FROM PUBLIC INFRASTRUCTURE TO NATIONAL ECONOMIC GROWTH: DO SYSTEMATIC INVESTMENT PRACTICES MATTER? (original) (raw)
Related papers
Infrastructure Investment and Growth: Some Empirical Evidence
Contemporary Economic Policy, 1998
This paper explores empirically the relationship between infrastructure and economic growth by including the data of expenditure in infrastructure as a share of GDP in traditional growth crosscountry regressions. Since results are inconclusive, the paper elaborates some new indicators of investment in infrastructure employing physical units of infrastructure. They are positively and significantly correlated with growth in two different samples of countries.
The impact of infrastructure investments on the country’s economic growth
Problems and Perspectives in Management
This study aims to assess the positive impact of infrastructure investments on the dynamics of economic growth. The sample includes ten countries (Azerbaijan, Albania, Belarus, Bulgaria, China, Georgia, Mexico, Moldova, Serbia, and Turkey) for 2011–2020 that meet the following criteria: belong to upper-middle-income economies (according to the World Bank Atlas method); the OECD statistical database contains data on investment volumes in infrastructure development of road, railway transport, inland waterways, sea, and airports (by all financing sources). The primary focus was put on the analysis of this issue in Azerbaijan. GDP per capita growth was selected as the resulting parameter; the main dependent variable was infrastructure investment volumes (total inland and infrastructure road, rail, and air investment), and additional dependent variables were a foreign direct investment (net inflows) and gross domestic investment. Shapiro-Wilk test (for checking normal data), Spearman and...
2015
This paper addresses whether public and private infrastructure investments promote long-run economic growth using panel data taken from the World Bank’s Economic Indicators (WDI) for a cross-section of 50 African countries spanning from 1995 to 2012. As measures of infrastructure, we use transportation (TRANS), improved access to sanitation (SANI), access to clean water (WATER), communication infrastructure (COMMU), and electricity infrastructure (ELEC) indices each of which ranges from 0 to 100 (with 100 denoting robust infrastructure investments). We employ factor analysis to construct the above listed uncorrelated 5 broad infrastructure indices from a series of factors representing infrastructure investments. The panel unit-root test results show that the economic growth variable and the infrastructure indices are stationary in levels and first difference and they also exhibit longrun stable relationship as revealed by the Westerlund’s (2007) Error-correction model for panel data...
2006
Empirical explorations of the growth and productivity impacts of infrastructure have been characterized by ambiguous (countervailing signs) results with little robustness. A number of explanations of the contradictory findings have been proposed. These range from the crowd-out of private by public sector investment, non-linearities generating the possibility of infrastructure overprovision, simultaneity between infrastructure provision and growth, and the possibility of multiple (hence indirect) channels of influence between infrastructure and productivity improvements. This paper explores these possibilities utilizing panel data for South Africa over the 1970-2000 period, and a range of 19 infrastructure measures. Utilizing a number of alternative measures of productivity, the prevalence of ambiguous (countervailing signs) results, with little systematic pattern is also shown to hold for our data set in estimations that include the infrastructure measures in simple growth frameworks. We demonstrate that controlling for potential endogeneity of infrastructure in estimation robustly eliminates virtually all evidence of ambiguous impacts of infrastructure, due for example to possible overinvestment in infrastructure. Indeed, controlling for the possibility of endogeneity in the infrastructure measures renders the impact of infrastructure capital not only positive, but of economically meaningful magnitudes. These findings are invariant between the direct impact of infrastructure on labor productivity, and the indirect impact of infrastructure on total factor productivity. extension of this empirical literature is an examination of the extent of underinvestment in infrastructure, and its consequences for economic growth. For instance, on the basis of comparative experience from the 1990s, Easterly and Serven estimate that about one-fifth of Latin American growth underperformance relative to East Asia was directly related to underinvestment in infrastructure, while Esfahani and Ramirez (2003) estimate that sub-Saharan Africa's poor growth performance was in part related to underinvestments in electricity and telecom infrastructure, and Eustache (2005) estimates that if Africa had enjoyed Korea's quantity and quality of infrastructure, it would have raised its annual growth per capita by about 1 percentage point. Bajo-Rubio and Diaz-Roldan (2005) examine underprovision of public capital for Spanish regions, while Miller and Tsoukis infer sub-optimal provision of public capital for a larger set of countries. Given anticipated infrastructure impacts on human welfare and equity across community and income groups, further questions surround relative access to infrastructure services across urban and rural households, and different income groups. Often the lowest household income groups have no
The Nexus between Infrastructure (Quantity and Quality) and Economic Growth
RePEc: Research Papers in Economics, 2017
This paper examines the growth effects of infrastructure stock and quality in Sub Saharan Africa (SSA). While previous studies established that the poor state of infrastructure in SSA slows economic growth, there is little evidence on infrastructure quality and a robust analysis on the causal links between infrastructure and economic growth. Using principal components analysis to cluster different infrastructure measures and examining the infrastructure-growth nexus in a Generalised Method of Moments while accounting for heterogeneity in a panel setting, our results reveal strong evidence of a positive effect of infrastructure development on economic growth with most contribution coming from infrastructure stock. The qualitygrowth effect is weak, thus giving credence to the combined effects of infrastructure stock and quality on growth, especially in regions with moderately high quality, and smaller in those with poorer quality. However, the long-term quality effect is higher than the short-term. Among the disaggregated infrastructure components, electricity supply exerted the greatest downward pressure on growth in SSA. Lastly, we find evidence for a unidirectional causality from aggregate infrastructure to growth. A number of policy implications are discussed.
Policy Watch: Infrastructure Investment and Economic Growth
Journal of Economic Perspectives, 1992
In the late 1980s, David Aschauer (1989) triggered a long overdue dialogue among economists and political leaders when he published a study arguing that much of the decline in U.S. productivity that occurred in the 1970s was precipitated by declining rates of public capital investment. My own work confirmed these results (Munnell, 1990a). Spending advocates seized on these findings as support for increased public investment. The enthusiasm among policymakers for the early Aschauer results was matched, if not surpassed, by skepticism on the part of many economists. Critics of these studies charged that the methodology was flawed, that the direction of causation between public investment and output growth is unclear and that, even if the historical empirical relationships were estimated correctly, they provide no clear indications for current policy. Who's right? What do we know and not know about the link between public infrastructure and productivity? And what are the implicatio...
Public Infrastructure and Economic Growth: Time-Series Properties and Evidence
Economic Record, 1997
We examine whether economic growth is generated endoge-nously or exogenously, and estimate the externality effects due to private and public capital respectively. Applying a multivariate stochastic coinlegration method to US data, we find that the evidence is unfavourable to the endogenous growth model with public infrastructure. The estimated elasticity of output with respect to public capital is 0.11, smaller than typical values obtained in single-equation regression studies. On the other hand, if the share of capital income is taken to be one-third, then the spillover effect due to private capital is positive but may be as low as 0.10.
Institutions, infrastructure, and economic growth
SSRN Electronic Journal, 1999
This paper develops a structural model of infrastructure and output growth that takes account of institutional and economic factors that mediate in the infrastructure-GDP interactions. Crosscountry estimates of the model indicate that the contribution of infrastructure services to GDP is substantial and, in general, exceeds the cost of provision of those services. The results also shed light on the factors that shape a country's response to its infrastructure needs and offer policy implications for facilitating the removal of infrastructure inadequacies.
Impact of infrastructure investment on developed and developing economies
Economic Change and Restructuring, 2020
This paper uses two longitudinal datasets-one with more limited coverage from the organization for economic cooperation and development and another constructed using general government gross fixed capital formation-to test for the relative effects of infrastructure versus non-infrastructure investment on output per worker, between developed and developing economies. The paper presents evidence that increasing infrastructure per worker has a larger relative impact on developing economies. This also implies that the share of gross capital formation devoted to infrastructure should be higher in developing economies.