2. ii
Abstract
This research paper addresses the impact of state budgeting on the economic
recovery of Greece. Following a decade of austerity measures, the macroeconomic
indices of the Greek economy along with credit ratings have started improving slowly
yet steadily. In this research, the state budgeting reliability, role and usefulness are
examined, especially under the economic crisis specifics. The Greek economy
macroeconomic indices between 2001Q1 and 2020Q4 are examined as a state
budgeting manifestation.
Keywords; State budgeting, economic recovery, Greece, macroeconomy
3. 3
Table of contents
Abstract..........................................................................................................................ii
Table of contents ...........................................................................................................3
List of charts...................................................................................................................5
List of tables...................................................................................................................7
List of figures................................................................................................................10
1. Introduction ............................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2. Literature review.....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
2.1. Introduction......................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3. Data and methodology ...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.1. Data collection..................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
3.2. Data analysis.....................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4. Results and analysis ................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.1. Descriptive statistics analysis and data visualizationsError! Bookmark not
defined.
4.2. Hypotheses testing...........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.1. Hypothesis 1; GDP and unemployment....Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.2. Hypothesis 2; GDP and Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP)
Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.3. Hypothesis 3; Total general government revenue and unemployment
Error! Bookmark not defined.
4. 4
4.2.4. Hypothesis 4; Total general government revenue and Harmonised Index
of Consumer Prices (HICP) ......................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.5. Hypothesis 5; Total general government expenditure and
unemployment........................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.6. Hypothesis 6; Total general government expenditure and Harmonised
Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) ............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.7. Hypothesis 7; Government consolidated gross debt and unemployment
Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.8. Hypothesis 8; Government consolidated gross debt and Harmonised
Index of Consumer Prices (HICP) ............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.9. Hypothesis 9; Government consolidated gross debt and GDP impact on
Harmonised Index of Consumer Prices (HICP)........Error! Bookmark not defined.
4.2.10. Hypothesis 10; Government consolidated gross debt and GDP impact
on unemployment ...............................................................................................11
4.3. Event study analysis ......................................................................................12
4.3.1. Economic Adjustment Programmes ......................................................13
4.3.2. ECB QE programme Greece participation .............................................19
Conclusions ..................................................................................................................21
References ...................................................................................................................25
Appendix II; Event study input.................................................................................xxviii
Appendix III; Event study output .............................................................................xxxiii
5. 5
List of charts
Chart 1: GDP (market prices, adjusted), gross capital formation (unadjusted), general
government consolidated gross debt (unadjusted) and general government final
consumption expenditure (seasonally adjusted) ...........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 2: Total general government expenditure in in absolute values and as a GDP
percentage (unadjusted data) ........................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 3: Total general government revenue in absolute values and as a GDP
percentage......................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 4: Government consolidated debt in absolute values and as a GDP percentage
.........................................................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 5: Net lending(+) or borrowing(-), total general government expenditure and
revenue (unadjusted data) .............................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 6: Total unemployment by sex age as a percentage of the labour force and as
percentage of the total population ................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 7: Harmonized index of prices ratio......................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 8: Total population................................................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 9: Residuals, actual and fitted values for model 1 Error! Bookmark not defined.
Chart 10: Residuals, actual and fitted values for model 2Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Chart 11: Residuals, actual and fitted values for model 7Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Chart 12: Residuals, actual and fitted values for model 8Error! Bookmark not
defined.
6. 6
Chart 13: Residuals, actual and fitted values for model 9Error! Bookmark not
defined.
Chart 14: Residuals, actual and fitted values for model 10.........................................12
7. 7
List of tables
Table 1: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 1........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 2: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 2........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 3: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 3........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 4: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 4........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 5: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 5........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 6: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 6........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 7: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 7........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 8: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 8........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 9: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 9........Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 10: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 10.................................................11
Table 11: Economic Adjustment Programmes overview.............................................17
Table 12: Hypotheses testing summary.......................................................................22
Table 13: Macroeconomic indices 1/2............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 14: Macroeconomic indices 2/2............................Error! Bookmark not defined.
Table 15: Input variables coding..............................................................................xxviii
Table 16: Event study input data...............................................................................xxix
Table 17: Event Study 1st Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
TGEXP.......................................................................................................................xxxiii
Table 18: Event Study 2nd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
TGEXP.......................................................................................................................xxxiv
8. 8
Table 19: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
TGEXP........................................................................................................................xxxv
Table 20: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme termination impact on
TGEXP.......................................................................................................................xxxvi
Table 21: Event Study 1st Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
TGREV......................................................................................................................xxxvii
Table 22: Event Study 2nd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
TGREV.....................................................................................................................xxxviii
Table 23: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
TGREV.......................................................................................................................xxxix
Table 24: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme termination impact on
TGREV............................................................................................................................ xl
Table 25: Event Study 1st Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
UNEMP......................................................................................................................... xli
Table 26: Event Study 2nd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
UNEMP........................................................................................................................ xlii
Table 27: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on
UNEMP....................................................................................................................... xliii
Table 28: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme termination impact on
UNEMP....................................................................................................................... xliv
Table 29: Event Study 1st Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on HICP
..................................................................................................................................... xlv
Table 30: Event Study 2nd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on HICP
.................................................................................................................................... xlvi
9. 9
Table 31: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation impact on HICP
....................................................................................................................................xlvii
Table 32: Event Study 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme termination impact on
HICP...........................................................................................................................xlviii
Table 33: Event Study Initiation of ECB purchasing Greek banks bonds impact on
UNEMP....................................................................................................................... xlix
Table 34: Event Study Initiation of ECB purchasing Greek banks bonds impact on HICP
.........................................................................................................................................l
10. 10
List of figures
Figure 1: 2010 – 2018 financial assistance to Greece (European Council, 2019)........14
Figure 2: Greece reform packages under the 1st to 3rd economic adjustment
programmes 2010 – 2018 (European Council, 2019)..................................................15
Figure 3: Government deficit and real GDP growth rate evolution 2009 – 2019
(European Council, 2019).............................................................................................16
Figure 4: Commitments about the end of the 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme
and the period after its completion (European Council, 2019)...................................16
11. 11
1.1.1. Hypothesis 10; Government consolidated gross debt and GDP impact on
unemployment
H0: The government consolidated gross debt and the GDP do not have an impact on
the unemployment rates
H1: Alternative
Table 1: Linear regression for testing hypothesis 10
The unemployment rate, as a percentage of the population in the labour force,
seasonally adjusted and not calendar adjusted is the dependent value and the
government consolidated gross debt, the GDP and a constant are the independent
variables.
The p-value is 0,0000 <<< 0,01 both for the constant and for the independent
variables. Therefore, the null hypothesis 10 is rejected, stating that the government
consolidated gross debt and the GDP have a statistically significant impact on the
unemployment rates on a 99% confidence level. More specifically, the adjusted R
equals 0,85 reflecting very good model fit. The constant coefficient equals 21,87058
while the intercept coefficients equal 7,51E-5 and -0,000548 for the two independent
variables respectively.
12. 12
The overall model p value equals 0,0000 <<< 0,01, therefore the aforementioned
model can predict the unemployment rates statistically significantly on a 99%
confidence level.
𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠
= 21,87058 + 7,51𝐸 − 05
× 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡 − 0,000548 × 𝐺𝐷𝑃
The aforementioned model can explain 85% of the change in the unemployment rates
on a 99% confidence level.
Chart 1: Residuals, actual and fitted values for model 10
Moreover, the Durbin – Watson statistic equals 0,081922, which indicates that there
is significant negative autocorrelation between the dependent and the independent
value. Further analysis is provided in the next section. Similarly with model 9, the
model fit and the autocorrelation have been improved via inserting two independent
variables in the model instead of one.
1.2. Event study analysis
As mentioned above, an extended event study analysis has been conducted in the last
part of the analysis. The impact of state budgeting decisions on fiscal numbers and on
macroeconomic indices have been examined. The events whose impact is examined
13. 13
are the initiation of EU bailout program and the announcement of Greece’s opting in
for the ECB QE program.
The event study was based on a Benninga (2008) book (Benninga, 2008), while given
a lack of data for the EU27 or EU28 or EA, a 5 years moving average of the input data
was utilized as the norm for conducting the event study.
1.2.1. Economic Adjustment Programmes
On April 23rd 2010 (2010 Q2), the Greek PM announced that the country would opt
in for a bailout program upon risk of default. Following this announcement, Greece
signed the 1st Economic Adjustment Programme on May 2nd 2010, which would
expire in June 2013. Earlier than the expected expiration of the 1st Economic
Adjustment Programme, the country signed the 2nd Economic Adjustment
Programme on March 1st 2012, with an expected expiration date set for the end of
2014 (European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs,
2014). Following a change in the governing party and extensive negotiations, including
a disputed referendum about a new memorandum (bailout program) and the
imposition of capital controls, the newly elected government signed the 3rd Economic
Adjustment Programme in August 2015, with an expected expiration set for August
2018 (European Council, 2019).
The 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme ended in August 2018, although the
country keeps undergoing enhanced surveillance evaluations in order to monitor the
commitments made by the Greek Government on the June 22nd 2018 eurogroup
regarding the post memorandum period. The most recent enhanced surveillance was
held on January 2022, while it is worth mentioning that the commitments taken by
the Greek Government post the 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme end are
significantly more elastic than those during the Economic Adjustment Programme
active periods.
14. 14
A comprehensive infographic (Figure 1) is provided below, according to which, Greece
received a total of €256,6 billion between 2010 and 2018, a 0,29% of the euro area
GDP for the aforementioned period. It is worth noticing that upon periodical
surveillance reports on the progress of the economic adjustment programmes, Greece
failed to absorb the total of the capital committed. More specifically, although a total
of €310,7 billion was committed in three programmes, only €256,6 billion or an
82,59% of the total capital committed was disbursed, which is among others blamed
for the reduced Greek economy adjustment (Pagoulatos, 2018; Revuelta, 2021).
Figure 1: 2010 – 2018 financial assistance to Greece (European Council, 2019)
15. 15
The three aforementioned economic adjustment programmes among providing the
country with an excessive amount of capital to meet liabilities, triggered a total of
fifteen reform packages between 2010 and 2018, including the financial sector reform,
the tax reforms, the reform of public administration, the labour and product market
reforms, the pension system reforms, extensive public organizations and public assets
privatization and others, as depicted below in Figure 2;
Figure 2: Greece reform packages under the 1st to 3rd economic adjustment programmes 2010 – 2018
(European Council, 2019)
According to a European Council publication, the impact of the three Economic
Adjustment Programmes on the Greek Economy was huge, including an astonishing
decrease in the government deficit from -15,1% in 2009 to +0,8% (surplus) in 2017
(Figure 3). Moreover, the real GDP growth rate reached 2,3% yoy (forecasted) in 2019
from -4,3% yoy in 2009;
16. 16
Figure 3: Government deficit and real GDP growth rate evolution 2009 – 2019 (European Council, 2019)
Finally, before concluding the agreed measures, according to a European Council
publication, reforms and commitments agreed upon the completion of the 3rd
Economic Adjustment Programme, the Greek Government agreed to go through
periodical surveillance missions for the next years (Figure 4), definitely overlapping
the data examined in this paper, which reach the end of 2020 Q2 (European Council,
2019);
Figure 4: Commitments about the end of the 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme and the period after its
completion (European Council, 2019)
17. 17
Table 2: Economic Adjustment Programmes overview
1st Economic Adjustment Programme
Agreed; 2 May 2010
PM; G. Papandreou, PASOK
Tenure; May 2010 – June 2013
Committed capital; €107,3 billion (upon Slovakia quitting a €2,7 billion contribution)
Contributors; €80 billion bilateral Loans pooled from the Euro Area (€80bn) and €30
billion from the IMF
Objectives;
Implementation of fiscal consolidation boosting sustainability
Implementation of financial sector policies to stabilize the economy
Vast reforms in the Greek Economy structure to increase investments
attraction and exports growth
Greek credibility restoration as perceived by private investors
Capital disbursed; €52,9 billion were disbursed until the 2nd Economic Adjustment
Programme was agreed
2nd Economic Adjustment Programme
Agreed; 1 March 2012
PM; L. Papademos, ND & PASOK
Tenure; March 2012- December 2014
Committed capital; €164,5 billion
Contributors; €144,7 billion from the EFSF and €19,8 billion from the IMF
18. 18
Objectives;
Private held debt reduction - restructuring to alleviate the total debt level
Competitiveness and growth enhancement via enhanced fiscal
consolidation efforts and structural reforms
Upon a Government change, the programme was extended to the end of June 2015
and expired before a new programme agreement. Upon intense negotiations, the
Greek government failed to reimburse roughly €1,5 billion to the IMF, triggering a
three-week bank holiday and the imposition of capital movement restriction
measures.
Capital disbursed; €141,8 billion
3rd Economic Adjustment Programme
Agreed; 19 August 2015
PM; A. Tsipras, SYRIZA & ANEL
Tenure; August 2015- August 2018
Amount; €86bn
Contributors; €86 billion from the ESM
Objectives;
Fiscal sustainability restoration
Financial stability maintenance
Growth, competitiveness and investments attraction enhancement
Public administration reforms
Capital disbursed; €61,9 billion
Conclusively, the events analyzed forward are linked to the following dates;
19. 19
2010 Q2 (1st Economic Adjustment Programme initiation)
2012 Q1 (2nd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation)
2015 Q3 (3rd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation)
2018 Q3 (3rd Economic Adjustment Programme termination)
The conclusions reached upon conducting multiple events studies are provided below
and the corresponding tables are provided in Appendix III;
No statistically significant critical event is identified in terms of TGEXP (Total
Government Expenditure)
No statistically significant critical event is identified in terms of TGREV (Total
Government Revenue)
The unemployment rate (UNEMP) is showing statistically significant abnormal
variances after the 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation on a 94%
significance level and after the 3rd Economic Adjustment Programme
termination on a 91% significance level.
The HICP is showing statistically significant abnormal variances after the 3rd
Economic Adjustment Programme termination on a 74% significance level
1.2.2. ECB QE programme Greece participation
According to De Grauwe & Ji (2015), Greece was excluded from the initial launch of
the European Central Bank Quantitative Easing programme in mid-2014, due to both
technical and political reasons, holding back for Greece significant debt relief which
other Euro Area member states benefited from (De Grauwe & Ji, 2015). According to
Bahceli (2020) and Kourtali (2020), the Greek Economy has benefitted from a
significant decrease in capital cost, upon the March 2020 country inclusion in the QE
programme (Bahceli, 2020; Kourtali, 2020). Upon the first debt purchase by the ECD,
the within months purchase of a total of €73 billion Greek bonds by the ECB by August
20. 20
2020 led to a significant decrease in the country exposure to debt and to record low
in debt cost (Bahceli & Ranasinghe, 2020).
Yet it is worth mentioning that despite Greek Sovereign Bonds did not participate in
the ECB Assets Repurchase Programme, the ECB started buying Greek banks bonds as
right after the QE program launch, this in 2014 Q2 (Reuters, 2015).
Conclusively, the events analyzed forward are linked to the following dates;
2014 Q2 (Initiation of ECB purchasing Greek banks bonds)
2020Q3 (Inclusion of Greek Sovereign Bonds in the ECB QE programme)
Given the available data reaches 2020Q4, the event study analysis for the latter is not
feasible. Given the findings provided in the previous paragraph, only the UNEMP and
HICP variables abnormal variances were tested using the event study analysis.
The unemployment rate (UNEMP) is showing statistically significant abnormal
variances after the Initiation of ECB purchasing Greek banks bonds on a 90%
significance level
The HICP is showing statistically significant abnormal variances after the
Initiation of ECB purchasing Greek banks bonds on a 90% significance level
21. 21
Conclusions
State budgeting decisions have a direct impact on both the Government fiscal figures
and on macroeconomic indices. This paper addressed the impact of state budgeting
decisions by the Greek governments on fiscal numbers as well as on macroeconomic
indices, in order to assess the reliability, role, usefulness and overall impact of the
state budgeting on the Greek economy. Given the research topic is rather unexplored
in current literature, this paper introduces novel findings and contributes towards
appraising the role of state budgeting. Greece is a special case, since the state
budgeting decisions have been affected harshly especially during the 2012 – 2018
period, where the country underwent three consecutive economic adjustment
programmes, among others undertaking commitments for state budgeting decisions.
Moreover, the period prior to the first economic adjustment programme initiation,
the reliability, role and effectiveness (usefulness) of the Greek Government decisions
are disputed since the Greek economy was driven close to default. Lastly, during the
post economic adjustment programmes period, the Greek state budgeting decisions
are taken more freely yet under some restrictions following the country commitments
to the June 2018 Eurogroup.
The research conducted under this paper context sat on an expanded dataset for the
2000Q1 - 2020Q4 period, incorporating a total of eighty one quarterly observations of
the gross domestic product, the debt in absolute values as well as a percentage of the
gross domestic product, the gross capital formation, the total net lending, the
expenditure and revenue, in absolute values as well as percentage of the gross
domestic product, the total population, the unemployment rates as a percentage of
the population and a percentage of the total labour force and the harmonized index
of prices ratio. Most of the data has been collected both unadjusted and either
seasonally or calendar or both seasonally and calendar adjusted.
22. 22
A total of ten hypotheses was tested in order to examine the impact of state budgeting
decisions on fiscal numbers and on macroeconomic indices (real economy). The
conclusions reached are provided and discussed below, noting that the significance
level for all the below-mentioned linear and multiple regression models is 99%;
Table 3: Hypotheses testing summary
Hypothesis conclusion Proposed model
Adjusted R
value
The GDP has a statistically
significant impact on the
unemployment rates
47%
The GDP has a statistically
significant impact on the
quarterly Harmonised Index
of Consumer Prices
42%
The total general
government revenue does
not have a statistically
significant impact on the
unemployment rates
not applying -
The total general
government revenue does
not have a statistically
significant impact on the
quarterly Harmonised Index
of Consumer Prices
not applying -
The total general
government expenditure
does not have a statistically
significant impact on the
unemployment rates
The total general
government expenditure
does not have a statistically
significant impact on the
𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
= 40,30644 − 0,000507 × 𝐺𝐷𝑃 𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠
𝐻𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 = −5,158416 + 0,000143 × 𝐺𝐷𝑃 𝑎𝑡 𝑚𝑎𝑟𝑘𝑒𝑡 𝑝𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠
23. 23
quarterly Harmonised Index
of Consumer Prices
The government
consolidated gross debt has
a statistically significant
impact on the
unemployment rates
66,5%
The government
consolidated gross debt has
a statistically significant
impact on the HICP
60%
The government
consolidated gross debt and
the GDP have a statistically
significant impact on the
HICP
75%
The government
consolidated gross debt and
the GDP have a statistically
significant impact on the
unemployment rates
85%
With regards to the events study analyses conducted in the latter part of the research,
the following dates, linked to critical events (related to the Economic Adjustment
Programmes effect and to the ECB QE inclusion), have been utilized upon researching
the literature;
Economic Adjustment Programme effect
o 2010 Q2 (1st Economic Adjustment Programme initiation)
o 2012 Q1 (2nd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation)
o 2015 Q3 (3rd Economic Adjustment Programme initiation)
o 2018 Q3 (3rd Economic Adjustment Programme termination)
ECB QE inclusion
o 2014 Q2 (Initiation of ECB purchasing Greek banks bonds)
o 2020Q3 (Inclusion of Greek Sovereign Bonds in the ECB QE programme)
𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑎𝑠 𝑎 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑐𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑎𝑔𝑒 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑜𝑝𝑢𝑙𝑎𝑡𝑖𝑜𝑛 𝑖𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑙𝑎𝑏𝑜𝑢𝑟 𝑓𝑜𝑟𝑐𝑒
= −3,626352 + 7,19𝐸 − 05 × 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡
𝐻𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠 = 7,365510 − 2,07𝐸 − 05 × 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡
𝐻𝑎𝑟𝑚𝑜𝑛𝑖𝑠𝑒𝑑 𝐼𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑥 𝑜𝑓 𝐶𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑢𝑚𝑒𝑟 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒𝑠
= 0,217276 − 2,14𝐸 − 05 × 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡 + 0,000153 × 𝐺𝐷𝑃
𝑢𝑛𝑒𝑚𝑝𝑙𝑜𝑦𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑟𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑠 = 21,87058 + 7,51𝐸 − 05 × 𝐺𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑛𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑐𝑜𝑛𝑠𝑜𝑙𝑖𝑑𝑎𝑡𝑒𝑑 𝑔𝑟𝑜𝑠𝑠 𝑑𝑒𝑏𝑡 − 0,000548 × 𝐺𝐷𝑃
25. 25
References
Addison, D., 2013. The quality of budget execution and its correlates, Working Paper
No. 6657, s.l.: World Bank Policy Research .
Alesina, A. & Passalacqua, A., 2016. The political economy of government debt.
Handbook of macroeconomics, Volume 2, pp. 2599-2651.
Auerbach, A. J. & Gorodnichenko, Y., 2012. Measuring the output responses to fiscal
policy. American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 4(2), pp. 1-27.
Bahceli, Y., 2020. CORRECTED-Greek bonds win more fans after rally on ECB inclusion
(July 9). Reuters, 9 July.
Bahceli, Y. & Ranasinghe, D., 2020. UPDATE 2-ECB purchases push Greek 10-year bond
yields to record low. Reuters, 6 August.
Blöndal, J. R., Kraan, D.-J. & Ruffner, M., 2003. Budgeting in the United States. OECD
Journal on Budgeting, 3(2), pp. 8-40.
Buerger, C., 2021. The effect of economic downturns on state budgets: a
counterfactual analysis of the great recession. Applied Economics Letters, 28(21), pp.
1852-1859.
Cebotari, A. et al., 2008. Fiscal risks: sources, disclosure, and management,
Washington DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Dabán, T. & Hélis, J.-L., 2010. A Public Financial Management Framework for Resource-
Producing Countries, s.l.: International Monetary Fund.
De Grauwe, P. & Ji, Y., 2015. Quantitative easing in the Eurozone: It's possible without
fiscal transfers. [Online]
Available at: https://voxeu.org/article/quantitative-easing-eurozone-its-possible-
26. 26
without-fiscal-transfers
[Accessed 12 February 2022].
Elcano Royal Institute, 2015. The Grexit Summer. EU Political Economy Bulletin,
Volume 21.
European Commission, Directorate-General for Economic and Financial Affairs, 2014.
The second economic adjustment programme for Greece : fourth review - April 2014.
[Online]
Available at: https://data.europa.eu/doi/10.2765/77940
[Accessed 1 March 2022].
European Council, 2019. Greece: the third economic adjustment programme. [Online]
Available at: https://www.consilium.europa.eu/en/policies/financial-assistance-
eurozone-members/greece-programme/
[Accessed 2 March 2022].
Gillis, M., Shoup, S. C. & Sicat, P. G., 1990. Administering a VAT. In: M. d. J. Casanegra,
ed. Value Added Taxation in Developing Countries. s.l.:World Bank, p. 179.
Hameed, F., 2005. Fiscal transparency and economic outcomes, IMF Working Paper
No. 05/225, Washington DC: International Monetary Fund (IMF).
Kofman, F. & Lawarrée, J., 1996. On the optimality of allowing collusion. Journal of
Public Economics, 61(3), pp. 383-407.
Kourtali, E., 2020. Greece has benefited most from new QE. [Online]
Available at: https://www.ekathimerini.com/economy/252328/greece-has-
benefited-most-from-new-qe/
[Accessed 12 February 2022].
OECD, 2001. Financial Management and Control of Public Agencies. SIGMA Papers
OECD Publishing, Volume 32.
27. 27
Pagoulatos, G., 2018. Greece after the Bailouts: Assessment of a Qualified Failure, s.l.:
Hellenic Observatory Discussion Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe.
Phaup, M. & Kirschner, C., 2010. Budgeting for Disasters: Focusing on the Good Times.
OECD Journal on Budgeting, 2010(1), pp. 1-24.
Reuters, 2015. ECB to fund Greek banks as long as they stay solvent - Coeure. Reuters,
22 April.
Revuelta, J., 2021. The Effects of the Economic Adjustment Programmes for Greece: A
Quasi-Experimental Approach. Sustainability, 13(9), p. 4970.
Schick, A., 2011. Repairing the Budget Contract between Citizens and the State. OECD
Journal on Budgeting, 11(3), pp. 1-30.
Tkachenko, L., 2020. Public Finance Management: Challenges and Opportunities.
Athens Journal of Business & Economics, 6(1), pp. 73-98.
Von Hagen, J., 1992. Budgeting procedures and fiscal performance in the European
Communities, Economic Paper No. 96, Hague: European Commission.
Vraniali, E., 2010. Rethinking Public Financial Management and Budgeting in Greece:
time to reboot?. Hellenic Observatory Papers on Greece and Southeast Europe.
28. xxviii
Appendix II; Event study input
Table 4: Input variables coding
Raw variable Coded variable
Total general government expenditure / General government / Unadjusted
data (i.e. neither seasonally adjusted nor calendar adjusted data) / Million
euro
TGEXP
Total general government revenue / General government / Unadjusted data
(i.e. neither seasonally adjusted nor calendar adjusted data) / Million euro
TGREV
Unemployment by sex and age / Total / Percentage of population in the
labour force / From 15 to 74 years / Seasonally adjusted data, not calendar
adjusted data
UNEMP
HICP - monthly data (annual rate of change)*selected the relevant quarters
/ All-items HICP / Annual rate of change
HICP