SERV |
11.686 (13.855)*** |
0.041 (1.547) |
0.365 (8.556)*** |
0.003 |
0.988 |
5.182 |
0.109 |
0.365 (8.545)*** |
TRANSP |
18.336 (44.261)*** |
0.038 (2.952)*** |
0.034 (1.639) |
0.002 |
0.997 |
1.250 |
0.053 |
0.034 (1.626) |
Note: t-statistics in parentheses (and henceforth in all tables)
***Statistically significant at 1% level **Statistically significant at 5% level *Statistically significant at 10% level
In tables 2 and 3 the total infrastructure variable has been replaced by its productive and social
components. The regional GDP categories, as well as the regression tests remain the same. Table 2
gives a similar picture to that of table 1. The magnitude of the coefficient for public capital, in the
regression where the dependent variable is the total regional GDP, is small (0.031) and statistically
insignificant. Again the coefficients for public capital are statistically significant, although with
different signs, in cases where the GDP sub-categories, Agriculture, Banking, Housing, Public
Administration, Services, Health were used as the dependent variable. In all these cases the Hausman
specification tests indicated that the infrastructure variable is probably endogenous.
Table 2 The effect of productive public capital (G productive) on the GDP of the non-manufacturing
sectors of Greece, 1982-1991
Equation for per capital regional income (ln)
GDP |
Constant |
lnL |
lnG (prod) |
time |
Adjust. R2 |
SSE |
SE |
h |
TOTAL |
20.785 (49.519)*** |
0.032 |
0.031 (1.440) |
0.017 (5.756)*** |
0.995 |
1.832 |
0.065 |
0.031 (1.438) |
AGR |
22.037 |
0.069 |
-0.108 (-2.016)** |
0.021 (2.787)*** |
0.959 |
11.651 |
0.163 |
-0.108 |
BANK |
11.014 (9.185)*** |
-0.072 |
0.346 (5.699)*** |
0.033 (3.874)*** |
0.961 |
14.954 |
0.185 |
0.346 (5.680)*** |
COMMER |
18.406 (28.648)*** |
0.036 (1.500) |
0.039 (1.185) |
0.016 (3.606)*** |
0.989 |
4.292 |
0.099 |
0.039 (1.185) |
CONSTR |
19.551 |
-0.002 (-0.080) |
-0.013 (-0.393) |
0.029 (6.575)*** |
0.983 |
4.135 |
0.097 |
-0.013 (-0.394) |
HEALTH |
19.120 (38.193)*** |
0.030 (1.594) |
-0.049 |
0.063 |
0.993 |
2.606 |
0.077 |
-0.049 |
HOUS |
24.084 (20.555)*** |
0.084 |
-0.302 |
0.074 |
0.960 |
14.276 |
0.181 |
-0.302 |
MINES |
35.334 (2.953)*** |
-0.332 (-0.749) |
-0.836 |
0.008 |
0.769 |
1488.53 |
1.843 |
-0.836 |
PADMIN |
15.001 |
0.026 |
0.187 (3.434)*** |
0.020 (2.619)*** |
0.969 |
12.072 |
0.166 |
0.187 (3.438)*** |
SERV |
13.767 |
0.050 |
0.260 (7.116)*** |
0.012 (2.323)** |
0.987 |
5.421 |
0.111 |
0.260 (7.102)*** |
TRANSP |
18.507 (53.344)*** |
0.039 |
0.026 (1.467) |
0.003 (1.158) |
0.997 |
1.252 |
0.053 |
0.026 (1.455) |
***Statistically significant at 1% level **Statistically significant at 5% level *Statistically significant at 10% level
The situation is not different when the social part of infrastructure is examined. The results,
given in table 3, show that for the total regional GDP the social infrastructure coefficient is small
(0.015) and statistically insignificant. Here, only when the categories of Agriculture, Mines, and
16
More intriguing information
1. A Location Game On Disjoint Circles2. A parametric approach to the estimation of cointegration vectors in panel data
3. Regional dynamics in mountain areas and the need for integrated policies
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. The name is absent
7. Non-farm businesses local economic integration level: the case of six Portuguese small and medium-sized Markettowns• - a sector approach
8. Determinants of Household Health Expenditure: Case of Urban Orissa
9. American trade policy towards Sub Saharan Africa –- a meta analysis of AGOA
10. The name is absent