A demand-based model of public sector spending is used to identify the economic determinants of the relative size of government in the United States for the period 1949 to 1998. The government's share of GDP is hypothesized to be a function of income growth (Wagner's Law), relative prices for public sector output (Baumol/Beck hypothesis), and several demographic, cyclical, and budget variables. Although nondefense, noninterest government spending as a share of GDP has not grown in recent decades, the results support both income and price explanations of increasing government size. It is shown that the income and price effects are sensitive to the degree of disaggregation used to define government spending shares. Higher relative prices outweigh economic growth as a factor behind increasing shares for government consumption. Economic growth dominates the relative price effect for investment purchases. The two effects are similar for transfer payments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abizadeh, Sohrab, and Mahmood Yousefi. 1988. Growth of government expenditure: The case of Canada. Public Finance Quarterly16:78-100.
2.
Baumol, William J. 1967. Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: The anatomy of urban crisis. American Economic Review57:415-426.
3.
Beck, Morris. 1979. Public sector growth: A real perspective. Public Finance34:313-356.
4.
Beck, Morris. 1982. Toward a theory of public sector growth. Public Finance37:163-177.
5.
Bird, Richard M. 1971. Wagner's “law” of expanding state activity. Public Finance26:1-26.
6.
Bohl, Martin T. 1996. Some international evidence on Wagner's law. Public Finance51:185-200.
7.
Borcherding, Thomas E. 1985. The causes of government expenditure growth: A survey of the U.S. evidence. Journal of Public Economics28:359-382.
8.
Ferris, J. Stephen, and Edwin G. West. 1996. Testing theories of real government size: U.S. experience, 1959-89. Southern Economic Journal62:537-553.
9.
Fuchs, Victor R. 2000. Medicare reform: The larger picture. Journal of Economic Perspectives14:57-70.
10.
Gemmell, Norman. 1990. Wagner's law, relative prices and the size of the public sector. Manchester School of Economic and Social Studies58:361-377.
11.
Gemmell, Norman, ed. 1993a. The growth of the public sector: Theories and international evidence. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
12.
Gemmell, Norman. 1993b. The public sector: Definition and measurement issues. In The growth of the public sector: Theories and international evidence, edited by Norman Gemmell, 1-14. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
13.
Hackl, Franz, Friedrich Schneider, and Glenn Withers. 1993. The public sector in Australia: A quantitative analysis. In The growth of the public sector: Theories and international evidence, edited by Norman Gemmell, 212-231. Brookfield, VT: Edward Elgar.
14.
Henning, John A., and A. Dale Tussing. 1974. Income elasticity of the demand for public expenditures in the United States. Public Finance29:325-341.
15.
Henrekson, Magnus, and Johan A. Lybeck. 1988. Explaining the growth of government in Sweden: A disequilibrium approach. Public Choice57:213-232.
16.
Holsey, Cheryl M., and Thomas E. Borcherding. 1997. Why does government's share of national income grow? An assessment of the recent literature on the U.S. experience. In Perspectives on public choice, edited by Dennis C. Mueller, 562-589. New York: Cambridge University Press.
17.
Kristov, Lorenzo, and Peter Lindert. 1992. Pressure groups and redistribution. Journal of Public Economics48:135-163.
18.
Lewis-Beck, Michael S., and Tom W. Rice. 1985. Government growth in the United States. Journal of Politics47:2-30.
19.
Lowery, David, and William D. Berry. 1983. The growth of government in the United States: An empirical assessment of competing explanations. American Journal of Political Science27:665-694.
20.
Musgrave, Richard A. 1969. Fiscal systems. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
21.
Musgrave, Richard A. 1981. Leviathan cometh—Or does he? In Tax and expenditure limitations, edited by Helen F. Ladd and T. Nicolaus Tideman, 77-120. Washington, DC: Urban Institute.
22.
Oxley, Les. 1994. Cointegration, causality and Wagner's law: A test for Britain 1870-1913. Scottish Journal of Political Economy41:286-298.
23.
Payne, James E., and Bradley T. Ewing. 1996. International evidence on Wagner's hypothesis: A cointegration analysis. Public Finance51:258-274.
24.
Peacock, Alan T., and Jack Wiseman. 1961. The growth of public expenditure in the United Kingdom. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
25.
Petry, Francois, Louis Imbeau, Jean Crete, and Michel Clavet. 2000. Explaining the evolution of government size in the Canadian provinces. Public Finance Review28:26-47.
26.
Plotnick, Robert D. 1986. An interest group model of direct income redistribution. Review of Economics and Statistics68:594-602.
27.
Ram, Rati. 1987. Wagner's hypothesis in time-series and cross-section perspectives: Evidence from “real” data for 115 countries. Review of Economics and Statistics69:194-204.
28.
Rowley, Charles K., and Robert D. Tollison. 1994. Peacock and Wiseman on the growth of public expenditure. Public Choice78:125-128.
29.
Shoup, Carl S. 1981. Economic limits to taxation. Atlantic Economic Journal9:9-23.
30.
Tussing, A. Dale, and John A. Henning. 1974. Long-run growth of nondefense government expenditures in the United States. Public Finance Quarterly2:202-222.
31.
Wagner, Richard E., and Warren E. Weber. 1977. Wagner's law, fiscal institutions, and the growth of government. National Tax Journal30:59-68.
32.
Whelan, Kurt. 2000. A guide to the use of chain aggregated NIPA data. Research paper in Finance and Economics Discussion Series, No. 2000-35, Division of Research and Statistics of the Federal Reserve Board, Washington, DC.
