Professional Documents
Culture Documents
E G F: AC S: Manuel Vega-Gordillo and Jose L. A Lvarez-Arce
E G F: AC S: Manuel Vega-Gordillo and Jose L. A Lvarez-Arce
A CAUSALITY STUDY
199
CATO JOURNAL
Some of the more relevant papers on this subject include Feder (1982); Leamer (1983);
Baumol, Batey Blackman, and Wolff (1989); Romer (1989); Barro (1991); Levine and
Renelt (1992); Fischer (1993); Barro (1995); Barro and Sala-i-Martin (1995); Sala-i-Martin
(1997).
200
GROWTH
AND
CATO JOURNAL
See Przeworski and Limongi (1993) and Barro (1997). The issue of how inequality and
redistribution affect economic growth is controversial in itself. Income inequality may
produce social and political unrest, uncertainty, and economic disruption. If that is the case,
redistribution program would improve productivity. Barro (2000) discusses this and other
possibilities, concluding that inequality retards growth in poor countries but encourages
growth in richer areas. In any case, his empirical study for a large number of countries
shows only a small overall relationship between inequality and growth and investment rates.
Tavares and Wacziarg (2001) discover evidence of the positive effects of democracy on
growth via reductions in income inequality.
202
GROWTH
AND
4
Persson and Tabellini (2002) discuss the effect of constitutional rules for elections on
government size. Their empirical answer is that presidential regimes and majority-ruled
elections produce smaller governments.
5
In an attempt to address that question, Durham (1999) develops a continuous variable
the effective party/constitutional framework measureto quantify the degree of policymaker discretion. His study renders no empirical regularities between policymaker discretion and growth or investment in the total sample. Dividing the sample into per capita
income brackets produces some significant results. As he expected, discretion affects
growth negatively in developed countries. Some evidence also indicates that discretion
brings investment down in poorer areas. Gupta, Madharan, and Blee (1998) argue that it is
not the type of regime that influences economic growth in less developed countries but the
level of political stability. Therefore, democracies as well as dictatorships should experience
similar levels of growth if the political environment has been stable for a period of time.
Although their empirical study suggests that democracy is more conducive to long-term
economic growth than other regimes, they believe that a higher degree of democracy is
neither necessary nor sufficient for economic growth.
203
CATO JOURNAL
erately negative. In their search for causality links, FLW (1998) conclude that political freedom does not Granger-cause economic wellbeing. Taking a different approach, Minier (1998) studies the experience of countries in which the level of political freedom changes
significantly. Countries that democratize seem to grow faster, while
countries becoming less democratic grow more slowly.
Economists have also studied the existence of reverse causality
between liberties and growth. Specifically, economic growth appears
to prompt institutional and political change, while prosperity appears
to enhance democracy. There is some empirical evidence for this
idea, known as the Lipset hypothesis (Lipset 1959).6 In a comparative
historical survey, Huber, Rueschemeyer, and Stephens (1993) confirm the existence of such a relationship. The explanation, in their
view, is that economic development enlarges the working and middle
classes, making it more difficult for elitist groups to exclude them
politically. Posing the question of whether a higher standard of living
favors democracy, Barro (1999) finds a relationship in data gathered
from a large number of countries. His premise holds when democracy
is measured in terms of electoral rights or civil liberties, and the
standard of living is approximated by per capita GDP, percentage of
primary school attained, equality between male and female primary
schooling, and middle-class share of income. The same conclusions
are to be found in FLW (1998), as well as in Helliwell (1994), whose
analysis reveals that the impact of income on democracy is positive
and robust. Burkhart and Lewis-Beck (1994) conduct a very similar
study for less developed countries, concluding that democracy does
not trigger economic development, but rather that economic development furthers political rights, so that a certain degree of economic
development is prerequisite to democratization.7 Chong and Caldern (2000) deduce from their analysis that economic growth favors
institutional improvement apparently in less time than it takes for
institutional quality to enhance growth.8
6
204
GROWTH
AND
TABLE 1
BY THE ECONOMIC FREEDOM INDEX
Size of government
Structure of the economy and use of markets
Monetary policy and price stability
Freedom to use alternative currencies
Security of property rights and viability of contracts
Freedom to trade with foreigners
Freedom of exchange in capital and financial markets
SOURCE: Gwartney and Lawson (2001: 6).
205
CATO JOURNAL
GROWTH
AND
The Model
To determine what causal relationships exist between economic
freedom, political freedom, and economic growth, we use a dynamic
model and define causality along the lines established by Granger
(Granger 1969). We say that the variable x is causing y if we are better
able to predict y using all available information than if the information
apart from x had been used. That is, if we control for the information
contained in past values of y, and past values of x add significantly to
the explanation of current y, then we may say that x Granger-causes y.
Because we are interested in the causal links between economic
freedom, political freedom, and economic growth, we use the following dynamic specifications:
Economic freedom as a cause of economic growth ( f ef g) and
economic growth as a cause of economic freedom (g f ef):
m
(1)
gi,t =
jg,ef gi,tj +
j=1
ef
f i,t
=
ef
g,ef
f i,tj
+ ig,ef + i,t
ef,g
j
ef,g
gi,tj + ief,g + i,t
j=1
(2)
g,ef
j
ef
jef,g f i,tj
+
j=1
j=1
gi,t =
kg,pf
gi,tk +
k=1
kpf,g
g,pf
k
pf
g,pf
f i,tk
+ ig,pf + i,t
pf,g
k
pf,g
gi,tk + ipf,g + i,t
k=1
pf
f i,t
pf
f i,tk
k=1
k=1
ef
f i,t
lef,pf
ef
f i,tl
l=1
lpf,ef
l=1
ef,pf
l
pf
ef,pf
f i,tl
+ ief,pf + i,t
l=1
pf
f i,t
pf
f i,tl
pf,ef
l
ef
pf,ef
f i,tl
+ ipf,ef + i,t
l=1
CATO JOURNAL
f pf
i,t the index of political freedom for country i over t; i represents
unobserved individual effects that vary across i but are constant over
time; and i,t is an independent and identically distributed random error
N(0, 2).
We use 1996 as the base year, and we construct a Laspeyres index using international
prices. Data are from Summers, Heston, and Bettina (2001).
208
GROWTH
AND
TABLE 2
LIST OF COUNTRIES
Africa
Congo, D.R.
Ghana
Morocco
Nigeria
Tanzani
Asia
India
Indonesia
Israel
Korea
Malaysia
Pakistan
Philippines
Singapore
Syria
Thailand
Turkey
Latin
America
Argentina
Chile
Columbia
Costa Rica
Ecuador
Guatemala
Mexico
Peru
Venezuela
Industrial Countries
Australia
Austria
Belgium
Canada
Denmark
Finland
France
Greece
Iceland
Ireland
Italy
Japan
Netherlands
New Zealand
Norway
Portugal
Spain
Sweden
United Kingdom
United States
Empirical Evidence
Table 3 shows our estimates for the dynamic relationships specified
in equations 16. Two estimation methods were used to find the
209
210
variable: f tpf
variable: f tef
variable: f tpf
variable: g t
variable: f tef
variable: g t
0.302*** (0.068)
0.694*** (0.082)
0.560*** (0.051)
0.270*** (0.042)
0.721*** (0.029)
16.591** (6.742)
0.137 (0.072)
0.002*** (0.0003)
0.847*** (0.024)
3.014 (4.450)
0.215*** (0.074)
0.004*** (0.0004)
AH
FOR
0.431*** (0.064)
0.561*** (0.078)
0.642*** (0.049)
0.216*** (0.039)
0.771*** (0.027)
14.568** (6.317)
0.021 (0.069)
0.002*** (0.0003)
0.887*** (0.022)
4.802 (4.173)
0.087 (0.070)
0.003*** (0.0004)
GMM1
0.434*** (0.064)
0.558*** (0.078)
0.645*** (0.049)
0.214*** (0.039)
0.777*** (0.027)
14.059** (6.277)
0.026 (0.069)
0.002*** (0.0003)
0.883*** (0.022)
4.425 (4.192)
0.086 (0.070)
0.003*** (0.0004)
GMM2
NOTES: In all the equations, *** indicates that the coefficient is statistically significant at the 1 percent level, ** indicates that the coefficient
is statistically significant at the 5 percent level, and * indicates that the coefficient is statistically significant at the 10 percent level. Figures
in parentheses indicate standard deviations.
Equation 1
Dependent
gt-1
f eft-1
Equation 2
Dependent
f ef
t-1
gt-1
Equation 3
Dependent
gt-1
f pf
t-1
Equation 4
Dependent
f pf
t-1
gt-1
Equation 5
Dependent
f ef
t-1
f pf
t-1
Equation 6
Dependent
pf
ft-1
f ef
t-1
RESULTS
TABLE 3
GRANGER-CAUSALITY RELATIONSHIPS
CATO JOURNAL
GROWTH
AND
Conclusion
The dynamic relationships estimated strongly suggest that economic freedom fosters economic growth. To our knowledge, this
10
See Anderson and Hsiao (1981), Hsiao (1986), Arellano (1989), and Arellano and Bond
(1991).
211
CATO JOURNAL
References
Anderson, T. W., and Hsiao, C. (1981) Estimation of Dynamic Models with
Error Components. Journal of the American Statistical Association 76:
589606.
Arellano, M. (1989) A Note on the Anderson-Hsiao Estimator for Panel
Data. Economics Letters 31: 33741.
Arellano, M., and Bond, S. (1991) Some Tests of Specification for Panel
Data: Monte Carlo Evidence and an Application to Employment Equations. Review of Economic Studies 58: 27797.
Barro, R. J. (1991) Economic Growth in a Cross Section of Countries.
Quarterly Journal of Economics 106: 40743.
(1995) Inflation and Economic Growth. Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin 35: 16676.
(1996) Getting It Right. Markets and Choices in a Free Society.
Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
212
GROWTH
AND
(1997) Determinants of Economic Growth. A Cross-Country Empirical Study. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
(1999) Determinants of Democracy. Journal of Political
Economy 107 (6): 15883.
(2000) Inequality and Growth in a Panel of Countries. Journal of
Economic Growth 5: 532.
Barro, R. J., and Sala-i-Martin, X. (1995) Economic Growth. New York:
McGraw-Hill.
Baumol, W. J. (2002) The Free-Market Innovation Machine: Analyzing the
Growth Miracle of Capitalism. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton University Press.
Baumol, W. J.; Batey Blackman, S. A.; and Wolff, E. J. (1989) Productivity
and American Leadership: The Long View. Cambridge, Mass: MIT Press.
Behrman, J. R.; Foster, A. D.; Rosenzweig, M. R.; and Vashishtha, P. (1999)
Womens Schooling, Home Teaching, and Economic Growth. Journal of
Political Economy 107 (4): 682714.
Bliss, C., and Di Tella, R. (1997) Does Competition Kill Corruption?
Journal of Political Economy 105 (5): 100123.
Burkhart, R. E., and Lewis-Beck, M. S. (1994) Comparative Democracy:
The Economic Development Thesis. American Political Science Review
88 (4): 90310.
Carroll, C. D., and Neil, D. N. (1994) Saving and Growth: A Reinterpretation. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy (40): 133
92.
Chong A., and Caldern C. (2000) Causality and Feedback between Institutional Measures and Economic Growth. Economics and Politics 12 (1):
6981.
Del Monte, A., and Papagni, E. (2001) Public Expenditure, Corruption, and
Economic Growth: The Case of Italy. European Journal of Political
Economy 17: 116.
Durham, B. J. (1999) Economic Growth and Political Regimes. Journal of
Economic Growth 4: 81111.
Dutz, M. A., and Hayri, A. (2000) Does More Intense Competition Lead to
Higher Growth? World Bank Policy Research Working Paper no. 2320.
Farr W. K.; Lord R. A.; and Wolfenbarger, J. L. (1998) Economic Freedom,
Political Freedom, and Economic Well-Being: A Causality Analysis. Cato
Journal 18 (2): 24762.
Feder, G. (1982) On Exports and Economic Growth. Journal of Development Economics 12: 5973.
Fischer, S. (1993) The Role of Macroeconomic Factors in Economic
Growth. Journal of Monetary Economics 32: 485512.
Freedom House (2001) Freedom in the World: Annual Survey of Political
Rights and Civil Liberties. Boston: Freedom House.
Freeman, R. (2002) Institutional Differences and Economic Performance
among OECD Countries. CEP Discussion Papers.
Friedman, M. (1962) Capitalism and Freedom. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
(2002) Preface: Economic Freedom behind the Scenes. In J.
Gwartney and R. Lawson, Economic Freedom of the World: 2002 Annual
Report, xviixxi. Vancouver, B. C.: Fraser Institute.
213
CATO JOURNAL
Granger, C. W. J. (1969) Investigating Causal Relations by Econometric
Models and Cross-Spectral Methods. Econometrica 37 (3): 42438.
Gupta, D. K.; Madhavan, M. C.; and Blee, A. (1998) Democracy, Economic
Growth, and Political Instability: An Integrated Perspective. Journal of
Socio-Economics 27 (5): 587612.
Gwartney, J., and Lawson, R. (2001) Economic Freedom of the World: 2001
Annual Report. Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser Institute.
(2002) Economic Freedom in the World 2002 Annual Report. Vancouver, B.C.: Fraser Institute.
Haan, J. de, and Siermann, C. L. J. (1996) New Evidence on the Relationship between Democracy and Economic Growth. Public Choice 86 (1/2):
17598.
(1998) Further Evidence on the Relationship between Economic
Freedom and Economic Growth. Public Choice 95 (3/4): 36380.
Haan, J. de, and Sturm, J. (2000) On the Relationship between Economic
Freedom and Economic Growth. European Journal of Political Economy
16: 21541.
Helliwell, J. F. (1994) Empirical Linkages between Democracy and Economic Growth. British Journal of Political Science 24 (2): 22548.
Hsiao, C. (1986) Analysis of Panel Data. Cambridge: Cambridge University
Press.
Huber, E.; Rueschemeyer, D.; and Stephens, J. D. (1993) The Impact of
Economic Development on Democracy. Journal of Economic Perspectives 7 (3): 7186.
Judson, R. A., and Owen, A. L. (1999) Estimating Dynamic Panel Data
Models: A Guide for Macroeconomists. Economic Letters 65: 915.
Kiviet, J. F. (1995) On Bias, Inconsistency, and Efficiency of Various Estimators in Dynamic Panel Data Models. Journal of Econometrics 68: 53
78.
Knack, S. (2001) Aid Dependence and the Quality of Governance: CrossCountry Empirical Tests. Southern Economic Journal 68 (2): 31029.
Knack, S., and Keefer, P. (1995) Institutions and Economic Performance:
Cross-Country Tests Using Alternative Institutional Measures. Economics
and Politics 7: 20727.
Leamer, E. E. (1983) Lets Take the Con out of Econometrics. American
Economic Review 73: 3143.
Levine, R., and Renelt, D. (1992) A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country
Growth Regressions. American Economic Review 82: 94263.
Lipset, S. M. (1959) Some Social Requisites of Democracy: Economic Development and Political Legitimacy. American Political Science Review
53: 69105.
Mauro, P. (1995) Corruption and Growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics
110: 681712.
Minier, J. A. (1998) Democracy and Growth: Alternative Approaches. Journal of Economic Growth 3: 24166.
North, D. (1990) Institutions, Institutional Change and Economic Performance. New York: Cambridge University Press.
ODriscoll, G. P. Jr.; Holmes, K. R.; and Kirkpatrick, M. (2002) 2002 Index
214
GROWTH
AND
215