H68 - Forecasts of Budgets, Deficits, and DebtReturn

This paper analyses uncertainty as one of the factors that affect the public debt-growth nexus. We put forward a hypothesis that uncertainty mediates the effect of public debt on economic growth. The empirical examination of the mediating effect is based on the neoclassical growth equation and consistent with specifications previously used to analyse the sources of heterogeneity in the debt-growth relationship. Since one part of the uncertainty is financial risk, which is closely related to the financial sector stability, we use interest rate spread as a main variable, and the risk premium on lending as an alternative one to proxy financial risk and thus, to some extent, uncertainty. Our results show that lower uncertainty is related to a bigger positive effect of debt on growth and a higher turning point in the debt-growth nexus. On the contrary, higher uncertainty leads to a lower positive and more considerable negative effect of debt on growth in both linear and quadratic specifications.

This paper evaluates the accuracy of real GDP growth forecasts published in the period 1995-2013 by two Czech institutions: the Ministry of Finance (MF) and the Czech National Bank (CNB). A two-stepped approach is adopted: first a battery of forecasting errors (MAE, RMSE, MASE) is calculated, complementary to evaluation papers already available. Then statistical analysis is carried out by comparing both MF and CNB forecasts with OECD, European Commission and consensus benchmarks (Kruskal-Wallis test), assessing the presence of systemic bias (Wilcoxon test) and determining their incremental improvement (Page trend test). The results show that although some error patterns might suggest performance deficiencies (i.e. during the recession periods), the accuracy of forecasts prepared by both the MF and CNB does not differ significantly from the benchmark forecasts; MF and CNB predictions do not contain systemic bias and their accuracy improves as the horizon shortens. The paper also highlights several methodological shortcomings in the internal evaluations conducted by both institutions, indicating a potential for further improvement.