Кривая Арми: эмпирический анализ отдельных Балканских стран и России за период 2006–2019 годов

Предметом анализа является обоснованность часто используемой в научной литературе кривой Арми и оптимальный уровень государственного сектора. Цель исследования — анализ влияния государственного сектора через государственные расходы на возможность достижения экономического роста. Оценка основана на годовых данных за период 2006–2019 гг. по отдельным Балканским странам и России. Авторы применяют метод обыкновенных наименьших квадратов (OLS) для нелинейной регрессионной модели. Вывод заключается в том, что кривая Арми действительна для некоторых стран, участвующих в исследовании, среди которых Сербия, Северная Македония и Россия. Пороговое значение отношения государственных расходов к валовому внутреннему продукту, которое максимизирует экономический рост, колеблется от 32,94 до 42,37%. Средняя доля государственных расходов в анализируемых странах примерно равна полученным пороговым значениям, что свидетельствует о достижении в определенной степени желаемых экономических показателей. Однако результаты исследования показывают, что рост государственного сектора и его влияние на экономическое развитие не стоит недооценивать.

1. Jiranyakul K., Brahmasrene T. The relationship between government expenditures and economic growth in Thailand. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. MPRA Paper. 2007;(88426). URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/88426/1/MPRA_paper_88426.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

2. Arpaia A., Turrini A. Government expenditure and economic growth in the EU: Long-run tendencies and short-term adjustment. European Economy. Economic Papers. 2008;(300). DOI: 10.2765/22776

3. Alam S., Sultana A., Butt M. S. Does social expenditures promote economic growth? A multivariate panel cointegration analysis for Asian countries. European Journal of Social Sciences. 2010;14(1):44–54.

4. Baffes J., Shah A. Productivity of public spending, sectoral allocation choices, and economic growth. World Bank Policy Research Working Paper. 1993;(1178). URL: https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/115241468740958853/pdf/multi0page.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

5. Devarajan Sh., Swaroop V., Zou H. The composition of public expenditure and economic growth. Journal of Monetary Economics. 1996;37(2):313–344. DOI: 10.1016/S0304–3932(96)90039–2

6. Afonso A., Furceri D. Government size composition, volatility and economic growth. ECB Working Paper Series. 2008;(849). URL: https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/153283/1/ecbwp0849.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

7. Barro R. J. A cross-country study of growth, saving, and government. In: Bernheim B.D., Shoven J. B., eds. National saving and economic performance. Chicago, London: The University of Chicago Press; 1991:271–304. URL: https://www.nber.org/system/files/chapters/c5994/c5994.pdf. (accessed on 11.07.2021).

8. Scully G. What is the optimal size of government in the United States? NCPA Policy Report. 1994;(188). URL: http://www.ncpathinktank.org/pdfs/st188.pdf

9. Armey D. The freedom revolution: The new Republican House majority leader tells why big government failed, why freedom works, and how we will rebuild America. 1 st ed. Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing; 1995. 318 p.

10. Forte F., Magazzino C. Optimal size government and economic growth in EU countries. Economia Politica: Journal of Analytical and Institutional Economics. 2011;28(3):295–322. DOI: 10.1428/35913

11. Nuţă A. C., Nuţă F. M., Chirilă V., Roman A., Puşcă A. C. Testing the relationship between public expenditure and economic growth in Romania. Acta Universitatis Danubius. Œconomica. 2015;11(4):86–102. URL: http://journals.univ-danubius.ro/index.php/oeconomica/article/view/2935/2711 (accessed on 11.07.2021).

12. Navarro C. Optimal government size and economic growth in Spain. Evidences through the Armey curve (1980-2016). Advances in Social Sciences Research Journal. 2019;6(12):140–146. DOI: 10.14738/assrj.612.7524

13. Mavrov H. The size of government expenditure and the rate of economic growth in Bulgaria. Economic Alternatives. 2007;(1):53–63. URL: https://www.unwe.bg/uploads/Alternatives/A06_01.2007.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

14. Altunc O. F., Aydin C. The relationship between optimal size of government and economic growth: Empirical evidence from Turkey, Romania and Bulgaria. Procedia — Social and Behavioral Sciences. 2013;92:66–75. DOI: 10.1016/j.sbspro.2013.08.639

15. Yüksel C. The size of the public sector and the Armey curve: The case of Turkey. In: Gerçek A., Taş M., eds. Critical debates in public finance. Berlin: Peter Lang GmbH; 2019:137–154. URL: http://cihanyuksel.org/kitap_bolumu_2019_1.pdf

16. De Witte K., Moesen W. Sizing the government. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. MPRA Paper. 2009;(14785). URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/14785/1/MPRA_paper_14785.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021)

17. Iyidogan P.V., Turan T. Government size and economic growth in Turkey: A threshold regression analysis. Prague Economic Papers. 2017;26(2):142–154. DOI: 10.18267/j.pep.600

18. Lupu D., Asandului M. The nexus between economic growth and public spending in Eastern European countries. Inžinerinė Ekonomika = Engineering Economics. 2017;28(2): 155–161. DOI: 10.5755/j01.ee.28.2.7734

19. Bozma G., Başar S., Eren M. Investigating validation of Armey curve hypothesis for G7 countries using ARDL model. Doğuş Üniversitesi Dergisi. 2019;20(1):49–59. DOI: 10.31671/dogus.2019.416

20. Vedder R.K, Gallaway L. E. Government size and economic growth. Washington, DC: Joint Economic Committee; 1998. URL: https://www.jec.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/014ee573-5f0d-45e5-8cc0-869a465c7b36/government-size-and-economic-growth---dec-1998.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

21. Herath Sh. The size of the government and economic growth: An empirical study of Sri Lanka. SRE-Discussion Papers. 2010;(05). URL: https://epub.wu.ac.at/2962/1/sre-disc-2010_05.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

22. Alimi R. S. Does optimal government size exist for developing economies? The case of Nigeria. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. MPRA Paper. 2014;(56073). URL: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/56073/1/MPRA_paper_56073.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

23. Ahmad R., Othman N. Optimal size of government and economic growth in Malaysia: Empirical evidence. In: Prosiding Persidangan Kebangsaan Ekonomi Malaysia ke-9 (PERKEM ke-9) “Urus Tadbir Ekonomi yang Adil: Ke Arah Ekonomi Berpendapatan Tinggi” (Kuala Terengganu, Okt. 17–19, 2014). Bangi: Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia; 2014:41–48. URL: https://www.ukm.my/fep/perkem/pdf/perkem2014/PERKEM_2014_1B2.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

24. Facchini F., Melki M. Optimal government size and economic growth in France (1871–2008): An explanation by the state and market failures. CES Working Papers. 2011;(77). URL: https://halshs.archives-ouvertes.fr/halshs-00654363/document

25. Attinasi M.G, Klemm A. The growth impact of discretionary fiscal policy measure. ECB Working Paper Series. 2014;(1697). URL: https://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1697.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).

26. Boldeanu F. T., Tache I., Ion M.-S. The impact of fiscal policy on economic growth in the countries of Eastern Europe. Revista Economica. 2015;67(5):16–32. URL: http://economice.ulbsibiu.ro/revista.economica/archive/67502boldeanu&tache&ion.pdf (accessed on 11.07.2021).