Abstract
This chapter highlights the important role played by the government in jump starting and sustaining economic growth. The government provides the country’s infrastructure or public capital—laws, roads, education, public health, and utilities—that secure property rights and raise the productivity of private capital. Growth in public capital keeps the marginal return to private capital from falling dramatically during industrialization, helping to explain G1. The need for government to lay the foundation for growth helps explain the vast differences in experiences of developing countries after WWII, summarized in G6. Growth Miracles and Growth Disasters are largely driven by especially good and especially bad government policy.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
Mulligan and Tsui (2015) present a theory, based on the threat of political entry, that can be viewed as making γ endogenous.
- 2.
For notational simplicity only, we assume the government’s time discount factor is the same as that used by private households. One could allow the discount factor to differ from private households to study how the government’s time preference affects policy.
- 3.
We assume that the government can commit to its policy choices in advance. For a discussion of commitment issues in regard to the setting of fiscal policy see Lundquist and Sargent (2004, Chapter 22).
- 4.
See Chap. 5 for a sketch of the derivation in a somewhat more complicated economy that includes the current model as a special case.
- 5.
Gordon (2016, Figure 1–2).
- 6.
OECD (2015, Table A1).
- 7.
See, for example, Brynjolfsson and McAfee (2014).
- 8.
- 9.
Kotlikoff (2015, Chart 2).
- 10.
Dobrescu et al. (2012).
- 11.
- 12.
Aghion et al. (2013).
- 13.
Viig (2011).
- 14.
Viig (2011).
- 15.
OECD (2014, Figure 2).
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
Turner (2004, Figure 1.5).
- 19.
National Center for Education Statistics (2015).
- 20.
NSC Research Center (2015).
- 21.
- 22.
Bennet and Wilezol (2013, Chapter 4).
- 23.
Bennet and Wilezol (2013, p.139).
- 24.
Bennet and Wilezol (2013, p.146).
- 25.
Abel and Deitz (2015).
- 26.
- 27.
Heckman et al. (2010).
- 28.
Caneiro and Heckman (2005).
References
Abel, J., and Deitz, R., 2014, “Do the Benefits of College stiil Outweigh the Costs?” Current Issues, New York: Federal Reserve of New York.
Adams, C., 2016, “2015, SAT, ACT Suggest that Many Students are Not College-Ready,” Education Week, 35(3),6.
Aghion, P., Belsey, T., Browne, J., Caselli, F., Lambert, R., Lomax, R., Pissarides, C., Stern, N., and Van Reenen, J., 2013, Investing for Prosperity, Report of the LSE Growth Commission.
Alfaro, L., 2016, “Gains from Foreign Direct Investment: Macro and Micro Approaches,” World Bank Economic Review: Advanced Access, March 23, 2016.
Ashauer, D., 1989, “Is Public Expenditure Productive?” Journal of Monetary Economics, 23, 177–200.
Ashauer, D., 2000, “Public Capital and Economic Growth: Issues of Quantity, Finance, and Efficiency,” Economic Development and Cultural Change, 48, 391–406.
Bennett, W., and Wilezol, D., 2013, Is College Worth It, Nashville: Thomas Nelson.
Bivens, J., 2012, “Public Investment: The Next New Thing for Powering Economic Growth,” EPI Briefing Paper #338, Washington Economic Policy Institute.
Brynjolfsson, E., and McAfee, A., 2014, The Second Machine Age, New York: Norton.
Carneiro, P., and Heckman, J., 2005, “Human Capital Policy,” in J. Heckman and A. Krueger, Inequality in America, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Chakraborty, S. and Dabla-Norris, E., 2011, “The Quality of Public Investment,” B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, 11, 1–29.
Collier, P., 2009, War, Guns, and Votes, New York: Harper Collins.
Dobrescu, Loretti I. & Kotlikoff, Laurence J. & Motta, Alberto, 2012. “Why aren’t Developed Countries Saving?,” European Economic Review, 56(6), 1261–1275.
Friedman, T., and Mandlebaum, M., 2012, That Used to be Us, Picodar: New York.
Gloom, G. and Ravikumar, B., 1997, “Productive Government Expenditures and Long-run Growth,” Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 21, 183–204.
Gordon, R., 2016, The Rise and Fall of American Growth: The U.S. Standard of Living since the Civil War, Princeton University Press: Princeton.
Hanushek, E., 2005, “Comments,” in J. Heckman and A. Krueger, Inequality in America, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Heckman, J., and Krueger, A., 2005, Inequality in America: What Role for Human Capital Policies?, Cambridge, Mass.: MIT Press.
Heckman, J., Moon, S., Pinto, R., Savelyev, P., and Yavitz, 2010, The Rate of Return to the HighScope Perry Preschool Program, Journal of Public Economics, 94, 114–129.
Hunt, J., and Gauthier-Loiselle, M., 2010, “How Much Does Immigration Boost Innovation,” American Economic Journal: Macroeconomics, 2, 31–56.
Ivanyna, M., Mourmouras, A., and Rangazas, P., 2018, The Macroecoomics of Corruption, Switzerland: Springer.
Jones, C., 2002, “Sources of U.S. Economic Growthin a World of Ideas,” American Economic Review, 92(1), 220–239.
Jones, C., and Vollrath, D., 2013, Introduction to Economic Growth, New York: W.W. Norton.
Katz, L., 2005, “Comments,” in J. Heckman and A. Krueger, Inequality in America, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Kotlikoff, L., 2015, “America’s Fiscal Insolvency and its Generational Consequences,” Testimony to the Senate Budget Committee, February 25, 2015.
Kose, M., Prasad, E., Rogoff, K., and Wei, S., 2009, “Financial Globalization: A Reappraisal,” IMF Staff Papers, 56 (1), 8–62.
Kraay, A., and McKenzie, D., 2014, “Do Poverty Traps Exist? Assessing the Evidence,” Journal of Economic Perpsectives, 28(3), 127–0145.
Ljungquist, L., and Sargent, T., 2004, Recursive Macroeconomic Theory, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Malinovskaya, A., and Wessel, D., 2017, "The Hutchins Center Explains: Public Investment," Upfront, Washington DC: Brookings Institution.
Manuelli, R., and Seshadri, A., 2014, “Human Capital and the Wealth of Nations,” American Economic Review, 104 (9), 2736–2762.
Mulligan, C., and Tsui, K., 2015, “Political Entry, Public Policies, and the Economy,” Research in Economics, 69, 377–397.
National Center for Education Statistics, 2015, “Immediate Enrollement Rates,” The Condition of Education 2015, Washington: U.S. Department of Education.
OECD, 2014, Policy Challenges for the Next Fifty Years, Economic Policy Paper No. 9, Paris; OECD Publishing.
OECD, 2015, The Future of Productivity, Paris: OECD Publishing.
Parente, S. and Prescott, E., 2000, Barriers to Riches, Cambridge Mass.: MIT Press.
Putnam, R., 2015, Our Kids, New York: Simon and Schuster.
Rangazas, P. , 2002, The quantity and quality of schooling and U.S. labor productivity growth (1870-2000). Review of Economic Dynamics 5(4): 932–964.
Rothwell, J., 2016, “The Declining Productivity of Education,” Social Mobility Memo, Washington: Brookings Institution.
Stupak, J., 2018, “Economic Impact of Infrastructure Investment,” Congressional Research Service, www.crs.gov.
Turner, S. 2004, “Going to College and Finishing College: Explaining Different Educational Outcomes” in Caroline Hoxby editor College Decisions: How Students Actually Make Them and How They Could, Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
Viig, J., 2011, The American Technological Challenge, Algora Press: New York.
Wadhwa, V., 2012, The Immigrant Exodus, Philadelphia: Warton Digital Press.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Appendix
Appendix
1.1 Tax Rates
In the text, we consider the value of the wage tax rate that maximizes the height of the transition equation for the private capital-labor ratio. Maximizing the growth in private capital intensity is not necessarily a reasonable objective. Instead we might consider the tax rate that maximizes state worker productivity (τ∗∗∗) or steady state household utility (τ∗∗). One can compute these tax rates as well (see Problems 9–11). The comparison of the three tax rates is
because μ(1 − α) + α < 1.
The tax rate that maximizes steady utility is perhaps the most compelling. It is higher than the tax rate that maximizes steady state capital intensity because there is a benefit to households of keeping the private capital intensity lower than the maximum. All households are savers, so a higher return to capital, other things constant, raises household welfare. The desire to keep the return to capital high creates an incentive to keep private capital intensity low. This consideration causes the policy maker to set the tax rate higher than the one that maximizes the steady state value of k.
The highest tax rate is the one that maximizes steady state worker productivity. This tax rate is higher than the rate that maximizes steady state utility because it does not account for the fact that a higher tax rate on wages lowers the after-tax wage that determines household consumption and instead only focuses on the before-tax wage associated with worker productivity.
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Das, S., Mourmouras, A., Rangazas, P. (2018). Fiscal Policy. In: Economic Growth and Development. Springer Texts in Business and Economics. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89755-4_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-89755-4_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-89754-7
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-89755-4
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)