Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Previous studies have shown that population aging has severe consequences for public spending. However, in welfare states with a federal budget structure, population aging will affect the levels of government to differing degrees. This article focuses on the impact of population aging on the fiscal system of the Federal Republic of Germany. The analysis draws upon profiles for public transfer flows by single years of age to illustrate the impact of age structure changes on the cost and revenue structures at the different levels of government. The results show that Länder and local governments are likely to achieve cost reductions while the federal budget and social security will face higher expenditures because of the increasing number of elderly people. This study provides valuable information on the age utilization of public flows and on the need for restructuring the allocation rules for government revenues and expenditures across levels of government.

Keywords

fiscal federalism public finances population aging Germany

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bach

Bork

Krimmer

Raffelhüschen

Schulz

. 2002. “Demographischer Wandel und Steueraufkommen.” Gutachten im Auftrag des Bundesfinanzministerium, DIW Materialien 20.

Baum

Seitz

. 2003. “Demographischer Wandel und Bildungsausgaben: Empirische Evidenz fur die westdeutschen Länder.” Vierteljahrshefte zur Wirtschaftsforschung 72:205–19.

Diamond

P. A

. 1965. “National Debt in a Neoclassical Growth Model.” The American Economic Review 55:1126–50.

Edwards

. 2010. “Forecasting Government Revenue and Expenditure in the U.S. Using Data on Age-Specific Utilization.” National Transfer Accounts working paper WP10-01. Accessed January 10, 2011. http://qcpages.qc.edu/~redwards/Papers/edwards-forecasting-0210.pdf.

Garloff …. 2011. “Do Small Labor Market Entry Cohorts Reduce Unemployment?” Institut für Arbeitsmarkt & Berufsforschung, IAB. IAB Discussion Paper 201118. Nürnberg.

Garloff

Pohl

Schanne

. 2011. “Do Small Labor Market Entry Cohorts Reduce Unemployment?” IAB—Discussion Paper 18/2011, Institute for Employment Research of the Federal Employment Agency, Nuremberg, Germany.

Grünheid

. 2006. “Die demographische Lage in Deutschland 2005.” Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 31:3–104.

Grünheid

Mammey

. 1997. “Bericht 1997 über die demographische Lage in Deutschland.” Zeitschrift für Bevölkerungswissenschaft 22:377–480.

HMD (Human Mortality Database). 2011. Mortality indicators for Germany. www.mortality.org. University of California, Berkeley (USA), and Max Planck Institute for Demographic Research (Germany). Available at www.mortality.org or www.humanmortality.de (data downloaded on Jan 13, 2011).

10.

Hofmann

Kempkes

Seitz

. 2008. “Demographic Change and Public Sector Budgets in a Federal System.” CESifo Working Paper, No. 2317, Munich.

11.

Kluge

F. A

. 2009. “Transfers, Consumption and Income over the Lifecycle in Germany.” MPIDR Working Paper WP-2009-014 Max Planck Institute for Democratic Research, Rostock, Germany.

12.

Lee

Edwards

. 2002. “The Fiscal Impact of Population Aging in the US: Assessing the Uncertainties.” Tax Policy and the Economy 16:141–80.

13.

Lee

Tuljapurkar

. 1998. “Uncertain Demographic Futures and Social Security Finances.” American Economic Review 88:237–41.

14.

Lee

R. D

. 1994. “The Formal Demography of Population Aging, Transfers, and the Economic Life Cycle.” In Demography of Aging, edited by. Martin

L. G.

Preston

S. H.

, 8–49. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

15.

Ragnitz

. 2005. “Demographische Entwicklung in Ostdeutschland und Länderfinanzausgleich.” Wirtschaft im Wandel 3:73–81.

16.

Samuelson

P. A

. 1958. “An Exact Consumption-Loan Model of Interest with or without the Social Contrivance of Money.” The Journal of Political Economy 66:467–82.

17.

Seitz

. 2000. “Fiscal Policy, Deficits and Politics of Subnational Governments: The Case of the German Laender.” Public Choice 102:183–218.

18.

Seitz

2008. “The Impact of Demographic Change on Fiscal Policy in Germany.” In Demographic Change in Germany, edited by Hamm

Seitz

Werding

, 129–64. Berlin: Springer.

19.

Seitz

Freigang

Kempkes

. 2005. “Demographic Change and Federal Systems.” Spatial Aspects of Federative Systems, Speyerer Forschungsbericht 242:223–51.

20.

Seitz

Kempkes

. 2007. “Fiscal Federalism and Demography.” Public Finance Review 35:385–413.

21.

Statistische Ämter der Länder. 2008. Entstehung, Verteilung und Verwendung des Bruttoinlandsprodukts in den Ländern und Ost-West-Großraumregionen Deutschlands 1991 bis 2007. Arbeitskreis “Volkswirtschaftliche Gesamtrechnungen der Lönder”. Reihe 1, Band 5. Stuttgart.

22.

Statistisches Bundesamt. 2005. “Einkommens- und Verbrauchsstichprobe-Aufgabe, Methode und Durchführung der EVS [Income and Expenditure Survey-task, method and carrying out of EVS].” Fachserie 15, Heft 7.

23.

Statistisches Bundesamt. 2007. “Gesundheit-Krankheitskosten 2002 und 2004 [Health care-Disease expenses, 2002 and 2004].” Gesundheitsberichterstattung des Bundes (www.gbe-bund.de. Data provided upon request. Wiesbaden.

24.

Statistisches Bundesamt. 2009. Bevölkerung Deutschlands bis 2060. 12. koordinierte Bevölkerungsvorausberechnung. Wiesbaden.

25.

Werding

2008. Social Insurance: How to Pay for Pension and Health Care?, in Hamm

Seitz

Werding

(eds.), Demographic Change in Germany: The Economic and Fiscal Consequences, Springer, Berlin, 89–128.

26.

Werding Blau

(2002), Auswirkungen des demographischen Wandels auf die staatlichen Alterssicherungssysteme: Modellrechnungen bis 2050, ifo Beiträge zur Wirtschaftsforschung, vol. 8, Munich: ifo Institut für Wirtschaftsforschung.

27.

Werner

Shah

. 2005. “Fiscal Equalisation in Germany.” World bank Paper. Accessed January 21, 2011. http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/241116/FiscalEqualisationInGermany.pdf.