Commenced in January 2007
Frequency: Monthly
Edition: International
Paper Count: 30172
Impact of Government Spending on Private Consumption and on the Economy: The Case of Thailand

Authors: Paitoon Kraipornsak

Abstract:

Government spending is categorized into consumption spending and capital spending. Three categories of private consumption are used: food consumption, nonfood consumption, and services consumption. The estimated model indicates substitution effects of government consumption spending on budget shares of private nonfood consumption and of government capital spending on budget share of private food consumption. However, the results do not indicate whether the negative effects of changes in the budget shares of the nonfood and the food consumption equates to reduce total private consumption. The concept of aggregate demand comprising consumption, investment, government spending (consumption spending and capital spending), export, and import are used to estimate their relationship by using the Vector Error Correction Mechanism. The study found no effect of government capital spending on either the private consumption or the growth of GDP while the government consumption spending has negative effect on the growth of GDP.

Keywords: Complementary effect, government capital spending, government consumption spending, private consumption on food, nonfood, and services, substitution effect, vector error correction mechanism.

Digital Object Identifier (DOI): doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.1072934

Procedia APA BibTeX Chicago EndNote Harvard JSON MLA RIS XML ISO 690 PDF Downloads 1710

References:


[1] Pieroni, L. 2009. "Does Defend Expenditure Affect Private Consumption? Evidence from the United States", Economic Modelling, 26: 1300-1309.
[2] Deaton, A.S., and Muellbauer, J., 1980. An Almost Ideal Demand System, American Economic Review, 70, 312 - 326.
[3] Akmal, M. and Stern, D.I., 2001. "The Structure of Australian Residential Energy Demand", Working Papers in Ecological Economics no. 0101, The Australian National University.
[4] Anderson, G. and Blundell, R., 1983. Testing Restrictions in a Flexible Dynamic Demand System: An Application to Consumer Demand in Canada, Review of Economic Studies, 50, pp. 397-410.
[5] Blundell, R. 1988. "Consumer Behaviour: Theory and Empirical Evidence- -A Survey", The Economic Journal. 98 (389), pp. 16-65.
[6] Pesaran, M.H. and Y. Shin, 1999. "Long-run Structural Modelling", DAE Working Paper No. 9419. University of Cambridge.
[7] Tridimas, G.,2000. "The Analysis of Consumer Demand in Greece. Model Selection and dynamic Specification", Economic Modelling 17: 455-471.
[8] Woodford, M. "Simple Analytics of the Government Expenditure Multiplier", NBER Working Paper No. 15714, January 2010.
[9] Fatas, A. and Mihov, I., 2001. The Effects of Fiscal Policy on Consumption and Employment: Theory and Evidence. CEPR Discussion Paper no. 2760.
[10] Blanchard, O. and Perotti, R., 1999. "An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output". NBER Working Paper no. 2685.
[11] Heppke-Falk, K.H., Tenhofen, J., and Wolff, G.B. 2006. "The Macroeconomic Effects of Exogenous Fiscal Policy Shocks in Germany: A Disaggregate SVAR Analysis", Discussion Paper Series 1, Economic Studies, no. 41, Deutsche Bundesbank.
[12] Werner, R.A. 2004. "Why has Fiscal Policy Disappointed in Japan- Revisiting the Pre-Keynesian View on the Ineffectiveness of Fiscal Policy", Sophia University and University of Southampton, available online at accessed on 8 February 2010.
[13] Capet, S., 2004. "The Efficiency of Fiscal Policies: A Survey of the Literature. CEPII Working Paper, no. 2004/11. Sepatember.