Relationship between public expenditures and economic growth in budget constraint

430 | ICUEH2017 Relationship between public expenditures and economic growth in budget constraint TRAN TRUNG KIEN University of Economics HCMC – kientt@ueh.edu.vn Abstract This paper investigates relationship between public expenditures and economic growth in budget constraint Public expenditures are divided into productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure The budget constraint is conditional on public debt and fiscal balance Based on the panel data of 66 developing countries in the period of 1998 -2106, the study find that fiscal surplus enhances the growth effects of public unproductive expenditure and public productive expenditure, while the growth effect of public debt is only significant in the case unproductive expenditure when it exceeds 17.025% GDP Keywords: economic growth; public expenditure; budget constraint Introduction Many theories explain the impact of public expenditure on economic growth Wagner law focuses on the causal link between public expenditure and growth (Al-Faris, 2002; Bagdigen & Cetintas, 2003) As Keynesians say, public expenditure is a component of growth equation (Keynes, 1937) Endogenous models consider public expenditure by the extension of AK model (Barro, 1990; Devarajan, Swaroop, & Zou, 1996; Mankiw, Romer, & Weil, 1992) Empirical evidence has been still ambiguous When some papers indicate the positive effect of public expenditure on growth (Grier & Tullock, 1989; Holmes & Hutton, 1990; Lin, 1994; Ram, 1995), others imply the opposite one (Easterly & Rebelo, 1993; Fölster & Henrekson, 2001; Landau, 1985; Marlow, 1988; Tanninen, 1999) Meanwhile, some recent studies conclude the nonlinear growth effects of public expenditure (Chen & Lee, 2005; Abounoori & Nademi, 2010; Herath, 2012; Altunc & Aydin, 2013) Explaining the heterogeneity of the empirical results, some scholars point out the rationale of this one is the difference in public expenditure composition across the countries (Bayraktar & Moreno-Dodson, 2015; Gemmell, Misch, & Moreno-Dodson, 2012; Tran Trung Kien | 431 Martins & Veiga, 2014) A general increase in the scale of public expenditure leads to the apprehensiveness that increasing public spending would hurt the economy, causing negative externalities such as crowding-out effects, inefficient distribution However, the provision of public goods and public services like education, infrastructure and healthcare system are necessary for economic growth (Martins & Veiga, 2014) Some studies examining the growth effect of public expenditure with general measure often ignore trade-offs effects of specific public expenditure components If the budget constraint is constant, an increase in a component of public expenditure must be offset by the decrease in other public expenditure components (Gemmell et al., 2012; Martins & Veiga, 2014) Besides the disparity of public expenditure composition, the state of budget constraint is also a rationale of the difference in growth effect of public expenditure As Gemmell et al (2012) explain, budget constraint plays an important role in examining the impact of public expenditure on economic growth empirically because an increase in public spending generally requires funding, usually from tax increases However, the government can not forever raise taxes With limited resources, public expenditure financing comes not only from tax increases but also from debt financing, so public debt also plays an important role in the relationship between public expenditure and growth ( Zagler & Dürnecker, 2003) In this study, we explore the role of public expenditure composition and budget constraint in public expenditure and economic growth nexus in the case of developing countries, both in linear and non-linear context Following Martins and Veiga (2014), there is a large difference between developed and developing countries, so we concentrate on developing countries As far as we’re concerned, there are few of studies examining simultaneously the role of public expenditure components, fiscal balance and public debt in public expenditure and economic growth nexus in developing countries, especially in non-linear context This paper is designed as follows Section summarises the literature review on public expenditure and growth nexus The empirical models are presented in Sect and the results are displayed and analysed in Sect.4 Finally, Sect.5 is the conclusion Literature review Empirical studies researching on the relationship between public expenditure and growth are developed in many ways In general, based on research objectives, these studies are able to be classified into three groups: 432 | ICUEH2017 Firstly, based on Wagner's Law, many studies aimed at exploring the causal relationship between public expenditure and economic growth in different cases (Akitoby, Clements, Gupta, & Inchauste, 2006; Bagdigen & Cetintas, 2003; Chang, Huang, & Yang, 2011; Devlin & Hansen, 2001; Erdil & Yetkiner, 2009; Ghorbani & Zarea, 2009; Huang, 2006; Islam, 2001; Lamartina & Zaghini, 2011; Magazzino, 2012; Wu, Tang, & Lin, 2010) In particular, the most commonly used method is the Granger causality test for time series and panel data However, focusing on the causal link between public expenditure and economic growth, the role of other growth factors as well as the interactions between public expenditure and others have not been yet analysed thoroughly Secondly, some studies focus on analysing the short-term impact of public expenditure on economic growth These studies have also been developed in various ways, such as analysing the impact of a shock of public expenditure on macroeconomic factors (Beetsma & Giuliodori, 2011; Beetsma, Giuliodori, & Klaassen, 2008; Burriel et al., 2010; Ramey, 2011) or exploring the public expenditure multiplier in each case (Auerbach & Gorodnichenko, 2014; Caldara & Kamps, 2008; Ramey & Zubairy, 2014) The empirical methods used commonly in these studies are VAR methods for time series and panel data As usual, they use the Keynesian models to examine demand-side effects resulting from price rigidities and credit-constrained consumers and analyse investment and consumption responses explicitly (Gemmell et al., 2012) However, as Gemmell et al (2012) discussed, these studies don’t have a tendency to separate productive and unproductive public expenditure: public expenditure isn't analysed as a component of the production of private sector output, so one does not have an effect on the productivity of private sector inputs Consequently, its effect predicted by these models is determined mainly from other transmission channels that make it difficult to explore the effect of public expenditure components Thirdly, based on endogenous growth theory, many studies are concerned with the effect of public expenditure on economic growth in the long-term In the early period, some studies explore this effect with general public expenditure measure (Agell, Lindh, & Ohlsson, 1997; Bairam, 1990; Fölster & Henrekson, 1999; Ghali, 1999; P Hansen, 1994; Landau, 1985; Sattar, 1993; Sheehey, 1993) They usually ignore the difference in public expenditure composition and the budget constraint so the empirical results are controversial Therefore, several recent papers focus on the role of public expenditure composition or budget constraint in this nexus (Benos, 2009; Bleaney, Gemmell, & Kneller, 2001; Bose, Haque, & Osborn, 2007; Fan, Yu, & Saurkar, 2008; Romero-Avila & Tran Trung Kien | 433 Strauch, 2008; Teles & Mussolini, 2011) However, these empirical studies are mainly implemented in the linear context Empirical model As analysed, the empirical model of this study is based on Barro framework In extension, we categorise public expenditure into productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure (Devarajan et al., 1996; Kneller, Bleaney, & Gemmell, 1999) and analyse the role fiscal balance and public debt (Gemmell et al., 2012; Teles & Mussolini, 2011) in the empirical model In particular, productive expenditure is public expenditure components used for education, health care, transport and communication (Devarajan et al., 1996; Kneller, Bleaney, & Gemmell, 1999) and unproductive expenditure is extant public expenditure components Following Barro (1990), Mankiw et al (1992) Devarajan et al (1996) and Cooray (2009), the basic empirical model like that: d"#$%& = α)* + β "#y)*0 + β1 "#k )* + β3 "#h)* + β5 "#g.)* + β7 "#g 1)* + β8 Z)* + η) + ε)* (1) ηi ~ i.i.d (0, ση ) ; εit ~ i.i.d (0, σε ) ; E(ηiεit ) = GPP per capita growth rate (dlny)* = lny)* − lny)*0 ) = The first difference of log of GDP per capita in each country Private investment (lnkit) = Log of private investment to GDP in each country Human capital (lnhit) = Log of human capital indicator Productive expenditure (lng1) = Log of productive public expenditure components (education, health care, transport and communication) to GDP Unproductive expenditure (lng2) = Log of other public expenditure components (except for productive public expenditure components) to GDP Zit is a collective of control variables, such as public debt (dit) and trade openness (tradeit) All of them are in logarithm The choice of control variables is based on previous papers (Aizenman, Pinto, & Radziwill, 2007; Baldwin, 2004; Checherita-Westphal & Rother, 2012; Dowrick & Golley, 2004; Elmendorf & Mankiw, 1999; Grossman & Helpman, 1992; Harrison, 1996; Jin, 2000; Rodríguez, 2006; Saint-Paul, 1992) Similar to Teles and Mussolini (2011), we use interaction variables to examine the role of fiscal balance (surplusit) and public debt (dit) Moreover, we include interaction 434 | ICUEH2017 variables not only between productive expenditure with fiscal balance and public debt but also unproductive expenditure with ones: d"#$%& = α)* + β "#y)*0 + β1 "#k )* + β3 "#h)* + β5 "#g.)* + β7 "#g 1)* + β8 Z)* + β@ g.)* ∗ d)* + η) + ε)* (2) dln$%& = α)* + β lny)*0 + β1 lnk )* + β3 "#h)* + β5 "#g.)* + β7 "#g 1)* + β8 Z)* + βB g.)* ∗ surplus)* + η) + ε)* (3) dln$%& = α)* + β lny)*0 + β1 lnk )* + β3 "#h)* + β5 "#g.)* + β7 "#g 1)* + β8 Z)* + β@ g.)* ∗ d)* + βB g.)* ∗ surplus)* + η) + ε)* (4) d"#$%& = α)* + β "#y)*0 + β1 lnk )* + β3 "#h)* + β5 "#g.)* + β7 "#g 1)* + β8 Z)* + βG g 1)* ∗ d)* + η) + ε)* (5) dln$%& = α)* + β lny)*0 + β1 lnk )* + β3 "#h)* + β5 "#g.)* + β7 "#g 1)* + β8 Z)* + β.H g 1)* ∗ surplus)* + η) + ε)* (6) dln$%& = α)* + β lny)*0 + β1 lnk )* + β3 "#h)* + β5 "#g.)* + β7 "#g 1)* + β8 Z)* + βG g 1)* ∗ d)* + β.H g 1)* ∗ surplus)* + η) + ε)* (7) To estimate the proposed models, we use a panel data with the cross-section dimension of up to 66 developing countries and the time dimension covering the period 1998-2016 The majority of data are collected from International Monetary Fund (IMF), except for public expenditure components and human capital indicator Public expenditure components are gathered from Statistics on Public Expenditures for Economic Development (SPEED) International Food Policy Research Institute (IFPRI) and human capital is from Penn World Table 9.0 (PWT 9.0) of Groningen Growth and Development Centre- Groningen University Table Descriptive statistics Variable Mean Std Dev Min Max 5151.858 7088.306 111.531 54484.3 22.972 7.277 1.729 51.335 2.311 0.546 1.140 3.390 Public debt (d) 52.793 59.989 2.69 789.333 Trade openess (trade) 78.483 40.753 0.167 321.632 Productive expenditure (g1) 6.609 3.621 0.181 20.681 GDP per capita (y) Private investment (k) Human capital (h) Unproductive expenditure (g2) Source: IMF (2017); PWT 9.0, IFPRI 21.413 8.063 3.730 58.144 Tran Trung Kien | 435 We employ generalised method of moments (GMM) approach to estimate these models in the case of 66 developing countries 1998-2016 Following Arellano and Bond (1991), this approach may be useful to estimate a dynamic model from a panel data consistently and efficiently However, GMM approach requires careful consideration in the selection of instruments and regressors in each equation An equation may be overidentified, exactly identified or under-identified, depending on the numbers of instruments There is no instruction to decide how many instruments are suitable (Roodman 2009) Roodman (2009) suggests a rule of thumb that instruments should not be larger than the number of cross-sections Therefore, this study implements Arellano-Bond difference GMM as the difference GMM needs fewer instruments than system GMM In addition, we apply the Hansen’s threshold estimation to examine the non-linear growth effects of public expenditure components and explore the threshold values of these public expenditure components Although this approach is based on fixed-effect estimation, a bootstrap technique with 500 replications is employed that makes the empirical results more efficient In extension, we use fixed-effect estimation to analyse the role of fiscal balance and public debt in the public expenditure and economic growth nexus in each threshold regime1 Result 4.1 In linear context The empirical results of the model (1), (2), (3), (4), (5), (6) and (7) are respectively presented in Table The results show that the effects of most variables are similar to the theoretical expectation The negative effect of lnyt-1 reflects the convergence theory, the poor countries have faster growth rate to catch up with the rich countries Private investment and human capital have positive effects on economic growth that reflects the endogenous growth theory Meanwhile, trade openness, although the significance of its effect is not clear, has a negative impact on economic growth This result is similar to Yanikkaya (2003), also in the case of developing countries Yanikkaya (2003) points out trade barriers have the positive impact on economic growth in developing countries Explaining this result, The GMM approach is ineficient because of the small number of cross-sections in each sub-group 436 | ICUEH2017 Yanikkaya (2003) implies that trade barriers such as tariffs would help protect young industries in developing countries as well as implement strategic trade policies Similar to Presbitero (2012); Bal and Rath (2014); Zouhaier and Fatma (2014), the empirical results indicate a significant negative impact of public debt on economic growth in developing countries Presbitero (2012) argues that developing countries borrow and use loans inefficiently that enhances the negative impact of public debt on investment and causes more policy fluctuations Moreover, in developing countries, the cost of overborrowing outweighs the benefit of having more resources Like previous studies, in this case, the productive expenditure components (education, health care, transport and communication) have positive effects on economic growth while unproductive components have the opposite effects (Barro, 1990; Devarajan et al., 1996; Fan et al., 2008; Kneller et al., 1999) Barro’s model implies that an increase in resources used for unproductive government spending is associated with lower economic growth while productive government spending boosts economic growth As Fan et al (2008) argue, developing countries should scale down their public expenditure in unproductive sectors such as military, and reduce exaggerated subsidies in irrigation, fertiliser, pesticides and energy Meanwhile, the interactions between public expenditure components and fiscal balance have positive significant effects on economic growth According to Teles and Mussolini (2011), an increase in the productive public expenditure has a positive effect on economic growth However, the marginal effect of this one depends on the state of fiscal balance As productive expenditure rises in the context of large fiscal deficits, the government is forced to borrow Debt expansion has a negative impact reducing the positive effect of productive expenditure on economic growth Therefore, when the fiscal deficit is small, it makes less the negative effect on the growth effect of productive expenditure Similarly, the empirical results imply that the level of fiscal deficit exacerbates the negative effect of unproductive expenditure on economic growth Consequently, regardless of whether an increase in public expenditure is productive or unproductive expenditure, the smaller the fiscal deficit is, the less the negative impact on growth effect of public expenditure is created The empirical results indicate significant negative effects of the interaction between public expenditure components and public debt on economic growth The marginal effects of public expenditure components on economic growth are affected by the size of public debt An increase in public spending leads to higher interest rates, while Tran Trung Kien | 437 government pay interest on loans (Teles & Mussolini, 2011) Large interest payments overwhelm government spending, so governments with large public debt tend to cut spending on public investment in order to interest payments (Lora & Olivera, 2007; Sturm, 2001) 438 | ICUEH2017 Table The role of public expenditure components and budget constraint in public expenditure and economic growth nexus in developing countries (1998 – 2016) Variable (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) Lnyit-1 -0.7002*** -0.6750*** -0.6910*** -0.6962*** -0.7185*** -0.6440*** -0.7249*** Private investment (lnkit) 0.3999*** 0.2388*** 0.3312*** 0.3569*** 0.2823*** 0.4539*** 0.1827*** Human capital (lnkit) 4.9215*** 4.5301*** 4.2237*** 4.3465*** 4.6553*** 4.4537*** 4.3709*** -0.017 -0.010 -0.0395* -0.0397** -0.0285** -0.015 -0.013 -0.1938*** -0.1308*** -0.0589** -0.0777** -0.0627* -0.0873*** -0.0791** 0.0742** 0.1032** 0.0753* 0.0969* 0.044 0.1279*** 0.0982*** -0.3973*** -0.3106*** -0.3116*** -0.2759*** -0.3149*** -0.3403*** -0.1060*** Trade openness (lntradeit) Public debt (lndit) Productive expenditure (lng1it) Unproductive expenditure (lng2it) Productive expenditure * Public debt -0.0002* Productive expenditure * fiscal balance -0.0002*** 0.0008*** 0.0009*** Unproductive expenditure * Public debt -0.0000** Unproductive expenditure * fiscal balance -0.0000** 0.0003*** 0.0003*** Hansen test 0.122 0.200 0.121 0.174 0.185 0.124 0.179 Sargan test 0.348 0.572 0.521 0.490 0.401 0.494 0.837 AR(2) test 0.900 0.485 0.925 0.698 0.949 0.576 0.695 43 50 50 51 50 50 57 Number of instruments *, **, and *** show the statistical significance at 1, 5, 10 % levels respectively Tran Trung Kien | 439 4.2 In non-linear context We examine the growth effects of public expenditure components in non-linear context The productive expenditure and unproductive expenditure are respectively found at 2.838% GDP and 17.025% GDP The empirical results are presented in Table Table The effect of public expenditure on economic growth in developing countries in nonlinear context (1998-2016) Variable (1) (2) g1 ≤ 2.838% GDP g1 > 2.838% GDP g2 ≤ 17.025% GDP g2 > 17.025% GDP Lnyit-1 -0.147*** -0.184*** -0.176*** -0.158*** Private investment (lnkit) 0.134*** 0.097*** 0.024 0.177*** Human capital (lnkit) 0.605*** 1.066*** 1.106*** 0.969*** Trade openness (lntradeit) -0.039*** -0.016 -0.019 0.004 Public debt (lndit) -0.057*** -0.104*** -0.091*** -0.095*** Productive expenditure (lng1it) -0.006** 0.042* 0.001 0.006 -0.057 -0.073*** 0.040 -0.170*** Unproductive expenditure (lng2it) *, **, and *** show the statistical significance at 1, 5, 10 % levels respectively In general, productive expenditure has a positive impact on economic growth However, if its scale is extremely small (g1 ≤ 2.838% GDP), productive expenditure is too weak to support economic growth Until it passes the threshold value (g1 > 2.838% GDP), productive expenditure is large enough to have the positive effect on economic growth Meanwhile, unproductive is typically detrimental to economic growth Nonetheless, its negative effect is only significant when it is larger than the threshold value (g2 > 17.025% GDP) In addition, we explore the role of public expenditure components and budget constraint in each threshold regime by adding suitable interaction variables The results are displayed in Table 440 | ICUEH2017 Table The role of public expenditure components and budget constraint in each threshold regime (1998-2016) Variable (1) (2) g1 ≤ 2.838% GDP g1 > 2.838% GDP g2 ≤ 17.025% GDP g2 > 17.025% GDP -0.294*** -0.175*** -0.224*** -0.190*** 0.089 0.101*** 0.015 0.177*** Human capital (lnkit) 2.085*** 1.028*** 1.195*** 1.335*** Trade openness (lntradeit) -0.033** -0.028 -0.112*** -0.008 Public debt (lndit) -0.077** -0.099*** -0.145*** -0.058*** Productive expenditure (lng1it) -0.066 0.053** 0.000 0.025 Unproductive expenditure (lng2it) 0.003 -0.041 0.083* -0.080* Productive expenditure * Public debt 0.000 0.000 Productive expenditure * fiscal balance 0.007*** 0.001*** Unproductive expenditure * Public debt 0.000 -0.000* Unproductive expenditure * fiscal balance 0.0005*** 0.0002*** Lnyit-1 Private investment (lnkit) *, **, and *** show the statistical significance at 1, 5, 10 % levels respectively The empirical results indicate the positive impact of fiscal balance on the adjustment of the effect of public expenditure components on economic growth in developing countries, regardless of the scale of these public expenditure components Meanwhile, the negative impact of public debt on the growth of public expenditure components is only clear in the case unproductive expenditure exceeds 17.025% GDP Conclusions Public expenditure composition and budget constraint play a significant role in explaining the growth effect of public expenditure in developing countries Public expenditure components have other effects on economic growth In particular, productive expenditure generally supports economic growth while unproductive expenditure has the opposite impact Moreover, the growth effects of these public expenditure components Tran Trung Kien | 441 depend on the state of fiscal balance and public debt The smaller fiscal deficit and public debt are, the less negative effects they affect on growth effects of these public expenditure components Additionally, the public expenditure and economic growth nexus is analysed in nonlinear context The threshold values of productive and unproductive expenditure are respectively 2.838% GDP and 17.025% GDP In extension, we explore the role of public expenditure components and budget constraint in each threshold regime Interestingly, the empirical results show that the fiscal balance affects positively on growth effects of public expenditure components regardless of the scale of these ones Meanwhile, public debt only has significant negative effect on the growth effect of public expenditure components in the case unproductive expenditure exceeds 17.025% GDP References Agell, J., Lindh, T., & Ohlsson, H (1997) Growth and the public sector: A critical review essay European Journal of Political Economy, 13(1), 33-52 Aizenman, J., Pinto, B., & Radziwill, A (2007) Sources for financing domestic capital–Is foreign saving a viable option for developing countries? Journal of International Money and Finance, 26(5), 682-702 Akitoby, B., Clements, B., Gupta, S., & Inchauste, G (2006) Public spending, voracity, and Wagner's law in developing countries European Journal of Political Economy, 22(4), 908-924 Al-Faris, A F (2002) Public expenditure and economic growth in the Gulf Cooperation Council countries Applied Economics, 34(9), 1187-1193 Auerbach, A J., & Gorodnichenko, Y (2014) Fiscal Multipliers in Japan Retrieved from Bagdigen, M., & Cetintas, H (2003) Causality between Public Expenditure and Economic Growth: The Turkish Case Journal of Economic and Social Research, 6(1), 53-72 Bairam, E (1990) Government size and economic growth: the African experience, 1960–85 Applied Economics, 22(10), 1427-1435 Bal, D P., & Rath, B N (2014) Public debt and economic growth in India: A reassessment Economic Analysis and Policy, 44(3), 292-300 Baldwin, R E (2004) Openness and growth: What's the empirical relationship? Challenges to globalization: Analyzing the economics (pp 499-526): University of Chicago Press Barro, R J (1990) Government spending in a simple model of endogeneous growth Journal of political economy, 98(5, Part 2), S103-S125 Bayraktar, N., & Moreno-Dodson, B (2015) How can public spending help you grow? An empirical analysis for developing countries Bulletin of Economic Research, 67(1), 30-64 442 | ICUEH2017 Beetsma, R., & Giuliodori, M (2011) The effects of government purchases shocks: review and estimates for the EU The Economic Journal, 121(550) Beetsma, R., Giuliodori, M., & Klaassen, F (2008) The effects of public spending shocks on trade balances and budget deficits in the European Union Journal of the European Economic Association, 6(2-3), 414423 Benos, N (2009) Fiscal policy and economic growth: empirical evidence from EU countries Bleaney, M., Gemmell, N., & Kneller, R (2001) Testing the endogenous growth model: public expenditure, taxation, and growth over the long run Canadian Journal of Economics/Revue canadienne d'économique, 34(1), 36-57 Bose, N., Haque, M E., & Osborn, D R (2007) Public expenditure and economic growth: a disaggregated analysis for developing countries The Manchester School, 75(5), 533-556 Burriel, P., De Castro, F., Garrote, D., Gordo, E., Paredes, J., & Pérez, J J (2010) Fiscal policy shocks in the euro area and the US: an empirical assessment Fiscal Studies, 31(2), 251-285 Caldara, D., & Kamps, C (2008) What are the effects of fiscal policy shocks? A VAR-based comparative analysis Chang, H.-C., Huang, B.-N., & Yang, C W (2011) Military expenditure and economic growth across different groups: A dynamic panel Granger-causality approach Economic Modelling, 28(6), 2416-2423 Checherita-Westphal, C., & Rother, P (2012) The impact of high government debt on economic growth and its channels: An empirical investigation for the euro area European Economic Review, 56(7), 13921405 Cooray, A (2009) Government Expenditure, Governance and Economic Growth Comparative Economic Studies, 51(3), 401-418 Devarajan, S., Swaroop, V., & Zou, H.-f (1996) The composition of public expenditure and economic growth Journal of monetary economics, 37(2), 313-344 Devlin, N., & Hansen, P (2001) Health care spending and economic output: Granger causality Applied Economics Letters, 8(8), 561-564 doi:10.1080/13504850010017357 Dowrick, S., & Golley, J (2004) Trade openness and growth: who benefits? Oxford review of economic policy, 20(1), 38-56 Easterly, W., & Rebelo, S (1993) Fiscal policy and economic growth Journal of monetary economics, 32(3), 417-458 Elmendorf, D W., & Mankiw, N G (1999) Government debt Handbook of macroeconomics, 1, 1615-1669 Erdil, E., & Yetkiner, I H (2009) The Granger-causality between health care expenditure and output: a panel data approach Applied Economics, 41(4), 511-518 Fan, S., Yu, B., & Saurkar, A (2008) Public spending in developing countries: trends, determination, and impact Fölster, S., & Henrekson, M (1999) Growth and the public sector: a critique of the critics European Journal of Political Economy, 15(2), 337-358 Tran Trung Kien | 443 Fölster, S., & Henrekson, M (2001) Growth effects of government expenditure and taxation in rich countries European Economic Review, 45(8), 1501-1520 Gemmell, N., Misch, F., & Moreno-Dodson, B (2012) Public spending and long-run growth in practice: concepts, tools, and evidence Ghali, K H (1999) Government size and economic growth: evidence from a multivariate cointegration analysis Applied Economics, 31(8), 975-987 Ghorbani, M., & Zarea, A F (2009) Investigating Wagner's law in Iran's economy Journal of Economics and International Finance, 1(5), 115 Grier, K B., & Tullock, G (1989) An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth, 1951–1980 Journal of monetary economics, 24(2), 259-276 Grossman, G M., & Helpman, E (1992) Protection for sale Retrieved from Hansen, B E (1999) Threshold effects in non-dynamic panels: Estimation, testing, and inference Journal of econometrics, 93(2), 345-368 Hansen, P (1994) Investment data and the empirical relationship between exporters, government and economic growth Applied Economics Letters, 1(7), 107-110 Harrison, A (1996) Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries Journal of development economics, 48(2), 419-447 Holmes, J M., & Hutton, P A (1990) On the casual relationship between government expenditures and national income The Review of Economics and Statistics, 87-95 Huang, C (2006) Government Expenditures in China and Taiwan: Do they Follow Wagner's Law? Journal of Economic Development, 31(2), 139 Islam, A M (2001) Wagner's law revisited: cointegration and exogeneity tests for the USA Applied Economics Letters, 8(8), 509-515 Jin, J C (2000) Openness and growth: an interpretation of empirical evidence from East Asian countries Journal of International Trade & Economic Development, 9(1), 5-17 Keynes, J M (1937) The general theory of employment The quarterly journal of economics, 51(2), 209223 Kneller, R., Bleaney, M F., & Gemmell, N (1999) Fiscal policy and growth: evidence from OECD countries Journal of Public Economics, 74(2), 171-190 Lamartina, S., & Zaghini, A (2011) Increasing public expenditure: Wagner's law in OECD countries German Economic Review, 12(2), 149-164 Landau, D L (1985) Government expenditure and economic growth in the developed countries: 1952–76 Public Choice, 47(3), 459-477 Lin, S A (1994) Government spending and economic growth Applied Economics, 26(1), 83-94 Lora, E., & Olivera, M (2007) Public debt and social expenditure: Friends or foes? Emerging Markets Review, 8(4), 299-310 444 | ICUEH2017 Magazzino, C (2012) Wagner versus Keynes: Public spending and national income in Italy Journal of Policy Modeling, 34(6), 890-905 Mankiw, N G., Romer, D., & Weil, D N (1992) A contribution to the empirics of economic growth The quarterly journal of economics, 107(2), 407-437 Marlow, M L (1988) Fiscal decentralization and government size Public Choice, 56(3), 259-269 Martins, S., & Veiga, F J (2014) Government size, composition of public expenditure, and economic development International Tax and Public Finance, 21(4), 578 Presbitero, A F (2012) Total public debt and growth in developing countries The European Journal of Development Research, 24(4), 606-626 Ram, R (1995) Defense expenditure and economic growth Handbook of defense economics, 1, 251-274 Ramey, V A (2011) Can government purchases stimulate the economy? Journal of Economic Literature, 49(3), 673-685 Ramey, V A., & Zubairy, S (2014) Government spending multipliers in good times and in bad: evidence from US historical data Retrieved from Rodríguez, F (2006) Openness and growth: what have we learned Romero-Avila, D., & Strauch, R (2008) Public finances and long-term growth in Europe: Evidence from a panel data analysis European Journal of Political Economy, 24(1), 172-191 Saint-Paul, G (1992) Fiscal policy in an endogenous growth model The quarterly journal of economics, 107(4), 1243-1259 Sattar, Z (1993) Government control and economic growth in Asia: Evidence from time series data The Pakistan Development Review, 179-197 Sheehey, E J (1993) The effect of government size on economic growth Eastern Economic Journal, 19(3), 321-328 Sturm, J.-E (2001) Determinants of public capital spending in less-developed countries: University of Groningen Tanninen, H (1999) Income inequality, government expenditures and growth Applied Economics, 31(9), 1109-1117 Teles, V., & Mussolini, C C (2011) Public debt and the limits of fiscal policy to increase economic growth REAP: Rede de Economia Aplicada Working Paper, 17 Wu, S.-Y., Tang, J.-H., & Lin, E S (2010) The impact of government expenditure on economic growth: How sensitive to the level of development? Journal of Policy Modeling, 32(6), 804-817 Yanikkaya, H (2003) Trade openness and economic growth: a cross-country empirical investigation Journal of development economics, 72(1), 57-89 Zouhaier, H., & Fatma, M (2014) Debt and economic growth International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 4(2), 440-448