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. Enterpreneurship and problems of specialists training in Ukraine2. The name is absent
3. The name is absent
4. Effects of red light and loud noise on the rate at which monkeys sample the sensory environment
5. Modelling Transport in an Interregional General Equilibrium Model with Externalities
6. 101 Proposals to reform the Stability and Growth Pact. Why so many? A Survey
7. The name is absent
8. Evidence-Based Professional Development of Science Teachers in Two Countries
9. The name is absent
10. The Cost of Food Safety Technologies in the Meat and Poultry Industries.