Journal of the Economic Geographical Society of Korea (한국경제지리학회지)

The Economic Geographical Society of Korea (한국경제지리학회)
권호 표지
DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

An Analysis of Non-linear Relationship between Local Government Size and Regional Economic Growth: Armey Curve Verification Using AMG Estimation Method

지방정부규모와 지역경제성장 간 비선형관계 분석: AMG 추정법을 이용한 Armey Curve 검증

  • So-youn Kim (Department of Economics, Andong National University) ;
  • Suyeol Ryu (Department of Economics, Andong National University)
  • 김소연 (안동대학교 사회과학대학 경제학과) ;
  • 류수열 (안동대학교 사회과학대학 경제학과)
  • Received : 2022.12.09
  • Accepted : 2022.12.28
  • Published : 2022.12.31
Download PDF
⟨ Previous Next ⟩

Abstract

This study analyzed the relationship between local government size and regional economic growth using regional data from 2002 to 2020. By dividing local government expenditure into social development expenditure and economic development expenditure, economic growth and the inverted U-shaped Armey curve were verified, and the optimal size of local government expenditure was examined. In particular, the AMG estimation method considering the cross-sectional dependence and regional heterogeneity existing in the panel data was utilized. As a result of the analysis, it was found that there was an inverted U-shaped relationship between local fiscal expenditure and regional economic growth. When the proportion of total local fiscal expenditure is 7.63% of GRDP and social development expenditure is 3.45%, it is found that the optimal size of expenditure can maximize the regional economic growth rate. Local governments should increase the effectiveness of public expenditure policies by considering these points.

본 연구는 2002-2020년 기간의 지역 데이터를 사용하여 지방정부규모와 지역경제성장 간의 관계를 분석하였다. 지방정부지출을 사회개발비와 경제개발비로 나누어 GRDP 성장률과 역U자 형태의 Armey 곡선의 관계가 존재하는지 검증하고, 최적의 지방정부지출의 수준을 살펴보고자 하였다. 특히, 추정방법에 있어서 패널자료에 존재하는 횡단면 의존성과 지역별 이질성을 고려한 AMG 추정법을 활용하였다. 분석 결과, 총지방재정지출 및 사회개발비의 규모와 지역경제성장 간에 역U자형 관계가 나타났고, 경제개발비와 지역경제성장 간에는 역U자형 관계가 존재하지 않는 것으로 나타났다. 총지방재정지출 비중이 GRDP 대비 7.63%일 때, 사회개발비 비중은 3.45%일 때 지역경제성장률을 극대화할 수 있는 최적의 지출규모인 것으로 나타났다. 지방정부는 이러한 점을 고려하여 공공지출 정책의 실효성을 높여야 한다.

Keywords

References

  1. 김소연.류수열, 2021,"우리나라 이산화탄소 배출량 결정 요인 분석: 횡단면 의존성과 계수 이질성을 고려하여," 한국경제지리학회지 24(4), pp.400-410. https://doi.org/10.23841/EGSK.2021.24.4.400
  2. 문병근.성상기, 2011, "지방재정지출과 지역경제성장간의 동태적 관계분석-6대 특별시.광역시를 중심으로," 재정정책논집 13(3), pp.87-118.
  3. 박완규.김두수, 2014, "재정변수 및 비재정변수가 지역 경제에 미치는 영향: 16개 시도를 중심으로," 한국경제지리학회지 17(3), pp.554-566. https://doi.org/10.23841/EGSK.2014.17.3.554
  4. 박완규.지은초.송일환, 2017, "경기도 재정력 변동의 특성에 따른 경제성장 전략 연구 -다양한 지역구분에 따른 실증분석-," 한국경제지리학회지 20(1), pp.84-104. https://doi.org/10.23841/EGSK.2017.20.1.84
  5. 오병기, 2021, "지역경제 격차와 지방재정 격차의 인과성에 관한 연구," 지방행정연구 35(4), pp.195-219. https://doi.org/10.22783/KRILA.2021.35.4.195
  6. 옥동석, 2021, 케인즈는 어떻게 재정을 파탄냈는가, 서울: 자유기업원.
  7. 하혜수.하혜영.문광민, 2013, "재정분권이 국가경쟁력에 미치는 영향: 소득수준 및 정부규모에 따른 비선적 효과를 중심으로," 한국정책과학학회보 17(1), pp.61-88.
  8. Altunc, O. F. and Aydm, C., 2013, "The relationship between optimal size of government and economic growth: Empirical evidence from Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria," Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences 92, pp.66-75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.639
  9. Armey, R., 1995, The freedom revolution, Washington D.C.; Regnery Publishing Co.
  10. Asimakopoulos, S. and Karavias, Y., 2015, The impact of government size on economic growth: a threshold analysis,"Economics Letters, 139, pp.65-68. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2015.12.010
  11. Barro, R. J., 1990, A cross-country study of growth, Saving and Government. NBER Working Paper No.2855.
  12. Chao, J. and Grubel, H., 1998, Optimal levels of spending and taxation in Canada, The Fraser Institute, Vancouver.
  13. Chen C., Yao S., Hu P. and Lin Y., 2016, "Optimal government investment and public debt in an economic growth model," China Economic Review 45, pp.257-278. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chieco.2016.08.005
  14. Chobanov, D. and Mladenova, A., 2009, "What is the optimum size of government," Institute for Market Economics, pp.1-47.
  15. Coayla, E., 2021, "The optimal size of government and the Armey Curve: A review of empirical evidence," Applied Economics Journal 28(1), pp.121-137.
  16. De Witte, K. and Moesen, W., 2010, "Sizing the government," Public Choice 145(1-2), pp.39-55. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11127-009-9527-7
  17. Eberhardt, M. and Teal, F., 2010, "Productivity Analysis in Global Manufacturing Production," Economics Series Working Papers, 515, University of Oxford, Department of Economics.
  18. Gunalp, B. and Dincer, O., 2005, The Optimal Government Size in Transition Countries, Department of Economics, Hacettepe University.
  19. Gwartney, J. D., Lawson, R. and Holcombe, R. G., 1998, The size and functions of government and economic growth, Joint Economic Committee Washington D.C..
  20. Hok L., Jariyapan P., Buddhawongsa P. and Tansuchat R., 2014, "Optimal size of government spending: empirical evidence from eight countries in Southeast Asia," The Empirical Econometrics and Quantitative Economics Letters 3(4), pp.31-44.
  21. Karras, G., 1997, "On the optimal government size in Europe: theory and empirical evidence," The Manchester School of Economic & Social Studies 65(3), pp.280-94. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9957.00057
  22. Ketema, T., 2006, "The impact of government spending on economic growth: The case of Ethiopia," Addis Ababa University School of Graduate Studies, (Unpusblished Master Thesis).
  23. Kim, M. H., Han, Y., Tierney, H., and Vargas, E., 2020, "The economic consequences of government spending in South Korea," Economics Bulletin 40(1), pp.308-315.
  24. Magazzino, C. and Forte, F., 2010, Optimal size of government and economic growth in EU-27, MPRA Paper No. 26669.
  25. Mavrov, H., 2007, "The size of government expenditure and the rate of economic growth in Bulgaria," Economic Alternatives 1, pp.53-63.
  26. Pesaran, M. H., 2004, General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels," IZA Discussion Paper No.1240 and CESifo Working Paper No.1229.
  27. Pesaran, M. H. and Yamagata, T., 2008, "Testing slope homogeneity in large panels," Journal of Econometrics 142(1), pp.50-93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  28. Pevcin P., 2004, "Economic output and the optimal size of government," Economic and Business Review 6(3), pp.213-227.
  29. Rajput, S., and Tariq, A., 2019, "Government size and economic growth: a panel data study comparing OECD and non-OECD countries," Applied Economics Journal 26(2), pp.22-37.
  30. Rezk, E., 2005, Public expenditure and optimal government size in an endogenous growth model: an analysis of the Argentine case, National University of La Plata.
  31. Thanh, S. D., 2015, "Threshold effects of inflation on growth in the ASEAN-5 countries: a panel smooth transition regression approach," Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science 20(38), pp.41-48. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jefas.2015.01.003
  32. Vedder, R. and Gallaway, L., 1998, Government size and economic growth, Joint Economic Committee, Washington D.C..
  33. Vreymans, P. and Verhulst, E., 2004, Cause of growth differentials in Europe. at http://www.workforall.net/ EN_Tax_policy_for_growth_and_jobs.html.