Fiscal Sustainability Across Government Tiers



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 absent
2. Why unwinding preferences is not the same as liberalisation: the case of sugar
3. Private tutoring at transition points in the English education system: its nature, extent and purpose
4. The name is absent
5. The storage and use of newborn babies’ blood spot cards: a public consultation
6. The name is absent
7. Top-Down Mass Analysis of Protein Tyrosine Nitration: Comparison of Electron Capture Dissociation with “Slow-Heating” Tandem Mass Spectrometry Methods
8. Forecasting Financial Crises and Contagion in Asia using Dynamic Factor Analysis
9. The name is absent
10. Labour Market Flexibility and Regional Unemployment Rate Dynamics: Spain (1980-1995)
11. Implementation of the Ordinal Shapley Value for a three-agent economy
12. Backpropagation Artificial Neural Network To Detect Hyperthermic Seizures In Rats
13. IMPACTS OF EPA DAIRY WASTE REGULATIONS ON FARM PROFITABILITY
14. Innovation and business performance - a provisional multi-regional analysis
15. The name is absent
16. THE CHANGING RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FEDERAL, STATE AND LOCAL GOVERNMENTS
17. Housing Market in Malaga: An Application of the Hedonic Methodology
18. The Role of area-yield crop insurance program face to the Mid-term Review of Common Agricultural Policy
19. Towards a Mirror System for the Development of Socially-Mediated Skills
20. The name is absent