Skip to main content
Log in

Economic growth, public, and private investment returns in 17 OECD economies

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Portuguese Economic Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

We study the macroeconomic effects of public and private investment in 17 OECD economies through a VAR analysis with annual data from 1960 to 2014. From impulse response functions we find that public investment had a positive growth effect in most countries, and a contractionary effect in Finland, UK, Sweden, Japan, and Canada. Public investment led to private investment crowding o ut in Belgium, Ireland, Finland, Canada, Sweden, the UK and crowding-in effects in the rest of the countries. Private investment has a positive growth effect in all countries; crowds-out (crowds-in) public investment in Belgium and Sweden (in the rest of the countries). The partial rates of return of public and private investment are mostly positive. Our results are robust to the ordering of private and public investment in the VAR.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. Regarding the so-called Juncker plan Le Moigne et al. (2016) argue, in the context of an estimated DSGE model of the Eurozone economy, that it would have had a positive growth impact if it had been implemented at the beginning of the global economic and financial crisis.

  2. To control for the reunification process in Germany a dummy was also used for the case of Germany in 1991.

  3. Due to the lack of information on a price deflator for private investment, we use the same deflator to compute both public and private investment variables.

  4. The data sources are mentioned in Appendix 2.

  5. Interestingly, Pereira and Pinho (2008) also report that public investment in durable goods has a positive effect on long-term economic performance in Portugal, using annual data for the period 1976–2003.

References

  • Abiad A, Furceri D, Topalova P (2015) The macroeconomic effects of public investment: evidence from advanced economies. IMF WP/15/95

  • Afonso A, Jalles J (2015) How does fiscal policy affect investment? Evidence from a large panel. Int J Financ Econ 20(4):310–327

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afonso A, St. Aubyn M (2009) Macroeconomic rates of return of public and private investment: crowding-in and crowding-out effects. Manch Sch 77(S1):21–39

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Afonso A, St. Aubyn M (2010) Public and private investment rates of return: evidence for industrialised Countries. Appl Econ Lett 17(9):839–843

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brückner M, Tuladhar A (2014) Local government spending multipliers and financial distress: evidence from Japanese prefectures. Econ J 124(581):1279–1316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cavalcanti C, Merrero G, Le T (2014) Measuring the impact of debt-financed public investment. World Bank, Policy Research Working Paper No. 6766

  • Creel J, Hubert P, Saraceno F (2015) An empirical analysis of the link between public and private investment in four OECD countries. 17th Banca d’Italia Workshop on Public Finance “Beyond the Austerity Dispute: New Priorities for Fiscal Policy”, Perugia, S.A.DI.BA., 9–11 April 2015

  • Dreger C, Reimers H (2016) On the relationship between public and private investment in the euro area. Econ Model 58:154–158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • EC (2015) Making the best use of the flexibility within the existing rules of the Stability and Growth Pact. COM(2015) 12 final, Strasbourg, 13.1.2015, COM(2015) 12 final

  • Funashima Y, Gakuin T (2017) Spatial crowding-out and crowding-in effects of government spending on the private sector in Japan. Faculty of Economics, University, TGU-ECON Discussion Paper Series #2017-3

  • IMF (2014) Is it time for an infrastructure push? The macroeconomic effects of public investment. IMF World Economic Outlook, October

  • Le Moigne M, Saraceno F, Villemot S (2016) Probably too little, certainly too late. An assessment of the Juncker investment plan. OFCE WP 2016–10

  • Mahmoudzadeh M, Sadeghi S, Sadeghi S (2013) Fiscal spending and crowding out effect: a comparison between developed and developing countries. Inst Econ 5(1):31–40

    Google Scholar 

  • Pereira A (2000) Is all public capital created equal? Rev Econ Stat 82(3):513–518

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira A, Pinho F (2008) Public investment and budgetary consolidation in Portugal. Port Econ J 7(3):183–2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pereira A, Pinho M (2011) Public investment, economic performance and budgetary consolidation: VAR evidence for the first 12 Euro countries. J Econ Dev 36(1):1–20

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pina A, St. Aubyn M (2005) Comparing macroeconomic returns on human and public capital: an empirical analysis of the Portuguese case (1960–2001). J Policy Model 27:585–598

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pina A, St. Aubyn M (2006) How should we measure the return on public investment in a VAR? Econ Bull 8(5):1–4

    Google Scholar 

  • TEU (2012) Consolidate version of the Treaty on the functioning of the European Union. Off J Eur Union 26.10.2012

  • Turrini A (2004) Public investment and the EU fiscal framework. European economy. European commission economic papers, n°202, May

  • Xu X, Yan Y (2014) Does government investment crowd out private investment in China? J Econ Policy Reform 17(1):1–12

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We thank an anonymous referee, the editor, and Narcissa Balta and participants at the DG ECFIN Workshop on “Fiscal policy after the crisis”, January 2016, Brussels, at the Portuguese Economic Journal Conference, July 2016, Coimbra, and at the 19th Infer Annual Conference, Bordeaux, June 2017, for useful comments and suggestions. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of their employers.

UECE is supported by FCT (Fundação para a Ciência e a Tecnologia, Portugal).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to António Afonso.

Appendices

Appendix 1 –The analytics of the macro rates of return

We compute the long-run accumulated elasticity of Y with respect to public investment, Ipub, from the accumulated impulse response functions (IRF) of the VAR, as

$$ {\varepsilon}_{Ipub}=\frac{\Delta \log Y}{\Delta \log Ipub}. $$
(2)

The long-term marginal productivity of public investment is given by

$$ MPIpub\equiv \frac{\Delta Y}{\Delta Ipub}={\varepsilon}_{Ipub}\frac{Y}{Ipub}. $$
(3)

The partial-cost dynamic feedback rate of return of public investment, r1, is the solution for:

$$ {\left(1+{r}_1\right)}^{20}= MPIpub. $$
(4)

The long-term accumulated elasticity of Y with respect to Ipriv can also be derived from accumulated IRF in a similar way:

$$ {\varepsilon}_{Ipriv}=\frac{\Delta \log Y}{\Delta \log Ipriv}, $$
(5)

and the long-term marginal productivity of private investment is given by

$$ MPIpriv\equiv \frac{\Delta Y}{\Delta Ipriv}={\varepsilon}_{Ipriv}\frac{Y}{Ipriv}. $$
(6)

Therefore, the marginal productivity of total investment, MPTI, is as follows:

$$ MPTI=\frac{\Delta Y}{\Delta Ipub+\Delta Ipriv}=\frac{1}{MPIpub^{-1}+{MPIpriv}^{-1}} $$
(7)

And the rate of return of total investment, from an impulse to public investment, r2, is the solution for:

$$ {\left(1+{r}_2\right)}^{20}= MPTI. $$
(8)

Appendix 2

Table 5 Data sources

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Afonso, A., St. Aubyn, M. Economic growth, public, and private investment returns in 17 OECD economies. Port Econ J 18, 47–65 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-018-0143-7

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10258-018-0143-7

Keywords

JEL Classification

Navigation