The Fiscal Policy of Bulgaria from the Standpoints of the Business Cycle and the Twin Deficits Hypothesis

Ivan Todorov, Kalina Durova


Macroeconomic management of a small open economy in a currency board arrangement faces two serious problems: first, under a fixed exchange rate, fiscal policy is the only effective macroeconomic instrument for smoothing out the business cycle; second, the twin deficits phenomenon, if it exists, may jeopardize the stability of the currency board arrangement. This paper uses quarterly seasonally adjusted Eurostat data for the period of 1999–2019, the Hodrick–Prescott filter and a vector autoregression (VAR) to answer the three questions that are of utmost importance to Bulgarian policy-makers: first, is the discretionary fiscal policy of the Bulgarian government procyclical or countercyclical? Second, do the automatic stabilizers in the Bulgarian state budget function properly? Finally, is the twin deficits hypothesis valid for Bulgaria? Our findings imply that the fiscal discretion of the Bulgarian government is procyclical, while the automatic fiscal stabilizers do not work effectively. The first part of the twin deficits hypothesis (the causal link between the fiscal balance and the current account balance) is confirmed but the second part of the twin deficits hypothesis (the positive relationship between the fiscal balance and the current account balance) is rejected for Bulgaria. It may be inferred that both sides of the Bulgarian state budget (revenue and expenditure) need to be improved in order to increase the effectiveness of Bulgaria’s fiscal policy. Low budget deficits (not higher than 3% of GDP) are recommended for improving the current account balance and encouraging economic growth.

For citation

Todorov I., Durova K. The Fiscal Policy of Bulgaria from the Standpoints of the Business Cycle and the Twin Deficits Hypothesis. Journal of Tax Reform. 2020;6(3):256–269. DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2020.6.3.085.

Article info

Received October 2, 2020; Revised November 6, 2020; Accepted November 11, 2020


Bulgaria, fiscal policy cyclicality, twin deficits hypothesis, fiscal discretion, automatic fiscal stabilizers


Neycheva M. Fiscal Policy in the Process of Accession to the Eu. Management and Sustainable Development. 2005;13(3-4):237–240. Available at:
2. Halland H., Bleaney M. Explaining the Procyclicality of Fiscal Policy in Developing Countries. University of Nottingham, CREDIT, 2011. Discussion Papers No. 11/09. Available at:
3. Alesina A., Campante F., Tabellini G. Why is Fiscal Policy often Procyclical? Journal of the European Economic Association. 2008;6(5):1006–1036. DOI: 10.1162/JEEA.2008.6.5.1006.
4. Alesina A., Tabellini G. Why is fiscal policy often procyclical? Harvard Institute of Economic Research. Discussion Paper No. 2090. CESifo Working Paper Series 1556; 2005. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.780225.
5. Andersen A., Nielsen L. Fiscal Transparency and Procyclical Fiscal Policy. EPRU Working Paper Series, No. 2010-01, University of Copenhagen, 2008. Available at:
6. Aliyev I. Is Fiscal Policy Procyclical in Resource-Rich Countries. CERGE-EI Working Paper Series No. 464, 2012. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2113937.
7. Riascos A., Vegh C. Procyclical Government Spending in Developing Countries: The Role of Capital Market Imperfections. 2003. Available at:
8. Lane Ph. The Cyclical Behavior of Fiscal Policy: Evidence from the OECD. Journal of Public Economics. 2002;87(12):2661–2675. DOI: 10.1016/S0047-2727(02)00075-0.
9. Alberola-Ila E., Kataryniuk I., Melguizo A., Orozco R. Fiscal policy and the cycle in Latin America: the role of financing conditions and fiscal rules. BIS Working Papers No 543, Bank for International Settlements; 2016. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.2729709.
10. Manasse P. Procyclical Fiscal Policy: Shocks, Rules, and Institutions– a View from MARS. IMF WP 06/27, International Monetary Fund; 2006. DOI: 10.5089/9781451862874.001.
11. Bova E., Carcenac N., Guerguil M. Fiscal Rules and the Procyclicality of Fiscal Policy in the Developing World. IMF WP/14/122, International Monetary Fund; 2014. DOI: 10.5089/9781498305525.001.
12. Mitra P., Khan G. Twin Deficits Hypothesis: An Empirical Analysis in the Context of India. International Journal of Commerce & Business Studies. 2014;2(2):10–23. Available at:
13. Durusu-Ciftci D. The Twin Deficits Hypothesis: New Evidence from GIIPS Accounting for Structural Shifts in Causal Linkages. Journal of Management and Economic Research. 2018;16(3):51–69. DOI: 10.11611/yead.447788.
14. Lonevskyi O., Klimaitis K. The Twin Deficits Hypothesis in the Eastern European Group: An Empirical Investigation. Bachelor Thesis, Stockholm School of Economics; 2019. DOI: 10.13140/RG.2.2.19629.84962.
15. Sobrino C. The twin deficits hypothesis and reverse causality: A short-run analysis of Peru. Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science. 2013;18(34):9–15. DOI: 10.1016/S2077-1886(13)70018-0.
16. Kiran, B. (2011). On The Twin Deficits Hypothesis: Evidence from Turkey. Applied Econometrics and International Development. 2011;11(1):59–66. Available at:
17. Lau E., Baharumshah A. Twin Deficits Hypothesis in SEACEN Countries: A Panel Data Analysis of Relationships between Public Budget and Current Account Deficits. Applied Econometrics and International Development. 2006;6(2):213–226. Available at:
18. Ganchev G. The twin deficit hypothesis: the case of Bulgaria. Financial Theory and Practice. 2010;34(4):357–377. Available at:
19. Ephaha M. (2017). The Twin Deficits Hypothesis: An Empirical Analysis for Tanzania. Romanian Economic Journal. 2017;20(65):2–34. Available at:
20. Tosun M., Iyidogan P., Telatar E. The twin deficits in selected central and Eastern European economies: Bounds testing approach with causality analysis. Romanian Journal of Economic Forecasting. 2014;17(2):141–160. Available at:
21. Bolaman O., Yucel A. Twin Deficit Hypothesis: an Empirical Study in Turkey. In: Conference: Marmara Üniversitesi Uluslararası Finans Sempozyum. İstanbul; 2012, pp. 467–476. Available at:
22. Corsetti G., Müller G. Twin Deficits: Squaring Theory, Evidence and Common Sense. Economic Policy. 2006;21(48):597–638. DOI: 10.1111/j.1468-0327.2006.00167.x.
23. Vyshnyak O. Twin Deficit Hypothesis: The Case of Ukraine. Kyiv: National University Kyiv; 2000. Available at:
24. Ganchev G., Stavrova E., Tsenkov V. Testing the Twin Deficit Hypothesis: the Case of Central and Eastren European Countries. International Journal of Contemporary Economics and Administrative Sciences. 2010;2(1):1–21. Available at:
25. Todorov I., Tanchev S., Yurukov P. Impact of External Shocks on Bulgaria’s Growth and Cycle. Balkans Journal of Emerging Trends in Social Sciences. 2019;2(2):158–168. DOI: 10.31410/Balkans.JETSS.2019.2.2.158-168.
26. Todorov I., Tanchev S., Yurukov P. Does automation or discretion drive money supply in Bulgaria? Dos Algarves: A Multidisciplinary e-Journal. 2019;(35):40–56. DOI: 10.18089/DAMeJ.2019.35.3.
27. Tanchev S., Todorov I. Tax Buoyancy and Economic Growth: Empirical Evidence of Bulgaria. Journal of Tax Reform. 2019;5(3):236–248, DOI: 10.15826/jtr.2019.5.3.070.
28. Stoilova D. Tax structure and economic growth: Evidence from the European Union. Contaduría y Administración. 2017;62(3):1041–1057. DOI: 10.1016/j.cya.2017.04.006.
29. Patonov N. Searching for A Restraint on the European Leviathan. Scientific Annals of Economics and Business. 2013;60(2):1–16. DOI: 10.2478/aicue-2013-0027.


Copyright (c) 2020 Ivan Todorov, Kalina Durova

eLibrary logoeLibrary logo  DOAJ logo ERIH PLUS logo 

© Journal of Tax Reform : ISSN 2414-9497 (online), ISSN 2412-8872 (print)