Empirical Economics

, Volume 46, Issue 3, pp 961–972 | Cite as

A revisit on the tax burden distribution and GDP growth: fresh evidence using a consistent nonparametric test for causality for the USA



We revisited the evidence of Karagianni et al. (Int Rev Econ Fin 21:186–194, 2012) and Tiwari (Econ Bull 32:147–159, 2012) by employing a recently developed and more powerful nonlinear Granger-causality test proposed by Nishiyama et al. (J Econ 165:112–127, 2011) to investigate the existence of Granger-causality from a set of alternative tax burden (ratios) to GDP (per capita GDP), for the period 1947:q1–2009:q3 for the United States of America (USA). The nonlinear Granger-causality test provides strong evidence that personal current taxes and taxes on production and imports Granger-cause GDP and weak evidence that CR Granger-cause GDP. As a consequence, in order to influence (rebalance) the USA’s GDP through taxation, it is recommended to the USA government to adjust the tax structure, focusing on PCT and taxes on production and imports’ shocks. In this case, the tax policy is oriented especially on labour supply and investments.


Tax burden GDP growth Distribution Nonparametric test causality 

JEL Classification

C81 H20 O10 


  1. Auerback A, Hines J (1988) Investment Tax Incentives and Frequent Tax Reforms. Am Econ Rev 78:211–216Google Scholar
  2. Barro RJ (1991) Economic growth in a cross-section of countries. Q J Econ 106:407–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Blanchard O, Perotti R (2002) An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output. Q J Econ 117:1329–1368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Breitung J, Candelon B (2006) Testing for Short and Long-Run Causality:A Frequency Domain Approach. J Econ 132:363–378CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Brock WA, Dechert WD, Scheinkman JA, LeBaron B (1996) A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Economet Rev 15:197–235CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Diks C, Panchenko V (2006) A newstatistic and practical guidelines for nonparametric Granger causality testing. J Econ Dyn Control 30:1647–1669CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Dye TR (1980) Taxing, Spending, and Economic Growth in the American States. J Polit 42:1085–1107CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Easterly W, Rebelo S (1993) Fiscal policy and economic growth. J Monetary Econ 32:417–458CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Engen E, Skinner J (1992) Fiscal policy and economic growth. NBER Working Paper, 4223, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic ResearchGoogle Scholar
  11. Engen E, Skinner J (1996) Taxation and Economic Growth. Natl Tax J 49:617–642Google Scholar
  12. Engen EM, Skinner J (1999) Taxation and economic growth. In: Slemrod J (ed) Tax Policy in the Real World. Cambridge University Press, New York, pp 305–330Google Scholar
  13. Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometrics models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hacker RS, Hatemi-J A (2006) Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application. Appl Econ 38:1489–1500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Hidalgo J (2000) Nonparametric test for causality with long-range dependence. Econometrica 68:1465–1491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hiemstra C, Jones JD (1994) Testing for linear and non-linear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation. J Fin 49:1639–1664Google Scholar
  17. Hulten C (1984) Tax Policy and the Investment Decision. Am Econ Rev 74:236–241Google Scholar
  18. Jorgenson DW, Wilcoxen PJ (1997) The Long Run Dynamics of Fundamental Tax Reform. Am Econ Rev 87:126–132Google Scholar
  19. Karagianni S, Pempetzoglou M, Saraidaris A (2012) Tax burden distribution and GDP growth: non-linear causality, considerations in the USA. Int Rev Econ Fin 21:186–194CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. King RG, Rebelo S (1990) Public policy and economic growth: developing neoclassical implications. J Pol Econ 98:126–150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kneller R, Bleaney M, Gemmel N (1999) Public policy and the government budget constraint. J Pub Econ 74:171–190CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Koester RB, Kormendi RC (1989) Taxation, aggregate activity and economic growth: Cross country evidence on some supply side hypotheses. Econ Inq 27:367–387CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Kormendi RC, Meguire PC (1985) Macroeconomic determinants of growth. J Monetary Econ 16:141–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Leibfritz W, Thornton J, Bibbee A (1997) Taxation and economic performance. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Working Paper 176Google Scholar
  25. Levine R, Renelt D (1992) A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth models. Am Econ Rev 82:942–963Google Scholar
  26. Mendoza EG, Milesi-Ferretti GM, Asea P (1997) On the ineffectiveness of tax policy in altering long-run growth: Harberger’s superneutrality conjecture. J Public Econ 66:99–126CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Nishiyama Y, Hitomi K, Kawasaki Y, Jeong K (2011) A consistent nonparametric test for nonlinear causality-specification in time series regression. J Econometrics 165:112–127CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Plosser C (1992) The search for growth. Policies for Long Run Growth. symposium series. Kansas City, Federal Reserve of Kansas CityGoogle Scholar
  29. Saunders PJ (2011) A Time-Series Investigation of the Impact of Corporate and Personal Current Taxes on Economic Growth in the U.S. Indian J Econ Bus 10:25–38Google Scholar
  30. Slemrod J, Yitzhaki S (1995) The costs of taxation and the marginal cost of funds. IMF Working Paper, 83Google Scholar
  31. Tiwari AK (2012) Tax Burden and GDP: Evidence from Frequency Domain Approach for the USA. Econ Bull 32:147–159Google Scholar
  32. Toda HY, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J Econometrics 66:225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Warne A (2000) Causality and regime inference in a Markov-Switching VAR. Manuscript, Research Department, Sveriges Riksbank. Available at: http://texlips.hypermart.net/download/causality_regimes.pdf
  34. Wright R (1996) Redistribution and growth. J Public Econ 62:327–338CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Zagler M, Durnecker G (2003) Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth. J Econ Surv 17:397–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. *** (2010) US Bureau of Economic Analysis Statistics data-baseGoogle Scholar
  37. *** (2012) US Office of Management and Budget online data-baseGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of ManagementICFAI University TripuraSadarIndia
  2. 2.Faculty of Economics and Business AdministrationWest University of Timisoara TimisoaraRomania
  3. 3.Laboratoire d’Economie d’Orléans (LEO) UMR7322, Faculté de Droit d’Economie et de GestionUniversity of OrléansOrléansFrance

Personalised recommendations