Loading…
The causal relation between Federal expenditures and receipts
Any proposal to reduce the federal budget deficit that does not deal with the basic cause of deficit growth will likely result in no permanent decrease in deficits. Because all proposed solutions try to alter federal spending or receipts, these 2 elements of deficits are examined for evidence of int...
Saved in:
| Published in: | Southern economic journal 1986, Vol.52 (3), p.617-629 |
|---|---|
| Main Authors: | , |
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Subjects: | |
| Citations: | Items that cite this one |
| Online Access: | Get full text |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| cited_by | cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-4c5e78619ed6bb86d36fea015c359ca364b58061535a3ce5c9292227cc4f6c2a3 |
|---|---|
| cites | |
| container_end_page | 629 |
| container_issue | 3 |
| container_start_page | 617 |
| container_title | Southern economic journal |
| container_volume | 52 |
| creator | Manage, Neela Marlow, Michael L. |
| description | Any proposal to reduce the federal budget deficit that does not deal with the basic cause of deficit growth will likely result in no permanent decrease in deficits. Because all proposed solutions try to alter federal spending or receipts, these 2 elements of deficits are examined for evidence of interdependence using the notion of Granger (1969) causality. The Granger causality test is applied to annual observations on government outlays and budget receipts for the period 1929-1982, using data obtained from the Office of Management and Budget. Observations for 1941-1946 are excluded from the sample. Analysis shows that 7 of the 12 (58%) cases indicate bidirectional causality between receipts and outlays. The remaining 5 (42%) cases indicate a unidirectional causal link running from budget receipts to budget outlays. These results suggest that proposals that call for tax increases to close the federal budget deficit do not necessarily offer permanent solutions to underlying fiscal problems. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.2307/1059261 |
| format | article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>jstor_proqu</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_journals_212140730</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><jstor_id>1059261</jstor_id><sourcerecordid>1059261</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-4c5e78619ed6bb86d36fea015c359ca364b58061535a3ce5c9292227cc4f6c2a3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp90MFKxDAQBuAgCq6r-AZSVPBUzUyatDl4kMVVYcGDu-eQplPtsrZr0qK-vZHuVS8zh_n4B37GToFfo-D5DXCpUcEem6BAmRYccJ9NOBdFmsVxyI5CWHPOEUBO2O3yjRJnh2A3iaeN7ZuuTUrqP4naZE4V-Xigry21VdMPnkJi2ypKR822D8fsoLabQCe7PWWr-f1y9pgunh-eZneL1AnM-jRzkvJCgaZKlWWhKqFqshykE1I7K1RWyoIrkEJa4Ug6jRoRc-eyWjm0YsrOx9yt7z4GCr1Zd4Nv40uDgJDxXPCILv5CgBo4V1rpqK5G5XwXgqfabH3zbv23AW5-CzS7AqO8HOU69J3_h52NrLadsa--CWb1ArrIY8cacxA_z_d0Aw</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>1291006969</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>The causal relation between Federal expenditures and receipts</title><source>EconLit s plnými texty</source><source>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</source><source>JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】</source><source>ABI/INFORM Archive</source><source>ABI/INFORM Global</source><creator>Manage, Neela ; Marlow, Michael L.</creator><creatorcontrib>Manage, Neela ; Marlow, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><description>Any proposal to reduce the federal budget deficit that does not deal with the basic cause of deficit growth will likely result in no permanent decrease in deficits. Because all proposed solutions try to alter federal spending or receipts, these 2 elements of deficits are examined for evidence of interdependence using the notion of Granger (1969) causality. The Granger causality test is applied to annual observations on government outlays and budget receipts for the period 1929-1982, using data obtained from the Office of Management and Budget. Observations for 1941-1946 are excluded from the sample. Analysis shows that 7 of the 12 (58%) cases indicate bidirectional causality between receipts and outlays. The remaining 5 (42%) cases indicate a unidirectional causal link running from budget receipts to budget outlays. These results suggest that proposals that call for tax increases to close the federal budget deficit do not necessarily offer permanent solutions to underlying fiscal problems.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0038-4038</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 2325-8012</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.2307/1059261</identifier><identifier>CODEN: SECJAR</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Chapel Hill, N.C., etc: Southern Economic Association and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill</publisher><subject>Budget deficits ; Causality ; debt ; Deficit financing ; depense publique ; dette ; deudas ; Economic theory ; Federal ; Federal budget deficit ; Federal budgets ; finances publiques ; Funding ; gastos publicos ; Government ; Government relations ; Government spending ; hacienda publica ; impot ; impuestos ; public expenditure ; public finance ; Receipts ; Relations ; Revenue ; Statistical analysis ; Studies ; Tax increases ; Taxes</subject><ispartof>Southern economic journal, 1986, Vol.52 (3), p.617-629</ispartof><rights>Copyright 1986 Southern Economic Association</rights><rights>Copyright Southern Economic Association Jan 1986</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-4c5e78619ed6bb86d36fea015c359ca364b58061535a3ce5c9292227cc4f6c2a3</citedby></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/1059261$$EPDF$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://www.jstor.org/stable/1059261$$EHTML$$P50$$Gjstor$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,4009,27902,27903,27904,33202,36029,36039,58217,58450</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Manage, Neela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marlow, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><title>The causal relation between Federal expenditures and receipts</title><title>Southern economic journal</title><description>Any proposal to reduce the federal budget deficit that does not deal with the basic cause of deficit growth will likely result in no permanent decrease in deficits. Because all proposed solutions try to alter federal spending or receipts, these 2 elements of deficits are examined for evidence of interdependence using the notion of Granger (1969) causality. The Granger causality test is applied to annual observations on government outlays and budget receipts for the period 1929-1982, using data obtained from the Office of Management and Budget. Observations for 1941-1946 are excluded from the sample. Analysis shows that 7 of the 12 (58%) cases indicate bidirectional causality between receipts and outlays. The remaining 5 (42%) cases indicate a unidirectional causal link running from budget receipts to budget outlays. These results suggest that proposals that call for tax increases to close the federal budget deficit do not necessarily offer permanent solutions to underlying fiscal problems.</description><subject>Budget deficits</subject><subject>Causality</subject><subject>debt</subject><subject>Deficit financing</subject><subject>depense publique</subject><subject>dette</subject><subject>deudas</subject><subject>Economic theory</subject><subject>Federal</subject><subject>Federal budget deficit</subject><subject>Federal budgets</subject><subject>finances publiques</subject><subject>Funding</subject><subject>gastos publicos</subject><subject>Government</subject><subject>Government relations</subject><subject>Government spending</subject><subject>hacienda publica</subject><subject>impot</subject><subject>impuestos</subject><subject>public expenditure</subject><subject>public finance</subject><subject>Receipts</subject><subject>Relations</subject><subject>Revenue</subject><subject>Statistical analysis</subject><subject>Studies</subject><subject>Tax increases</subject><subject>Taxes</subject><issn>0038-4038</issn><issn>2325-8012</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1986</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>8BJ</sourceid><recordid>eNp90MFKxDAQBuAgCq6r-AZSVPBUzUyatDl4kMVVYcGDu-eQplPtsrZr0qK-vZHuVS8zh_n4B37GToFfo-D5DXCpUcEem6BAmRYccJ9NOBdFmsVxyI5CWHPOEUBO2O3yjRJnh2A3iaeN7ZuuTUrqP4naZE4V-Xigry21VdMPnkJi2ypKR822D8fsoLabQCe7PWWr-f1y9pgunh-eZneL1AnM-jRzkvJCgaZKlWWhKqFqshykE1I7K1RWyoIrkEJa4Ug6jRoRc-eyWjm0YsrOx9yt7z4GCr1Zd4Nv40uDgJDxXPCILv5CgBo4V1rpqK5G5XwXgqfabH3zbv23AW5-CzS7AqO8HOU69J3_h52NrLadsa--CWb1ArrIY8cacxA_z_d0Aw</recordid><startdate>1986</startdate><enddate>1986</enddate><creator>Manage, Neela</creator><creator>Marlow, Michael L.</creator><general>Southern Economic Association and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill</general><general>Southern Economic Association and the University of North Carolina</general><general>Southern Economic Association</general><scope>FBQ</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>EOLOZ</scope><scope>FUVTR</scope><scope>IOIBA</scope><scope>K30</scope><scope>PAAUG</scope><scope>PAWHS</scope><scope>PAWZZ</scope><scope>PAXOH</scope><scope>PBHAV</scope><scope>PBQSW</scope><scope>PBYQZ</scope><scope>PCIWU</scope><scope>PCMID</scope><scope>PCZJX</scope><scope>PDGRG</scope><scope>PDWWI</scope><scope>PETMR</scope><scope>PFVGT</scope><scope>PGXDX</scope><scope>PIHIL</scope><scope>PISVA</scope><scope>PJCTQ</scope><scope>PJTMS</scope><scope>PLCHJ</scope><scope>PMHAD</scope><scope>PNQDJ</scope><scope>POUND</scope><scope>PPLAD</scope><scope>PQAPC</scope><scope>PQCAN</scope><scope>PQCMW</scope><scope>PQEME</scope><scope>PQHKH</scope><scope>PQMID</scope><scope>PQNCT</scope><scope>PQNET</scope><scope>PQSCT</scope><scope>PQSET</scope><scope>PSVJG</scope><scope>PVMQY</scope><scope>PZGFC</scope><scope>4S-</scope><scope>4T-</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope></search><sort><creationdate>1986</creationdate><title>The causal relation between Federal expenditures and receipts</title><author>Manage, Neela ; Marlow, Michael L.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-4c5e78619ed6bb86d36fea015c359ca364b58061535a3ce5c9292227cc4f6c2a3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1986</creationdate><topic>Budget deficits</topic><topic>Causality</topic><topic>debt</topic><topic>Deficit financing</topic><topic>depense publique</topic><topic>dette</topic><topic>deudas</topic><topic>Economic theory</topic><topic>Federal</topic><topic>Federal budget deficit</topic><topic>Federal budgets</topic><topic>finances publiques</topic><topic>Funding</topic><topic>gastos publicos</topic><topic>Government</topic><topic>Government relations</topic><topic>Government spending</topic><topic>hacienda publica</topic><topic>impot</topic><topic>impuestos</topic><topic>public expenditure</topic><topic>public finance</topic><topic>Receipts</topic><topic>Relations</topic><topic>Revenue</topic><topic>Statistical analysis</topic><topic>Studies</topic><topic>Tax increases</topic><topic>Taxes</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Manage, Neela</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Marlow, Michael L.</creatorcontrib><collection>AGRIS</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 01</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 06</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segment 29</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - International</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - West</collection><collection>Periodicals Index Online Segments 1-50</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - MEA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Canada</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - West</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - EMEALA</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Midwest</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - North Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Northeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - South Central</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access & Build (Plan A) - Southeast</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access (Plan D) - UK / I</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - APAC</collection><collection>Primary Sources Access—Foundation Edition (Plan E) - MEA</collection><collection>BPIR.com Limited</collection><collection>Docstoc</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><jtitle>Southern economic journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Manage, Neela</au><au>Marlow, Michael L.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>The causal relation between Federal expenditures and receipts</atitle><jtitle>Southern economic journal</jtitle><date>1986</date><risdate>1986</risdate><volume>52</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>617</spage><epage>629</epage><pages>617-629</pages><issn>0038-4038</issn><eissn>2325-8012</eissn><coden>SECJAR</coden><abstract>Any proposal to reduce the federal budget deficit that does not deal with the basic cause of deficit growth will likely result in no permanent decrease in deficits. Because all proposed solutions try to alter federal spending or receipts, these 2 elements of deficits are examined for evidence of interdependence using the notion of Granger (1969) causality. The Granger causality test is applied to annual observations on government outlays and budget receipts for the period 1929-1982, using data obtained from the Office of Management and Budget. Observations for 1941-1946 are excluded from the sample. Analysis shows that 7 of the 12 (58%) cases indicate bidirectional causality between receipts and outlays. The remaining 5 (42%) cases indicate a unidirectional causal link running from budget receipts to budget outlays. These results suggest that proposals that call for tax increases to close the federal budget deficit do not necessarily offer permanent solutions to underlying fiscal problems.</abstract><cop>Chapel Hill, N.C., etc</cop><pub>Southern Economic Association and the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill</pub><doi>10.2307/1059261</doi><tpages>13</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 0038-4038 |
| ispartof | Southern economic journal, 1986, Vol.52 (3), p.617-629 |
| issn | 0038-4038 2325-8012 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_journals_212140730 |
| source | EconLit s plnými texty; International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS); JSTOR Archival Journals and Primary Sources Collection【Remote access available】; ABI/INFORM Archive; ABI/INFORM Global |
| subjects | Budget deficits Causality debt Deficit financing depense publique dette deudas Economic theory Federal Federal budget deficit Federal budgets finances publiques Funding gastos publicos Government Government relations Government spending hacienda publica impot impuestos public expenditure public finance Receipts Relations Revenue Statistical analysis Studies Tax increases Taxes |
| title | The causal relation between Federal expenditures and receipts |
| url | http://sfxeu10.hosted.exlibrisgroup.com/loughborough?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-21T12%3A41%3A27IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-jstor_proqu&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=The%20causal%20relation%20between%20Federal%20expenditures%20and%20receipts&rft.jtitle=Southern%20economic%20journal&rft.au=Manage,%20Neela&rft.date=1986&rft.volume=52&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=617&rft.epage=629&rft.pages=617-629&rft.issn=0038-4038&rft.eissn=2325-8012&rft.coden=SECJAR&rft_id=info:doi/10.2307/1059261&rft_dat=%3Cjstor_proqu%3E1059261%3C/jstor_proqu%3E%3Cgrp_id%3Ecdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c324t-4c5e78619ed6bb86d36fea015c359ca364b58061535a3ce5c9292227cc4f6c2a3%3C/grp_id%3E%3Coa%3E%3C/oa%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=1291006969&rft_id=info:pmid/&rft_jstor_id=1059261&rfr_iscdi=true |