Advertisement

The Impacts of Public Spending by Function on Regional Economic Growth and Interregional Income Disparities: Evidence from Korea

  • Ki-Dong Lee
  • Sijin Moon
  • Jiah Choi
Chapter

Abstract

Although the demand for government assistance is rapidly increasing in Korea, it has become increasingly more difficult for the government to secure available financial resources. Amidst stagnant economic growth with considerable unemployment, the working age population in Korea is decreasing owing to the rapid process of fertility declines and population aging, while demand for social welfare and related government spending is increasing continuously. Considering that local governments account for 60% of total government spending in Korea, it is important to investigate the effects of government spending on economic growth from a regional perspective. In addition, as different types of government spending have different effects on output, the analysis should be conducted by distinguishing between the different components of government spending.

References

  1. Aschauer, D.A. 1989. Is public expenditure productive? Journal of Monetary Economics 23: 177–200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Barro, R.J. 1990. Government spending in a simple model of economic growth. Journal of Political Economy 98: 103–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Barro, R.J., and X. Sala-i-Martin. 1991. Convergence across states and regions. Brookings Papers on Economic Activities 22 (1): 107–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Barro, R.J., and X. Sala-i-Martin. 1995. Economic Growth. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  5. Baumol, W.J. 1986. Productivity growth, convergence and welfare: What the long run data show? American Economic Review 76: 1072–1085.Google Scholar
  6. Brooks, C., and J. Manza. 2007. Why Welfare States Persist. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bruckner, M., and A. Tuladhar. 2010. Public investment as a fiscal stimulus: Evidence from Japan’s regional spending during the 1990s. IMF Working Paper, No. 110.Google Scholar
  8. Choe, B., and K. Lee. 2014. Local fiscal multiplier and its implication to the restructuring of local expenditure (in Korean). The Korean Journal of Local Finance 19 (2): 25–57.Google Scholar
  9. Fleisher, B.M., Y. Hu, H. Li, and S. Kim. 2011. Economic transition, higher education and worker productivity in China. Journal of Development Economics 94: 86–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Garcia-Milà, T., T.J. McGuire, and R.H. Porter. 1996. The effect of public capital in state-level production functions reconsidered. Review of Economics and Statistics 78 (1): 177–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kim, S.S. 2009. The impacts of fiscal policy on economic growth: VAR approach (in Korean). The Journal of Korean Public Policy 11 (3): 255–280.Google Scholar
  12. Lee, K., and B. Choe. 2015. Fiscal multiplier of local governments and the implication for local fiscal restructuring (in Korean). The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies 19 (2): 299–317.Google Scholar
  13. Lichter, D.T., and R. Jayakody. 2002. Welfare reform: How do we measure success? Annual Review of Sociology 28: 117–141.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Lindbeck, A., P. Molander, T. Persson, O. Petersson, A. Sandmos, B. Swedenborg, and N. Thygesen. 1993. Options for economic and political reform in Sweden. Economic Policy 8 (17): 219–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Lucas, R.E. 1988. On the mechanics of economic development. Journal of Monetary Economics 22: 3–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Mankiw, N.G., D. Romer, and D. Weil. 1992. A contribution to the empirics of economic growth. Quarterly Journal of Economics 107: 407–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. McCallum, J., and A. Blais. 1987. Government, special interest groups, and economic growth. Public Choice 54: 3–18.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. McDonald, B.D., and D.R. Miller. 2010. Welfare programs and the state economy. Journal of Policy Modeling 32: 719–732.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Moon, S., K. Lee, and B. Choe. 2015. Spatial spillovers of SOC in Korea: The implication for the local fiscal restructuring (in Korean). The Korea Spatial Planning Review 84: 55–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Oh, B.K. 2006. An evaluation of local public expenditure by using panel data in Korea (in Korean). The Korean Journal of Local Finance 11 (2): 5–31.Google Scholar
  21. Oh, B.K. 2014. A dynamic panel analysis on local public investment expenditure with various regional economic variables at South Korea (in Korean). The Korean Journal of Local Government Studies 18 (3): 143–164.Google Scholar
  22. Oketch, M.O. 2006. Determinants of human capital formation and economic growth of African countries. Economics of Education Review 25: 554–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Persson, T., and G. Tabellini. 1994. Is inequality harmful for growth? American Economic Review 84 (3): 600–621.Google Scholar
  24. Roh, K.H., C.S. Jung, and S.T. Kim. 1995. Regional economic growth and local public finance in Korea: A dynamic causality analysis (in Korean). KyongJeHakYonGu 43 (2): 37–64.Google Scholar
  25. Sala-i-Martin, X. 1996. The classical approach to convergence analysis. Economic Journal 106 (437): 1019–1036.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Teixeira, A.A.C., and N. Fortuna. 2004. Human capital, innovation capability and economic growth in Portugal, 1960–2001. Economic Journal 3: 205–225.Google Scholar
  27. Wolfe, B.L. 2002. Incentives, challenges, and dilemmas of TANF: A case study. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management 21 (4): 577–586.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd. 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Keimyung UniversityDaeguSouth Korea
  2. 2.Pusan National UniversityBusanSouth Korea
  3. 3.Bank of KoreaSeoulSouth Korea

Personalised recommendations