Deficit control and fiscal austerity in the EU: time to consider the local impact

Abstract

The recent public and academic debate in Europe about the extent to which fiscal austerity can successfully reduce deficits and public debt, while not inhibiting economic growth, has primarily taken place at the level of national governments. In contrast, differences in the implementation of EU debt and deficit rules at the local level and their social and political consequences within member states have received much less attention. In this paper, we use the case of Italy to reveal the potential impact of EU fiscal austerity at the local level. To achieve this goal, the resource dependence theory is helpful both to understand intergovernmental relations and to explain much of the local impact of fiscal austerity. Our analysis shows that balancing the budget at the central level cannot neglect how a balanced budget affects local governments' financial management. In Italy, this process has led to a severe reduction in public investments at the local level and to a lack of political accountability. In terms of policy implications, this paper suggests that the EU's policy makers should consider local issues within the domestic settings more seriously and that they should not neglect critical situations

How do governments cope with austerity? The roles of accounting in shaping governmental financial resilience

“…The interviews and the results section of this paper also considers events taking place after 2009 and up to 2013, in order to highlight what happened in the years after the crisis, based on data available at the time this research was performed. Indeed, past research on Italian municipalities affected by shocks has emphasized that in 2009 these local governments were affected by the first consequences of the economic and financial crisis, with larger impacts to come in the following years (Cepiku et al , 2016; Guarini and Pattaro, 2016). The present study, drawing on Ezzamel and Bourn's (1990) observation that accounting appears to assume the same role during both the pre- and post-crisis phases and recognizing that it may be difficult to clearly separate the events and effects taking place during and after the crisis, identifies and considers only two main time periods as follows: the period before the onset of a crisis and the post-crisis period[3].…”

Italian Municipalities and the Fiscal Crisis: Four Strategies for Muddling Through

“…An important constraint that arose since 2008 was a new fiscal rule requiring each local government to achieve a centrally‐set target of cash surplus at the end of the fiscal year. This rule caused an awkward delaying of payments to public works contractors and a reduction of 50% in capital projects at the local level over the last five years (Guarini and Pattaro, ). While the fiscal rules deriving from the European Stability and Growth Pact remain unchanged over the years, the domestic fiscal targets are amended annually with operating arrangements going back and forth.…”

Factors in the choice of fiscal governance: A systematic literature review and future research agenda

“…(2020) indicated the need to evaluate fiscal interactions between national and sub‐national governments. In this case, while central governments try to reduce uncertainty in deficit control through fiscal rules, local governments adopt strategies and actions to minimize restrictions imposed and increase their financial autonomy (Guarini & Pattaro, 2016). Investigations into multilevel fiscal governance can thus analyze how central government austerity policies affect intergovernmental financial relations, including vertical integration, inter‐organizational alliances, and policy responses to these relations (Guarini & Pattaro, 2016).…”