Abstract
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.
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
One may argue that the transformation in constant prices could act as a filter producing distortions, especially when the underlying mechanism generating data is nonlinear. To test whether our transformed series in the level and in first difference form for both cases is nonlinear, we applied Brock et al. (1996)-proposed test—using \(\varepsilon \) equal to 0.5, 1, 1.5, and two times the standard deviations of the data. We found for all cases evidence for nonlinearity in the data.
It is important to mention that from the OECD online database, we could get data starting from 1950 for population and before that period, it was obtained from https://www.tsl.state.tx.us/ref/abouttx/census.html. Since population data were of annual observations, it was interpolated to get quarterly observation with simple linear interpolation. However, results do not change even if we use other methods like cubic interpolation.
Please refer to Nishiyama et al. (2011) for detailed illustration and computation of this test statistic. Because of space problem, we have avoided the illustration.
A descriptive statistics and graphical plot of the variables (without any transformation but in logarithms form) analysed are presented in Appendix to match the results with Tiwari (2012). For testing of stationarity property of data series, we used ADF and PP test. Results of unit root are not presented, but can be accessed from the authors upon request.
The results are obtained following the original bandwidth choice of Nishiyama et al. (2011). They used \(\text{ C } \times \text{ T }^{-0.3}\) as bandwidth, where T is the length of time series and C is about 7, except for T \(=\) 100 case.
The causality in variance is a widely studied topic in the finance or international finance studies, and mostly applied method is GARCH models and various variants such as GARCH-M, IGARCH, EGARCH, TGARCH, CCC-GARCH, and DCC-GARCH among others. More details about causality in variance, their economic interpretation, and theoretical reasoning can be found in such studies which proposed these models and applied them.
References
Auerback A, Hines J (1988) Investment Tax Incentives and Frequent Tax Reforms. Am Econ Rev 78:211–216
Barro RJ (1991) Economic growth in a cross-section of countries. Q J Econ 106:407–441
Blanchard O, Perotti R (2002) An Empirical Characterization of the Dynamic Effects of Changes in Government Spending and Taxes on Output. Q J Econ 117:1329–1368
Breitung J, Candelon B (2006) Testing for Short and Long-Run Causality:A Frequency Domain Approach. J Econ 132:363–378
Brock WA, Dechert WD, Scheinkman JA, LeBaron B (1996) A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Economet Rev 15:197–235
Diks C, Panchenko V (2006) A newstatistic and practical guidelines for nonparametric Granger causality testing. J Econ Dyn Control 30:1647–1669
Dye TR (1980) Taxing, Spending, and Economic Growth in the American States. J Polit 42:1085–1107
Easterly W, Rebelo S (1993) Fiscal policy and economic growth. J Monetary Econ 32:417–458
Efron B (1979) Bootstrap methods: another look at the jackknife. Ann Stat 7:1–26
Engen E, Skinner J (1992) Fiscal policy and economic growth. NBER Working Paper, 4223, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research
Engen E, Skinner J (1996) Taxation and Economic Growth. Natl Tax J 49:617–642
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 305–330
Granger CWJ (1969) Investigating causal relations by econometrics models and cross-spectral methods. Econometrica 37:424–438
Hacker RS, Hatemi-J A (2006) Tests for causality between integrated variables using asymptotic and bootstrap distributions: theory and application. Appl Econ 38:1489–1500
Hidalgo J (2000) Nonparametric test for causality with long-range dependence. Econometrica 68:1465–1491
Hiemstra C, Jones JD (1994) Testing for linear and non-linear Granger causality in the stock price-volume relation. J Fin 49:1639–1664
Hulten C (1984) Tax Policy and the Investment Decision. Am Econ Rev 74:236–241
Jorgenson DW, Wilcoxen PJ (1997) The Long Run Dynamics of Fundamental Tax Reform. Am Econ Rev 87:126–132
Karagianni S, Pempetzoglou M, Saraidaris A (2012) Tax burden distribution and GDP growth: non-linear causality, considerations in the USA. Int Rev Econ Fin 21:186–194
King RG, Rebelo S (1990) Public policy and economic growth: developing neoclassical implications. J Pol Econ 98:126–150
Kneller R, Bleaney M, Gemmel N (1999) Public policy and the government budget constraint. J Pub Econ 74:171–190
Koester RB, Kormendi RC (1989) Taxation, aggregate activity and economic growth: Cross country evidence on some supply side hypotheses. Econ Inq 27:367–387
Kormendi RC, Meguire PC (1985) Macroeconomic determinants of growth. J Monetary Econ 16:141–163
Leibfritz W, Thornton J, Bibbee A (1997) Taxation and economic performance. Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, Working Paper 176
Levine R, Renelt D (1992) A sensitivity analysis of cross-country growth models. Am Econ Rev 82:942–963
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 66:99–126
Nishiyama Y, Hitomi K, Kawasaki Y, Jeong K (2011) A consistent nonparametric test for nonlinear causality-specification in time series regression. J Econometrics 165:112–127
Plosser C (1992) The search for growth. Policies for Long Run Growth. symposium series. Kansas City, Federal Reserve of Kansas City
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 10:25–38
Slemrod J, Yitzhaki S (1995) The costs of taxation and the marginal cost of funds. IMF Working Paper, 83
Tiwari AK (2012) Tax Burden and GDP: Evidence from Frequency Domain Approach for the USA. Econ Bull 32:147–159
Toda HY, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J Econometrics 66:225–250
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
Wright R (1996) Redistribution and growth. J Public Econ 62:327–338
Zagler M, Durnecker G (2003) Fiscal Policy and Economic Growth. J Econ Surv 17:397–418
*** (2010) US Bureau of Economic Analysis Statistics data-base
*** (2012) US Office of Management and Budget online data-base
Acknowledgments
We are thankful to the anonymous referees whose comments has benefited paper considerably. We also thank to Y. Nishiyama, K. Hitomi, Y. Kawasaki, and K. Jeong for making codes available to us without which this study might not have happened.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Tiwari, A.K., Mutascu, M. A revisit on the tax burden distribution and GDP growth: fresh evidence using a consistent nonparametric test for causality for the USA. Empir Econ 46, 961–972 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-013-0706-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00181-013-0706-5