Hey there! Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Hi folks,

    I've got a question. Just done basic regression analysis on growth rates and the public deficit in the UK. Now I am struggling to link my results to theory. Keynesian theory would obviously suggest a rise in growth to be the result of an increased public deficit.
    The data ist from the WEO, so Y is Growth in % of GDP and X is government net lending/borrowing.
    Using the years 1999 onwards, the result is that Growth is
    Y=3.33+0.4X
    So, this is the first question: Is a deficit going to be represented in the X-values as a negative figure? That is what I have been assuming. Then however, that means that a deficit would actually lower growth. I am pretty stuck and my lecturer has not managed to explain it to me.
    Thanks for helping!!!!
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    Personally I find your decision to make your regressor, public deficit, questionable. Economic intuition would tell you that whether a government ran a deficit or surplus would not be a determinant of growth. So in this case a surplus & deficit could lead to growth so essentially you're just forcing linearity in your model.

    A better form would be to have X as just simply government expenditure and work from your simply demand equation. Or if you really want to have 'bugdet deficit' maybe redefine some new variables.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for the reply. I see what you mean and although it is only a linear regression and therefore limited in its explanatory power, that is what we are asked to do in the question. In that situation, what would you conclude? I see your point that the Keynesian idea is being forced into this particular format and these particular variables but thats what Ive got to work with.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    What is the t-stat ( and number of observations?)
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    N=12

    calculated t-values for
    beta1=5.35
    beta2=3.56
    • PS Helper
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    From what I can see the coefficient won't change but a negative X value would represent a deficit. Since your model is very simple and quite crude, I wouldn't cross reference with your economic intuition too much. Also keep in mind that your data will show growth with every year there was a surplus, so the correlation will be high. So it's natural your model would pull you into that direction.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by yoyo462001)
    Also keep in mind that your data will show growth with every year there was a surplus, so the correlation will be high. So it's natural your model would pull you into that direction.
    Would you say that a possible time gap between the implimentation and the actual effects of deficit spending can be part of an explanation of the difference in theory and results??
    Offline

    19
    ReputationRep:
    I agree with yoyo on this - a deficit is more likely to be the result of a recession, or slowdown in growth, than a cause of growth.....if you try to regress this with the UK you will find that in the boom periods there are small surpluses, or small deficits, and in the recessions there are large deficits, so you are going to find it hard to show that deficits have any explanatory power in economic growth...
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Frankfurt)
    Hi folks,

    I've got a question. Just done basic regression analysis on growth rates and the public deficit in the UK. Now I am struggling to link my results to theory. Keynesian theory would obviously suggest a rise in growth to be the result of an increased public deficit.
    The data ist from the WEO, so Y is Growth in % of GDP and X is government net lending/borrowing.
    Using the years 1999 onwards, the result is that Growth is
    Y=3.33+0.4X
    So, this is the first question: Is a deficit going to be represented in the X-values as a negative figure? That is what I have been assuming. Then however, that means that a deficit would actually lower growth. I am pretty stuck and my lecturer has not managed to explain it to me.
    Thanks for helping!!!!
    You need to add explnatory variables, major omitted variable bias right now. You can't just run a growth regression with 1 explanatroy variable. There are so many things that influence growth that your error will be out of control.

    I would speak to your econometrics lecturer to discuss this.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Thanks for all the replies. Might attempt a multivariate model to achieve more realistic results.
 
 
 
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • Poll
    What newspaper do you read/prefer?
  • See more of what you like on The Student Room

    You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

  • The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

    Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

    Quick reply
    Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.