Can productive government spending be a source of equilibrium indeterminacy?

2011 ◽  
Vol 28 (3) ◽  
pp. 1335-1340 ◽  
Author(s):  
Akira Kamiguchi ◽  
Toshiki Tamai
Keyword(s):  
Government Spending ◽  
Equilibrium Indeterminacy ◽  
Productive Government Spending

Macroeconomic (in)stability and endogenous market structure with productive government expenditure

2017 ◽  
Vol 21 (2) ◽  
Author(s):  
Cheng-Wei Chang ◽  
Ching-Chong Lai
Keyword(s):  
Government Spending ◽  
Monopolistic Competition ◽  
Government Expenditure ◽  
Returns To Scale ◽  
Production Externalities ◽  
Congestion Effect ◽  
Local Indeterminacy ◽  
Endogenous Market Structure ◽  
Productive Government Spending ◽  
Productive Government Expenditure

AbstractWe consider the congestion effect of productive government spending in a monopolistic competition model with endogenous entry, and analyze the possibility of local indeterminacy. Some main findings emerge from the analysis. First, the indeterminacy condition is independent of the monopoly power. Second, productive government expenditure can be a source of local indeterminacy, while a higher degree of public goods congestion lessens the beneficial effect of productive government expenditure, and therefore reduces the possibility of indeterminacy. Third, a higher degree of internal returns to scale is associated with a lower possibility for the emergence of indeterminacy when production externalities are present.

The composition of productive government expenditure

2008 ◽  
Vol 1 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-83 ◽  
Author(s):  
Goncalo Monteiro ◽  
Stephen J. Turnovsky
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Human Capital ◽  
Government Spending ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Government Expenditure ◽  
Physical Capital ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Trade Offs ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Productive Government Spending

PurposeRecent research supports the role of productive government spending as an important determinant of economic growth. Previous analyses have focused on the separate effects of public investment in infrastructure and on investment in education. This paper aims to introduce both types of public investment simultaneously, enabling the authors to address the trade‐offs that resource constraints may impose on their choice.Design/methodology/approachThe authors employ a two‐sector endogenous growth model, with physical and human capital. Physical capital is produced in the final output sector, using human capital, physical capital, and government spending on infrastructure. Human capital is produced in the education sector using human capital, physical capital, and government spending on public education. The introduction of productive government spending in both sectors yields an important structural difference from the traditional two‐sector growth models in that the relative price of human to physical capital dynamics does not evolve independently of the quantity dynamics.FindingsThe model yields both a long‐run growth‐maximizing and welfare‐maximizing expenditure rate and allocation of expenditure on productive capital. The welfare‐maximizing rate of expenditure is less than the growth‐maximizing rate, with the opposite being the case with regard to their allocation. Moreover, the growth‐maximizing value of the expenditure rate is independent of the composition of government spending, and vice versa. Because of the complexity of the model, the analysis of its dynamics requires the use of numerical simulations the specific shocks analyzed being productivity increases. During the transition, the growth rates of the two forms of capital approach their common equilibrium from opposite directions, this depending upon both the sector in which the shock occurs and the relative sectoral capital intensities.Research limitations/implicationsThese findings confirm that the form in which the government carries out its productive expenditures is important. The authors have retained the simpler, but widely employed, assumption that government expenditure influences private productivity as a flow. But given the importance of public investment suggests that extending this analysis to focus on public capital would be useful.Originality/valueTwo‐sector models of economic growth have proven to be a powerful tool for analyzing a wide range of issues in economic growth. The originality of this paper is to consider the relative impact of government spending on infrastructure and government spending on human capital and the trade‐offs that they entail, both in the long run and over time.

DEBT POLICY RULE, PRODUCTIVE GOVERNMENT SPENDING, AND MULTIPLE GROWTH PATHS

2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (4) ◽  
pp. 445-462 ◽  
Author(s):  
Koichi Futagami ◽  
Tatsuro Iwaisako ◽  
Ryoji Ohdoi
Keyword(s):  
Growth Rate ◽  
Steady State ◽  
Government Spending ◽  
Income Tax ◽  
High Growth ◽  
Government Debt ◽  
Government Bonds ◽  
Tax Rate ◽  
Productive Government Spending ◽  
The Government

This paper constructs an endogenous growth model with productive government spending. In this model, the government can finance its costs through income tax and government debt and has a target level of government debt relative to the size of the economy. We show that there are two steady states. One is associated with high growth and the other with low growth. It is also shown that whether the government uses income taxes or government bonds makes the results differ significantly. In particular, an increase in government bonds reduces the growth rate in the high-growth steady state and raises the growth rate in the low-growth steady state. Conversely, an increase in the income tax rate reduces the growth rate in the low-growth steady state and there exists some tax rate that maximizes the growth rate in the high-growth steady state. Finally, the level of welfare in the low-growth steady state is lower than that in the high-growth steady state.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document