70
Econ 240 C Lecture 13

Econ 240 C

Embed Size (px)

DESCRIPTION

Econ 240 C. Lecture 13. Part I. CA Budget Crisis. CA Budget Crisis. What is Happening to UC? UC Budget from the state General Fund. UC Budget. Econ 240A Lab Four New data for Fiscal Year 2003-04 Governor’s Budget Summary 2003-04 released January 2003 http://www.dof.ca.gov/. - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Citation preview

Page 1: Econ 240 C

Econ 240 C

Lecture 13

Page 2: Econ 240 C

2

Part I. CA Budget Crisis

Page 3: Econ 240 C

3

CA Budget Crisis

What is Happening to UC?• UC Budget from the state General Fund

Page 4: Econ 240 C

4

UC Budget

Econ 240A Lab Four New data for Fiscal Year 2003-04 Governor’s Budget Summary 2003-04

• released January 2003• http://www.dof.ca.gov/

Page 5: Econ 240 C

UC Budget, 1968-69 through 2003-04

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

Mill

ion

s $

Page 6: Econ 240 C

6

CA Budget Crisis

What is happening to the CA economy?• CA personal income

Page 7: Econ 240 C

California Personal Income in Billions

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

Bill

ion

s $

Page 8: Econ 240 C

8

CA Budget Crisis

How is UC faring relative to the CA economy?

Page 9: Econ 240 C

UC Budget Vs. CA Personal Income, 1968-69 through 2003-04

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

CA Personal Income, $B

UC

Bu

dg

et,

$B

Page 10: Econ 240 C

10

CA Budget Crisis

What is happening to CA state Government?• General Fund Expenditures?

Page 11: Econ 240 C

CA State Government General Fund Expenditures

0

10000

20000

30000

40000

50000

60000

70000

80000

90000

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

Mill

ion

s $

Page 12: Econ 240 C

12

CA Budget Crisis

How is CA state government General Fund expenditure faring relative to the CA economy?

Page 13: Econ 240 C

CA Size of Government Vs. CA Economy, 1968-69 through 2003-04

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

CA Personal Income $ B

CA

Gen

eral

Fu

nd

Exp

end

itu

re $

B

Page 14: Econ 240 C

14

Long Run Pattern Analysis

Make use of definitions: UCBudget = (UCBudget/CA Gen Fnd

Exp)*(CA Gen Fnd Exp/CA Pers Inc)* CA Pers Inc

UC Budget = UC Budget Share*Relative Size of CA Government*CA Pers Inc

Page 15: Econ 240 C

15What has happened to UC’s Share of CA General Fund

Expenditures? UC Budget Share = (UC Budget/CA Gen

Fnd Exp)

Page 16: Econ 240 C

UC's Share of the California General Fund Budget

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

Per

cen

t

Page 17: Econ 240 C

17

CA Budget Crisis

Estimate of UC’s Budget Share for 2003-04: 4.25 % or 4.85%• will the legislature lower UC’s share?

Page 18: Econ 240 C

18What has happened to the size of California Government Expenditure Relative to Personal Income? Relative Size of CA Government = (CA

Gen Fnd Exp/CA Pers Inc)

Page 19: Econ 240 C

The Size of California Government Relative to the Economy

0.00%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%

7.00%

8.00%

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

Per

cen

t

Page 20: Econ 240 C

20

California Political History Proposition 13

• approximately 2/3 of CA voters passed Prop. 13 on June 6, 1978 reducing property tax and shifting fiscal responsibility from the local to state level

Gann Inititiative (Prop 4)• In November 1979, the Gann initiative was

passed by the voters, limit real per capita egovernment expenditures

Page 21: Econ 240 C

21

CA Budget Crisis

Estimate of the relative size of the CA government: 6.75% vs. 5.35 %?

Page 22: Econ 240 C

22

CA Budget Crisis: Pattern Estimate of UCBudget UC Budget = UC Budget Share*Relative

Size of CA Government*CA Pers Inc Midpoint estimate: UC Budget = 0.0455*.0605*1176.4 $B =$

3.24 B estimate Governor’s proposal in January: $ 3.04 B So, $ 3.24 B is probably too optimistic

Page 23: Econ 240 C

23

Econometric Estimates

Linear Trend Estimate UCBUD(t) = a + b*t +e(t)

• about same as Governor’s January proposed $ 3.04 B

• Lucky?

Page 24: Econ 240 C

UC Budget

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

Mil

lio

ns

$

Page 25: Econ 240 C

25

Econometric Estimates

Logarithmic (exponential trend) lnUCBUD = a + b*t +e(t) simple exponential trend will over-estimate

UC Budget

Page 26: Econ 240 C

UC Budget

0

500

1000

1500

2000

2500

3000

3500

4000

4500

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

Mil

lio

ns

$

Page 27: Econ 240 C

27

Page 28: Econ 240 C

28

Econometric Estimate

Dependence of UC Budget on CA Personal Income

UCBUD(t) = a + b*CAPY(t) + e(t) looks like a linear dependence on income

will overestimate the UC Budget for 2003-04

Page 29: Econ 240 C

UC Budget Vs. CA Personal Income, 1967-68 through 2003-04

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400

CA Personal Income, $B

UC

Bu

dg

et,

$B

Page 30: Econ 240 C

30

Econometric Estimates

How about a log-log relationship lnUCBUD(t) = a + b*lnCAPY(t) + e(t) autocorrelated residual fitted lnUCBUD(2003-04) = 1.18630

• $3.27 B

actual (Governor’s Proposal) = 1.11142• $3.04B

Page 31: Econ 240 C

31

Page 32: Econ 240 C

32

Page 33: Econ 240 C

33

Page 34: Econ 240 C

34

Econometric Estimates

Try a distributed lag Model of lnUCBUD(t) on lnCAPY(t)• clearly lnUCBUD(t) is trended (evolutionary)

so difference to get fractional changes in UC Budget

• likewise, need to difference the log of personal income

Page 35: Econ 240 C

35

Page 36: Econ 240 C

36

Page 37: Econ 240 C

37

Page 38: Econ 240 C

38

Page 39: Econ 240 C

39

Page 40: Econ 240 C

40

Page 41: Econ 240 C

41

Estimate ARONE Model for dlncapy(t)

Orthogonalize dlncapy and save residual need to do transform dlnucbud dlnucbud(t) = h(Z)*dlncapy(y) + resid(t) dlncapy(t) = 0.732*dlncapy(t-1) + N(t) [1 - 0.732Z]*dlnucbud(t) = h(Z)* [1 -

0.732Z]*dlncapy(t) + [1 - 0.732Z]*resid(t) i.e. w(t) = h(Z)*N(t) + residw(t)

Page 42: Econ 240 C

42

Page 43: Econ 240 C

43Orthogonal residuals from ARONE Model for dlncapy

Page 44: Econ 240 C

44

Distributed Lag Model

Having saved resid as res[N(t)] from ARONE model for dlncapy

and having correspondingly transformed dlnucbud to w

cross-correlate w and res

Page 45: Econ 240 C

45

Page 46: Econ 240 C

46

Distributed lag model

There is contemporary correlation and maybe something at lag one

specify dlnucbud(t) = h0 *dlncapy(t) + h1

*dlncapy(t-1) + resid(t)

Page 47: Econ 240 C

47

Page 48: Econ 240 C

48Dlnucbud c dlncapy dlncapy(-1)

Page 49: Econ 240 C

49

Try a dummy for 1992-93, the last recession, this is the once and for all decline in UCBudget mentioned by Granfield

There is too much autocorrelation in the residual from the regression of lnucbud(t) = a + b*lncapy(t) + e(t) to see the problem

Look at the same regression in differences

Page 50: Econ 240 C

50

Page 51: Econ 240 C

51

Page 52: Econ 240 C

52

Page 53: Econ 240 C

53

Page 54: Econ 240 C

54

Distributed lag Model

dlnucbud(t) = h0 *dlncapy(t) + h1

*dlncapy(t-1) + dummy (1992-93) + resid(t)

Page 55: Econ 240 C

55SER = 0.0459

Page 56: Econ 240 C

56

Page 57: Econ 240 C

57Fitted fractional change in UC Budget is 0.0102 versusGovernor’s proposal of -0.0477

Page 58: Econ 240 C

58Correlogram of the residuals ducbud c dlncapy dlncapy(-1) dummy

Page 59: Econ 240 C

59

Distributed lag Model

Modify the specification; drop dlncapy(t) to get a forecasting model

dlnucbud(t) = h1 *dlncapy(t-1) + dummy (1992-93) + resid(t)

Page 60: Econ 240 C

60SER = 0.0567

Page 61: Econ 240 C

61Residuals from dlnucbud c dlncapy(-1) dummy

Page 62: Econ 240 C

62

Distributed Lag Model

Try modeling the residual with an ar(7) Try modeling the residual with an ma(7)

Page 63: Econ 240 C

63SER = 0.0537

Page 64: Econ 240 C

64SER = 0.0474

Page 65: Econ 240 C

65Correlogram of residuals from dlnucbud c dlncapy(-1) dummy ma(7)

Page 66: Econ 240 C

66Fitted fractional change in UC Budget is -0.0159 versusGovernor’s proposal of -0.0477

Page 67: Econ 240 C

67

Conclusions Governors proposed cut in UC Budget of

4.8% is greater than expected from various models

The UC Budget growth path ratcheted down in the recession beginning July 1990

The UC Budget growth path may be ratcheting down again in the recession beginning March 2001 • it may be too early to tell

Page 68: Econ 240 C

Logarithm of UC Budget, Changes in Growth Paths

-1.5

-1

-0.5

0

0.5

1

1.5

68-6

9

70-7

1

72-7

3

74-7

5

76-7

7

78-7

9

80-8

1

82-8

3

84-8

5

86-8

7

88-8

9

90-9

1

92-9

3

94-9

5

96-9

7

98-9

9

00-0

1

02-0

3

Fiscal Year

lnu

cbu

d

Fitted through 91-92

lnucbud

Page 69: Econ 240 C

69dlucbud c dlncapy(-1) dummy for 1992-93 dummy2for 2003-04 ma(7)

Page 70: Econ 240 C

70dlnucbud c dlncapy dummy for 1992-93 dummy2for 2003-04