XREAP2007-14
Table 3. Fiscal rule, (1) and (6): US, 1962-2000.
|
federal government |
panel of state governments___________ | |||
|
(1)_______ |
(6) |
(1)___________ |
(6)___________ | |
|
P |
0.08 |
0.08 |
0.10 |
0.08 |
|
(0.01) |
(0.01) |
(0.00) |
(0.00) | |
|
α |
0.08 |
-0.06 | ||
|
(0.35) |
(0.00) | |||
|
obs |
^38 |
38 |
1887 |
1887 |
|
R2 |
0.19 |
0.20 |
0.08 |
0.10 |
|
R2 within |
0.05 |
0.07 | ||
|
R2 between |
0.21 |
0.19 | ||
|
R2 overall |
0.08 |
0.10 | ||
|
Hausmann |
1059.31 |
1144.58 | ||
|
(0.00) |
(0.00) | |||
|
1967 |
1992 |
- |
- | |
|
AQ |
(0.08) |
(0.36) | ||
|
AP |
(0.03) |
(0.18) | ||
|
Bai |
1966 |
1994 | ||
|
(0.00) |
(0.00) | |||
|
[-;-] |
[-;-] | |||
Notes: heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation robust OLS
estimates; AQ and AP indicate the corrected Andrews Quandt
and Andrews Ploberger break date for the fiscal rule; the
breaktest of Bai is Bai (1997), with the 33% confidence
interval.
Table 4. Fiscal rules for government tiers, system estimates (3), German Lander, 1970-2005.
|
all 1970-2 |
Lander |
old 1970-2 |
Lander |
old |
Lander 990 |
old 1991-2 |
Lander >005 |
new 1991-2 |
Lander | |
|
P__ |
p-value |
P__ |
p-value |
P__ |
p-value |
P__ |
p-value |
P__ |
p-value | |
|
federal |
-0.01 |
(0.36) |
-0.01 |
(0.38) |
-0.06 |
(0.06) |
0.00 |
(0.88) |
0.00 |
(0.89) |
|
BE |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.01) |
0.00 |
(0.04) |
0.00 |
(0.04) |
|
BW |
0.00 |
(0.35) |
0.00 |
(0.34) |
0.00 |
(0.67) |
0.00 |
(0.24) | ||
|
BY |
0.00 |
(0.03) |
0.00 |
(0.03) |
0.00 |
(0.86) |
0.00 |
(0.49) | ||
|
HB |
0.00 |
(0.01) |
0.00 |
(0.01) |
0.00 |
(0.10) |
0.00 |
(0.87) | ||
|
HE |
0.00 |
(0.06) |
0.00 |
(0.06) |
0.00 |
(0.24) |
0.00 |
(0.14) | ||
|
HH |
0.00 |
(0.71) |
0.00 |
(0.71) |
0.00 |
(0.91) |
0.00 |
(0.23) | ||
|
NI |
0.00 |
(0.75) |
0.00 |
(0.76) |
0.00 |
(0.18) |
0.00 |
(0.01) | ||
|
NW |
0.00 |
(0.26) |
0.00 |
(0.26) |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.00) | ||
|
RP |
0.00 |
(0.70) |
0.00 |
(0.71) |
0.00 |
(0.76) |
0.00 |
(0.00) | ||
|
SH |
0.00 |
(0.08) |
0.00 |
(0.08) |
0.00 |
(0.46) |
0.00 |
(0.10) | ||
|
SL |
0.00 |
(0.19) |
0.00 |
(0.19) |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.04) | ||
|
BB |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.00) | ||||||
|
MV |
0.00 |
(0.20) |
0.00 |
(0.12) | ||||||
|
SN |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.00) | ||||||
|
ST |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.00) | ||||||
|
TH |
0.00 |
(0.00) |
0.00 |
(0.00) | ||||||
|
sum |
0.01 |
(0.21) |
0.00 |
(0.29) |
0.00 |
(0.38) |
0.00 |
(0.20) |
0.01 |
(0.03) |
22
More intriguing information
1. The name is absent2. Nurses' retention and hospital characteristics in New South Wales, CHERE Discussion Paper No 52
3. The name is absent
4. The name is absent
5. The name is absent
6. Quelles politiques de développement durable au Mali et à Madagascar ?
7. The name is absent
8. Demand Potential for Goat Meat in Southern States: Empirical Evidence from a Multi-State Goat Meat Consumer Survey
9. Prevalence of exclusive breastfeeding and its determinants in first 6 months of life: A prospective study
10. The Role of Evidence in Establishing Trust in Repositories