1996
DOI: 10.1080/135048596355844
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Public expenditure and Private investment: a study of the UK and the USA

Abstract: The effect of fiscal measures on private investment is examined using variance decompositions derived from the error correction model. The empirical results of the study provide little support for the importance of fiscal measures in explaining variations of private investment. Output and profitability were the only two important variables in explaining forecast error variance of private investment in either country.

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
4
0

Year Published

2001
2001
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
5
2

Relationship

0
7

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 7 publications
(4 citation statements)
references
References 9 publications
0
4
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Erenburg, 1993;Karras, 1994;Erenburg & Wohart, 1995;Flores de Frutos et al, 1998;Pereira, 2000Pereira, , 2001a find that crowding-in prevails. Finally, Monadjemi (1996), and Milbourne, Otto and Voss (2003) conclude that public investment has a positive but negligible effect on private investment.…”
Section: Testing the Crowding-in Versus The Crowding-out Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Erenburg, 1993;Karras, 1994;Erenburg & Wohart, 1995;Flores de Frutos et al, 1998;Pereira, 2000Pereira, , 2001a find that crowding-in prevails. Finally, Monadjemi (1996), and Milbourne, Otto and Voss (2003) conclude that public investment has a positive but negligible effect on private investment.…”
Section: Testing the Crowding-in Versus The Crowding-out Hypothesismentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Assuming individual time series are non-stationary and the private investment and its determinants are cointegrated, the dynamic private investment model can be represented by error correction mechanism. The relationship between cointegration and 1 Private investment is positively affected by income level as Chhibber and Wijnbergen (1988) for Turkey, Ramirez (1994) for Mexico, Monadjemi (1996) for Australia, and US, Mamatzakis (2001) for Greece, Pereira, and Sagales (2001) for Spain, Akkina, and Celibi (2002) for Turkey, Kim and Lim (2004) for Korea and Ouattara (2005) for Senegal.…”
Section: Econometric Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…For example, studies by Aschauer (1985) and Monadjemi (1993) provide evidence in support of the substitutability hypothesis whereas those by Erenburg(1993), Karras(1994), Erenburg and Wohar(1995) favour the complementarity hypothesis. Some recent multi-nation studies (e.g., Monadjemi 1996) show no strong evidence for either the crowding-out or crowding-in effects. Laopodis(2001) find evidence of crowding-out effect in some countries and of crowding-in effect in others.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 95%