Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
A. Wagner
Grundlegung der politischen Ökonomie
M. Pesaran, Y. Shin, Richard Smith (2001)
Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationshipsJournal of Applied Econometrics, 16
(1992)
the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland
R. Dye (1999)
State Fiscal Systems and Business Cycles: Implications for State Welfare Spending When the Next Recession Occurs
S. Johansen, K. Juselius (2009)
MAXIMUM LIKELIHOOD ESTIMATION AND INFERENCE ON COINTEGRATION — WITH APPLICATIONS TO THE DEMAND FOR MONEYOxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52
P. Phillips (1988)
Testing for a Unit Root in Time Series Regression
H. Mohammadi, Murat Çak, Demet Çak (2008)
Wagner's hypothesis: New evidence from Turkey using the bounds testing approachJournal of Economic Studies, 35
Magnus Henrekson (2007)
Wagner's Law - A Spurious Relationship?ERN: Other European Economics: Political Economy & Public Economics (Topic)
Richard Toikka, T. Gais, P. Nikolov, Patricia Billen (2004)
SPENDING ON SOCIAL WELFARE PROGRAMS IN RICH AND POOR STATESPublic Economics
T. Gais (2009)
Stretched Net: The Retrenchment of State and Local Social Welfare Spending Before the RecessionPublius-the Journal of Federalism, 39
Hiro Toda, Taku Yamamoto (1995)
Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processesJournal of Econometrics, 66
D. Dickey, W. Fuller (1979)
Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a Unit RootJournal of the American Statistical Association, 74
M. Yousefi, S. Abizadeh
Wagner's Law: new evidence (anthology)
M. Yousefi, S. Abizadeh (1992)
Wagner's law: New evidenceAtlantic Economic Journal, 20
M. Daly (2003)
Understanding state budget troublesFRBSF Economic Letter
A. Worthington, H. Higgs (2003)
Art as an investment: Short and long-term comovements in major painting marketsEmpirical Economics, 28
A. Peacock (2006)
Wagner’s Law of Increasing Expansion of Public Activities
R. Engle, C. Granger (1987)
Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation and testingEconometrica, 55
R.W. Eberts, T.J. Gronberg
Wagner's hypothesis: a local perspective
J. MacKinnon, A. Haug, L. Michelis (1996)
Numerical Distribution Functions of Likelihood Ratio Tests for CointegrationJournal of Applied Econometrics, 14
S. Johansen (1991)
Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive ModelsEconometrica, 59
A. Peacock, Alex Scott (2000)
The Curious Attraction of Wagner's LawPublic Choice, 102
E. Overbye (1995)
Explaining welfare spendingPublic Choice, 83
James Garand (1988)
Explaining Government Growth in the U.S. StatesAmerican Political Science Review, 82
R.M. Bird
Wagner's ‘law’ of expanding state activity
A. Islam (2001)
Wagner's law revisited: cointegration and exogeneity tests for the USAApplied Economics Letters, 8
C. Granger, P. Newbold (1974)
Spurious regressions in econometricsJournal of Econometrics, 2
M. Blume (1971)
ON THE ASSESSMENT OF RISKJournal of Finance, 26
R.A. Musgrave
Fiscal Systems
J. MacKinnon (1996)
Numerical Distribution Functions for Unit Root and Cointegration TestsJournal of Applied Econometrics, 11
P. Narayan (2005)
The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration testsApplied Economics, 37
D. Kwiatkowski, P.C.B. Phillips, P. Schmidt, Y. Shin
Testing the null hypothesis of stationary against the alternative of a unit root
D. Kwiatkowski, P. Phillips, P. Schmidt, Y. Shin (1992)
Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: How sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?Journal of Econometrics, 54
Purpose – This paper seeks to examine the validity of Wagner's Law using annual data (1957‐2006) for the US state‐local government (SLG) real expenditure and eight of its sub‐categories. Design/methodology/approach – The co‐integration tests of Johansen and the bounds testing approach to co‐integration proposed by Pesaran et al. were carried out to determine whether a long‐term equilibrium relationship existed between real per capita GDP (pcgdp) and the expenditure variables scaled by real GDP. The income elasticity coefficients of the expenditure variables were then estimated. The direction of causality was tested in the context of error‐correction models (ECM) and the Toda‐Yamamoto approach, which allows for estimating level relationships without pre‐testing for unit roots. Findings – Most SLG expenditure variables were found to be non‐stationary and income‐elastic. However, with the exception of total expenditure (te), insurance trust benefits (ins) and social services and income maintenance (ssim), no other non‐stationary expenditure variable was co‐integrated with pcgdp and error‐corrected over time. The ECM results suggested that te, ins and ssim were driven by pcgdp, consistent with a Wagnerian causal ordering. The Toda‐Yamamoto approach, however, indicated that in these and a few other cases the causal effect was bidirectional. Originality/value – This paper provides a fairly comprehensive test of Wagner's Law at the US sub‐national government level with an emphasis on the concepts of co‐integration and (long‐run) causality in the income‐expenditure nexus. Its findings underscore the importance of using disaggregated expenditure measures to test Wagner's Law, as they suggest that some, but not all, rapidly growing and non‐stationary expenditure sub‐categories were decoupled from pcgdp in the long run.
Journal of Economic Studies – Emerald Publishing
Published: Sep 6, 2011
Keywords: Wagner's Law; State and local governments; Public expenditures; Income; Co‐integration; Granger causality; United States of America
Read and print from thousands of top scholarly journals.
Already have an account? Log in
Bookmark this article. You can see your Bookmarks on your DeepDyve Library.
To save an article, log in first, or sign up for a DeepDyve account if you don’t already have one.
Copy and paste the desired citation format or use the link below to download a file formatted for EndNote
Access the full text.
Sign up today, get DeepDyve free for 14 days.
All DeepDyve websites use cookies to improve your online experience. They were placed on your computer when you launched this website. You can change your cookie settings through your browser.