XREAP2007-14
TABLES
Table 1. Fiscal rule, (1) and (6), general government.
|
US________________ |
Germany | |||||||
|
1962-2000_______________ |
1971-2005_______________ |
1971-1990______________ |
1991-2005______________ | |||||
|
(1) |
(6) |
(1) |
(6) |
(1) |
(6) |
(1) |
(6) | |
|
ρ |
0.06 |
0.05 |
0.01 |
0.14 |
0.01 |
0.21 |
0.14 |
0.15 |
|
(0.02) |
(0.03) |
(0.69) |
(0.06) |
(0.95) |
(0.29) |
(0.14) |
(0.15) | |
|
α |
- |
0.14 |
- |
-0.81 |
- |
-0.12 |
- |
-0.26 |
|
(0.12) |
(0.06) |
(0.27) |
(0.74) | |||||
|
obs |
38 |
-38 |
"35 |
^35 |
20 |
~20 |
15 |
∏5 |
|
R2 |
0.17 |
0.20_________ |
0.07________ |
0.13_________ |
0.01 |
0.08________ |
0.18 |
0.19________ |
|
1967 |
1991 |
1982 |
1976 |
- |
- |
- |
- | |
|
AQ |
(0.08) |
(0.27) |
(0.30) |
(0.25) | ||||
|
AP |
(0.03) |
(0.21) |
(0.29) |
(0.17) | ||||
|
Bai |
1966 |
1994 |
1983 |
1981 | ||||
|
(0.00) |
(0.00) |
(0.00) |
(0.00) | |||||
|
[-;-]____________ |
[-;-] |
[1976;2000] |
[1979;1983] | |||||
Notes: coefficients are heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation robust OLS estimates; AQ and AP indicate
the p-values for the corrected Andrews Quandt and Andrews Ploberger break date for the fiscal rule; Bai is
the breaktest of Bai (1997), with its p-value and 33% confidence interval; for the specification for
Germany, a shift dummy and time trend is included since 1991 for the full sample estimates.
Table 2. Fiscal rules for government tiers, system estimates (3), US states, 1963-2000.
|
state___________ |
ρ_______ |
p-value_______ |
state___________ |
P_______ |
p-value_______ |
|
federal________ |
0.03__________ |
(0.13) | |||
|
AK |
0.27 |
(0.01) |
MT |
0.07 |
(0.00) |
|
AL |
0.02 |
(0.01) |
NC |
0.03 |
(0.00) |
|
AR |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
ND |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
|
AZ |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
NE |
0.08 |
(0.00) |
|
CA |
0.03 |
(0.02) |
NH |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
|
CO |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
NJ |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
|
CT |
0.01 |
(0.22) |
NM |
0.03 |
(0.10) |
|
DC |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
NV |
0.02 |
(0.09) |
|
DE |
0.07 |
(0.00) |
NY |
0.04 |
(0.01) |
|
FL |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
OH |
0.08 |
(0.00) |
|
GA |
0.03 |
(0.00) |
OK |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
|
HI |
0.05 |
(0.01) |
OR |
0.08 |
(0.00) |
|
IA |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
PA |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
|
ID |
0.07 |
(0.00) |
RI |
0.03 |
(0.04) |
|
IL |
0.03 |
(0.00) |
SC |
0.03 |
(0.00) |
|
IN |
0.03 |
(0.00) |
SD |
0.08 |
(0.00) |
|
KS |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
TN |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
|
KY |
0.08 |
(0.00) |
TX |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
|
LA |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
UT |
0.08 |
(0.00) |
|
MA |
0.01 |
(0.22) |
VA |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
|
MD |
0.06 |
(0.00) |
VT |
0.04 |
(0.01) |
|
ME |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
WA |
0.07 |
(0.00) |
|
MI |
0.04 |
(0.00) |
WI |
0.09 |
(0.00) |
|
MN |
0.06 |
(0.00) |
WV |
0.05 |
(0.00) |
|
MO |
0.06 |
(0.00) |
WY_____ |
0.08__________ |
(0.00)_________ |
|
MS______ |
0.04__________ |
(0.00)_________ |
sum_______ |
2.71__________ |
(0.01)_________ |
Notes: p-values between parentheses.
21
More intriguing information
1. Credit Markets and the Propagation of Monetary Policy Shocks2. The name is absent
3. LOCAL PROGRAMS AND ACTIVITIES TO HELP FARM PEOPLE ADJUST
4. Testing the Information Matrix Equality with Robust Estimators
5. PROPOSED IMMIGRATION POLICY REFORM & FARM LABOR MARKET OUTCOMES
6. The name is absent
7. A NEW PERSPECTIVE ON UNDERINVESTMENT IN AGRICULTURAL R&D
8. The name is absent
9. The name is absent
10. Campanile Orchestra