Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Date Received :
Mark:
I hereby understand my/our work would be checked for plagiarism or other misconduct,
and the softcopy would be saved for future comparison(s).
I/We hereby confirm that all the references or sources of citations have been correctly
listed or presented and I/we clearly understand the serious consequence caused by any
intentional or unintentional misconduct.
This work is not made on any work of other students (past or present), and it has not
been submitted to any other courses or institutions before.
Signature:
Date: 31/12/2020
Table of Content
1. Introduction 3
2. Factors that affect GDP 5
2.1 Government Consumption 5
2.2 Private Consumption 5
2.3 Investment 6
2.4 Net Export 6
3. Hypothesis
3.1 Hypothesis 1 6
3.2 Hypothesis 2 6
3.3 Hypothesis 3 6
3.4 Hypothesis 4 7
4. Assumption test 7
7. Conclusion 31
8. References 33
9. Appendix
A. Turnitin 34
B. Marking Rubric 35
1. Introduction
China GDP:
In 2019, China’s GDP was 14.4 trillion US dollars, ranking second in the
world and the United States ranking first. In the past few decades, China has
experienced exponential growth, broke the barriers of closed, centrally planned
economy, and developed into a world manufacturing and export centre. Given its
huge manufacturing and export base, China is often referred to as the “world
workshop”. However, over the years, the role of the service industry has increased,
while the contribution of the manufacturing industry to GDP has declined relatively.
In the year of 1980, China is the seventh largest economy in the world, with a GDP of
US$305.35 billion, while the US economy is US$2.86 trillion. Since market reforms
began in 1978, the Asian giant has grown by an average of 10% per year. In recent
years, China’s economic growth has slowed down, but it is still high compared to
other countries.
The IMF expects growth by 5.8% in 2020 and to drop to about 5.6 % by
2023.Over the years, the gap in the size of the Chinese and American economies has
been rapidly narrowing. In the year of 2018, China's nominal GDP was US$13.37
trillion, which was US$7.21 trillion less than that of the United States. It is estimated
that by 2020, this gap will be reduced to US$7.05 trillion and US$ 5.47 trillion by
2023.In terms of purchasing power parity, china is the world’s largest economy with a
gross domestic product (PPP) of US$ 25.27 trillion. By 2023, China’s GDP (PPP)
will reach US$ 36.99 trillion US dollars. China’s huge population has reduced its per
capita GDP to US$10,100 (70th)
For this indicator, showed the data of Chana GDP from 1960 to 2018. Over
the period of time, the average of China GDP was 13.44%. In 1967 the GDP have
reached rock bottom to 10.82%. Than reach to a greatest point in the year of 2000 was
16.63%. Since 2018 the latest version is 14.68%. In contrast, the average of 153
countries and regions in the world was 16.29% in the year of 2018.
2.3 Investment
Over the period of time, the average level in China was 14.244%, which was
as low as 2.49% in the year of 1970. On the other hand, there is as high as 36.04% in
2006. Since 2018 the latest valuation is 19.51%. In contrast, 2018 the world average
based on 162 countries and region is 44.70%. View global rankings or use the country
comparator to compare trends over time.
3. Hypothesis
3.1 Hypothesis 1
3.2 Hypothesis 2
3.3 Hypothesis 3
3.4 Hypothesis 4
4. Assumption test
In this hypothesis test for this assignment, the ordinary least squares model
and the Lin-log model will be listed. In these three models, it will provide different
types of hypothesis testing, including autocorrelation test, multiple commonality test
and heteroscedasticity test.
When two or more predictors are highly correlated, multicollinearity usually occurs.
In other words, one predictor variable can be used to predict another. This creates
redundant information and biases the results in the regression model. Examples of
relevant predictors which also called multicollinearity are a person's height and
weight, age and car price, years of education, and annual income. (Klein &
Nakamura, 1962)
4.3 Heteroscedasticity
In statistics, when the standard error of the monitored variable at a given time
is not constant, heteroscedasticity occurs. Due to heteroscedasticity, visual inspection
of the residue showed signs of spreading over time, as shown in the figure below.
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
-
C 1.43E+09 1.15E+10 -0.124329 0.9017
GC -0.189388 0.641733 -0.295119 0.7694
PC 0.046660 0.195165 0.239081 0.8122
INV 0.005601 0.065406 0.085634 0.9322
NE -0.006220 0.107380 -0.057927 0.9541
-
FDI 31242291 5.17E+10 -0.000604 0.9995
RESID(-1) 0.188310 0.171538 1.097779 0.2787
RESID(-2) -0.234388 0.176081 -1.331132 0.1905
The conclusion of the multicollinearity test of the basic linear model: From Table 4.1,
there is no autocorrelation problem. From the result can see that in the range of 1.7 to
2.3, the chi-square value is 0.1951>0.05, and the Durbin-Watson statistic value is
1.785213.
C 1.35E+20 3.590386 NA
GC 0.400160 4430.207 3041.682
PC 0.037683 5797.633 3904.009
INV 0.004357 466.7499 328.4385
NE 0.010674 4.819412 3.310023
FDI 2.63E+21 15.74959 12.21397
The conclusion of the multicollinearity test: From Table 4.2, we know that the
cantered VIF cannot exceed the value of 10, so we have multicollinearity in this
model. Table 4.3 below lists the adjusted multicollinearity VIF.
10
Table 4.3
Variance Inflation Factors
Date: 07/02/20 Time: 23:23
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Coefficient Uncentered Centered
Variable Variance VIF VIF
C 6.27E+22 1.289474 NA
FDI 2.79E+23 1.289474 1.000000
11
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID^2
Method: Least Squares
Date: 22/11/20 Time: 23:25
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
12
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID^2
Method: Least Squares
Date: 22/11/20 Time: 23:45
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Collinear test regressors dropped from specification
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
13
The conclusion of the heteroscedasticity test: the results of the Bp test and the
White test both show that the test rejection H0 indicates that the variance is the same
square, and the alternative hypothesis H1 is the variance of the heteroscedasticity. The
following is a remedy for heteroscedasticity.
14
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: WGT_RESID^2
Method: Least Squares
Date: 22/11/20 Time: 23:51
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
Result: After completing the weighted least squares, the chi-square is greater than
0.05.
15
Autocorrelation Model
16
Table 5.1
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID
Method: Least Squares
Date: 22/11/20 Time: 23:58
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero.
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
17
Prob(F-statistic) 0.001478
Multicollinearity test
C 0.072621 1358.690 NA
LOG(GC) 0.000123 1492.279 5.743383
PC 3.40E-27 367.3188 247.3451
INV 5.73E-27 430.1368 302.6749
NE 1.99E-26 6.314433 4.336819
FDI 0.003617 15.19004 11.78003
18
C 0.055015 926.8317 NA
LOG(GC) 9.11E-05 997.2746 3.838243
NE 2.13E-26 6.079831 4.175692
FDI 0.001168 4.418543 3.426625
Heteroscedasticity Test
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID^2
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/12/20 Time: 00:47
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
19
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID^2
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/12/20 Time: 00:49
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Collinear test regressors dropped from specification
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
20
21
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
-
C 2.27E+11 2.77E+11 -0.819413 0.4171
LOG(GC) 9.80E+09 1.14E+10 0.861161 0.3939
PC 1.090804 0.059936 18.19956 0.0000
INV 0.917342 0.077729 11.80178 0.0000
NE 0.533466 0.145062 3.677515 0.0007
FDI 1.38E+11 6.18E+10 2.237825 0.0305
Autocorrelation Test
22
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/12/20 Time: 01:01
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero.
Std.
Variable Coefficient Error t-Statistic Prob.
2.19
C -7.84E+10 E+11 -0.358162 0.7221
9.02
LOG(GC) 3.53E+09 E+09 0.392062 0.6970
0.057
PC -0.078893 657 -1.368315 0.1787
0.067
INV 0.084646 976 1.245228 0.2201
0.118
NE 0.028627 161 0.242271 0.8098
5.35
FDI 4.49E+09 E+10 0.083953 0.9335
0.162
RESID(-1) 0.640599 038 3.953391 0.0003
0.237
RESID(-2) -0.809082 783 -3.402610 0.0015
23
The conclusion of the autocorrelation test of the Lin Log model: From Table
6.2 we see that the chi-square is 0.0000, which means that we need to reject the null
hypothesis. Therefore, it has sequence correlation in the residual. In Table 6.3, I
deleted the sequence (lag pc) so that the chi-square becomes 0.9446>0.05.
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/12/20 Time: 01:15
Sample: 2 49
Included observations: 48
Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero.
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
24
Multicollinearity Test
C 7.66E+22 1358.690 NA
LOG(GC) 1.29E+20 1492.279 5.743383
PC 0.003592 367.3188 247.3451
INV 0.006042 430.1368 302.6749
NE 0.021043 6.314433 4.336819
FDI 3.82E+21 15.19004 11.78003
The conclusion of the multicollinearity test of the Lin log model: From Table
6.4 we know that the centered VIF value of some variables is very high (> 10), so
there is multicollinearity in this model. In the following table 6.5, after adjusting the
variables (pc&inv), the centered VIF will become <10.
25
C 3.10E+25 926.8317 NA
LOG(GC) 5.13E+22 997.2746 3.838243
NE 12.00565 6.079831 4.175692
FDI 6.58E+23 4.418543 3.426625
Heteroscedasticity Test
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: RESID^2
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/12/20 Time: 01:33
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
26
-
LOG(GC) 1.76E+21 8.01E+20 -2.192472 0.0338
PC 1.64E+10 4.22E+09 3.875547 0.0004
-
INV 1.64E+10 5.48E+09 -2.990067 0.0046
NE 2.85E+10 1.02E+10 2.790672 0.0078
-
FDI 1.78E+21 4.35E+21 -0.408489 0.6849
Test Equation:
Dependent Variable: WGT_RESID^2
Method: Least Squares
Date: 11/12/20 Time: 01:58
Sample: 1 49
Included observations: 49
Collinear test regressors dropped from specification
27
Coefficie
Variable nt Std. Error t-Statistic Prob.
28
Adjusted R-
squared 0.586023 S.D. dependent var 2.42E+20
S.E. of regression 1.56E+20 Akaike info criterion 96.12015
Sum squared resid 7.04E+41 Schwarz criterion 96.89232
Log likelihood -2334.944 Hannan-Quinn criter. 96.41311
F-statistic 4.576234 Durbin-Watson stat 2.700403
Prob(F-statistic) 0.000128
The conclusion of the heteroscedasticity test of the Lin log model: from Table
6.7, the chi-square is 0.000, so we reject the null hypothesis and there is a
heteroscedasticity problem. Below Table 6.8 is the remedy for heteroscedasticity. I
use White's heteroscedasticity consistent standard error or robust standard error.
29
30
7.0 Conclusion
From the above table, we can know that the independent variable of
government expenditure is of great significance to the dependent variable. According
to the research of Sok-Gee Chan (2018), by examining the growth of real GDP per
capita in G7 countries, the inter-temporal interaction between the share of government
expenditure and the share of private investment in GDP, and the nature of the
relationship between government expenditure and the economy Get rid of growth.
Conducted a multivariate time series analysis, and paid special attention to the reason
for the pattern and shape of the impulse response function in the vector automatic
regression.
The analysis is based on historical data from the group of seven countries. The
empirical results show that the relationship between government spending and
economic growth may change significantly over time, and may also vary among
major industrialized countries, which may belong to the same "growth club." This
finding may partly explain the differences in the results of previous cross-sectional
studies. Most importantly, there is no consistent evidence that government spending
can increase output per capita. Negative views are not supported uniformly. In
addition, the study found that in most of the countries surveyed, public spending
accounts for at best a small part of economic growth.
As can be seen from the above table, private consumption has a small impact
on GDP. According to Wang, L. & Gao, W. (2011). The results show that China's
fiscal policy has obvious nonlinear effects. In 1978-1980 and 1984-1997, the
influence of government consumption on private consumption was not Keynesian.
During the same period, the impact of taxation was also non-Keynesian, but not
significant. The impact of government investment is linear but asymmetric. After re-
examining the reasons for the non-linear effects, we found that the initial fiscal
situation and the strength of fiscal consolidation have nothing to do with the non-
linear effects of fiscal policy. The government should pay close attention to the
characteristics of the commodity and labour markets to determine the conditions and
systems related to nonlinear effects.
31
According to the analysis, the double logarithmic model has lower AIC and
SIC results, which means that the analysis based on this model is more reliable than
the linear model. According to the double logarithmic model, in addition to
government expenditure, the rest of the interception, private consumption, foreign
direct investment, and net exports are all important to GDP. The overall model is very
important, which can be proved by the results in the above table. The 2008 financial
crisis had a huge impact on China's subsequent GDP.
32
References:
Baltagi, B., Heun Song, S., Cheol Jung, B., & Koh, W. (2007). Testing for serial
correlation, spatial autocorrelation and random effects using panel data. Journal Of
Econometrics, 140(1), 5-51. doi: 10.1016/j.jeconom.2006.09.001
Li, Y., & Lin, J. (2009). Heteroscedasticity diagnostics in two-phase linear regression
models. Journal Of Statistical Computation And Simulation, 79(7), 923-938. doi:
10.1080/00949650802058061
Sok-Gee Chan, Zulkufly Ramly, Mohd Zaini Abd Karim. (2017) Government
Spending Efficiency on Economic Growth: Roles of Value-added Tax. Global
Economic Review 46:2, pages 162-188.
Wang, L., & Gao, W. (2011). Nonlinear Effects of Fiscal Policy on Private
Consumption: Evidence from China. China & World Economy, 19(2), 60-76.
33
34
35