Upload
ertug-kepenek
View
225
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
7/31/2019 LK Projem
1/17
T.C.
EGE UNIVERSITY
FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE SCIENCES
Department of Economics
Project Title
The Impacts of Research & Development Expenditures and Public
Investment To Economic Growth in U.S.A
Student Namekke KORKMAZ
Number
15 06 960
ZMR 2011
7/31/2019 LK Projem
2/17
CONTENTS
1.INTRODUCTION
2.LITERATURE REVIEW
3.FORMULATION OF THE MODEL
3.1 R & D VARIABLE
3.2 PUBLIC INVESTMENTS VARIABLE
3.3 GDP VARIABLE
3.4 THE METHOD USED
3.5 DATA SET
4.DATA SOURCES AND DESCRIPTION
5.ESTIMATION OF THE MODEL
Jargue-Bera Test
Whites Heteroscedasticity Test
Durbin-Watson d Test
Breusch-Godfrey Test
Ramseys Reset Test
6.INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
7.CONCLUSION
APPENDIX
A-The Data Set
B- Computer Printouts
7/31/2019 LK Projem
3/17
1.INTRODUCTION
This project is research and development expenditures and public investments in the
United States between 1981-2008 and was prepared to interpret the relationship between Gross
Domestic Product. Americas research and development spending than other countries have
started earlier, has provided us the opportunity to look at a broader perspective. Research anddevelopment expenditures, R & D, the Gross Domestic Product GDP has been shortened to.
Aim of the study on the effect of R & D expenditure and public investments to GDP is
calculated and if there is such a domain to analyze and interpret the degree of impact. R & D
expenditures for this project to us whether it is necessary, it will show the long-run recovery. The
total cost incurred for the work of our R & D will be variable. Our expectation, R & D
expenditures and public investments on GDP is effective, the increase in GDP growth also affects
the public investments and R & D expenditures.
2.LITERATURE REVIEW
R&D to economic growth model based on the first time, Romer(1990) analyzed by.
Subsequently, this approach Rivera-Betiz & Romer, Grossman & Helpman and Agihon & Howitt
developed by .
Then, in this regard Ege University Faculty of Economics and Administrative Sciences,
Department of Economics, Prof. Dr. Aysen Kaya and her student Onur Altn (2009), Turkey, theCausal Relationship Between R & D Expenditures and Economic Growth Analysis, study from1990 to 2005 period, R & D expenditures within the scope of work includes the analysis of causality
between growth and have made. In this study, VEC(vector error correction) model was used. The
test result of R & D expenditure to economic growth for Turkey toward a long-run causal
relationship was found.
Another study in this subject Balkesir University, Department of Economics instructor,Asst.Assoc. Dr. Suna Korkmaz his econometric series(2009). Data between the years 1990-2008, in
Turkey Have The Relationship Between R & D Investment and Economic Growth Model with
Analysis by the Granger causality test results of the study could not have found a short-run
relationship.
Impulse response analysis, an increase in R & D spending affects GDP and suggested that
this effect continued throughout the 10 periods.
Ram (1987), internationally comparable income and government expenditure data from theyears 1950-1980 for 155 countries and used to prove the validty of Wagners Hypothesis. Theresults of the study, time series data, according to a horizontal-sectional data suggest that support for
more than Wagner Hypothesis.
Gnalp and Gr (2002), using the techniques of panel data set of more recent data for 34developing countries, ram (1986) s two sector growth model to estimate re-tried. Estimation resultsof Ram (1986) in confirming the findings of a horizontal-sectional analysis, with the size of the state
of developing countries is that a positive relation between economic growth performance.
Given the positive relationship in public investment, but were not statistically significant
according to Barro (1960), the size of public investment in GDP affect the growth rate significantly.
7/31/2019 LK Projem
4/17
3.FORMULATION OF THE MODEL
In this study, the relationship between economic growth, public investment and R & D
expenditures following the model used in the investigation:
GDPt= 0+ 1.RD + 2.PINV + ut
GDP: Gross Domestic Product
RD: Research and Development
PINV: Public Investments
3.1 R & D VARIABLE : Engineers and scientists employed by companies, in line with
working space to perform a new invention. Than the aim of carrying forward an existing invention
take advantage of the maximum level of technology. Thus the high profits to the company and itworks in order to ensure continuity. In addition, in the form of increased efficiency in production. That
is, the same amount of input, more output can be achieved R & D investments.
3.2 PUBLIC INVESTMENTS VARIABLE: Public investment, government
expenditures on higher investment costs, is done by the government. There are al lot of impact of
public investments, especially to open the way for technological innovations. Human capital
accumulation, labor productivity growth increases so. Study of a very high education level and
growth of public spending on education or have found a positive correlation between the growth.
3.3 GDP VARIABLE: Gross Domestic Product (GDP), in the economy the monetary
value of goods and services produced within a time frame means. Is one of the important indicators ofmacroeconomics. The size of the GDP, the economy also depends on the number of people who live
and work. Therefore, during a long period of time, or to make a comparison between countries is
necessary to distinguish the impact of population growth. GDP per person is used as a criterion. In
addition, there is an effect over the years, after adjusting for inflation and the real GDP deflator
should be used.
3.4 THE METHOD USED: The testing will occur between the years 1981-2008 for the
U.S. data will be used for the OLS method. Examined the effect of GDP on R & D expenditures and
public investments, the model will be tested. The model that we will be establishing a point, the data
is to be estimated by taking the logarithm. Thus deviations from the data and the forecast periods, the
minimum level will be affected.
3.5 DATA SET: In this study used U.S. data Organization for economic Co-operation
And Development (OECD), the National Science Foundation (NSF) and Bureau of Economic
Analysis (BEA) National Economic Accounts web pages have been obtained.
4.DATA SOURCES AND DESCRIPTION
The reason we prefer the United states, is the owner of the worlds largest GDP, the country isengaged in research and development investment and public investments for most. According to the
information we get from the data before using it for sustainable growth, R & D expenditure and public
investments in GDP we expect to be even higher rate. That is not our figures for the criteria, should berates.
7/31/2019 LK Projem
5/17
As mentioned at the begining of this section, we figure we will as a criterion in R & D, which
is the ratio of GDP. As a result; rates, right estimation and we will take you to the right conclusion. If
we look at the numbers in the United States of R & D expenditures in 1990 152.502.200.000$, in 2007
372.687.280.000$(OECD) ie R & D expenditure increased by 2,44 times. GDP in 1990
5.754.800.000.000$, in 2007 14.010.800.000.000$(BEA) ie GDP increased by 2,43 times.
In developed countires, GDP growth rates range from 0 to 1 percent. Developing countries can
grow or shrink by 10 percent every year. Of a developed country , the United States, GDP of them
out two times in 50 years. For a devoloping country, this time for 13 years.
If we look at the numbers in the United States of public investment in 1990
90.400.000.0000 $, in 2007 162.000.000.000$ ie public investment expenditures increased by 1.8
times. GDP in 1990 5.754.800.000.000$, in 2007 14.010.800.000.000$(BEA) ie GDP increased by
2,43 times. Numbers as it shows us the basic dynamics of growth, public investment and R & D
expenditures. R & D expenditures in the long-run recycling is less efficient than public investment
may seem, to R & D driven growth will be a more effective result. To R & D based growth model,
technological progress and its consequences such as increased efficiency in production as a result.
5.ESTIMATION OF THE MODEL
Firstly, the model must be estimated. Independent variables, the impact on the dependent
variable , has been tested and the following results were obtained with the help of the
econometric package program.
GDP = C(1) + C(2)*RD + C(3)*PINV
GDP= -2918.2 + 4.52*RD + 33.7*PINV
t-is Prob.
1 3.795716 0.0008
2 3.795716 0.0004
As shown in the tables, public investments and R & D expenditures was significantly,
acceptable. In the other words this variable, United States has an impact on GDP.
In model variables, the dependent variable yielded effective results statement. As a result
estimated models R2 value 0.97 and this value is very big value for estimation model.
(Note: See Appendix A-1 and A-2 for the computer printouts)
We used the diagnostic test to check whether the model satisfies the OLS assumptions. So, we
performed the tests of normality, homoscedasticity, autocorrelation and specification error. The results
are given respectively;
7/31/2019 LK Projem
6/17
Jarque-Bera Test: Normality Test
We carried out the Jarque-Bera test for the purpose of testing whether residuals are
normally distributed or not and we obtained the following results;
H0 :Residuals are normally distributed at 5% significance level
H1 : Residuals are not normally distributed
If JBcalc>JBcritic ,we reject the null hypothesis and p-value> dont reject the null hypothesis
JB statistics is asymptotically distributed chi-square with 2 df.
p-value> dont reject the null hypothesis p-value=0.86 =0.05
0.86>0.05 we dont reject the null hypothesis and our residuals are normally distributed.
Jargue-Bera Test is carried out is explained by Gujarati, D.N, fifth edition
Whites General heteroscedasticity Test is carried out is explained by Gujarati, D.N, fifthedition p:387
7/31/2019 LK Projem
7/17
Whites General Heteroscedasticty Test
Another important point is whether there is heteroscedasticty in data or not. By applying
Whites heteroscedasticity test to residuals of the regression.
The Steps Of Whites Test
1) Estimate the equation above and obtain the residuals i2) Run the following auxiliary regression and obtain R2 from this auxiliary regression.
3) H0 : there is homoscedasticty
H1 : there is heteroscedasticty
4) n.R22 df
t2=-27828.26-0.04*RD-1.15*RD^2+0.001*RD*PINV+35997.54*PINV-785.82*PINV^2
R2 n*R2 P-value0.2438 6.8264 0.2337
H0 :There is homoscedasticty at 5% significance level
H1: There is no homoscedasticty
n*R2~ 2 (chi-square distribution) 2(m-1), 0.05 2
5, 0.05=11.0705
m: number of variable+u
n*R2> 2crictical Dont reject the null, there is homoscedasticity (Critical > Calculate)
11.00705 > 6.8264
So,Dont reject the null, there is homoscedasticity
(Note: See Appendix A-3 for the computer printouts)
Test For First Order Autocorrelation: Durbin Watsond- Test
Assumptions Underlying The d-Statistic
1) The regression model including an intercept term.
2) The explanatory variables, the Xs are fixed in repeated sampling.
3) The disturbances ut are generated by the first-order autoregressive scheme: ut =put-1+t4) The error terms ut are assumed to be normally distributed.
5) The model doesnt include the lagged value(s) of the depended variable as one of theexplanatory variable.
7/31/2019 LK Projem
8/17
2
2
1)(
t
tt
u
uud
Positive
autocorrelation
area
indecision No autocorrelation
area
=0
indecision Negative
autocorrelation
area
0 dL du 2 4-du 4-dL 4
dL: DW lower level
du: DW upper level
We use Durbin-Watson d test to test whether there is first order autocorrelation or not.
The Steps Of DW Test
1) Run the OLS and obtain residuals.
2) Compute d-statistic
3) For the given sample size and given number of explanatory variables find out critical dL and
dU values.
4) Make your decision about your hypotesis.
H0:=0 there is no autocorrelation
H1:0 there is autocorrelation
t =-2918.21+4.51 RD+33.72 PINV
7/31/2019 LK Projem
9/17
413.0
)(2
2
1
t
tt
u
uud
n=28 k=2 dL=1.255 du=1.560 (5%) significance level
n:number of observation
k:independent variable
Positive
autocorrelation
area
indecision No autocorrelation
area
=0
indecision Negative
autocorrelation
area
0 0.413 1.255 1.560 2 2.44 2.745 4
Finally we reject the null hypothesis. There is a autocorrelation problem and we must use
higher autocorrelation test for autocorrelation problem.
(Note: See Appendix A-2 for the computer printouts)
The Breusch-Godfrey (BG) Test: Test For Higher Order Autocorrelation
1) Lagged values of the regression y
2) Higher order autoregressive scheme, such AR(1), AR(2),
The BG Test Steps:
1) Estimate the regression by O and obtain residuals, t2) t on t , t-1 t-p obtain R
2
3) fthe sample siz is large: (n-p)*R2 2p
Estimated Regression Model : Y=1+2X2+ 3X3+U
Auxiliary Model: Ut=1+ 2 X2+3X3+1 ut-1+ 2 ut-2+Vt
Durbin Watson-d- Test is carried out is explained by Gujarati, D.N, fifth edition p:434
Breusch-Godfrey Test is carried out is explained by Gujarati, D.N, fifth edition p:438
7/31/2019 LK Projem
10/17
H0:1= 2=0 B-G=(n-s)*R2 s:degrees of freedom
H1: 1 20 n: number of observation
B-G> 2critic reject H0
Prob.
Prob. F(2,19) 0.3089
Prob. Chi- square(2) 0.2204
Finally if we use prob value ; if Fprob value>0.05 reject H1 hypothesis and solving the
autocorrelation problem.
0.3089>0.05 our p-value is bigger than 0.05 and we accept H0 Hypothesis.
(Note: See Appendix A-4, A-5 and A-6 for the computer printouts)
Regression Specification Error Test: Ramseys RESET Test
We use Ramseys Reset Test whether there is specification error or not.
The Steps Of Ramseys Reset Test
1) Estimated i2) Run the regression
3) Use restricted F test
4) If the computed F value is significant, one can say that the model is misspecified.
t=-1778.27+2.49*RD+30.96*PINV+3.07FITTED^2
RD PINV FITTED2
Prob. 0.1259 0.0007 0.0757
F statistic 3.4467F Prob. 0.0757
H0:There is no specification error at 5% significance level
H1:There is specification error
Fcritc=F, new added variable number, total variable-new model variable number
Fcritc=4.24 from F table Fcalc
7/31/2019 LK Projem
11/17
6.INTERPRETATION OF THE RESULTS
According to the results, statistically significant variables in our model we face the 1and 2we see coming. This is our R & D expenditures and public investments, the relationship suggests
that the United tates GDP. Coefficient proved to be positive as we expect. Because of economic
forecasting, in fact, is that the public investment and R & D expenditures to increase nationalincome. However, this model has a major impact on public investment, public investment in R & D
expenditures have an impact until we see that. The reason for this may be the R & D expenditures in
a long time to gain economic value. However, public investment in private sector investments,
triggering creates a multiplier effect and the economy in the shortrun will have an effect quickly.
When we look at the value obtained with the prediction of our model R2 we see that a
very high value was obtained. This value (0.97) public expenditures and R & D expenditures in
a way, the real impact of the United States GDP interpret the ratio of approximately 97%. In
other words, independent variables, dependent variables, a statement was effective in 97%.
In general, our results were in accordance with the economic literature. But to actuallymodel the more accurate results, consumption, foreign trade, such as a fact that should add many
more variables.
7.CONCLUSION
The objective of this project is to explain the relationship between R & D, public investment
and GDP in U.S.A in the period 1981-2008. In other words in the study we tried to present some
empirical results about this relationship in U.S.A. Our results were in line with expectations. This
relationship in the economic projections for the period 1981-2008 is conformity with UnitedStates tested.
Public investment in infrastructure makes the economy , private sector R & D activities
and forwarding these to the economy can contribute to greater public investment. This
contribution, employment, income and productivity is seen as the GDP increases as a result. As we
can see the results of public investments is greater than the impact on national income. In addition,
research and development activities, the economy in a longer-term impact on our results for the effect
of R & D to the GDP, according to public investments has been smaller.
As a result of the study before the results yielded similar results. In addition to the
United States of the R & D investments, Turkey and other developing countries than in theearly to begin the recycling of R & D has led us to see more clearly.
7/31/2019 LK Projem
12/17
APPENDIX
DATA SET
YEARSPUBLIC INVES
BILLION $ YEARS R & D MILLION $ GDP BILLION $
1981 51.9 1981 72628,92 $3.103,80
1982 50.9 1982 81015,27 $3.227,70
1983 58 1983 90478,02 $3.506,90
1984 62.7 1984 102970,56 $3.900,40
1985 67.7 1985 115082 $4.184,80
1986 70 1986 120360 $4.425,00
1987 77.6 1987 126873 $4.699,00
1988 74.3 1988 134108,55 $5.060,701989 81 1989 141973,56 $5.439,60
1990 90.4 1990 152502,2 $5.754,80
1991 99.4 1991 161655,04 $5.943,20
1992 108.8 1992 166095,6 $6.291,50
1993 113.1 1993 166018,93 $6.614,30
1994 99.6 1994 169435,05 $7.030,50
1995 107.2 1995 183982,5 $7.359,30
1996 115.1 1996 197711,06 $7.783,90
1997 122.4 1997 212767,73 $8.278,90
1998 122.6 1998 227266 $8.741,00
1999 133.8 1999 245546,4 $9.301,00
2000 123.4 2000 268257,48 $9.898,80
2001 122.4 2001 278362,08 $10.233,90
2002 132.4 2002 277463,24 $10.590,20
2003 133.8 2003 289428,12 $11.089,20
2004 134.8 2004 300032,42 $11.812,30
2005 145 2005 323298,29 $12.579,70
2006 158.8 2006 348074,82 $13.336,20
2007 162 2007 372687,28 $14.010,80
2008 174.3 2008 398032,38 $14.369,40
7/31/2019 LK Projem
13/17
A-1
Estimation Command:
=========================LS GDP C RD PINV
Estimation Equation:=========================GDP = C(1) + C(2)*RD + C(3)*PINV
Substituted Coefficients:=========================GDP = -2918.21713716 + 4.51135262358e-05*RD + 33.7254767997*PINV
A-2
Dependent Variable: GDP
Method: Least Squares
Date: 05/17/11 Time: 23:51
Sample: 1981 2008
Included observations: 28
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C -2918.217 273.7028 -10.66199 0.0000
RD 4.51E-05 1.19E-05 3.795716 0.0008
PINV 33.72548 8.205033 3.795716 0.0004
R-squared 0.965567 Mean dependent var 3994.839
Adjusted R-squared 0.962812 S.D. dependent var 2250.301
S.E. of regression 433.9519 Akaike info criterion 15.08470
Sum squared resid 4707857. Schwarz criterion 15.22744
Log likelihood -208.1858 Hannan-Quinn criter. 15.12834
F-statistic 350.5209 Durbin-Watson stat 0.413633
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
A-3
Heteroskedasticity Test: White
F-statistic 1.419022 Prob. F(5,22) 0.2564
Obs*R-squared 6.828058 Prob. Chi-Square(5) 0.2337
Scaled explained SS 4.158603 Prob. Chi-Square(5) 0.5268
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID^2
7/31/2019 LK Projem
14/17
Method: Least Squares
Date: 05/18/11 Time: 00:13
Sample: 1981 2008
Included observations: 28
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C -27828.26 414547.4 -0.067129 0.9471
RD -0.042010 0.036311 -1.156948 0.2597
RD^2 -1.15E-09 7.30E-10 -1.577690 0.1289
RD*PINV 0.001877 0.001036 1.810939 0.0838
PINV 35997.54 24197.91 1.487630 0.1510
PINV^2 -785.8282 401.1181 -1.959094 0.0629
R-squared 0.243859 Mean dependent var 168137.8
Adjusted R-squared 0.072009 S.D. dependent var 211651.1
S.E. of regression 203888.3 Akaike info criterion 27.47594
Sum squared resid 9.15E+11 Schwarz criterion 27.76141
Log likelihood -378.6632 Hannan-Quinn criter. 27.56321
F-statistic 1.419022 Durbin-Watson stat 1.237313
Prob(F-statistic) 0.256422
A-4
7/31/2019 LK Projem
15/17
A-5
A-6
7/31/2019 LK Projem
16/17
A-7
F-statistic 3.446714 Prob. F(1,24) 0.0757
Log likelihood ratio 3.757393 Prob. Chi-Square(1) 0.0526
Test Equation:Dependent Variable: GDP
Method: Least Squares
Date: 05/18/11 Time: 00:17
Sample: 1981 2008
Included observations: 28
Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
C -1778.274 667.2721 -2.664992 0.0135
RD 2.49E-05 1.57E-05 1.585777 0.1259
PINV 30.96862 7.970334 3.885486 0.0007
FITTED^2 3.07E-05 1.66E-05 1.856533 0.0757
R-squared 0.969891 Mean dependent var 3994.839
Adjusted R-squared 0.966127 S.D. dependent var 2250.301
S.E. of regression 414.1584 Akaike info criterion 15.02194
Sum squared resid 4116652. Schwarz criterion 15.21225
Log likelihood -206.3071 Hannan-Quinn criter. 15.08012
F-statistic 257.6995 Durbin-Watson stat 0.546353
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000000
7/31/2019 LK Projem
17/17
REFERENCES
Damodar, N. Gujarati Basic Econometrics
Journal Of Yasar University,joy.yasar.edu.tr/ARTICLE/no20_vol5/1_SunaKorkmaz.pdf
(20.01.2011)
NSF, http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf10305/content.cfm?pub_id=3966&id=2
BEA,http://www.bea.gov for Current-Dolar Real Gross Domestic Product in U..
OECD,http://www.oecd.org for GDP on R & D
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/NDGI.txt for Federal Nondefense Gross Investment
Jones, CharlesIntroduction To Economic Growth, W. W. Norton & Company, New York
City
GROSSMAN, G.M. andHELPMAN, E. (1991), Innovation and Growth in the EconomyMIT Press.
SALA-I MARTIN, X.,(1990) ecture Notes on Economic Growth (II): Five PrototypeModels of Endogenous Growth,
Prof. Dr. A. Ayen KAYA, EGE UNIVERSITY,FACULTY OF ECONOMICS AND ADMINISTRATIVE
SCIENCES,Department of Economics [email protected]
http://www.bea.gov/http://www.bea.gov/http://www.bea.gov/http://www.oecd.org/http://www.oecd.org/http://www.oecd.org/http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/NDGI.txthttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/NDGI.txthttp://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/data/NDGI.txthttp://www.oecd.org/http://www.bea.gov/