Crowding-Out Effect: Evidence from OECD Countries

Year 2020, Volume: 70 Issue: 1, 1 - 16, 30.06.2020

Mehmet Emre Ünsal

https://doi.org/10.26650/ISTJECON2020-0001

Abstract

The concept of the crowding-out effect, which is used to describe how an expansionary fiscal policy would reduce private investments, has become one of the major areas of research in the economy. This study aims to investigate whether or not the crowding-out effect is applicable in OECD countries. For this purpose, Panel Data Analysis was performed for the period 1995-2017. This analysis uses private investments of countries as dependent variables and, in addition to GDP and total government expenditures, it uses education, health, general public services, social protection, economic affairs, defence, public order and safety expenditures of the government as independent variables. Panel Data Analysis was performed using Huber-Eicker-White Estimator in line with the results of econometric tests required for this analysis such as stationarity, model determination, heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation. As a result, in OECD countries, while economic growth and defence expenditures of the government positively affect private investments, total government expenditures and social protection expenditures of the government have a crowding-out effect on private investments.

Keywords

Crowding-out effect, Government expenditures, Panel data analysis

Dışlama Etkisi: OECD Ülkelerinden Kanıtlar

Abstract

Genişletici maliye politikasının özel yatırımları azaltacağını iddia eden dışlama etkisi görüşü ekonomide önemli araştırma alanlarından biri olmuştur. Bu çalışma, OECD ülkelerinde dışlama etkisinin geçerli olup olmadığını araştırmayı amaçlamaktadır. Bu amaçla, 1995-2017 dönemi için Panel Veri Analizi yapılmaktadır. Bu analizde, ülkelere ait özel yatırımlar bağımlı değişken olarak; GDP ve toplam hükümet harcamalarına ek olarak hükümet tarafından yapılan eğitim, sağlık, genel kamu hizmetleri, sosyal koruma, ekonomik işler, savunma, kamu düzen ve güvenlik harcamaları bağımsız değişkenler olarak kullanılmaktadır. Panel Veri Analizi, bu analiz için gerekli olan durağanlık, model belirleme, heteroskedasite ve otokorelasyon gibi ekonometrik testlerin sonuçları doğrultusunda Huber-Eicker-White Tahmincisi ile yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak, OECD ülkelerinde ekonomik büyüme ve hükümetin savunma harcamaları özel yatırımları pozitif etkilerken, toplam hükümet harcamaları ve hükümetin sosyal koruma harcamaları özel yatırımlar üzerinde dışlama etkisine sebep olmaktadır.

Keywords

Dışlama etkisi, Hükümet harcamaları, Panel veri analizi

References

• Afonso, A., & Sousa, R. M. (2012). The macroeconomic effects of fiscal policy. Applied Economics, 44(34), 4439-4454.
• Anyanwu, A., Gan, C., & Hu, B. (2017). Government domestic debt, private sector credit, and crowding outeffect in oil-dependent countries. Journal of Economic Research, 22(2), 127-151.
• Balcerzak, A. P., & Rogalska, E. (2014). Crowding out and crowding in within Keynesian framework. Do weneed any new empirical research concerning them. Economics & Sociology, 7(2), 80-93.
• Başar, S., & Temurlenk, M. S. (2007). Investigating crowding-out effect of government spending for Turkey: Astructural var approach. Atatürk Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Dergisi, 21(2), 95-104.
• Bekmez, S., & Destek, M. A. (2015). Savunma harcamalarında dışlama etkisinin incelenmesi: Panel verianalizi. Siyaset, Ekonomi ve Yönetim Araştırmaları Dergisi, 3(2), 91-110.
• Buiter, W. H. (1977). ‘Crowding out’and the effectiveness of fiscal policy. Journal of public economics, 7(3),309-328.
• Carrion‐i‐Silvestre, J.L. and Sansó, A. (2006). Testing the Null of Cointegration with Structural Breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 68: 623-646. doi:10.1111/j.1468-0084.2006.00180.x
• Cavallo, E., & Daude, C. (2011). Public investment in developing countries: A blessing or a curse?. Journal of Comparative Economics, 39(1), 65-81.
• Cural, M., Eriçok, R. E., & Yılancı, V. (2012). Türkiye’de kamu yatırımlarının özel sektör yatırımları üzerindeki etkisi: 1970-2009. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 12(1), 73-88.
• Dahmardeh, N., Pahlavani, M., & Mahmoodi, M. (2011). Government spending and private consumption in selected Asian developing countries. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 64(64), 140-146.
• Demir, F. (2017). Türkiye’de dışlama etkisinin incelenmesi: 1983-2013 dönemi için bir uygulama. DumlupınarÜniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, (52), 75-87.
• Demirel, B., Erdem, C., & Eroğlu, İ. (2017). The crowding out effect from the European debt crisis perspective: Eurozone experience. International Journal of Sustainable Economy, 9(1), 1-18.
• Drukker, D. M. (2003). Testing for serial correlation in linear panel-data models. The stata journal, 3(2), 168-177.
• Furceri, D., & Sousa, R. M. (2011). The impact of government spending on the private sector: Crowding‐out versus crowding‐in effects. Kyklos, 64(4), 516-533.
• Gjini, A., & Kukeli, A. (2012). Crowding-out effect of public investment on private investment: An empirical investigation. Journal of Business & Economics Research, 10(5), 269-276.
• Hall, B., & Mairesse, J. (2002). Testing for unit roots in panel data: An exploration using real and simulated data. Identification and Inference for Econometric Models. Essays in Honor of Thomas Rothenberg, 451-475.
• Harris, R. & Tzavalis, E., 1996. Inference for Unit Roots in Dynamic Panels. Discussion Papers 9604, University of Exeter, Department of Economics.
• Hoechle, D. (2007). Robust standard errors for panel regressions with cross-sectional dependence. The Stata Journal, 7(3), 281-312.
• Hur, S. K., Mallick, S., & Park, D. (2014). Fiscal policy and crowding out in developing Asia. Environment and Planning C: Government and Policy, 32(6), 1117-1132.
• Lin, E. S., Ali, H. E., & Lu, Y. L. (2015). Does military spending crowd out social welfare expenditures? Evidence from a panel of OECD countries. Defence and Peace Economics, 26(1), 33-48.
• Neal, T. (2014). Panel cointegration analysis with xtpedroni. The Stata Journal, 14(3), 684-692.
• Nieh, C. C., & Ho, T. W. (2006). Does the expansionary government spending crowd out the private consumption?: Cointegration analysis in panel data. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 46(1), 133-148.
• OECD (2020), Gross domestic product (GDP) (indicator). doi: 10.1787/dc2f7aec-en (Accessed on 31 January 2020).
• OECD (2020), General government spending (indicator). doi: 10.1787/a31cbf4d-en (Accessed on 31 January 2020).
• OECD (2020), Investment (GFCF) (indicator). doi: 10.1787/b6793677-en (Accessed on 31 January 2020). Park, H. M. (2010). Practical guides to panel data analysis. International University of Japan. Recuperado de http://www.iuj.ac.jp/faculty/kucc625/writing/panel_guidelines.pdf.
• Palley, T. I. (2013). Keynesian, classical and new Keynesian approaches to fiscal policy: comparison and critique. Review of Political Economy, 25(2), 179-204.
• Pesaran, M. H, Shin, Y. & Smith R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Economics, 16, 289–326.
• Snowdon, B., & Vane, H. R. (2005). Modern macroeconomics: its origins, development and current state. Northampton: Edward Elgar Publishing.
• White, H. (1980). A heteroskedasticity-consistent covariance matrix estimator and a direct test for heteroskedasticity. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 817-838.
• Xu, X., & Yan, Y. (2014). Does government investment crowd out private investment in China?. Journal of Economic Policy Reform, 17(1), 1-12.