090 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
Impact of Selected Types of Public Spending on
Economic Growth
Vliv vybraných typů veřejných výdajů na
ekonomický růst
Abstract
At present as the financial crisis impacts most countries and sectors – the question of the
effect of fiscal policy is arguably of paramount importance. Public finance influences on
growth could be assessed via relations between public expenditures, taxation and growth;
via the effectiveness of the institutional framework; or via their contribution to macro
economic stability.
We were specialized on analysis of influence of selected types of public expenditures on
economic growth. We have used Czech Republic, Ireland, Sweden and Finland data for
the comparison. This selection was made according to specific results in the area of the
economic growth, support of research and development, structure and amount of public
expenditure.
Data comparison of selected countries could shoe the presence or absence of impacts of
these types of public expenditures. The other types of public expenditures, as for example
government investments, will be involved in the next phase of the research.
In the contribution, the causality between the development of public spending (with
the use of COFOG classification) and the development of GDP with various time delays
was being determined. The performed analysis points to certain trends in the given area
and to certain macro-economic links. It seems the GDP per capita is positively related to
the per capita expenditures on Education and Defense. Number of population has also
positive impact on GDP. The only positive effect of relative public expenditure variables
have relative share of economics affairs, social protection and health variable. The effect
of explanatory variables on GDP annual growth is in most cases negative. Only the per
capita expenditures on Recreation, culture and religion and Health have positive effect
on GDP growth.
Similar objectives could be also found by public expenditures.
Keywords
public spending, economic growth, Granger causality, GFS methodology
JEL classification
H5, E6
BOJKA HAMERNÍKOVÁ, ALENA MAAYTOVÁ, JAROSLAV VOSTATEK, STANISLAV KLAZAR
091Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
Abstrakt
V současné době, kdy finanční krize ovlivňuje většinu zemí a odvětví – má pravděpodobně
zásadní význam otázka vlivu fiskální politiky. Dopady veřejných výdajů na růst by mohly
být hodnoceny prostřednictvím vztahů mezi veřejnými výdaji, zdaněním a růstem,
prostřednictvím efektivnosti institucionálního rámce nebo prostřednictvím jejich přínosu
k makroekonomické stabilitě.
Zaměřili jsme se na analýzu vlivu vybraných typů veřejných výdajů na hospodářský růst.
Pro porovnání jsme použili údaje za Českou republiku, Irsko, Švédsko a Finsko. Tento výběr
byl proveden podle specifických výsledků v oblasti hospodářského růstu, podpory výzkumu
a vývoje, struktury a výše veřejných výdajů.
Porovnání údajů vybraných zemí by mohlo prokázat přítomnost nebo nepřítomnost vlivů
těchto typů veřejných výdajů. Ostatní typy veřejných výdajů, jako například vládní investice,
budou zahrnuty do další fáze výzkumu.
V příspěvku byla zjišťována příčinná souvislost mezi vývojem veřejných výdajů (s použitím
klasifikace COFOG) a vývojem HDP s různými časovými prodlevami. Provedená analýza
poukazuje na některé trendy v dané oblasti a na určité makroekonomické vazby. Zdá se,
že HDP na hlavu pozitivně souvisí s výdaji na hlavu v oblasti vzdělání a obrany. Na HDP má
rovněž pozitivní vliv množství obyvatelstva. Jediný pozitivní vliv relativních proměnných
veřejných výdajů mají relativní proměnné podílu hospodářských záležitostí, sociální
ochrany a zdraví. Vliv vysvětlujících proměnných na roční růst HDP je ve většině případů
negativní. Pouze výdaje na hlavu v oblasti rekreace, kultury a náboženství a v oblasti zdravotnictví
mají pozitivní vliv na růst HDP.
Obdobné cíle mohly být zajištěny rovněž veřejnými výdaji.
Klíčová slova
veřejné výdaje, ekonomický růst, Grangerova příčinnost, metodologie GFS
Introduction
At present as the financial crisis impacts most countries and sectors – the question of the
effect of fiscal policy is arguably of paramount importance. Practical problems of economic
policy and the strategic intentions of the EU amplify the importance of the economic
analysis of the potential and actual effects of fiscal policy on the economy and especially
on growth.
Although a  high degree of coordination and harmonization across the EU has been
achieved in many areas, fiscal policy is still in the sphere of action of national governments.
Therefore the issue of the influence of fiscal instruments on growth, employment,
and competitiveness involves a question of relations among European integrative goals
and national fiscal strategies.
Fiscal politics influences could be denoted as direct (influences on employment rate,
savings, investments and innovations) and indirect, via institutional framework. Public
finance influences on growth could be assessed via relations between public expendi-
092 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
tures, taxation and growth; via the effectiveness of the institutional framework; or via their
contribution to macro economic stability.
Similar objectives could be also found by public expenditures. Authors emphasize the significance
of public investment spending, public consumption spending and social welfare
or redistributive spending. Some of this literature has also considered public spending
that increases human capital and spending that contributes to innovation, such as that
for research and development, as core spending, as it enhances the human capital base
and so technological progress.
In our research, that is the part of project: New approaches to an optimization of budgetary
and fiscal policy with emphasis on the fiscal discipline (supported by Czech Science
Foundation), we were specialized on analysis of influence of selected types of public
expenditures on economic growth. We have used Czech Republic, Ireland, Sweden and
Finland data for the comparison. This selection was made according to specific results in
the area of the economic growth, support of research and development, structure and
amount of public expenditure. We supposed that results of this comparison could be
contributing also in the Czech Republic.
The aim of this paper is the analysis of selected types of public expenditures (final consumption
of the government) on economic growth. Data comparison of selected countries
could shoe the presence or absence of impacts of these types of public expenditures.
The other types of public expenditures and government investments will be involved in
the next phase of the research.
For a more detailed analysis of the relationship between public spending (by COFOG) and
the development of GDP, the so called Granger causality and multiple regression with
controls for time and country characteristics was applied in our study.
1	 Progress of the state-of-the-art
An interesting contribution to the analysis of the relationship between the composition
of the expenditure and revenue and economic growth is a paper by Afonso and Alegre
(2008). They analyzed these links for a sample of 27 EU members from 1971 to 2006, and
concluded that:
●	 There was a negative influence of public consumption and social security contributions
on growth,
●	 There was a positive impact from public investment.
Regression results show an existence of differences between EU members (in comparison
to new and older member states). Conclusions about the channels through which the
composition of the public budget affects growth are really suggestive.
How are public expenditures related to economic growth? In the 19th century A. Wagner
formulated a “law“ on the expansion of government. Based on empirical evidence he argued
that government size increases with wealth. Public expenditures are endogenous,
093Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
in contrast to the short-run Keynesian approach that treats public expenditure as an exogenous
(Afonso and Furceri, 2008).
Lucas (1998) pointed out the role of public investment in education in human capital
growth and eventually in long-run economic growth. Similarly Barro (1990) and Romer
(1990) referred to the role of government expenditure in public infrastructure and expenditures
on research and development in achieving growth.
Public expenditures play a significant role in economic growth. In an analysis of government
size and fiscal volatility on growth for a sample OECD and EU member states from
1970 to 2004, Afonso a Furceri (2008) conclude that both factors tend to hamper growth
for both samples of countries.1
Understanding the effects of government expenditures on the growth mechanism is very
important. Mo (2007) follows the view that public expenditures affect growth through
three channels – total factor productivity, investment and aggregate demand. The results
show that public expenditures have negative marginal effects on productivity and GDP
growth. When relocation of government investment occurs, it influences productivity
growth and GDP growth. Mo (2007) emphasizes that all government expenditures have
positive aggregate demand effects.
Ghosh and Gregoriou (2008) analyzed panel data for 15 developing countries for 28 years
and using GMM techniques they showed that current (capital) spending has positive
(negative) effects on growth.
Endogenous growth models analyzing the growth effects of public spending divide public
spending into productive and consumption. The proportion of productive public spending
differs across countries. Using IMF data and CEPD (2001) Chen (2006) shows a higher
proportion in Eastern Asia while in North America and Europe it is lower. For Latin America
it is much lower. For example in the 1980s and early 1990s the share was above 15 % in
Korea and above 20 % in Taiwan, a little more than 5 % in the US and nearly 5 % in the UK
and France. Brazil was less than 5 % (Chen, 2006).
The following questions naturally arise:
● 	 Why do governments select particular ranges?
● 	 How can optimal composition be determined?
● 	 What relationships exist between public expenditure structure and growth?
Researchers into these questions explore various factors that influence the division between
public expenditures and the determinants of growth. See Lee (1992) Baier and
Glomm (2001), Cazzavillan (1996), Raurich (2003), and Park and Philippopoulos (2004).
Chen (2006) offers a one-sector endogenous growth model to study these questions, and
he confirms the significance of the structure of public expenditure on growth.
1	 António Afonso & Davide Furceri, 2008. "Government size, composition, volatility and economic growth,“
Working Paper Series 849, European Central Bank, January.
094 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
There are interesting links between public expenditure, growth and the source of funds.
Palivos and Yip (1993) believe that income tax financing is more detrimental to growth
than seigniorage financing. But De Gregorio (1993) holds the opposite view, while Pecorino
(1997) prefers a mixture of both ways. Bose, Holman and Neanidis (2007) use a sample
of 40 developing and 21 developed countries to asses the influence of both ways. They
conclude that for the high-income economies, an expansion in government expenditures
financed through taxes retards growth more than if it were financed through seigniorage.
For low-income countries the opposite conclusion is valid.
Carboni and Medda (2007) build a model, with empirical applications, that determines
optimal government size, the optimal mix of government expenditures, maximizes the
rate of growth and the level of per capita income.
Devarajan et al. (1996) emphasize the significance of the composition of government
expenditure for economic growth, and in the theoretical model they consider two productive
services. They try to determine which type of public expenditure is more productive.
In developing countries this is current expenditure.
Monteiro et al. (2008) has introduced two types of public investment (in infrastructure
and in education) into a two sector endogenous growth model. The authors find that“the
welfare-maximizing rate of expenditure is less than the growth-maximizing rate, with the
opposite being the case with regard to their allocation”. 2
Analysis of public finance influence on growth also comprises the problem of the relationship
between government (or fiscal) size and economic growth. See Afonso et al. (2005,
2006), Greene (2005), Angelopoulos, and Philippopoulos and Tsionas (2008).
Afonso et al. (2005, 2006) concentrate on the analysis of public sector effectiveness using
help of indicators of public sector performance (PSP) and efficiency (PSE) respectively
for OECD member states and for new EU member states and emerging markets. Angelopoulos
et al. (2008) begin from Afonso et al. methodology, but finally they incorporate
PSE into the economic model. They conclude that “when fiscal size is measured by the
government consumption share in GDP, the size-efficiency mix is significant in explaining
the size-growth relationship.”
A high number of scientific papers about the relationship between government size and
economic growth can be found, but there are few examples of the significance of public
finance influence on lower than central level administrative units. Schaltegger and Torgler
(2006) have performed that analysis for Switzerland from 1981 to 2001. Their results show
the negative relationship between government size and economic growth. They also find
that an increase in current expenditure reduces economic growth but a significant influence
on capital expenditure was not confirmed.
Based on an analysis of seven fast-growing economies from 1970 to 2006 Moreno-Dodson
(2008) tries to find an answer to the question of under what conditions public expendi-
2	 Monteiro et al. 2008, pp. 77.
095Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
tures positively influence growth, and what kinds of expenditures cause that. The public
expenditures are for analysis needs divided into the following three criteria:
● 	 by functional criterion GFS classification with resolution on economic and social
criteria,3
● 	 by their degree of productivity,4
● 	 by sectoral classification.
The results of the analysis confirm the influence of public expenditures on GDP per capita
growth, especially by selected types of expenditures.
Afonso, Nickel, and Rother (2005) performed a consolidation process analysis in Central
and Eastern Europe countries (8 EU members from CEE and two candidate countries: Bulgaria
and Romania) from 1991 to 2003 in comparison to 15 EU countries. The results of the
study indicate that the higher the share of expenditure reduction relative to the change
(improvement) in the budget balance, the higher is the probability of a fiscal consolidation
being successful (Afonso, Nickel and Rother 2005).
Gray et al. (2007) analyze in their wide-ranging study of public finance policies in so-called
ECA countries 15 years after the start of transition.5
The authors also used seven non-ECA
countries – Chile, Ireland, the Republic of Korea, Spain, Thailand, Uganda and Vietnam,
because they think that their public finance policies hold useful lessons for ECA because
these seven countries have had higher than average growth rates for the past decade.
The study facilitates the understanding of not just basic trends and specific problems of
public finance in ECA countries, but also how these trends and problems affect economic
growth. The comparison with seven non-ECA rapidly-growing emerging market countries
produces many interesting findings and themes.
3	 Economic public spending includes: fuel and energy; agriculture, forestry, fishing, and hunting; mining,
mineral resources, manufacturing, and construction; transportation and communication etc. (for central
government).
	 Social public spending includes: education; health; social security and welfare; housing and community
amenities; and recreational, cultural, and religious affairs (for the central government).
4	 This categorization, based on an a priori judgment regarding their expected impact on Growth was introduced
by Bleaney, Gammel and Kneller in 2001.
5	 Central and Eastern Europe and Asia (ECA) countries (group of countries created just for this analysis needs)
comprising:
	 ● a subset of 10 ECA: Albania, Armenia, Croatia, Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Poland, Romania, the Slovak
Republic, Turkey, and Ukraine (these countries vary markedly in size, per capita income etc.),
	 ● EU-5, comprising the Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland, the Slovak Republic, and Slovenia,
	 ● EU-8, comprising EU-5 and the Baltics; Southeast Europe (SEE), comprising Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina,
Bulgaria, Croatia, the former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Romania, and Serbia and Montenegro,
	 ● low-income members of the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS), comprising Armenia, Azerbaijan,
Georgia, the Kyrgyz Republic, Moldova, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan;
	 ● and middle-income CIS, comprising Belarus, Kazakhstan, the Russian Federation, and Ukraine.
096 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
Under planning CEECs had similar histories due to their shared ideologies, economic management
and development strategies. Their present situation is different, and Schadler
et al. (2006) argue that there is a possibility of a two-speed catch-up: growth in the three
Baltic countries having pulled substantially ahead of that in the five Central European
countries (CE-5) – the Czech Republic, Slovak Republic, Hungary, Poland and Slovenia.
Comparisons of CEECs with emerging market countries are also very interesting, even if
the CEECs` growth experience during the past decade was unusual by emerging market
country standards (Schadler et al., 2006).
2	 Analyze of impact of selected types of public spending on
economic growth
Together with public income (especially taxes), public spending forms the“front and back
of the same coin”. The conflict between pressure on the growth of public spending on one
hand, and the pressure on the decreasing of the tax burden on the other is a constant
problem of budget policy. An analysis of the development of public spending (in total, as
well as according to individual components and factors of their dynamics) can be considered
as key from the perspective of fiscal discipline.
An analysis of the development of public spending and factors of their dynamics is a current
problem of a number of countries. The main reason are these trends: growth of the
volume of public spending, growing weight of public spending of GDP, increasing share
of transfers on total public spending and, last but not least, also the growth of the share
of the so called debt servicing.
For a more detailed analysis of the relationship between public spending and the development
of GDP, the so called Granger causality was applied in this text. It concerns the
monitoring of the relationship between the development of individual services of public
spending and GDP (or possibly in reverse), where one variable is monitored in a different
time period. The stated procedure makes it possible to search for answers to the following
questions:
[1]	Does the development of individual components of public spending in year t depend
on the development of GDP in year t-j?
[2]	Does the development of GDP in year t depend on the development of individual
components of public spending in year t-j?
Statistical data do not make it possible to monitor a different causality than time causality.
This means that the determination of causes and effects can only be deduced from the
perspective of time succession. Granger’s approach to causality (resolution of the dependence
relationship) is as follows:
VVt
= f (HDP t-j
), where							 (1)
VVt
– are public spending in period t
HDP t-j
– is GDP in period t-j
097Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
If this relationship is of a higher quality (more stable in time, measured via a coefficient of
variation) than reverse causality
HDPt
= f (VV t-j
), where 					 (2)
j – is delay
t – is time
Then according to Granger’s approach to causality we say that public spending is the
consequence of the development of GDP in the previous period. The causality was moni-
tored:
1) in period t-1,
2) in period t-2.
We have used Czech Republic, Ireland, Sweden and Finland data for the comparison. This
selection was made according to specific results in the area of the economic growth,
support of research and development, structure and amount of public expenditure.
We supposed that results of this comparison could be contributing also in the Czech
Republic.
Our aim is the analysis of selected types of public expenditures (final consumption of the
government) on economic growth. Data comparison of selected countries could shoe the
presence or absence of impacts of these types of public expenditures. The other types of
public expenditures, as for example government investments, will be involved in the next
phase of the research:
Table 1: Granger’s causality in terms of coefficient of variation (dependence of selected
parts of public expenditures by COFOG in period t on GDP development in
period t-j)
Ireland   t-1   t-2
General public services   0,703283   0,4603217
Defence   0,6121548   0,6870159
Public order and safety   0,3201892   0,450811
Economic affairs   0,7593352   0,8042787
Housing and community amenities   1,129558   1,2205796
Health   0,3459577   0,1888437
Recreation, culture and religion   0,7555267   0,7023723
Education   0,3911302   0,3037478
Social protection   0,3673047   0,3523094
Equals: General government final consumption
expenditure
  0,3173756   0,2435935
098 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
Finland
General public services   1,0706049   0,8107405
Defence   1,435768   4,9901914
Public order and safety   0,5918182   1,5871056
Economic affairs   1,3154085   2,9576458
Environment protection   1,8081732   6,8391749
Housing and community amenities 48,356827   3,1698962
Health   0,5197588   1,7440781
Recreation, culture and religion   0,4116329   1,276059
Education   0,7152615   1,6836157
Social protection   0,5402746   2,0486315
Equals: General government final consumption
expenditure
  0,4735734   1,8313146
Sweden
General public services   1,3550239   3,5043502
Defence   8,3401975   4,5274221
Public order and safety   1,7735198   4,5173576
Economic affairs   1,537436   2,7578469
Environment protection   14,506988   1,8640763
Housing and community amenities   2,9659982   1,3874314
Health   1,7217375   1,3050575
Recreation, culture and religion  -4,6517078 23,122268
Education   1,7242459   1,4746454
Social protection   1,614947   1,4644981
Equals: General government final consumption
expenditure
  1,7309822   1,4057589
Czech Republic
General public services   1,5246294   1,7398518
Defence   4,0664121   4,9765867
Public order and safety   1,2405365   1,2076971
Economic affairs   1,256914   1,384364
Environment protection   0,8157651   0,848537
Housing and community amenities   1,611553   2,0043142
Health   0,5123059   0,543175
Recreation, culture and religion   1,0320391   1,0062217
Education   0,8602209   0,6522281
Social protection   1,0427968   1,1680369
Equals: General government final consumption
expenditure
  0,632579   0,421095
099Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
Table 2: Granger’s causality in terms of coefficient of variation (dependence of GDP development
in period t on development of selected parts of expenditures by COFOG in
period t-j)
Ireland   t-1   t -2
General public services   1,714832   2,118593
Defence   0,361793   1,045821
Public order and safety 18,41486   0,870923
Economic affairs   0,562991   2,804791
Housing and community amenities   4,228136   0,962571
Health   1,02438   0,818066
Recreation, culture and religion  -0,76391  -6,90903
Education   0,837358   0,813358
Social protection   9,130909   0,487092
Equals: General government final consumption expenditure   1,180578   0,597483
Finland
General public services   3,786624  -5,85332
Defence   4,842333   4,825793
Public order and safety 14,81544  -6,349
Economic affairs  -2,63966  -2,83093
Environment protection  -4,42023  -6,08475
Housing and community amenities 14,00671 19,52785
Health   1,000505   0,46127
Recreation, culture and religion   0,714718 0,773259
Education  -3,82887  -5,25862
Social protection   1,111048   1,886205
Equals: General government final consumption expenditure   0,591426   0,418614
Sweden
General public services   3,633548   3,368015
Defence   3,571368  -4,36401
Public order and safety  -2,99533  -2,11259
Economic affairs 27,11867  -3,27198
Environment protection   3,059549  -6,20223
Housing and community amenities   8,171914   1,771996
Health   1,796575   2,524053
Recreation, culture and religion  -8,14197   3,70288
Education   1,919153   2,722457
Social protection  -7,81119   3,687949
Equals: General government final consumption expenditure   1,769487   2,60583
100 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
Czech Republic
General public services   3,180377   1,669693
Defence  -2,80558  -2,57081
Public order and safety   3,468877   3,47467
Economic affairs   1,165106   1,177177
Environment protection   0,502627   0,60588
Housing and community amenities   2,640099   2,504908
Health   0,452192   0,383848
Recreation, culture and religion   1,293215   1,159881
Education  -23,5957   0,624115
Social protection  -5,19951  -7,65218
Equals: General government final consumption expenditure   0,476967   0,736078
From the previous tables it follows, that the relationship
a) VVt = f (HDP t-j) and b) HDP t = f (VV t-j) is not really significant in selected countries and
in the evaluating period.(measured with the use of the coefficient of variation) According
to Granger’s approach to causality it thus holds that public spending classified according
to COFOG methodology is not a consequence of the development of GDP in the previous
period and GDP is not consequence of the development of public spending classified
according to COFOG.
Graph 1: Government final consumption expenditure by function at current prices/GDP
We also employed multiple regression approach (for final models see Appendix) to test the
relations ship between GDP (in two forms, 1) GDP per capita and 2) GDP annual growth) and
a set of variables containing structure of public expenditure (relative and per capita form of
101Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
variable). We also tried to control for country specific characteristics (dummy variables for
4 (3) countries), time trends and population. For a full set of variables see Appendix.
To avoid problem of multi co-linearity of explanatory variables (including all variables
leads inevitably to a linear combination of variables.), we have selected from variables
that express the ratio of specific public expenditures parts on total expenditures (variables
beginning with r) only those that have the highest variability between countries (DEF, POS,
EA, HEA, EDU and SOC).
It seems the effect of explanatory variables on GDP annual growth is in most cases negative.
Only the per capita expenditures on Recreation, culture and religion and Health have
positive statistically significant effect on GDP growth. So unfortunately we were not able
in this time derived some clear recommendation for policymakers concerning the progrowth
effects of selected public expenditures.
On the other hand the GDP per capita is positively related to the per capita expenditures
on Education and Defense. Number of population has also positive impact on GDP. The
only positive effect of relative public expenditure variables have relative share of economics
affairs, social protection and health variable. These findings indicate that country
economic power is correlated with composition of public expenditure but the link to
economic growth is not significant. There is possible the opposite direction of influence –
from the economic power to the composition of expenditure. Again we were not able to
derive any suitable policy recommendation.
The testing of dependence direction is planned for future because from upper mentioned
results is not really clear that for example GDP is a result of higher expenditures into education
or at the opposite wealthy countries (countries with higher GDP) are able to spend
more money into education.
Conclusion
The contribution being presented comes out of the first period of the work on the project
within the scope of GA ČR no. 402/08/1134 “New approaches to the optimization of budget
and fiscal policy on the strengthening of fiscal discipline” and especially from the analysis of
the impact of public spending on fiscal discipline.
In the contribution, the causality between the development of public spending (with the
use of COFOG classification) and the development of GDP with various time delays was
being determined. The performed analysis points to certain trends in the given area and
to certain macro-economic links.
It seems the effect of explanatory variables on GDP annual growth is in most cases negative.
Only the per capita expenditures on Recreation, culture and religion and Health have
positive statistically significant effect on GDP growth.
On the other hand the GDP per capita is positively related to the per capita expenditures
on Education and Defense. Number of population has also positive impact on GDP. The
102 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
only positive effect of relative public expenditure variables have relative share of economics
affairs, social protection and health variable.
In the next part of the research, the testing of the statistical significance of selected linkages
on a file of OECD countries data will be performed. The testing of dependence direction
is planned for future because from upper mentioned results is not really clear that for
example GDP is a result of higher expenditures into education or at the opposite wealthy
countries (countries with higher GDP) are able to spend more money into education. The
objective will be to verify whether the discovered linkages have a more general validity.
Annex
Variables:
Description of variable Variable per capita
Variable as a share on all
public expenditure
General public services GPS rGPS
Defence DEF rDEF
Public order and safety POS rPOS
Economic affairs EA rEA
Environment protection ENV rENV
Housing and community amenities HOU rHOU
Health HEA rHEA
Recreation, culture and religion CUL rCUL
Education EDU rEDU
Social protection SOC rSOC
1996 – 2006 Year Dummy
for Ireland Ireland Dummy
for Sweden Sweden Dummy
for Finland Finland Dummy
for Czech Republic CR Population
- Note:
Data retrieved from United Nations Statistics, Government final consumption expenditure
by function (http://data.un.org).
103Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
	
104 Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
References
Afonso, A.; Furceri, D. (2008). Government size, composition, volatility and economic
growth. Working Paper Series 849, European Central Bank.
Afonso, A.; Nickel, Ch.; Rother, P. (2005). Fiscal consolidations in the Central and
Eastern European countries. Working Paper Series 473, European Central Bank, April.
Afonso, A.; Schuknecht, L.; Tanzi, V. (2005). Public sector efficiency: An International
Comparison. Public Choice 123 (3-4), 321-347.
Afonso, L.; Schuknecht, L.; Tanzi, V. (2006). Public sector efficiency: Evidence for new
EU member states and emerging markets. ECB Working Paper n. 581, January.
Angelopoulos, K.; Philippopoulos, A.; Tsionas, E. (2008). Does public sector
efficiency matter? Revisiting the relation between fiscal size and economic growth in
a world sample. Public Choice, 2008, vol. 137, issue 1, pages 245 – 278.
Baier, S. L.; Glomm G. (2001). Long-run growth and welfare effects of public policies
with distortionary taxation. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 25(12), 2007-42.
Barro, R. (1990). Government spending in a simple model of economic growth. Journal
of Political Economy, 98, pages 103 – 125.
Bose, N.; Holman J. A.; Neanidis, K. C. (2007). The optimal public expenditure financing
policy: Does the level of economic development matter? Economic Inquiry, 45 (3) pp.
433- 452.
Carboni, O. A.; Medda, G. (2007). Government size and the composition of public spending
in a neoclassical growth model. (Working papers CRENoS, 2007, 01.) Working Paper.
Cazzavillan, G. (1996). Public spending, endogenous growth, and endogenous fluctuations.
Journal of economic theory, Elsevier, vol. 71(2), pages 394 – 415.
CEPD (2001). Taiwan Statistical Data Book, Council of Economic Planning and Development,
Taipei.
Chen, B. L. (2006). Economic growth with an optimal public spending composition. Oxford
University Press, vol. 58(1), pages 123 – 136.
De Gregorio, J. (1993). Inflation, taxation and long-run growth. Journal of Monetary
Economics, 31, 271-98.
Devarajan, S.; Swaroop, V.; Zou, H. (1996). The composition of public expenditure
and economic growth. Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 37, pp. 313-344.
Ghosh, S.; Gregoriou, A. (2008). The composition of government spending and
growth: is current or capital spending better? Oxford Economic Papers, 60, 484-516.
Gray, Ch.; Lane, T.; Varoudakis, A. (2007). Fiscal policy and economic growth: Lessons
for Eastern Europe and Central Asia. Washington: The World Bank, 2007. XXIV, 331 p. July.
Lee, J. (1992). Optimal size and composition of government spending. Journal of The Japanese
and International Economics 6: issue 4, pp. 423-439.
Mo, P. (December 2007). Government expenditures and economic growth: The Supply and
Demand Sides, Fiscal Studies, vol. 28, No. 4, pp. 497-522.
Monteiro, G.; Turnovsky, S. J. (2008). The composition of productive government
expenditure: Consequences for economic growth and welfare. Indian Growth and Development
Review. vol.1, pp. 57 – 83.
Moreno-Dodson, B. (2008). Assessing the impact of public spending on growth – an
empirical analysis for seven fast growing countries, Policy Research Working Paper Series
4663, The World Bank.
Palivos, T.; Yip, C. K. (1995). Government expenditure financing in an endogenous
growth model: A Comparison. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 27, 1159-78.
105Acta všfs, 2/2009, vol. 3
Park, H.; Philippopoulos, A. (2004). Indeterminacy and fiscal policies in a growing
economy. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, vol. 28, 645-60.
Pecorino, P. (1997). The optimal rate of inflation when capital is taxed. Journal of Macroeconomics,
19 (4), pp. 657-73.
Raurich, X. (2003). Government spending, local indeterminacy and tax structure. Economica
70, pages 639 – 53.
Romer, P. M. (1990). Endogenous technological change. Journal of Political Economy, 98,
71-102.
Schadler, S.; Mody, A.; Abiad, A.; Leigh, D. (2006). Growth in the Central and Eastern
European countries of the European Union. International Monetary Fund Occasional Paper
No. 252. Washington, D.C.
Schaltegger, Ch. A. and Torgler, B. (2006). Growth effects of public expenditure on
the state and local level: evidence from a sample of rich governments. Applied Economics,
38 (10). pp. 1181-1192.
Contact address/Kontaktní adresa
doc. Ing. Bojka Hamerníková, CSc.
University of Finance and Administration
(bojka.hamernikova@vsfs.cz)
Ing. Alena Maaytová, Ph.D.
University of Economics, Prague
(maaytova@vse.cz )
prof. Ing. Jaroslav Vostatek, CSc.
University of Finance and Administration
(jvostatek@seznam.cz)
Ing. Stanislav Klazar, Ph.D.
University of Economics, Prague
(klazar@vse.cz)