“Ireland failed this test of prudent fiscal management.”

As RTÉ reports, an independent review of the Department of Finance’s performance over the last ten years has found that the Irish government repeatedly ignored the Department’s “clear warnings on the risks of pro-cyclical fiscal action”.  And that, “with very few exceptions”, the Irish government consistently implemented spending and tax relief policies “substantially above that advocated by the Department and Minister”.

From the Independent Review Panel report’s summary [pdf file]

6. The Panel reviewed in detail the annual June Memoranda to Cabinet on Budget Strategy. Generally speaking, we found that advice prepared by the Department for Cabinet did provide clear warnings on the risks of pro-cyclical fiscal action. These views were signed-off by the Finance Ministers of the day who would submit the Memoranda to Cabinet. The Department’s advice was more direct and comprehensive than concerns expressed by others in Ireland, or by international agencies. With very few exceptions, however the quantum of spending and tax relief outlined in December Budgets was very substantially above that advocated by the Department and Minister in June.

7. We see three key reasons for this failure of fiscal policy. First, there were extraordinary expectations of Government in Ireland to create spending and tax initiatives to share the fruits of recent economic gains. These pressures were reflected in the political debate of the day where all political parties were eager to meet public expectations for more and better services. As well, the Irish economy was regarded by most as a model. The EU fiscal rules, the Stability and Growth Pact, were respected, debt fell and spending appeared to be well below EU levels. The underlying dangers were either missed or ignored.

8. Second, the Government’s Budget process was completely overwhelmed by two dominant processes – Programmes for Government and the Social Partnership process. We recommend major changes to the budgetary process that would enhance ministerial accountability to Parliament, expand the release of detailed departmental analysis for consultation well before Budget time and provide oversight by some form of Fiscal Council.

9. Third, the Department of Finance should have done more to avoid this outcome. It did provide warnings on pro-cyclical fiscal policy and expressed concern about the risks of an overheated construction sector. However, it should have adapted its advice in tone and urgency after a number of years of fiscal complacency. It should have been more sensitive to and provided specific advice on broader macroeconomic risks. And it should have shown more initiative in making these points and in its advice on the construction sector, and tax policy generally. [added emphasis throughout]