Main Article Content

Abstract

This paper examined the Granger-causality relationship between public expenditure and real capita GDP in Ghana, using aggregate data for a sample of 59 years, over the period of 1961–2020. Econometric analyses employed included: The simple Linear Regression Model (SLRM), Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF), Granger-causality, and Cointegration Tests (CT). The OLS output reveals that the series has limited ability in predicting each other as indicated by the very low R-square which comes close to zero, the ADF test showed that the series is stationary at the first difference, and The Granger-causality test revealed that there is no causality between the series. That is there is no Granger causal linkage between economic growth and government expenditure. In other words, economic growth and government expenditure are independent of the causal mechanism. The null hypothesis of number co-integration is not rejected since there is no co-integration at the 5% level of significance. This means that there is no long-run relationship between the series. There is a need for policy in public investment to impact growth rates in the future. Government expenditures need to be institutionalized in order to plan public spending over a period so that government expenditure is projected as a stable share of all anticipated flow of future levels of real income.

Keywords

Granger causality government expenditure gross domestic product relationship

Article Details

How to Cite
Awuma, W., & Ribar Bonheur, N. (2022). Explaining Government Expenditure and Growth Rate Dynamics in Ghana: A Vector Error Correction Model. International Journal of Multidisciplinary Studies and Innovative Research, 10(2), 1523–1530. https://doi.org/10.53075/Ijmsirq/6565436353

References

  1. Aryeetey, E., and Baah-Boateng, W. (2016), “Understanding Ghana’s Growth Success and Job Creation
  2. Challenges,”
  3. Abubakar, A. B. (2016), “Public expenditure and economic growth in Nigeria,” A Disaggregate Analysis. Anyadiegwu, Danladi, J. D., Akomolafe, K. J., Olarinde, O. S., and L., N. (2015), “Government
  4. Expenditure and its Implications for Economic Growth: Evidence from Nigeria,” Journal of Economics and Sustainable Development, 142-150
  5. Barro, R.J. (1991), “Economic growth in cross-section of countries,” Quarterly Journal of
  6. Economics, 106, 407-444
  7. Atianashie Miracle, A., Armah, E. D. A., Mohammed, N., & Sackey-Sam, S. THE ANTITHETICAL EFFECT OF CYBERCRIME ON SMALL MEDIUM ENTERPRISE SMES: PUBLIC ASSESSMENT.
  8. Barro, R. J. (2003), “Determinants of Economic Growth in a Panel Data of countries,” Annals of
  9. Economics and Finance, Society for AEF, 4, 231-27
  10. Cosimo, M. (2011), “Wagner versus Keynes: Public Spending and National Income in Italy,” Journal of
  11. Policy Modeling, 890-905.
  12. Atianashie Miracle, A. (2022). Implementation of Object Detection and Tracking by Using Deep Learning Based Convolutional Neural Networks. Scholars Journal of Science and Technology, 3(1), 503-510.
  13. Dickey, D and W. Fuller (1979), “Distribution of the Estimators for Autoregressive Time Series with a
  14. Unit Root”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, 74 (2): 427-431.
  15. Dogan, E., and Tang, T. C. (2011), “Government Expenriesditure and National Income: Causality Tests
  16. for Five South East Asian Countries,” International Journal of Economics and Business Research, 49-58
  17. Engle R. F., and Granger C. W. J. (1987), “Co-integration and Error-Correction: Representation,
  18. Estimation and Testing,” Econometrica, 55, 987-1008
  19. Garba, T., and Abdullahi, S. Y. (2013), “Public expenditure and Economic Growth: An Application of
  20. Cointegration and Granger Causality Tests in Nigeria,” Journal of Economic and Social Research, 1-30
  21. Ganti, Subrahmanyam, and Bharat R. Kolluri (1979), “Wagner’s Law of Public Expenditures:
  22. Some efficient results for the United States,” Public Finance / Finances Publiques 34, 225-33.
  23. Georgakopoulos, Theodore A., and Loizides, John (1994), “The Growth of the Public Sector: Tests of
  24. Alternative Hypotheses with Data from Greece,” The Cyprus Journal of Economics 7, 12-29.
  25. Ghali, Khalifa H. (1998), “Government Size and Economic Growth: Evidence from Multivariate
  26. Cointegration Analysis,” Applied Economics, 31, 975-987.
  27. Granger C. J., (1969), “Investigating Causal Relationships by Econometric Models and Cross Spectral
  28. Methods,” Econometrica, 425-435.
  29. C. W. J. (1988), “Some Recent Developments in the Concept of Causality,” Journal of Econometrics 39,
  30. -211.
  31. Hossain, I. M. (2015), “Public Expenditure Effectiveness, Economic Growth, and Poverty in Bangladesh:
  32. An Assessment of the Impact of Government Spending and Intervention on Poor Citizens.
  33. King, J. (2012), “Post Keynesian Economics,” Edward Elgar Publishing.
  34. Kolluri, Brahat R., Michael J. Panik, and Mahmoub S. Wahab (2000), “Government Expenditure and
  35. Economic Growth: Evidence from G7 Countries,” Applied Economics 32: 1059-106
  36. Landau, Daniel (1983), “Government Expenditure and Economic Growth: A Cross-section Study,”
  37. Southern Economic Journal 49: 783-92.
  38. Ackah, J. Y., Adaobi, C., & Miracle, A. The Problem of Solid Waste Management.
  39. Paparas, D., and Stoian, A. (2016), “The Validity of Wagner’s Law in Romania during 1995-2015.
  40. MPRA, Munich Personal RePEc Archive
  41. Raggl, A. (2013), “Economic Growth in Ghana: Determinants and Prospects,” World Bank
  42. Policy Research Working Paper, 6750. Washington: World Bank
  43. Salih, M. A. (2012), “The Relationship between Economic Growth and Government Expenditure:
  44. Evidence from Sudan,” International Business Research, 40-46.
  45. Wang, L., Peculea, A. D., & Xu, H. (2016), “The Relationship between Public Expenditure and Economic
  46. Growth in Romania,” Does it obey Wagner’s or Keynes’s Law? Theoretical and Applied Economics, 41-52