Executive summary:
>The current EU fiscal framework is not fit for purpose to cope with
>today’s challenges: unprecedented levels of investments are needed
>to achieve environmental, societal, and economic goals and for a
>sustainable recovery after the COVID pandemic. Public funding
>plays an important role to navigate through this transition and build
>resilient societies. However, the fiscal flexibility of Member States
>is constrained by the EU governance framework, which requires EU
>governments to adhere to strict fiscal rules.
>
>After the 2008 financial crisis, austerity policies in the EU led to a
>double-dip recession, the EU economy recovered much slower than
>others, unemployment rose massively in many parts of Europe and
>triggered the euro crisis. Austerity measures have contributed to
>anti-EU sentiment and enabled populist sentiments and movements
>to rise. The risk of instability and divergence of Member States
>through austerity must now be avoided.
>
>The political momentum for reforming the EU fiscal framework
>is larger than ever. In this lively and critical debate, many reform
>proposals have been put forward, however, reform proposals tend
>not to be responsive to the political sensitivities and the technical
>feasibility at the same time.
>
>This report fills a gap as it provides a structured overview of the
>reform proposals for the EU fiscal framework and a comprehensive
>assessment of their feasibility and impact. It assesses the political
>feasibility of the reform proposals, identifies what changes
>in EU legislation would be required to implement the proposals and
>highlights the administrative hurdles that implementation could
>entail. In addition, the proposals are also assessed in terms of the
>potential additional fiscal flexibility they would generate and whether
>the proposals are tied to green and social objectives as well as
>investment.
>
>By comparing the different goals of the proposals and identifying the
>different parts of the existing regulations targeted by the proposals,
>the report shows which reform proposals can complement each other
>and which are mutually exclusive. It thus provides a solid basis for
>decision-makers to facilitate comparison and discussion of the existing
>reform proposals.
2 comments
Source with metodology and details of each proposal (PDF): [Fiscal Policy for a Thriving Europe – A Feasibility and Impact Analysis of Fiscal Policy Reform Proposals](https://zoe-institut.de/wp-content/uploads/2021/10/ZOE_Policy_Brief_Feasibility_211029.pdf) by the [ZOE-Institute for future-fit economies](https://zoe-institut.de/)
Executive summary:
>The current EU fiscal framework is not fit for purpose to cope with
>today’s challenges: unprecedented levels of investments are needed
>to achieve environmental, societal, and economic goals and for a
>sustainable recovery after the COVID pandemic. Public funding
>plays an important role to navigate through this transition and build
>resilient societies. However, the fiscal flexibility of Member States
>is constrained by the EU governance framework, which requires EU
>governments to adhere to strict fiscal rules.
>
>After the 2008 financial crisis, austerity policies in the EU led to a
>double-dip recession, the EU economy recovered much slower than
>others, unemployment rose massively in many parts of Europe and
>triggered the euro crisis. Austerity measures have contributed to
>anti-EU sentiment and enabled populist sentiments and movements
>to rise. The risk of instability and divergence of Member States
>through austerity must now be avoided.
>
>The political momentum for reforming the EU fiscal framework
>is larger than ever. In this lively and critical debate, many reform
>proposals have been put forward, however, reform proposals tend
>not to be responsive to the political sensitivities and the technical
>feasibility at the same time.
>
>This report fills a gap as it provides a structured overview of the
>reform proposals for the EU fiscal framework and a comprehensive
>assessment of their feasibility and impact. It assesses the political
>feasibility of the reform proposals, identifies what changes
>in EU legislation would be required to implement the proposals and
>highlights the administrative hurdles that implementation could
>entail. In addition, the proposals are also assessed in terms of the
>potential additional fiscal flexibility they would generate and whether
>the proposals are tied to green and social objectives as well as
>investment.
>
>By comparing the different goals of the proposals and identifying the
>different parts of the existing regulations targeted by the proposals,
>the report shows which reform proposals can complement each other
>and which are mutually exclusive. It thus provides a solid basis for
>decision-makers to facilitate comparison and discussion of the existing
>reform proposals.
Wild guess: “Adjusting budgetary targets” it is….