Abstract
This paper explores the influence of government expenditures on the business cycle dynamics of a small transition country such as Vietnam. We develop a comprehensive stochastic-growth DSGE model where government consumption may affect households’ utility function, and there is habit persistence in consumption and endogenous private capital utilisation. Two fiscal shocks are considered in addition to shocks to households’ preferences and technological progress. The estimated DSGE model adequately captures the dynamics of Vietnam’s economy and is helpful to uncover a diversity of findings. First, public investment was an important driver of Vietnam’s high output growth in the early-to-mid 1990s, although its contribution decreased during the 2000s. Second, government expenditures explain, respectively, up to 30% and 20% of Vietnamese output variations in the long and short run. Third, impulse–response functions reveal a 3% GDP cumulative 5-year gain from a public investment shock of 1% GDP. Fourth, simulation analysis of different fiscal policies unveils a significant and positive impact of productive public investment by crowding in private investment.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
For instance, Abiad et al. (2016) showed that public investment could raise output in both the short- and long-term and reduce unemployment, which in turn crowds in private investment (Pereira and Andraz 2013; Dreger and Reimers 2016) and raises the marginal productivity of private capital (Cavallo and Daude 2011). Other studies show, however, that excessive and inefficient public investment may crowd out private investment and thus affect income growth negatively (Abel 2017; Cavallo and Daude 2011; Kandil 2017; Ogibayashi and Takashima 2017; among others). On a different perspective, Ilzetzki et al. (2013) documented a larger output multiplier associated to government spending in developed (closed) economies than in developing (open) economies. This multiplier was found to be zero in countries having flexible exchange rates, large in those having predetermined exchange rates, and negative in highly indebted countries.
Either with an endogenous discount factor or Uzawa-type preferences; a debt-elastic interest-rate premium; convex portfolio adjustment costs; complete asset markets; or without stationarity-inducing features.
We refer the interested readers to Pham et al. (2020) for further details and a complementary analysis.
Christiano and Eichenbaum (1992) considered three cases of \({\pi }\). Case (i) \({\pi } = 1\) refers to the absence of a role for \({{C}}_{{{{g}},{{t}}}}\); Case (ii) \({\pi } = 0\) \({{C}}_{{{{g}},{{t}}}}\) “is formally equivalent to a pure resource drain on the economy”; Case (iii) \(0 < {\pi } < 1\) models the partial effect of \({{C}}_{{{{g}},{{t}}}}\) on the marginal utility.
Cassou and Lansing (1998) developed an optimal fiscal rule for the government in which the ratio of public investment over GDP, \(\zeta_{ig}\), is determined as a function of \({\beta },{{ \alpha }}_{3} {{ and \delta }}_{{{g}}}\), i.e. \({\zeta }_{{{{ig}}}} = {{\beta \delta }}_{{{g}}} {\alpha }_{3} /\left[ {1 - {\beta }\left( {1 - {\delta }_{{{g}}} } \right)} \right]\). Here we calibrate \({\zeta }_{{{{ig}}}}\) to be consistent with Vietnam’s data.
See the online technical appendix for details.
Prior and posterior distributions of \(\rho_{cg}\) are not plotted as this parameter is ill-identified.
Note that a higher intensity of habit formation implies that a unit of current consumption will raise the marginal utility of consumption in the next period which, as a consequence, decreases in the present period.
Responses to a shock on government consumption (\(\epsilon_{{{{cg}}}}\)) are omitted due to its negligible impact.
Each IRF is the median of its Bayesian responses to the respective shock computed over the MHMC draws.
The corresponding individual plots with their error bands can be found in the online appendix.
See the online appendix for the response curves with error bands.
References
Abel AB (2017) Crowding out in Ricardian economies. J Monetary Econ 87:52–66s
Abiad A, Furceri D, Topalova P (2014) Is it ff? The macroeconomic effects of public investment w: The time is right for an infrastructure push. International Monetary Fund, Washington
Abiad A, Furceri D, Topalova P (2016) The macroeconomic effects of public investment: evidence from advanced economies. J Macroecon 50:224–240
Adjemian S et al (2011) Dynare: reference manual, version 4. Dynare working papers 1, CEPREMAP
Aiyagari SR, Christiano LJ, Eichenbaum M (1992) The output, employment, and interest rate effects of government consumption. J Monetary Econ 30(1):73–86
An S, Schorfheide F (2007) Bayesian analysis of DSGE models. Econometric Rev 26(2–4):113–172
Arslanalp S et al (2010) Public capital and growth. IMF working paper: public capital and growth. International Monetary Fund 10(175)
Aschauer DA (1985) Fiscal policy and aggregate demand. Am Econ Rev 75(1):117–127
Aschauer DA (1989) Is public expenditure productive? J Monetary Econ 23(2):177–200
Barro RJ (1990) Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. J Political Econ 98(5):S103–S125
Baxter M, King RG (1993) Fiscal policy in general equilibrium. Am Econ Rev 83:315–334
Bhattarai K, Nguyen DTK, Nguyen CV (2019) Impacts of direct and indirect tax reforms in Vietnam: a CGE analysis. Economies 7(2):50
Boldrin M, Christiano LJ, Fisher JDM (2001) Habit persistence, asset returns, and the business cycle. Am Econ Rev 91:149–166
Bom PRD, Ligthart JE (2014) What have we learned from three decades of research on the productivity of public capital? J Econ Surv 28(5):889–916
Cantore C, Levine P, Melina G (2014) On habit and utility-enhancing government consumption. Discussion Paper Series 14/06, City University London
Cassou SP, Lansing KJ (1998) Optimal fiscal policy, public capital, and the productivity slowdown. J Econ Dyn Control 22(6):911–935
De Castro F (2006) The macroeconomic effects of fiscal policy in Spain. Appl Econ 38(8):913–924
Cavallo E, Daude C (2011) Public investment in developing countries: a blessing or a curse? J Comp Econ 39(1):65–81
Christiano LJ, Eichenbaum M (1992) ‘Current real-business-cycle theories and aggregate labor-market fluctuations. Am Econ Rev 82:430–450
Christiano LJ, Eichenbaum M, Evans CL (2005) Nominal rigidities and the dynamic effects of a shock to monetary policy. J Political Econ 113(1):1–45
De Jong J FM, Ferdinandusse M, Funda J (2018) Public capital in the 21st century: As productive as ever? Appl Econ 50(51):5543–5560
Dreger C, Reimers H-E (2016) ‘Does public investment stimulate private investment? Evidence for the euro area’, Econ Model. 58:154–158
General Statistics Office of Vietnam (2018) ‘Statistical yearbook of Vietnam 2018. Statistical Publishing House, Hanoi
Glomm G, Ravikumar B (1994) Public investment in infrastructure in a simple growth model. J Econ Dyn Control 18:1173–1187
Hansen GD (1985) Indivisible labor and the business cycle. J Monetary Econ 16(3):309–327
Herbst EP, Schorfheide F (2015) Bayesian estimation of DSGE models. Princeton University Press, Princeton
IMF (2014) IMF country report no. 14/311. Vietnam 2014 article Iv consultation. IMF staff report.
IMF (2015) Making public investment more efficient. IMF staff report
Ilzetzki E, Mendoza EG, Végh CA (2013) How big (small?) Are fiscal multipliers? J Monetary Econ 60(2):239–254
Iskrev N (2010) Local identification in DSGE models. J Monetary Econ 57(2):189–202
Juillard M (1996) Dynare: A program for the resolution and simulation of dynamic models with forward variables through the use of a relaxation algorithm, vol 9602. CEPREMAP, Paris
Kandil M (2017) ‘Crowding out or crowding in? Correlations of spending components within and across countries’, Res Int Bus Finance 42:1254–1273
King RG, Rebelo ST (1999) Resuscitating real business cycles. In: Handbook of macroeconomics, vol 1, pp 927–1007
Kliem M, Uhlig H (2016) Bayesian estimation of a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model with asset prices. Quant Econ 7(1):257–287
Lansing KJ (1998) Optimal fiscal policy in a business cycle model with public capital. Can J Econ 31(2):337–364
Leeper EM, Plante M, Traum N (2010a) Dynamics of fiscal financing in the United States. J Econom 156(2):304–321
Leeper EM, Walker TB, Yang S-CS (2010b) Government investment and fiscal stimulus. J Monetary Econ 57(8):1000–1012
Ogibayashi S, Takashima K (2017) Influence of inefficiency in government expenditure on the multiplier of public investment. Comput Econ 50(4):549–577
Pereira AM, Andraz JM (2013) On the economic effects of public infrastructure investment: a survey of the international evidence. J Econ Dev 38(4):1
Pham BT, Sala H, Silva JI (2020) Growth and real business cycles in Vietnam and the ASEAN-5. Does the trend shock matter? Econ Syst 44(1):100730
Pham BT, Nguyen PC, Sala H (2019) Crowding-in or crowding-out macroeconomic effect of public investment in Vietnam. Unpublished manuscript. Universitat Autonòma de Barcelona, Barcelona
Schmitt-Grohé S, Uribe M (2003) Closing small open economy models. J Int Econ 61(1):163–185
Schmitt-Grohé S, Uribe M (2012) What’s news in business cycles. Econom Wiley Online Library 80(6):2733–2764
Smets F, Wouters R (2003) An estimated dynamic stochastic general equilibrium model of the euro area. J Eur Econ Assoc 1(5):1123–1175
Smets F, Wouters R (2007) Shocks and frictions in US business cycles: a Bayesian DSGE approach. Am Econ Rev 97(3):586–606
Stock JH, Watson MW (1999) Forecasting inflation. J Monetary Econ 44(2):293–335
Thanh SD, Trung BT, Kien TT (2015) Reforms of tax system in Vietnam in response to international integration commitments until 2020. J Econ Dev 22(2):2–26
Turnovsky SJ (1996) Optimal tax and expenditure policies in a growing economy. J Public Econ 60:21–44
Turnovsky SJ (2000) Fiscal policy, elastic labor supply, and endogenous growth. J Monet Econ 45:185–210
Uhlig, H. (1999) A toolkit for analysing nonlinear stochastic models easily. In: Marimom, Scott (eds) Computational methods for study of dynamic economies.
Van Aarle B, Garretsen H (2003) Keynesian, non-Keynesian or no effects of fiscal policy changes? The EMU case. J Macroecon 25(2):213–240
Whalen C, Reichling F (2017) Estimates of the Frisch elasticity of labor supply: a review. Eastern Econ J 43(1):37–42
Wickens M (2012) Macroeconomic theory: a dynamic general equilibrium approach. Princeton University Press, Princeton
World Bank, World Development Indicators (2019) Tax policies. World Bank, Washington
Acknowledgements
We are grateful to two anonymous referees for their insightful comments and suggestions received on an earlier version of this paper. Hector Sala is grateful to the Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation for financial support through grant PID2019-104723RB-I00. This research is funded by the University of Economics Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Supplementary Information
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Pham, B.T., Sala, H. The implications of public expenditures on a small economy in transition: a Bayesian DSGE approach. Econ Change Restruct 55, 401–431 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-021-09319-7
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10644-021-09319-7