Table 2.3 Fiscal Reaction Function: Econometric Results for the Baseline Model
Intercept |
DEBT |
GAP |
PSUR-1 |
R2_____ |
h-Durbin | |
Belgium |
-2 64 |
0 03 |
-0 01 |
0 78 |
0.95 |
-1.73 |
. 0.82*** |
. 0.01*** |
. 0.13 |
. 0.09*** | |||
Germany |
-0 11 |
0 01 |
-0 14 |
0 49 |
0.33 |
-0.54 |
. 0.69 |
. 0.02 |
. 0.10 |
. 0.24** | |||
Greece |
””-2.48 |
0.03 |
-0.08 |
0.65 |
0.74 |
0.01 |
1.38* |
0.02 |
0.16 |
0.13*** | |||
Spain |
-1 50 |
0 04 |
0 19 |
0 57 |
0.82 |
0.001 |
. 0.42** |
. 0.01*** |
. 0.12 |
. 0.18*** | |||
France |
’ ^ 0.04 |
’ ^ ^ ^0.00^ |
'"0.11 |
”0.59 |
0.48 |
6.06 |
0.55 |
0.01 |
0.16 |
0.19*** | |||
Italy |
”’-4.93 |
0.06 |
""0.01 |
0.61 |
0.92 |
0.09 |
. 1.59*** |
. 0.02*** |
. 0.11 |
. 0.10*** | |||
Ireland |
”'-1.12 |
■ ■ ■ 0.02* |
-0.05 |
”0.91 |
0.88 |
0.76 |
0.98 |
0.01 |
0.11 |
0.06*** | |||
Netherlands |
'"'-1.51 |
’ ■ ■ 0.04 |
0.26 |
”0.44 |
0.57 |
0.98 |
1.01 |
0.02** |
0.21 |
0.21** | |||
Austria |
'^"-0.63 |
■ ■ ■ 0.02* |
""0.20 |
.”0.45 |
0.48 |
0.68 |
0.61 |
0.01 |
0.10** |
0.16*** | |||
Portugal |
-8 37 |
0 15 |
0 18 |
0 27 |
0.72 |
2.00 |
. -2.80*** |
. 0.05*** |
. 0.10* |
. 0.16 | |||
Finland |
"^'1.71 |
0.01 |
0.51 |
0.51 |
0.78 |
1.34 |
0.55*** |
0.01 |
0.12*** |
0.10*** | |||
Denmark |
-0.15 |
0.04 |
0.51 |
0.62 |
0.84 |
2.57 |
0.62 |
0.02** |
0.16*** |
0.10*** | |||
Sweden |
'^^^-0.^82........ |
’ ’ ’ '0.07'....... |
'''''1.12 |
”0.42 |
0.84 |
2.41 |
1.68 |
0.03*** |
0.31*** |
0.14*** | |||
UK |
'^^^-5.^48........ |
■" ^0.12^....... |
----0.25 |
" 0.77 |
0.78 |
1.34 |
1.61*** |
0.03*** |
0.12** |
0.09*** | |||
US |
""-!OS........ |
■ ■ ■ '0.04'....... |
----0.33 |
" 0.74 |
0.79 |
2.68 |
0.98** |
0.02** |
0.07*** |
0.10*** | |||
Japan |
'^^^0.03 |
-0.00 |
0.02 |
0.93 |
0.86 |
1.78 |
. 0.47 |
. 0.01 |
. 0.11 |
. 0.08*** |
Note: The sample period is 1997-2005.
Models estimated by OLSQ with heteroskedastic-consistent standard errors;
'***' significant at 1%; '**' significant at 5%; '*' significant at 10%.
Source: European Commission for EU15 and OECD for US and Japan.
In general, and given its simplicity, the explanatory power of the model is relatively good.
In any case, it is comparable or better than other estimates in the literature, such as
Ballabriga and Martinez-Mongay (2003) or Bohn (2005a). The explanatory power is high
in Belgium, Greece, Spain, Italy, Ireland, Finland, Denmark, Sweden, UK, US and Japan,
where 75% or more of the variability of the primary surplus within the sample period is
explained by the stock of debt, the output gap and the inertia. However, in some cases,
such as Germany, France and Austria the explanatory power of the model is lower. In
addition, although in many countries the model passes the usual specification tests, in
others, such as Belgium, France, Portugal, Denmark, Sweden, US and Japan, the h-
Durbin statistic suggests a clear departure from the white noise hypothesis for the
residuals.
34
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. AN ANALYTICAL METHOD TO CALCULATE THE ERGODIC AND DIFFERENCE MATRICES OF THE DISCOUNTED MARKOV DECISION PROCESSES
3. The Effects of Attendance on Academic Performance: Panel Data Evidence for Introductory Microeconomics
4. The name is absent
5. TRADE NEGOTIATIONS AND THE FUTURE OF AMERICAN AGRICULTURE
6. Word searches: on the use of verbal and non-verbal resources during classroom talk
7. The name is absent
8. Delayed Manifestation of T ransurethral Syndrome as a Complication of T ransurethral Prostatic Resection
9. Are combination forecasts of S&P 500 volatility statistically superior?
10. The name is absent