scholarly journals Policy Watch: Infrastructure Investment and Economic Growth

1992 ◽  
Vol 6 (4) ◽  
pp. 189-198 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia H Munnell
Keyword(s):  
Capital Investment ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Public Capital ◽  
Output Growth ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
Current Policy ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Political Leaders ◽  
Empirical Relationships ◽  
Direction Of Causation

In the late 1980s, David Aschauer (1989) triggered a long overdue dialogue among economists and political leaders when he published a study arguing that much of the decline in U.S. productivity that occurred in the 1970s was precipitated by declining rates of public capital investment. My own work confirmed these results (Munnell, 1990a). Spending advocates seized on these findings as support for increased public investment. The enthusiasm among policymakers for the early Aschauer results was matched, if not surpassed, by skepticism on the part of many economists. Critics of these studies charged that the methodology was flawed, that the direction of causation between public investment and output growth is unclear and that, even if the historical empirical relationships were estimated correctly, they provide no clear indications for current policy. Who's right? What do we know and not know about the link between public infrastructure and productivity? And what are the implications of these results for policy?

Thai Public Capital Budget and Management Process

2019 ◽  
pp. 206-235
Author(s):  
Arwiphawee Srithongrung ◽  
Kenneth A. Kriz
Keyword(s):  
Local Governments ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Public Capital ◽  
Capital Budgeting ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
Budget Process ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Debt Capacity

This chapter describes the public capital budgeting process in Thailand. Public infrastructure is very centralized; local governments do not play a large role in public infrastructure investment. The country's long-term physical planning is fragmented and lacks an effective long-term fiscal planning. The budget process is dominated by senior civil servants in the Bureau of the Budget, the Ministry of Finance, Bank of Thailand, and the National Economic and Social Development Board. Expensive projects financed by long-term debt bypass the budget process, and as a result, a comprehensive list of annually approved projects is unavailable to the public. This leads to public investment being driven almost entirely by debt capacity. Because of these factors, Thai governments have invested too little in public infrastructure, and the infrastructure investment is uneven across sectors.

Langfristige Wirkungen öffentlicher Investitionen –Theoretische und empirische Aspekte –

1998 ◽  
Vol 47 (3) ◽  
Author(s):  
Wolfgang Kitterer
Keyword(s):  
Capital Investment ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Public Capital ◽  
Data Series ◽  
Private Capital ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Macroeconomic Theory ◽  
Demand Functions ◽  
Deficit Financing ◽  
Investment Spending

AbstractMacroeconomic theory suggests that public capital investment makes a significant contribution to economic growth. Applying an error correction model to data series for Germany shows, however, that increases in public infrastructure capital reduce private sector costs only in a negligible way. Moreover, it is demonstrated that conditional demand functions can only provide for very restricted predictions of how additional public investment outlays affect the demand for labor and private capital.Empirical estimations of productivity effects of public infrastructure usually do not account for the way government activity is financed. Neglecting tax or debt financing, may, however, entail a misspecification of the econometric equations and a misinterpretation of the empirical results. Using a simple neoclassical growth model it is shown that the productivity of public capital investment does not per se justify deficit financing. In economic terms, additional public investment spending is only reasonable if, at the margin, public capital investment is more productive than private capital investment.

scholarly journals Government public infrastructure investment and economic performance in Spain (1980-2016)

2021 ◽  
Vol ahead-of-print (ahead-of-print) ◽  
Author(s):  
Jose Perez-Montiel ◽  
Carles Manera
Keyword(s):  
Public Investment ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
Annual Data ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Autonomous Communities ◽  
Vector Autoregressive ◽  
Acyclic Graphs ◽  
Multiplier Effects

Purpose The authors estimate the multiplier effect of government public infrastructure investment in Spain. This paper aims to use annual data of the 17 Spanish autonomous communities for the 1980–2016 period. Design/methodology/approach The authors use dynamic acyclic graphs and the heterogeneous panel structural vector autoregressive (P-SVAR) method of Pedroni (2013). This method is robust to cross-sectional heterogeneity and dependence, which are present in the data. Findings The findings suggest that an increase in the level of government public infrastructure investment generates a positive and persistent effect on the level of output. Five years after the fiscal expansion, the multiplier effects of government public infrastructure investment reach values above one. This confirms that government public infrastructure investment expansions have Keynesian effects. The authors also find that the multiplier effects differ between autonomous communities with above-average and below-average GDP per capita. Originality/value To the best of the authors’ knowledge, no research uses dynamic acyclic graphs and heterogeneous P-SVAR techniques to estimate fiscal multipliers of government public investment in Spain by using subnational data.

Does public investment crowd-out private investment in India

2017 ◽  
Vol 9 (1) ◽  
pp. 50-69 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shanmugam Muthu
Keyword(s):  
Public Investment ◽  
Private Investment ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Macroeconomic Uncertainty ◽  
Long Run ◽  
Short Run

Purpose The purpose of this paper is to examine the crowding-in or crowding-out relationship between public and private investment in India. Design/methodology/approach The autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds testing approach is used to estimate the long run relationship between public and private investment using annual data from 1971-1972 to 2009-2010. Findings Based on the empirical findings, it is observed that aggregate public investment has a positive effect on private investment both in the long run and the short run. In contrast to the findings of previous studies, no significant impact of public infrastructure investment on private investments is found in the long run, while non-infrastructure investment has a positive impact on private investment in the short run. Among the various categories of infrastructure sector, a positive and significant impact in the case of electricity, gas and water supply is observed. Similarly, the result indicates that public investment in machinery and equipment and construction have substantially influenced the private sector machinery and equipment in the long run and the short run. In the case of the role of macroeconomic uncertainty, the results find a negative and significant impact on private investment and the impact is higher in the short run than in the long run. Originality/value The present study extends the literature in three important ways: First, the study attempts to capture heterogeneity of public investment as well as disaggregate effects of two different categories of public infrastructure on private investment. The extent to which two different types of public assets impact the private investment in machinery and equipment investment is also examined. Second, ARDL model is used to examine the long-run relationship between public and private investment. Third, the study incorporates macroeconomic uncertainty into the empirical analysis to examine the role of macroeconomic volatility in determining private investment decision.

Public infrastructure investment and fiscal sustainability in Latin America: incompatible goals?

2014 ◽  
Vol 41 (1) ◽  
pp. 29-50 ◽  
Author(s):  
Luis Carranza ◽  
Christian Daude ◽  
Angel Melguizo
Keyword(s):  
Developing Countries ◽  
Latin America ◽  
Latin American ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Fiscal Rules ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
Fiscal Consolidation ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Fiscal Space

Purpose – This paper aims to understand the relationship in developing countries between fiscal consolidation and public investment – a flexible part of the budget that is easier to cut during consolidation effort, but with potentially negative growth effects. Analyzing in detail the case of Peru, the paper explores alternative fiscal rules and frameworks that might help create fiscal space for infrastructure investment. Design/methodology/approach – The paper analyses trends in public and total infrastructure investment in six large Latin American economies, in the light of fiscal developments since the early 1980s. In particular, the paper explores the association between fiscal consolidations (improvements in the structural fiscal balance) and public infrastructure investment rates. In the second part, the paper analyzes recent changes in the fiscal framework of Peru and shows how they were conductive in creating additional fiscal space. Findings – The authors argue that post-crisis fiscal frameworks, notably fiscal rules that are increasingly popular in the region, should not only consolidate the recent progress towards debt sustainability, but also create the fiscal space to close these infrastructure gaps. These points are illustrated in a detailed account of recent developments in the fiscal framework and public investment in the Peruvian case. Originality/value – The paper contributes new evidence to the literature on fiscal consolidation and the composition of government expenditures. While the literature based on evidence from the 1990s has argued that fiscal consolidation plans in Latin America have almost always led to a significant reduction in public infrastructure investment, the paper finds less clear cut evidence when extending the analysis backwards (1980s) and forwards (2000s). The example of the case of Peru is used to explore fiscal institutions and rules that might be useful for other developing countries that face important infrastructure gaps.

scholarly journals REVISITING THE OPTIMAL STATIONARY PUBLIC INVESTMENT POLICY IN ENDOGENOUS GROWTH ECONOMIES

2008 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 172-194 ◽  
Author(s):  
GUSTAVO A. MARRERO
Keyword(s):  
Endogenous Growth ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Public Capital ◽  
Optimal Choice ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
The Public ◽  
Developed Economies ◽  
Elasticity Of Intertemporal Substitution ◽  
Output Ratio ◽  
Public Investment Policy

One part of the literature on endogenous growth concerns models where public infrastructure affects the private production process. An unsolved puzzle in this literature concerns observed public investment-to-output ratios for developed economies, which tend to fall short of theoretical model-based optimal ratios. We reexamine the optimal choice of public investment in a more general framework. This setting allows for long-lasting capital stocks, a lower depreciation rate for public capital than for private capital, an elasticity of intertemporal substitution that differs from unity, and the need to finance a nontrivial share of public services in output. Given other fundamentals in the economy, we show that the optimal public investment-to-output ratio is smaller for low-growth economies, for economies populated by consumers with low preferences for substituting consumption intertemporally, and when public capital is durable. For a calibrated economy, we show that a combination of these factors solves the public investment puzzle.

Public Capital Budgeting and Management Process in Moldova

2019 ◽  
pp. 134-156
Author(s):  
Erica Ceka
Keyword(s):  
Financial Management ◽  
Capital Investment ◽  
Public Capital ◽  
Capital Budgeting ◽  
Legal Framework ◽  
Investment Management ◽  
Capital Management ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Institutional Economic ◽  
Infrastructure Maintenance

As Moldova works toward building democracy and sustainable development, it is focusing its attention on increasing the effectiveness of public capital investment management. The chapter summarizes the current legal framework and practices in the field of capital management and budgeting in Moldova and compares the processes with a normative framework for effective capital investment management, focusing on capital planning, capital financial management, capital project execution and management, and public infrastructure maintenance. The analysis demonstrates that the public capital management and budgeting process in Moldova at the level of planning, allocation, and implementation of capital budgets falls short of its potential. The case reveals that despite a promising budgetary reform and comprehensive legal framework, the process of capital budgeting and management in Moldova remains ineffective due to institutional, economic, and political constraints.

The Case of Public Capital Budgeting and Management Processes in the United States

2019 ◽  
pp. 23-48 ◽  
Author(s):  
Natalia B. Ermasova ◽  
Carol Ebdon
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Public Capital ◽  
Capital Budgeting ◽  
The United States ◽  
Federal State ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Positive Theory ◽  
State And Local ◽  
Main Components

This chapter provides a case study from the United States regarding public capital budgeting and management on the federal, state, and local levels. The U.S. case of the public investment process (or positive theory for United States public investment) is described and compared with the normative theory outlined in Chapter 1 to understand the deviation between the positive and normative theories. This chapter presents an analysis of four main components of the USA capital budgeting system including (1) long-term public capital planning, (2) annual public budgeting and financing, (3) project execution, and (4) public infrastructure evaluation. In addition, this chapter shows public infrastructure needs and financing issues in the United States.

Impact of Public and Private Infrastructure Investment on Economic Growth: Evidence from India

2020 ◽  
Vol 12 (2) ◽  
pp. 119-138
Author(s):  
Nishija Unnikrishnan ◽  
Thomas Paul Kattookaran
Keyword(s):  
Economic Growth ◽  
Public Investment ◽  
Impulse Response Function ◽  
Decomposition Analysis ◽  
Private Investment ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Public And Private ◽  
Long Run ◽  
The Impact

Literature presents contradictory views regarding the impact of public and private investment on the economic growth of a country. India being a developing country, where the major share of investment is by public sector, the question which props up is what among public and private investment is contributing more towards the economic growth of the country. In this framework, the gross domestic product (GDP) can be fairly explained as a function of public infrastructure investment and private infrastructure investment. Johansen’s co-integration was used to test the long-run relationship between the variables over the period from 1961–1962 to 2016–2017. A vector error correction model (VECM) along with an impulse response function and variance decomposition analysis was done to measure the impact of public infrastructure investment and private infrastructure investment on the GDP. Based on the empirical evidence discussed earlier, it was evident that both public and private infrastructure investments have a significant impact on the economic growth of the nation. Findings which came up in this study correlate to majority findings of past literature that, when compared with public investment, it is private investment which is capable of giving a better impetus to economic growth.

scholarly journals Improving Public Infrastructure in the Philippines

2019 ◽  
Vol 36 (2) ◽  
pp. 159-184
Author(s):  
Takuji Komatsuzaki
Keyword(s):  
Public Investment ◽  
Scale Up ◽  
The Philippines ◽  
Infrastructure Investment ◽  
Investment Efficiency ◽  
Model Structure ◽  
Public Infrastructure ◽  
Investment Expenditure ◽  
Macroeconomic Implications

This paper explores the macroeconomic effects of improving public infrastructure in the Philippines, modeling the infrastructure scale-up plan being implemented by the current administration. After benchmarking the Philippines’ level of infrastructure investment, quantity and quality of public infrastructure, and public investment efficiency relative to its neighboring countries, the analysis uses a dynamic general equilibrium model to quantitatively assess the macroeconomic implications of raising public investment expenditure with different financing schemes and different rates of public investment efficiency. Critically dependent on a model structure in which accumulation of publicly provided infrastructure raises the overall productivity of the economy, the model simulations show that (i) increasing public infrastructure investment results in sustained gains in output, (ii) the effects of improving public investment efficiency are substantial, and (iii) deficit-financed increases in public investment lead to higher borrowing costs that constrain output increases over time. These results underscore the importance of improving public investment efficiency and revenue mobilization.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document