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. The name is absent2. Citizenship
3. On the Integration of Digital Technologies into Mathematics Classrooms
4. The name is absent
5. On the Desirability of Taxing Charitable Contributions
6. An Investigation of transience upon mothers of primary-aged children and their school
7. Connectionism, Analogicity and Mental Content
8. Dynamic Explanations of Industry Structure and Performance
9. Gender stereotyping and wage discrimination among Italian graduates
10. THE INTERNATIONAL OUTLOOK FOR U.S. TOBACCO