This paper seeks to guide the reform of fiscal frameworks in Asia-Pacific in the context of calls for a more active fiscal policy in a shock-prone world. It highlights that the cost of fiscal support is large and that fiscal frameworks, including fiscal rules, are being put to the test given the sharp increase in debt, high interest and weaker growth prospects. The stress is only compounded by long-term challenges like aging populations, climate change and the need to deliver on the sustainable development goals. In this context, it is timely to review the effectiveness of fiscal policy in Asia-Pacific and seek for ways to strengthen fiscal frameworks. After the global financial crisis, fiscal policy in Asia-Pacific became more countercylical and stronger than in other regions—especially in advanced economies. The paper shows that the degree of countercyclicality has been asymetric, with larger responses during periods of weak growth, and in particular in response to large shocks—the global financial crisis and the pandemic. It highlights that responses to the pandemic were large and used a wide range of tools, and how fiscal and monetary policy complemented each as they responded to large shocks. It looks into the deterioration of debt dynamics in Asia-Pacific, as public debt has been rising persistently across most countries driven by declining growth and rising deficits—particualrly after the global financial crisis for advanced economies and after the pandemic for emerging market and low income countries. The paper reviews fiscal frameworks across Asia-Pacific, including the use of fiscal rules, medium-term fiscal frameworks, and fiscal councils. It describes the characteristics of fiscal rules, which usually focus on debt and budget balances and are set by law but tend to lack well-specified enforcement mechanism or escape clauses. It highlights that compliance with the rules has worsened following the pandemic as—in contrast with the outturns before the pandemic--Asia-Pacific countries tend to show larger deviations relative to other regions. It also shows that despite the increase adoption of medium-term fiscal frameworks in Asia-Pacific forward guidance has been hampered by the lack of binding targets and ex-post analysis. Moreover, they do not seem to have resulted in better macro-fiscal forecast in part due to weak capacity and enforcement, lack of integration with the annual budget, and exposure to shocks—with risk analysis mostly limited to qualitative discussions. Proposed reforms seek to implement a comprehensive, risk-based approach to public finances. They focus on strengthening the medium-term orientation of fiscal policy through credible medium-term fiscal plans, fiscal rules linked to the medium-term strategy and the annual budgets, and a stronger reliance on fiscal councils. They also emphasize the need for a broader view of the public sector as fiscal policy is being conducted through multiple channels, which requires assessing and managing vulnerabilities and a significant improvement in fiscal statistics. They also address aging and climate change by focusing on assessing large intergenerational trade-offs, reporting on long-term debt dynamics, and on green medium-term fiscal frameworks that incorporate the effects of climate change and climate policies.

This paper seeks to guide the reform of fiscal frameworks in Asia-Pacific in the context of calls for a more active fiscal policy in a shock-prone world. It highlights that the cost of fiscal support is large and that fiscal frameworks, including fiscal rules, are being put to the test given the sharp increase in debt, high interest and weaker growth prospects. The stress is only compounded by long-term challenges like aging populations, climate change and the need to deliver on the sustainable development goals. In this context, it is timely to review the effectiveness of fiscal policy in Asia-Pacific and seek for ways to strengthen fiscal frameworks. After the global financial crisis, fiscal policy in Asia-Pacific became more countercylical and stronger than in other regions—especially in advanced economies. The paper shows that the degree of countercyclicality has been asymetric, with larger responses during periods of weak growth, and in particular in response to large shocks—the global financial crisis and the pandemic. It highlights that responses to the pandemic were large and used a wide range of tools, and how fiscal and monetary policy complemented each as they responded to large shocks. It looks into the deterioration of debt dynamics in Asia-Pacific, as public debt has been rising persistently across most countries driven by declining growth and rising deficits—particualrly after the global financial crisis for advanced economies and after the pandemic for emerging market and low income countries. The paper reviews fiscal frameworks across Asia-Pacific, including the use of fiscal rules, medium-term fiscal frameworks, and fiscal councils. It describes the characteristics of fiscal rules, which usually focus on debt and budget balances and are set by law but tend to lack well-specified enforcement mechanism or escape clauses. It highlights that compliance with the rules has worsened following the pandemic as—in contrast with the outturns before the pandemic--Asia-Pacific countries tend to show larger deviations relative to other regions. It also shows that despite the increase adoption of medium-term fiscal frameworks in Asia-Pacific forward guidance has been hampered by the lack of binding targets and ex-post analysis. Moreover, they do not seem to have resulted in better macro-fiscal forecast in part due to weak capacity and enforcement, lack of integration with the annual budget, and exposure to shocks—with risk analysis mostly limited to qualitative discussions. Proposed reforms seek to implement a comprehensive, risk-based approach to public finances. They focus on strengthening the medium-term orientation of fiscal policy through credible medium-term fiscal plans, fiscal rules linked to the medium-term strategy and the annual budgets, and a stronger reliance on fiscal councils. They also emphasize the need for a broader view of the public sector as fiscal policy is being conducted through multiple channels, which requires assessing and managing vulnerabilities and a significant improvement in fiscal statistics. They also address aging and climate change by focusing on assessing large intergenerational trade-offs, reporting on long-term debt dynamics, and on green medium-term fiscal frameworks that incorporate the effects of climate change and climate policies.