The impact of government expenditure on economic growth: How sensitive to the level of development?

Journal of Policy Modeling

Volumn 32, Issue 6, 2010, Pages 804-817

  Wu, Shih Ying ^a   Tang, Jenn Hong ^a   Lin, Eric S ^a  

^a NATIONAL TSING HUA UNIVERSITY   (Taiwan)

Author keywords

Economic growth; Government size; Panel Granger causality; Wagner's law

Indexed keywords

EID: 78649457147     PISSN: 01618938     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jpolmod.2010.05.011     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Abu-Bader S., Abu-Quar A. Government expenditures, military spending and economic growth: Causality evidence from Egypt, Israel and Syria. Journal of Policy Modeling 2003, 25:567-583.
2. Agell J., Lindh T., Ohlsson H. Growth and the public sector: A critical review essay. European Journal of Political Economy 1997, 13:33-52.
3. Akitoby B., Clements B., Gupta S., Inchauste G. Public spending, voracity, and Wagner's law in developing countries. European Journal of Political Economy 2006, 22:908-924.
4. Barro R. Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy 1990, 98:S103-S125.
5. Barro R. Economic growth in a cross section of countries. Quarterly Journal of Economics 1991, 106:407-443.
6. Breitung J. The local power of some unit root tests for panel data. Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels, advances in econometrics 2000, Vol. 15. JAI, Amsterdam.
7. Choi I. Unit root tests for panel data. Journal of International Money and Finance 2001, 20:249-272.
8. Dakurah H.A., Davies S.P., Sampath R.K. Defense spending and economic growth in developing countries: A causality analysis. Journal of Policy Modeling 2001, 23:651-658.
9. Dar A.A., AmirKhalkhali S. Government size, factor accumulation, and economic growth: Evidence from OECD countries. Journal of Policy Modeling 2002, 24:679-692.
10. Dawson J.W. Causality in the freedom-growth relationship. European Journal of Political Economy 2003, 19:479-495.
11. Dritsakis N. Defense spending and economic growth: An empirical investigation for Greece and Turkey. Journal of Policy Modeling 2004, 26:249-264.
12. Easterly W. The elusive quest for growth 2001, MIT Press.
13. Easterly W. Reliving the 1950s: The big push, poverty traps, and takeoffs in economic development. Journal of Economic Growth 2006, 11:289-318.
14. Ghali K. Government size and economic growth: Evidence from a multivariate cointegration analysis. Applied Economics 1998, 31:975-987.
15. Granger C.W.J. Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 1969, 37:424-438.
16. Granger C.W.J. Some aspects of causal relationships. Journal of Econometrics 2003, 112:69-71.
17. Guerrero, F., & Elliott, P. (2007). The effect of federal government size on long-term economic growth in the United States, 1792-2004. UNR Economics Working Paper No. 07-002.
18. Halicioĝlu F. Testing Wagner's law for Turkey, 1960-2000. Review of Middle East Economics and Finance 2003, 1(2):129-140.
19. Hansson P., Henrekson M. A new framework for testing the effect of government spending on growth and productivity. Public Choice 1994, 81:381-401.
20. Henrekson M. Wagner's law - A spurious relationship. Public Finance 1993, 48:406-415.
21. Heston, A., Summers, R., & Aten, B. (2006). Penn World Table version 6.2. Center for International Comparisons of Production, Income and Prices at the University of Pennsylvania.
22. Holtz-Eakin D., Newey W., Rosen H.S. Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data. Econometrica 1988, 56:1371-1395.
23. Hurlin, C. (2004). Testing Granger causality in heterogenous panel data models with fixed coefficients. Document de recherche LEO, 2004-4, University of Orleans.
24. Hurlin C. Un test simple de l'hypothèse de non causalité dans un modèle de panel hétérogène. Revue Economique 2005, 56:799-809.
25. Hurlin, C., & Venet, B. (2003). Granger causality tests in panel data models with fixed coefficients. University Paris IX, Mimeo.
26. Im K.S., Pesaran M.H., Shin Y. Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels. Journal of Econometrics 2003, 115:53-74.
27. Iyare S.O., Lorde T. Cointegration, causality and Wagner's law: Tests from selected Caribbean countries. Applied Economics Letters 2004, 11:815-825.
28. La Porta R., Lopez-de-Silanes F., Shleifer A., Vishny R. The quality of government. Journal of Law, Economics & Organization 1999, 15(1):222-279.
29. Levin A., Lin C.-F., Chu C.-S. Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties. Journal of Econometrics 2002, 108:1-24.
30. Maddala G.S., Wu S. A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics 1999, 61:631-652.
31. Mauro P. Corruption and the composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics 1998, 69(2):263-279.
32. Narayan P.K., Nielsen I., Smyth R. Panel data, cointegration, causality and Wagner's law: Empirical evidence from Chinese provinces. China Economic Review 2008, 19:297-307.
33. Nickell S. Biases in dynamic models with fixed effects. Econometrica 1981, 49:1417-1426.
34. Peacock A., Scott A. The curious attraction of Wagner's law. Public Choice 2000, 102:1-17.
35. Ram R. Government size and economic growth: A new framework and some evidence from cross-section and time-series data. American Economic Review 1986, 76:191-203.
36. Wagner, A. (1958). Three extracts on public finance. In R. A. Musgrave, & A. T. Peacock (Eds.), Classics in the theory of public finance (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: MacMillan (extracts from Finanzwissenschaft, Part I, Third Edition, Leipzig, 1883, pp. 4-16, 69-76).