Suchergebnisse

The core emphasis of rules-based fiscal legislation at the subnational level in India is to achieve debt sustainability through a numerical ceiling on borrowing and the use of borrowed resources for public capital investment by phasing out revenue deficits. Using the Arellano Bond Panel estimation, this paper examines whether the application of fiscal rules has resulted in an increase in the fiscal space for public capital investment spending in major Indian states. This analysis shows that by controlling other factors, there is a negative relationship between fiscal rules and public capital investment spending at the state level during the rules-based fiscal regime.

The primary objective of rule-based fiscal legislation at the subnational level in India is to achieve debt sustainability by placing a ceiling on borrowing and the use of borrowed resources for public capital investment by phasing out deficits in the budget revenue account. This paper examines whether the application of fiscal rules has contributed to an increase in fiscal space for public capital investment spending in major Indian states. Our analysis shows that, controlling for other factors, there is a negative relationship between fiscal rules and public capital investment spending at the state level under the rule-based fiscal regime.

We reconsider the macroeconomic implications of public investment efficiency, defined as the ratio between the actual increment to public capital and the amount spent. We show that in standard neoclassical and endogenous growth models, increases in public investment spending in inefficient countries do not generally have a lower impact on growth than in efficient countries. This apparently counterintuitive result, which contrasts with earlier papers and policy analyses, follows from the standard assumption that the marginal product of public capital declines with the capital/output ratio. The implication is that efficiency and scarcity of public capital are likely to be inversely related across countries. Both efficiency and the rate of return thus need to be considered together in assessing the impact of increases in investment, and blanket recommendations against increased public investment spending in inefficient countries need to be rethought.

This paper investigates whether government investment spending exerts a positive or a negative effect on private investments. Time‐series data for Greece as well as the methodology of cointegration suggest that, over the period 1948‐80, public investment spending exerted a positive effect on private investments, while over the period 1981‐96, the relationship turned out to be negative. Empirical results indicate that the large increase of the public share in the total investment process tended to crowd out private investments and to jeopardize the growth process of the economy. ; N/A

This entry has been realised in the framework of the H2020-MSCA-RISE-2018 project "LoGov - Local Government and the Changing Urban-Rural Interplay". LoGov aims to provide solutions for local governments that address the fundamental challenges resulting from urbanisation. To address this complex issue, 18 partners from 17 countries and six continents share their expertise and knowledge in the realms of public law, political science, and public administration. LoGov identifies, evaluates, compares, and shares innovative practices that cope with the impact of changing urban-rural relations in five major local government areas: (1) local responsibilities and public services, (2) local financial arrangements, (3) structure of local government, (4) intergovernmental relations of local governments, and (5) people's participation in local decision-making. The present entry addresses local financial arrangements in Italy. The entry forms part of the LoGov Report on Italy. To access the full version of the report on Italy, other practices regarding local financial arrangements and to receive more information about the project, please visit: https://www.logov-rise.eu/. This project has received funding from the European Union's Horizon 2020 research and innovation programme under the Marie Skłodowska-Curie grant agreement No 823961.

This paper investigates whether government investment spending exerts a positive or a negative effect on private investments. Time‐series data for Greece as well as the methodology of cointegration suggest that, over the period 1948‐80, public investment spending exerted a positive effect on private investments, while over the period 1981‐96, the relationship turned out to be negative. Empirical results indicate that the large increase of the public share in the total investment process tended to crowd out private investments and to jeopardize the growth process of the economy.

This paper is concerned with the empirical relationship between government spending and prívate investment. A panel of 14 OECD countries is used. We present evidence which suggests the existence of a significant crowding-in effect of prívate investment by public investment, through the positive impact of infrastructure on prívate investment productivity. Moreover, government consumption appears to crowd out prívate investment. The implications of these resulte are of foremost importance when it comes to fiscal consolidation. Déficit reductions engineered through cuts in public investment could severely impinge upon prívate capital accumulation and growth prospects. ; Este trabajo analiza la relación empírica existente entre el gasto público y la inversión privada en un panel de 14 países pertenecientes a la OCDE. La evidencia presentada sugiere la existencia de un significativo efecto "crowding-in" de la inversión pública, que opera a través de la complementariedad entre las infraestructuras y la inversión privada. Por otra parte, el consumo público parece ejercer un "efecto expulsión" de la inversión privada. L a implicaciones de estos resultados son de gran trascendencia en materia de consolidación fiscal. Reducciones del déficit conseguidas mediante recortes en la inversión pública podrían dañar severamente la acumulación de capital y las perspectivas de crecimiento.

Public spending on agriculture in Nigeria is exceedingly low. Less than 2 percent of total federal expenditure was allotted to agriculture during 2001 to 2005, far lower than spending in other key sectors such as education, health, and water. This spending contrasts dramatically with the sector's importance in the Nigerian economy and the policy emphasis on diversifying away from oil, and falls well below the 10 percent goal set by African leaders in the 2003 Maputo agreement. Nigeria also falls far behind in agricultural expenditure by international standards, even when accounting for the relationship between agricultural expenditures and national income. The spending that is extant is highly concentrated in a few areas. Three out of 179 programs account for more than 81 percent of federal capital spending, of which nearly three-quarters go to government purchase of agricultural inputs and agricultural outputs alone. The analysis finds that many of the Presidential Initiatives-which differ greatly in target crops, technologies, research, seed multiplication, and distribution-have identical budgetary provisions. This pattern suggests that the needs assessment and costing for these initiatives may have been inadequate, and that decisions may have been based on political considerations rather than economic assessment. Budget execution is also poor. The Public Expenditure and Financial Accountability (PEFA) best practice standard for budget execution is no more than 3 percent discrepancy between budgeted and actual expenditures. In contrast, during the period covered by the study, the Nigerian federal budget execution averaged only 79 percent, meaning 21 percent of the approved budget was never spent. Budget execution at the state and local levels was even less impressive, ranging from 71 percent to 44 percent. However, other sectors showed similar low levels of budget execution, suggesting that the problem is a general one going beyond agriculture. There is an urgent need to improve internal systems for tracking, recording, and disseminating information about public spending in the agriculture sector. Consolidated and up-to-date expenditure data are not available within the Ministry of Agriculture, not even for its own use. Without this information, authorities cannot undertake empirically-based policy analysis, program planning, and impact assessment. There is also a need for clarification of the roles of the three tiers of government in agricultural services delivery. This is important to reduce overlaps and gaps in agricultural interventions and improve efficiency and effectiveness of public investments and service delivery in the sector. Finally, applied research is needed to address critical knowledge gaps in several areas: (i) Spending on fertilizer programs makes up a sizeable portion of overall agricultural spending in Nigeria, yet very little is known about the impact of this spending. (ii) To date, only a small portion of the national grain storage system has been constructed, but if the entire network is completed as planned, the cost will be enormous. Supporting even the current modest level of grain marketing activities is consuming significant amounts of public resources. Is an investment on this order of magnitude desirable? What has been the impact of these investments? (iii) There is a need for an analytical study focusing on the economics of the National Special Program for Food Security (NSPFS). The total cost of NSPFS II is estimated at US$364 million. Detailed financial information about the NSPFS is not publicly available, however, making it difficult to assess whether the considerable investment in NSPFS I generated attractive returns, and whether NSPFS II merits support as currently designed. A rigorous external evaluation is needed to assess the performance of NPSFS and generate information that could be used to make design adjustments. --Authors' Abstract ; Non-PR ; IFPRI1; GRP3 ; DSGD

Abstract In this paper I use a model informed by key theories of regional processes, and I test three related hypotheses concerning the effects of different types of federal spending (public investment, defense, salaries/wages) on economic growth in the 399 Appalachian counties during recent business cycles. The analysis incorporates a maximum likelihood estimate spatial lag regression model and shows that federal public investment spending and defense spending exerted net positive effects on per capita income, civilian employment, and private nonfarm employment growth rates between 1983 and 1988. In addition, public investment spending had a positive relationship with percentage of earnings from mining for the 1983–1988 period. Federal spending, however, had less consistent effects during the 1989–1992 recession. Implications for theory and research on regional processes are discussed.