If public expenditure and public revenue are I (0), public debt is sustainable, but if these are I (1) and not cointegrated or have a cointegrating vector different from [1, -1], the public debt is said to be unsustainable. Extant work indicates that India’s public debt is unsustainable. The authors reinvestigate this issue by allowing for endogenous structural breaks for two data sets—the British period from 1871-1921 and the postindependence period from 1950-1997. Revenue and expenditure series are I (1) and cointegrated with regime shifts. Hence, Indian public debt may not be unsustainable.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Andrews, D. 1991. Heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimation. Econometrica59: 817-858.
2.
Banerjee, A., R.-L. Lumsdaine, and J.-H. Stock. 1992. Recursive and sequential tests of the unitroot and trend-break hypotheses: Theory and international evidence. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics10 (3): 271-287.
3.
Buiter, W. H., and U. Patel. 1992. Debts deficits and inflation: An application to public finances in India. Journal of Public Economics47: 171-205.
4.
Buiter, W. H., and U. Patel. 1995. Public economics in India, chapter solvency and fiscal correction in India: An analytical discussion. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
5.
Chow, G. C. 1960. Tests of equality between sets of coefficients in two linear regressions. Econometrica28: 591-605.
6.
Chu, C. 1989. New tests for parameter constancy in stationary and nonstationary regression models. Unpublished manuscript.
7.
Economist Intelligence Unit. 2000. Zimbabwe country report. Technical report, Economist Intelligence Unit, London.
8.
Gregory, A. W., and B. E. Hansen. 1996. Residual based test for cointegration in models with regime shifts. Journal of Econometrics70: 99-126.
9.
Hall, A. 1994. Testing for a unit root in time series with pretest data-based model selection. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics12 (2): 461-470.
10.
Hamilton, J., and M. Flavin. 1986. On the limitations of government borrowing: A framework for empirical testing. American Economic Review76: 808-819.
11.
Hansen, B. E. 1992. Tests for parameter instability in regressions with I(1) processes. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics10: 321-335.
12.
Jha, R. 1999. Some rudimentary macroeconomics of the budgetary deficit and debt. In Fifty years of development economics, edited by A. Vasudevan, D. Nachane, and A. Karnik, 148-158. Bombay: Himalaya Publishing Company.
13.
Lumsdaine, R. L., and D. H. Papell. 1997. Multiple trend breaks and the unit-root hypothesis. Review of Economics and Statistics79 (2): 212-218.
14.
Nelson, C. R., and C. I. Plosser. 1982. Trends and random walk in macro-economic time series: Some evidence and implications. Journal of Monetary Economics10: 139-162.
15.
Ng, S., and P. Perron. 1995. Unit root tests in ARMA models with data dependent methods for selection of the truncation lag. Journal of the American Statistical Association90: 268-281.
16.
Papadopoulos, A., and M. Sidiropoulos. 1999. The sustainability of fiscal deficits in the European Union. International Advances in Economic Research5: 289-307.
17.
Perron, P. 1989. The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica57 (6): 1361-1401.
18.
Perron, P. 1997. Further evidence from breaking trend functions in macroeconomic variables. Journal of Econometrics80: 355-385.
19.
Phillips, P. 1987. Time series regression with a unit root. Econometrica55: 277-301.
20.
Phillips, P., and B. E. Hansen. 1990. Statistical inference in instrumental variables regressions with I(1) processes. Review of Economic Studies57: 99-125.
21.
Quandt, R. 1960. Tests of the hypothesis that a linear regression system obeys two separate regimes. Journal of the American Statistical Association55: 324-330.
22.
Reserve Bank of India. 1954. Banking and monetary statistics of India. Mumbai: Reserve Bank of India.
23.
Trehan, B., and C. Walsh. 1991. Testing intertemporal budget constraints: Theory and applications to the US federal budget and current account deficit. Journal of Money Credit and Banking23: 206-223.
24.
Uctum, M., and M. Wickens. 1997. Debt and deficit ceilings and sustainability of the fiscal policies: An intertemporal analysis. Discussion Paper 1612, Centre for Economic Policy Research, London.
25.
Wilcox, D. 1989. The sustainability of government deficits: Implications of the present value constraint. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking21 (2): 291-306.
26.
Zivot, E., and D. W. K. Andrews. 1992. Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root hypothesis. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics10 (3): 251-270.
