| Authors | Study’s Distinguishing Features |
| | · The study successfully formulates a single definition of fiscal vulnerability. Fiscal vulnerability was defined in consideration of the government’s ability to achieve its macroeconomic objectives by fulfilling its intertemporal budget constraint. · The study also offers a discussion on the main sources of fiscal vulnerability and a list of variables which could be incorporated into further evaluation of fiscal vulnerability is provided. · A noticeable shortcoming of the study, despite its significant theoretical value addition, is that it does not provide any methodological guidance on how fiscal vulnerability can be assessed with actual data in practice. |
| | · The study complements the · It uses sensitivity analysis to investigate the vulnerability of public debt in Uruguay. That is, it enhances on the traditional debt to GDP ratio framework by developing a set of vulnerability indicators that quantify and evaluate the risks related to the volatility of debt determinants (relative prices, GDP evolution, reference interest rate) and access conditions of capital markets. · In a similar way to · The analytical approach starts from a baseline scenario with additional scenarios defined on the assumption that the determinants of debt (GDP growth rate, interest and exchange rate) vary by one or two standard deviations. |
| | · The index of fiscal vulnerability included debt tolerance conditions that tracked five vulnerability components, namely: 1) solvency (basic debt dynamics is the debt ratio stable or increasing); 2) fiscal financing needs and debt composition; external financing dependence; financial sector health; and institutional strength. · In this context, an assessment of the solvency/debt dynamics has to be undertaken in conjunction to the developments in the other four vulnerability components. |
| | · The study presents the Barclays Capital Fiscal Vulnerability Index, which is a composite indicator that consists of 16 fiscal vulnerability indicators across 57 countries. A key feature of the index is its measure of financial market concerns about a country’s debt sustainability that uses the cost of insuring against a government defaulting on its bonds, as measured by the credit default swap (CDS) rates. A higher CDS rate reflects that investors attach a higher likelihood of government default and an elevated probability of financial crisis. · The 16 indicators are grouped under five broad headings: solvency, government financing needs, external financing dependence, financial sector health and institutional strength. The broad headings show a consensus between the surveyed literature as far as the importance of a holistic and collective analysis of key fiscal indicators. · The composite index is reported as a z-score for each country. The z-score measures how far the country’s vulnerability is from the cross country average. A positive z-score indicates that a country’s fiscal resilience is above average while a negative z-score indicates a below average fiscal resilience. |
| | · The study assessed Poland’s fiscal vulnerability along five elements that consisted of 1) the medium-term dynamics of public debt; 2) the level of public debt; 3) public debt management and the liquidity position of the government; 4) long term sustainability of public debt; and 5) fiscal rules and institutions. · Findings supported the usefulness of a well-defined fiscal policy anchor (similar points were made in the previous studies surveyed), which was represented by a public debt threshold of 60 percent of GDP as established in the public finance act. Any breach of this threshold constitutes a vulnerability in the fiscal policy position and a signal to government for urgent need of fiscal consolidation. |