1995 2013
1 mahjoub_bahoussi@yahoo.fr iliesmc@hotmail.fr ammar.aries18@gmail.comStandard modeling of the causal relationship between public
expenditure on the health sector and economic growth under the
Vagner Act
(Algeria Case Study 1995-2013).Medjdoub Bahoussi&slimani ilyes& Ammar Aries
University of Taheri Mohamed - Bechar; Algeria
Received:19/02/2017 Accepted: 29/05/2017 Published: 31/12/2017
: 1995 2013 Wagner’s law Causality) s’Granger ECM jel ( : I19 C01 O23 Abstract:
The objective of the current study is to analyze the causality relationship between the government spending on the health Sector and economic growth in Algeria during (1995-2013) in the short and long term, and to test the economics’ theories that explain this relation. So in Wagner’s law there’s the existence of causal relationship in one direction only from the gross domestic product (GDP) to the increase of public spending generally and the government health care spending particularly, while in the Keynes’s theories is the opposite.
This study concentrated on: Co-integration, Granger causality and the Error Correction Model, and it found that there’s a relationship causal from the gross domestic product (GDP) to the public spending on the health, while it’s not observed any causality from the government health care spending to the economic growth in the short and long term, and this’s correspondent with content Wagner’s law.
Key Words: Health Care Expenditures, Economic Growth, co-integration, Causality relationship. (JEL) Classification: C01, I19, O23.
7 2 2017 14 GDP 1995 2013 1 2 3 4 1 11
7 2 2017 15 21 F.Guyot-P.Bonamow 1 H. Guitton 2 31 3 . 01
Source: Robert Price et al, Spending Efficiency in Health Care and Economic Growth, OSAKA Economics Papers, vol .58, N02, September 2008, p:57.
7 2 2017 16 2 12 Mushkin 1962 Grossman 1972 4 1992 Mankiw et al Barro 1996 22
7 2 2017 17 Schultz 1999 Strauss &Thomas
1998 5 .
Moyer & Weil
2001 17
Bloom Canning &Sevilla
2004 Brigitte Dormont 2007 6 .
William Jack & Maureen Lewis
2009 7 .
Badi H, Baltagi & Francesco Moscone
2010 20 OECD 1971 2004 8 .
7 2 2017 18
Biswajit Maitra & C.K Mukhopadhyay 2012 12 9 . 1995 2013 1 10 . : (Peacock – Wiseman 1969) G=F(Y) Model 1 (Goffman 1968) G=F(Y/N) Model 2 (Gupta, 1967, Michas 1975) G/N=F(Y/N) Model 3 (Musgrave 1969) G/GDP=F(Y/N) Model 4 (Modified p-w, (1967)) G/GDP=F(Y) Model 5 G Y N G/N Y/N G/GDP .
7 2 2017 19 (2013-1995) GDP PSH Public Spending on Health
2 02 1995 2013 1995 2013 -30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 -20 -10 0 10 20 30 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 Year % Change GDP Year % Change PSH
7 2 2017 20 2008 3 t e ) + t (PSH C (2) + C (1) = t GDP c α t e Eviews 8.0 01 . t ) + e t (PSH 2) C ( + 1) C ( = t GDP t C (1) -2036.254 961.7730 -2.117188 0.0493 C (2) 1247.638 228.3066 5.464748 0.0000
R-squared 0.637244 Mean dependent var 3085.629 Adjusted R-squared 0.615906 S.D. dependent var 1517.517 S.E. of regression 940.4867 Akaike info criterion 16.62997 Sum squared resid 15036760 Schwarz criterion 16.72939 Log likelihood -155.9847 Hannan-Quinn criter. 16.64680 F-statistic 29.86347 Durbin-Watson stat 0.722526 Prob(F-statistic) 0.000042 Eviews 8.0 ) prob=00 ( ) =0.64 2 R ( 64 65 (prob F-stat =00) (DW stat=0.72) 02
7 2 2017 21 1 3 jarque-bera 03 . Eviews 8.0 jarque-bera 03319 001 005 01 2 3 LM . 02 LM
Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:
F-statistic 6.287734 Prob. F (2,15) 0.0104 Obs*R-squared 8.664727 Prob. Chi-Square(2) 0.0131
Eviews 8.0 Chi-Square (2) 0 0131 005 3 3 ARCH 03 ARCH
Heteroskedasticity Test: ARCH
F-statistic 0.953812 Prob. F (1,16) 0.3433 Obs*R-squared 1.012670 Prob. Chi-Square (1) 0.3143 Eviews 8.0 F-statistic 001 005 01
7 2 2017 22 4 VAR 1 4 1995 2013 ADF . PP 04
DF-(DF-Test for Levels)
(ADF- Test for Deference) تباثلا هاجتﻻاو ثباثلا تباث نودب تباثلا هاجتﻻاو ثباثلا تباث نودب 1 =% α -3.85738 -4.571559 -2.699769 -3.886751 -4.667883 -2.708094 5 =% α -3.04039 -3.690814 -1.961409 -3.052169 -3.733200 -1.962813 10 =% α -2.66055 -3.286909 -1.606610 -2.666593 -3.310349 -1.606129 Log(GDPt) T-test 0.017739 2.40314 1.863364 4.657702 4.363328 3.76413 P-Value 0.9486 0.3656 0.9805 0.0022 0.017 0.0009 T-test 1.397158 0.461759 1.950315 3.496419 4.279278 2.938990 P-Value 0.9980 0.9753 0.9836 0.0215 0.0183 0.0059 eviews8 PP ADF
7 2 2017 23 05 Variables
(PP-Test for Levels)
(PP- Test for Déférence) Intercept Trend and Intercept None Intercept Trend and Intercept None 1 =% α -3.85738 -4.571559 -2.69976 -3.88675 -4.616209 -2.70809 5 =% α -3.04039 -3.690814 -1.96140 -3.052169 -3.710482 -1.96281 10 =% α -2.66055 -3.286909 -1.60661 -2.66659 -3.297799 -1.60612 Log(GDPt) T-test 1.006285 2.291937 3.959600 4.83921 7.860520 3.764 P-Value 0.9945 0.4169 0.9998 0.0015 0.0000 0.0009 Log(PSHt) T-test 2.393869 0.111374 1.898011 3.50834 4.436525 2.9389 P-Value 0.9999 0.9945 0.9818 0.0210 0.0138 0.0059 eviews8 5 1 I 06
Hypo thésis Null Eigen value ƛ𝑖 𝝀𝒕𝒓𝒂𝒄𝒆 5 Critical Value Prob r≤0 0.676469 21.76015 12.32090 0.0010 r≤1 0.206698 3.704811 4.129906 0.0644
Hypo thésis Null Eigen value ƛ𝑖 (𝝀𝒎𝒂𝒙) 5 Critical Value 1 Crical Value r≤0* 0.676469 18.05534 11.22480 0.0028 r≤1 0.206698 3.704811 4.129906 0.0644 eviews8 p-value=0.0001 0 05 1995 2013 6 (ECM)
7 2 2017 24 07 D(GDP) = ECT (-1) *(PSH (-1) - 0.000184290521602*GDP (-1) - 0.313878235129*@TREND (95) - 0.00704177030759) + C (1) *D (PSH (-1)) + C (2) *D (PSH (-2)) + C (3) *D (PSH (-3)) + C (4) *D (GDP ( -1)) + C (5) *D (GDP (-2)) + C (6) *D (GDP (-3)) + C (7)
Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
ECT (-1) -908.0041 170.8409 -5.314911 0.0011 C (1) -434.3860 360.2176 -1.205899 0.2670 C (2) -355.7284 388.6872 -0.915205 0.3905 C (3) -1319.712 395.8697 -3.333702 0.0125 C (4) -1.842339 0.324625 -5.675285 0.0008 C (5) -1.432918 0.377334 -3.797477 0.0067 C (6) -1.267146 0.455714 -2.780572 0.0273 C (7) 1557.948 249.9270 6.233614 0.0004
R-squared 0.862733 Mean dependent var 258.3467
Adjusted R-squared 0.725467 S.D. dependent var 486.3145
S.E. of regression 254.8089 Akaike info criterion 14.22343
Sum squared resid 454493.0 Schwarz criterion 14.60106
Log likelihood -98.67574 Hannan-Quinn criter. 14.21941
F-statistic 6.285097 Durbin-Watson stat 2.202256
Prob(F-statistic) 0.013478 Eviews 8.0 ECT(-1) 3 WALD Test) 0 H 0 )= 3 ( c(1)=c(2)=c 1 H 0 ≠ ) 3 ( c(1)=c(2)=c 08 Wald Test:
Test Statistic Value df Probability
F-statistic 6.790272 (3, 7) 0.0176 Chi-square 20.37082 3 0.0001 eviews8
7 2 2017 25 F-statistic Chi-square 001 005 01 7 Yt = αiYt-i+ ΣβjXt-j+Ut ) Y o (X j : o H ) Y o (X j : 1 H 09 F 0.1471 2.25836 0.0014 11.8993 eviews8 0 1471 0 0014 ) 001 005 01 ( 1995 2013 99 1883 Wagner