of  capital  accumulation.  If  the  lower  budget  
deficit  leads  to  an  increase  in  investment,  then  it  will  lead  to  a  higher  capital  
stock,  and  hence  to  a  higher  rate  of  output.  It  is  worth  spending  some  time  
writing  down  a  simple  model  of  this  theory,  because  this  model  drives  the  policy  
propositions  that  follow.    

A  simple  exposition  of  Irish  austerity  logic  

There  is  a  simple  linear  model  following  any  introductory  macroeconomics  
textbook,  but  based  on  Hansen  (1951),  used  to  convince  the  reader  that  reducing  
the  discretionary  budget  deficit  is  the  only  path  to  fiscal  sustainability.  The  
deficit  D  is  given  as  the  gap  between  government  expenditures,  G  and  taxes,  T.  
The  government  wishes  to  control  the  ratio  of  the  deficit  as  a  percentage  of  GDP,  
defined  as  (D/Y).  If  the  deficit  reduction  has  an  effect  on  the  economy,  it  must  be  
through  an  automatic  stabilizer.  Consider  the  following  model:  
 

  12  
   𝑌 = 𝑌! + 𝑥𝐷   (1)  
  𝐷 = 𝐷! − 𝑦𝑌;   (2)  
 
The  first  equation  describes  output  as  a  function  of  the  value  of  output  in  
a  given  year  and  the  value  of  the  deficit.  The  relationship  between  the  value  of  
output  and  the  deficit  is  captured  in  the  multiplier  x.    
The  second  equation  relates  the  deficit  in  the  first  year  (0)  to  the  level  of  
output  through  an  automatic  stabilizer  x,  which  depends  negatively  on  output.  
Solving  this  model  by  combining  the  two  equations  yields:  
  1 (3)  
𝑌 ∗ = (𝑌! + 𝑥𝐷! )  
1 + 𝑥𝑦
  1 (4)  
𝐷∗ = (−𝑦𝑌! + 𝐷! )  
1 + 𝑥𝑦
We  can  easily  see  the  effect  of  a  change  in  the  deficit  via  the  equation  
below.  We  would  like  to  see  what  happens  when  we  increase  the  deficit  by  some  
amount  so:  
  𝜕𝐷 1 (5)  
= ≥ 0  
𝜕𝐷! 1 + 𝑥𝑦
 
It  is  easiest  to  see  the  effects  when  the  model  is  in  equilibrium.  The  
equilibrium  deficit-­‐to-­‐output  ratio  is    
 
  𝐷∗ 𝐷! − 𝑥𝑌! (6)  
∗
= ≥ 0  
𝑌 (𝑌! + 𝑦𝐷! )!
 
By  partially  differentiating  with  respect  to  the  deficit  level,  we  can  see  the  
effect  of  increasing  the  deficit  relative  to  output.    
  !∗ (7)  
𝜕 !∗ 1 + 𝑥𝑦 𝑌!
= ≥ 0  
𝜕𝐷! (𝑌! + 𝑥𝐷! )!
 
Equation  (7)  states  that  any  increase  in  the  deficit  will  tend  to  increase  
the  overall  level  of  the  deficit,  as  well  as  the  rate  of  accumulation  of  the  deficit,  
for  any  non-­‐negative  choice  of  multiplier/stabilizer  parameter.  Conversely,  any  
reduction  of  the  deficit  will  reduce  the  overall  level  of  the  deficit  and  its  share  as  

  13  
a  percentage  of  output.  Following  on  from  this,  the  logic  of  austerity  holds  that  
deficit  reduction  is  both  a  necessary  and  sufficient  condition  for  growth.  
This  simple  presentation  holds  the  values  of  the  taxation  and  government  
spending  multipliers  equal  to  one  another,  ignores  non-­‐linearities,  ignores  
interest  servicing  on  the  debt,  and,  crucially,  ignores  credit  constraints.    
We  can  see  that  once  any  debt  threshold  𝐷  is  introduced  (perhaps  due  to  
funding  constraints,  as  we  have  experienced  in  Ireland),  the  properties  of  the  
model  break  down  quite  quickly.  The  model  is  however  robust  to  other  
challenges,  such  as  changes  in  parameter  values  for  x  and  y,  particularly.    
The  Keynesian  logic  for  fiscal  expansion  during  a  protracted  downturn  
can  also  be  applied  to  this  model,  but  are  only  effective  in  their  medium-­‐term  or  
long-­‐term  guises.    When  policy  makers  raise  unemployment  initially  via  
austerity  cuts  in  government  spending,  some  of  that  increased  unemployment  
becomes  structural  unemployment.  Call  the  share  of  unemployment  that  does  
so  s.  When  the  economy  is  far  from  its  equilibrium  position,  an  austerity  program  
today  worsens  the  long-­‐run  debt-­‐and-­‐deficit  picture  if  the  following  inequality  
holds:  
  𝑟−𝑔 (7)  
x. y >  
𝑟−𝑔+𝑠
 
where  x  is  the  multiplier  as  above,  y  is  the  marginal  effect  of  a  change  in  
government  debt  serving  on  output  (the  automatic  stabilizer  from  equation  1  
above),  s  is  the  share  of  the  cyclical  recession  rise  in  unemployment  becomes  a  
permanent  rise  in  unemployment,  r  is  the  real  interest  rate  on  government  debt,  
and  g  is  the  real  growth  rate  of  output.  If,  for  example,  x.y  were  0.7,  and  r  was  less  
than  1.25%  per  year,  as  we  have  in  the  Eurozone  at  the  moment,  this  means  that  
fiscal  contraction  is  bad  for  the  long-­‐run  debt-­‐and-­‐deficit  right  now  as  long  as  s  +  
g  >  1.5%.  
As  long  as  the  sum  of  the  economy's  long-­‐term  growth  rate,  and  the  share  
of  a  rise  in  unemployment  that  becomes  structural  is  greater  than  1.5%,  fiscal  
contraction  is  of  questionable  benefit  to  the  economy.    
 

  14  
 The  theoretical  underpinnings  described  above  find  their  way  quickly  to  
policy  prescriptions  in  the  form  of  an  `expansionary  fiscal  contraction’.    
Proponents  of  this  theory  propose  that  fiscal  contraction,  rather  than  
leading  to  a  decline  in  output,  as  might  be  expected,  will  result  in  higher  output  
due  to  its  medium  term  effects  on  private  sector  expectations  -­‐  consumers  and  
investors  anticipate  long-­‐run  tax  reductions  because  of  cuts  in  expenditure,  then  
they  may  increase  expenditure  now  and  so  off-­‐set  the  demand-­‐side  effects  of  the  
scale  of  the  contraction.    
A  modern  exposition  of  this  proposition  can  be  found  in  Alesina,  Perotti,  
and  Tavares  (1998,  pg.  200)  
“Empirical  work  on  the  effects  and  sustainability  of  fiscal  adjustments  has  
consistently  reached  two  conclusions.    First,  long-­‐lasting  adjustments  rely  
mostly  (or  exclusively)  on  spending  cuts,  in  particular,  in  government  
wages  and  social  security  and  welfare;  by  contrast,  short-­‐lived  
adjustments  rely  mostly  on  revenue  increases.    Second,  fiscal  adjustments  
are  not  always  associated  with  reduced  growth,  or  with  deterioration  in  
the  macroeconomic  environment  in  general.”  
They  continue  on  page  213:  
“Fiscal  adjustments  that  rely  on  cuts  in  government  transfers  and  wages  
and  are  implemented  in  periods  of  fiscal  stress  are  long  lasting  and  not  
contractionary.    On  the  demand  side,  the  expansionary  aspect  of  such  
fiscal  adjustments  works  through  an  expectation  effect,  which  is  stronger  
the  worse  are  initial  fiscal  conditions.    On  the  supply  side,  the  interaction  
of  certain  types  of  adjustment  —  those  without  tax  increases  but  with  
cuts  in  government  employment  and  wages  —  lead  to  wage  moderation,  
reduced  unit  labor  costs,  and  increases  in  profitability,  business  
investment,  and  production.”    
 
Similar  findings  are  expressed  in  Alesina  and  Ardagana  (1998),  though  
they  become  nuanced  in  Perotti  (2011).  That  Alesina  et.  al  slightly  hedge  their  
bets  in  the  quote  above  (“not  always  associated  with  reduced  growth”)  should  
give  us  pause,  especially  when  other  authors  are  even  more  hesitant.      

  15  
 In  a  large  panel  study,  Hogan  (2004,  pg.  647)  claims  that,  while  there  is  
evidence  that  private  consumption  rises,  it  is  usually  not  sufficient  to  offset  the  
reduction  on  output:  “.  .  .  fiscal  contractions  are  not  literally  expansionary”.    
 Prammer  (2004,  pg.  50)  also  finds  contradictions  and  lack  of  support  
“The  empirical  evidence  surveyed  .  .  .  provides  no  clear  support  for  the  existence  
of  expansionary  fiscal  consolidations.”  
Finally,  Alfonso  (2006,  pg.  30)  warns  us  to  be  “cautious  to  welcome  into  
conventional  wisdom  the  idea  of  expansionary  fiscal  consolidations  ...  it  is  far  
from  clear  whether  one  can  use  the  positive  expansionary  fiscal  consolidations  
experiences  that  occurred  in  the  past  in  a  few  countries  as  a  rational  for  similar  
policy  prescriptions  in  other  EU  countries.”  
In  Ireland,  the  rhetoric  has  become  ‘the  country  is  broke’.  Fiscal  
contraction  has  morphed  into  public  expenditure  contraction  following  Alesina,  
et.  al.  That  said,  even  underpinned  by  a  theory  of  fiscal  contraction,  Ireland’s  
policy  makers  could  point  to  a  recent  episode  in  Irish  history  when  fiscal  
contraction  appeared  to  work:  the  late  1980s,  which  gave  birth  to  the  ‘Celtic  
Tiger’  era.    

 
Historical  context  for  austerity:  it  worked  in  the  1980s,  didn’t  it?  
 
Even  though  the  logical  underpinnings  for  Ireland’s  austerity  measures  might  be  
questionable,  Ireland’s  policy  makers  could  always  point  to  the  moment  the  
government  ‘got  its  house  in  order’.  Figure  5  shows  Ireland’s  exchequer  
borrowings  as  a  percentage  of  GNP  over  the  decade  of  the  1980s.  Clearly  there  
was  a  case  to  be  made  for  fiscal  consolidation  in  this  decade.  Ireland  had  
achieved  considerable  success  in  reducing  overall  debt  levels  from  a  peak  of  
112%  in  1986  to  25%  by  2007.  It  seems  natural,  then,  to  point  to  the  previous  
fiscal  consolidation  as  a  blueprint  for  austerity  measures  in  the  current  crisis.    

  16  
 0
1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990
-2

-4

-6

-8

-10

-12

-14

-16
 
Figure  5:  Exchequer  borrowing  as  a  percentage  of  gross  national  product,  1980-­‐1990.  Source:  
Department  of  Finance,    

Parallels  with  the  Irish  fiscal  crisis  and  austerity  measures  in  the  1980s  
are  of  limited  value  given  the  different  circumstances  the  Irish  economy  finds  
itself  in  in  2011  and  2012.  The  1987  to  1990  consolidation  did  not  coincide  with  
a  banking  collapse,  nor  did  it  coincide  with  a  worldwide  credit  crunch  and  a  
rapid  world  trade  contraction  (Ferriter  2005).  In  the  1987  to  1990  consolidation,  
only  capital  expenditure  was  reduced  as  a  percentage  of  GNP,  current  
expenditure  went  largely  untouched,  and  in  fact  rose  in  one  year.  Yet  within  
three  budgets,  the  government  managed  to  reduce  the  deficit  from  -­‐11.4%  to  -­‐
2.2%,  a  considerable  feat.      
What  accounted  for  this  deficit-­‐reduction  from  -­‐€2.7  billion  in  1986  to  -­‐
€636  million  in  1989?  The  1987  to  1990  fiscal  consolidation  coincided  with  a  
period  of  growth  in  the  international  economy,  with  the  prescence  of  fiscal  
transfers  from  the  European  Union,  the  opening  up  of  the  single  market,  and  a  
well-­‐timed  devaluation  in  August  1986.  An  income  tax  amnesty  introduced  in  the  
January  1988  budget  also  contributed,  yielding  at  least  2%  of  GNP  more  than  
expected  (Kinsella  and  Leddin,  2010).    
Finally,  the  average  industrial  wage  rose  by  over  14%  in  the  period  1986-­‐
1989,  or  an  annual  average  of  4.6%.  Public  sector  pay  rose  by  a  similar  level.    
These  wage  increases  had  a  two-­‐fold  effect:    they  boosted  government  revenue,  
and  increased  economic  activity  through  increased  private  consumption.  Rather  
than  being  a  role  model  of  expansionary  fiscal  contraction,  the  1986-­‐1990  period  
looks  more  like  a  proto-­‐Keynesian  story,  where  a  laggard  country  converges  

  17  
rapidly  to  OECD  averages  of  per  capita  consumption,  output,  and  (real)  growth  
(Honohan  and  Walsh  2002,  Honohan  and  Leddin  2006).      
Ireland  cannot  devalue  its  currency  in  2011  or  2012.  There  will  be  no  
windfalls  in  taxation  revenue  or  opening  up  of  new  markets,  and  both  current  
and  capital  expenditures  are  to  be  reduced  over  a  five  to  ten  year  period  to  
achieve  a  positive  primary  balance.    With  the  cost  of  debt  servicing  rising  over  
time,  and  with  increasing  pressure  on  social  transfers,  austerity  polices  will  
concentrate  on  large  cuts  to  pay  and  pensions  and  social  welfare  transfers.  
Unlike  the  1980s,  it  will  not  be  enough  just  to  halt  the  rise  in  real  non-­‐interest  
spending.    
The  Bank  for  International  Settlements  (2010)  estimate  that  the  average  
primary  balance  required  to  stabilise  the  public  debt/GDP  ratio  at  the  2007  level  
is  5.4%  annually  for  10  years.  The  high  levels  of  post-­‐crisis  absolute  public  and  
private  debt  will  exacerbate  any  desired  fiscal  correction.  This  debt  will  be  
difficult  to  reduce  because  the  permanent  loss  of  potential  output  means  that  
government  revenue  may  have  to  be  permanently  lowered.    

Ireland:  role  model  for  austerity  or  not?  

 
Is  Ireland  the  role  model  for  austerity?  The  logic  and  empirical  foundation  of  
expansionary  fiscal  contractions  is  shaky,  at  best.  The  experience  of  the  1980s  in  
Ireland  shows  that  it  is  possible  to  reduce  fiscal  expenditure  in  a  small  open  
economy  openly  courting  foreign  direct  investment  with  friendly  taxation  rates  
when  the  rest  of  the  world  is  growing  and  one  is  receiving  transfers  from  other  
states  whilst  reducing  costly  unemployment  through  emigration.    
It  is  hard  to  see  Ireland  recovering  in  the  short  term  as  a  result  of  
austerity  measures  alone.  Their  short  term  deflationary  impact  can  be  absorbed.  
It  is  the  long  run  effects  alluded  to  in  the  BIS  study  that  are  cause  for  concern.  
Following  a  debt-­‐financed  asset  price  bubble  however,  with  firm,  household,  and  
bank  deleveraging,  credit  constraints  on  non-­‐autonomous  private  investment  
and  a  government  committed  to  austerity  policies,  sluggish  growth  seems  to  be  
the  most  likely  outcome  for  the  Irish  economy.  We  are  not  a  role  model,  but  a  
cautionary  tale.    

  18  
  

References  
Bank  for  International  Settlements  (2010).  The  future  of  public  debt:  Prospects  and  
implications.  Monetary  and  Economic  Department.  Working  papers,  Basle.  
Alesina,  Alberto,  Roberto  Perotti,  and  Jose  Tavares.  (1998).  “The  Political  Economy  of  
Fiscal  Adjustments,”  Brookings  Papers  on  Economic  Activity,  1998  (1):1.  
Alesina,  A  and  Ardagna,  S.  (1998)  “Tales  of  fiscal  adjustment”,  Economic  Policy  13(27),  
pages  487-­‐545,  October.  
Alfonso,  A.  (2006)  Expansionary  Fiscal  Contractions  in  Europe:  New  Evidence.  European  
Central  Bank  working  paper  number  675,  available  at  
http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp675.pdf.  
Ferriter,  D.  (2005)  The  Transformation  of  Ireland,  1900-­‐2000,  Dublin:  Overlook.    
Gurdgiev,  C,  Lucey,  B.  M.,  Mac  an  Bhaird,  C.  and  Roche-­‐Kelly,  L,  (2011)  ‘The  Irish  
Economy:  Three  Strikes  and  You’re  Out?’  Available  at  SSRN:  
http://ssrn.com/abstract=1776190.  
Hansen,  A.  (1951),  Business  Cycles  and  National  Income,  WW  Norton  &  Co.    
Hogan,  V.  (2004).  ‘Expansionary  Fiscal  Contractions?  Evidence  from  Panel  Data’  
 Scandinavian  Journal  of  Economics,  106(4),  647-­‐659.  
Honohan,  P.  (2010),  The  Irish  Banking  Crisis,  Regulatory  and  Financial  Stability  Policy  
2003-­‐2008,  available  at  http://www.bankinginquiry.gov.ie/.  
Honohan,  P.  and  A.  J.  Leddin  (2006).  "Ireland  in  EMU:  more  shocks,  less  insulation?"  
Economic  and  Social  Review  37(2):  263.    
Honohan,  P.  and  B.  Walsh  (2002).  "Catching  Up  with  the  Leaders:  The  Irish  Hare."  
Brookings  Papers  on  Economic  Activity  (1):  1.  
IMF  (2010).  Ireland:  Staff  report  for  the  2010  Article  IV  consultation.  Country  report,  
Washington  DC.  
Kelly,  M.  (2007).  "On  the  likely  Extent  of  Falls  in  Irish  House  Prices."  Quarterly  Economic  
Commentary:  (2):  42-­‐54.  
Kinsella,  S.  and  Leddin,  A.  (2010)  Understanding  Ireland’s  Economic  Crisis.  Dublin:  
Blackhall  Press.    
Kinsella,  S.,  Greiff,  M.,  and  Nell,  E.J.  (2011)  `Income  Distribution  in  a  Stock-­‐Flow-­‐
Consistent  Model  with  Education  and  Technological  Change',  Eastern  Economic  Journal,  
37,  134-­‐149.  
Kinsella,  S.  and  Lyons,  R.  `A  return  to  managing  the  Irish  economy'  in:  Burke  and  Lyons,  
eds.  (2011),  Next  Generation  Ireland,  Dublin:  Blackhall  Press,  65–90.    

  19  
Lane,  P.  R.,  (2011)  ‘The  Irish  Crisis’.  CEPR  Discussion  Paper  No.  DP8287.  Available  at  
SSRN:  http://ssrn.com/abstract=1794877.  
Moody’s  Investor  Service  (2011)  “Moody's  downgrades  Ireland  to  Ba1;  outlook  remains  
negative”,  available  at  http://www.moodys.com/research/Moodys-­‐downgrades-­‐
Ireland-­‐to-­‐Ba1-­‐outlook-­‐remains-­‐negative?docid=PR_222257  
Minsky,  H.P  (1975)  John  Maynard  Keynes,  New  York:  Columbia  University  Press  
Nyberg,  P.  (2011),  ‘Report  of  the  Commission  of  Investigation  into  the  banking  sector,  
Misjudging  risk:  Causes  of  the  systemic  banking  crisis  in  Ireland’,  available  at  
http://www.bankinginquiry.gov.ie/  
Perotti,  R  (2011)  “The  “Austerity  Myth”:    Gain  Without  Pain?”,  paper  presented  at  the  
BIS  conference  on  fiscal  policy  and  its  implications  for  monetary  and  financial  stability,  
23-­‐24  June  2011,  Palace  Hotel,  Lucerne,  Switzerland,  available  at  
www.bis.org/events/conf110623/perotti.pdf  
Prammer,  D.  (2004)  ‘Expansionary  Fiscal  Consolidations?  An  Appraisal  of  the  Literature  
on  Non-­‐Keynesian  Effects  of  Fiscal  Policy  and  a  Case  Study  for  Austria’,  Monetary  Policy  
and  The  Economy,  3(1),  35-­‐52.  
Regling,  K  and  Watson,  M.  (2010)  ‘Preliminary  report  on  the  sources  of  Ireland’s  
banking  crisis’,  available  at  http://www.bankinginquiry.gov.ie/.  
Trichet,  J.  C.  (2010)  Statement  to  European  Parliament  in  March  24  2010,  available  at  
http://www.ecb.int/press/key/date/2010/html/sp100325.en.html.  

  20