Abstract
The analysis estimates the economic returns on public spending by transportation and non-transportation functions vs. private capital, using a panel data set for 48 contiguous states from 1989 through 2002. These actual spending dollars are used as a more precise measure compared to apportioned state public capitals used in the existing literature. For each type of capital/spending, the interstate spillovers were constructed in such a way that different states are weighted by commodity flows across the states to reflect different degree of inter-state dependence. We find that when spending data rather than capital stock is used, all of the interstate spillover effects are negative and statistically significant, suggesting that infrastructure investment does not contribute to economic growth (at least not directly). Therefore, crowding out effects exist among states competing for both private and government funds, in particular if states are highly dependent on allocation of federal funds. These results confirm the finding that previously estimated positive coefficients reflect spurious correlation based on capital stocks and output.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Aaron HJ (1990) Discussion of Why is infrastructure important?. In: Munnell A (eds) Is there a shortfall in public capital investment?. Federal Reserve Bank, Boston, pp 51–63
Aschauer DA (1989) Is public expenditure productive. J Monetary Econ 23(2): 177–200
Baltagi BH (2001) Econometric analysis of panel data. Wiley, New York
Boarnet MG (1998) Spillovers and the locational effects of public infrastructure. J Reg Sci 38(3): 381–400
Davis P (2002) Estimating multi-way error components models with unbalanced data structures. J Econ 106(1): 67–95
Eberts RW (1986) Estimating the contribution of urban public infrastructure to regional growth. Working Paper #8610, Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland, Cleveland, OH
Garcia-Mila T, McGuire TJ (1992) The contribution of publicly provided inputs to states’ economies. Reg Urban Econ 22: 229–241
Garcia-Mila T, McGuire TJ, Porter RH (1996) The effect of public capital in state-level production functions reconsidered. Rev Econ Stat 78(1): 177–180
Gramlich E (1994) Infrastructure investment: a review essay. J Econ Literat pp 1176–1196
Grilches Z, Hausman JA (1986) Errors in variables in panel data. J Econ 31: 93–118
Hausman JA (1978) Specification tests in econometrics. Econometrica 46: 1251–1272
Holtz-Eakin D (1994) Public-sector capital and the productivity puzzle. Rev Econ Stat 76(1): 12–21
Holtz-Eakin D, Schwartz AE (1995) Spatial productivity spillovers from public infrastructure: evidence from state highways. Int Tax Public Finan 2: 459–468
Lynde C, Richmond J (1992) The role of public capital in production. Rev Econ Stat 74: 37–44
Moomaw RL, Mullen JK, Williams M (1995) The interregional impact of infrastructure capital. South Econ J 61: 830–845
Munnell AH (1990a) Why has productivity growth declined? Productivity and public investment. New England Econ Rev, pp 3–22
Munnell AH (1990b) How does public infrastructure affect regional economic performance. New Engl Econ Rev, pp 11–33
Paul CM, Cohen JP (2004) Public infrastructure investment, inter-state spatial spillovers, and manufacturing costs. Rev Econ Stat 86(2): 551–560
Ratner JB (1983) Government capital and the production function for U.S. private output. Econ Lett 13: 213–17
Tatom JA (1991) Public capital and private sector performance. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, pp 3–15
Wooldridge JM (2002) Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data. The MIT Press, Cambridge
Yao VW (2006) Intra-industry spillovers and innovation: an econometric analysis at the firm level. Econ Innovat New Technol 15(2): 119–135