Saving and Growth: Granger Causality Analysis with ...
Transcript of Saving and Growth: Granger Causality Analysis with ...
Saving and Growth: Granger Causality Analysis with Bootstrapping
on Panels of Countries
László Kónya
Department of Economics and Finance
School of Business
La Trobe University
Bundoora, VIC, 3086, Australia
Email: [email protected]
February 2004
1
Abstract
This paper investigates the possibility of Granger causality between the saving ratio (the
proportion of gross domestic saving in GDP) and the growth rate (annual percentage change
of real per capita GDP) in eighty-four countries of the world from 1961 to 2000. For technical
reason, on the basis of their per capita GDP in 1995, the countries have been classified as
high-income (at least 10000 $US), medium-income (between 1000 and 10000 $US) and low-
income (less than 1000 $US) countries, and the three panels of twenty-six, thirty and twenty-
eight countries, respectively, are considered separately. Granger causality is tested for with a
new panel-data approach based on SUR systems and Wald tests with country specific
bootstrap critical values. The results indicate two-way Granger causality between the saving
ratio and the growth rate in Austria, one-way causality from saving to growth in Ireland,
Trinidad & Tobago and the Central African Republic, and one-way causality from growth to
saving in Finland, France, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Niger. There is also some
support to causality from saving to growth in Mauritania and from growth to saving in Saudi
Arabia, but in all other cases there is no empirical evidence of Granger causality in either
direction.
JEL classification: C33, D90, E21, O49, O5.
Key words: causality, saving, economic growth, bootstrapping, panel data.
2
1 Introduction
For a decade or so, policy makers and academics alike have had shown renewed interest in
economic growth and its determinants, in particular, in the relationship between saving and
growth. The strong positive association between the share of saving or investment in GDP
and the per capita income growth rate is well documented in the literature (see e.g. Levine
and Renelt, 1992; Schmidt-Hebbel and Servén, 1999b), but the causal interpretation of this
observed contemporaneous correlation is ambiguous (see e.g. Deaton, 1999; Triantis, 1999;
Carroll, Overland and Weil, 2000; and Claus et al., 2001).
In the long run, economic growth requires investments in physical and human capital alike.
These investments are to be financed mainly from domestic saving, though savings in other
countries can also support one country’s investment. It is also fair to say that saving without
productive investments and their appropriate operation cannot guarantee economic growth.
Hence, strictly speaking, (domestic) saving is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for
growth, but it is certainly expected to enhance growth.
At first glance, the fact that higher-saving countries tend to enjoy faster income growth seems
to be incompatible with the closed-economy neoclassical growth model of Solow (1956). In
this model, a sudden increase in the saving rate raises the steady-state capital per efficiency
labour and output per efficiency labour ratios, but leaves the steady-state growth rate of
output per efficiency labour unaltered, so in the long run saving cannot cause growth. Yet, the
actual growth rate is not constant, it increases temporarily before resuming to its steady-state
value and the transition from the original equilibrium to the new equilibrium might be relatively
long. Ceteris paribus, the larger the elasticity of output with respect to capital, the slower the
transition. In the extreme case of unit elasticity of output with respect to capital and zero
elasticity of output with respect to labour, when the Solow growth model blends into the
Harrod-Domar model, an increase in the saving ratio has a permanent effect on the growth
rate. Even if we disregard this possibility, as Mankiw, Romer and Weil (1992) show, a
generalised version of the Solow model, which is augmented for human capital but still
maintains decreasing returns to scale, is reconcilable with the empirical evidence that higher
saving rates generate faster growth.
In all the models mentioned so far, the rate of technical progress is determined exogenously.
When this restriction is relaxed and technical progress is endogenised by making it depend
on the accumulation of knowledge and allowing for positive spillover effects and constant
returns to the broad concept of capital, which includes physical and human capital alike, as
3
for example Lucas (1988) and Romer (1986, 1990) do, the growth rate can be raised
permanently by postponing consumption and increasing both types of capital simultaneously.
As regards the possibility of reverse causation, there are several reasonable explanations for
causality from income growth to saving as well (see Deaton, 1999). These include two
standard models of intertemporal choice based on the Flavin’s (1981) version of the
permanent income hypothesis and on the life-cycle hypothesis of Modigliani (1970, 1986),
respectively. Interestingly, although the permanent income hypothesis with finite life is
equivalent to a simple form of the life-cycle hypothesis, these models lead to different
predictions. Assuming constant optimal consumption, saving can be derived from the
permanent income hypothesis as having opposite sign but being equal in magnitude to the
discounted present value of all expected future changes in earnings. Hence, increases in
growth reduces saving. On the other hand, granted that income growth occurs across
generations but not within generations, in the life-cycle model there is a positive relationship
between income growth and saving. Other possible explanations, still within the general
framework of intertemporal choice under uncertain conditions, are based on precautionary
saving, liquidity constraints and habit formation. For example, Carroll, Overland and Weil
(2000) put forward such an example and show that a standard endogenous growth model
with habit formation in consumption can imply positive causality from growth to saving.
As mentioned before, there is abundant empirical literature on this issue. Many papers,
though, use household data, or report only contemporaneous correlation between saving and
growth and interpret the strong connection between them as evidence in favour of a causal
chain from saving to growth. Other papers explicitly test for Granger causality (precedence)
between saving and growth on the aggregate level, using time-series techniques for individual
countries or cross-section and/or panel data regressions for groups of countries. For example,
Sinha and Sinha (1998) study the relationship among private saving, public saving and
economic growth in Mexico (1960-1996) and, after a series of unit-root, cointegration and
causality tests, conclude that GDP growth positively Granger causes both types of saving, but
find no evidence of reverse causality. In a similar study for Sweden (1950-1996), the UK
(1952-1996) and the USA (1950-1997), Andersson (1999) reveals mutual causality between
saving and growth for the UK, causality from saving to GDP for Sweden, but no causality at
all for the USA. For different sets of countries Carroll and Weil (1994) detect positive Granger
causality running from growth to saving, but no hard evidence for causality in the other
direction, while Attanasio et. al. (2000) finds evidence of positive Granger causality in both
directions.
Unfortunately, these results tend to be sensitive to sample selection and model specification.
The fact that the temporal relationship between saving and growth differs across countries
casts doubt on the existence of a common pattern for groups of countries and questions the
4
validity of panel regressions that either assume country homogeneity, or allow for country
heterogeneity only by including country intercept dummy variables. On the other hand, the
disadvantage of the country-by-country time-series approach is that the analysis heavily
depends on the uni- and multivariate properties of the data, making preliminary unit-root and
cointegration tests crucial. However, the unit-root and cointegration test results are often
uncertain and contradictory, so the proper way to study causality is to consider all reasonable
assumptions and check whether the final conclusion regarding causality is sensitive to these
assumptions.1 If the final conclusion is robust, the researcher can be confident of it, otherwise
it is fair to admit that the sample information and/or the methods applied are not sufficient to
reach an unambiguous outcome.
This paper investigates the possibility of Granger causality between saving and growth in
eighty-four countries from 1961 to 2000. Contrary to previous studies, the present paper aims
to reveal the long-term relationship between saving and growth by exploiting the time-series
features of individual panel members, as well as the possible link between panel members. In
particular, we test for Granger causality between the saving ratio and growth rate with Wald
tests in seemingly unrelated regressions (SUR), using country specific bootstrap critical
values.2 This approach has two advantages. On the one hand, it does not require joint
hypotheses for all panel members, but allows for contemporaneous correlation across them,
making it possible to utilize the extra information provided by the panel data setting. On the
other hand, it is unnecessary to pre-test for unit roots and cointegration.
Our results indicate two-way Granger causality between the saving ratio and the growth rate
in Austria, one-way causality from saving to growth in Ireland, Trinidad & Tobago and the
Central African Republic, and one-way causality from the growth rate to the saving ratio in
Finland, France, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Niger. We have also found some support
to causality from saving to growth in Mauritania and from growth to saving in Saudi Arabia. In
all other cases, however, there is no empirical evidence of Granger causality between the
saving ratio and the growth rate in either direction.
The rest of this paper unfolds as follows. Section 2 is about some important technical issues,
including the data and its basic properties, the model, the estimation method and the Granger
causality test procedure. The empirical results of model estimation, causality tests and
sensitivity analysis are discussed in Section 3. The concluding remarks can be read in
Section 4. Finally, the data and the model are presented in the Appendix.
2 Technical Issues
1 For illustration, see for example Kónya (2000).
2 Originally Breuer, McNown and Wallace (2002) recommend a similar approach for unit-root testing. That test is
compared to other panel data unit root tests in Kónya (2001) and Holmes (2003).
5
Data and its basic properties
All data used in this study are from EconData, World Bank World Tables. The data set
comprises annual measures on the saving ratio (proportion of gross domestic saving in GDP,
percentage) and the growth rate (annual percentage change of real per capita GDP) of
eighty-four countries from 1961 to 2000.3 For technical reason, on the basis of per capita
GDP in 1995, these countries have been distributed into three groups.4
The high-income (at least 10000 $US per capita GDP in 1995) panel comprises 26 countries:
23 OECD countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Republic of Korea, Luxembourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, the United States), 2
countries from East Asia and the Pacific (Hong Kong, Singapore) and 1 country from the
Middle East and North Africa region (Israel).
In the medium-income (between 1000 and 10000 $US in 1995) panel there are 30 countries:
16 Latin American and Caribbean countries (Argentina, Barbados, Brazil, Chile, Columbia,
Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Jamaica, Paraguay,
Peru, Trinidad & Tobago, Uruguay, Venezuela), 6 countries from East Asia and the Pacific
(Fiji, Indonesia, Malaysia, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Thailand), 4 Middle Eastern and
North African countries (Algeria, Arab Republic of Egypt, Morocco, Saudi Arabia) 3 countries
from Sub-Saharan Africa (Botswana, Mauritius, South Africa) and 1 OECD country (Mexico).
Finally, the low-income (less than 1000 $US in 1995) panel comprises 28 countries: 18
countries from Sub-Saharan Africa (Benin, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Central African Republic,
Republic of Congo, Cote d’Ivoire, Ghana, Kenya, Lesotho, Madagascar, Malawi, Mauritania,
Niger, Nigeria, Rwanda, Senegal, Togo, Zambia), 5 Latin American and Caribbean countries
(Bolivia, Guyana, Haiti, Honduras, Nicaragua), 3 South Asian countries (Bangladesh, India,
Pakistan), 1 country from the Middle East and North Africa region (Syrian Arab Republic) and
1 from East Asia and the Pacific (China).
The time-series plots of the data series are in the Appendix. In many countries, the saving
ratio and the growth rate seem to follow similar patterns. In fact, there is a significantly
positive correlation at the 5 percent level between these two variables in 73% of the high-
3 Instead of annual data, several similar studies (like e.g. Carroll and Weil, 1994) use multiple-year averages. The
usual explanation for doing so is that, since growth theory focuses on the medium and long-run, cyclical variations must be at least diluted by using averages over a certain time span (Vanhoudt, 1998, p. 77). However, if the periodicity of the cycles is changing in time, or is constant but different from the selected time span, multiple-year averages are likely to distort, rather than eliminate business-cycle dynamics (Andersson, 1999, p. 7).
4 The estimation of a SUR system requires that there be less panel members than observations per variable.
6
income countries (Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece,
Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain,
Sweden, Switzerland), but only in 37% of the medium-income countries (Chile, Columbia,
Egypt, Guatemala, Indonesia, Jamaica, Mauritius, Paraguay, Saudi Arabia, South Africa,
Trinidad & Tobago) and in 29% of the low-income countries (Bangladesh, Burundi, China,
Cote d’Ivoire, Madagascar, Mauritania, Rwanda, Togo). All in all, in 38 out of 84 countries
(see Figures 1-3).5 Interestingly, in two medium- income countries (Barbados and Costa Rica)
the saving ratio and the growth rate have a significantly negative correlation.
The average or long-term saving ratios and growth rates are depicted in Figure 4. The three
groups of countries reflect two distinct patterns. Overall, the low-income countries are
characterised by low average saving ratios and growth rates, while the medium- and high-
income countries have relatively higher average saving ratios and growth rates.6 Within each
of the three country groups, there is a weak positive relationship between these variables, but
the linear regressions of average saving ratios on average growth rates prove to be
insignificant.7 This implies that although in 45% of the countries considered there is a positive
association between the saving ratio and the growth rate, a cross-country analysis based on
average values could not reveal this relationship.
Model
Within a country-by-country time-series setting the possibility of Granger causality between
two variables, say xt and yt, can be studied for each country individually using the following
bivariate VAR model:
, 1, 1, , , 1, , , 1, ,
1 1
, 2, 2, , , 2, , , 2, ,1 1
i i
i i
mly mlx
i t i i l i t l i l i t l i tl lmly mlx
i t i i l i t l i l i t l i tl l
y y x
x y x
α β γ ε
α β γ ε
− −= =
− −= =
= + + +
= + + +
∑ ∑
∑ ∑ (1)
5 Having 40 observations per variable, the approximate 95 percent confidence interval for the correlation coefficient
is (-0.3 ; 0.3). 6 There are three notable exceptions: Lesotho (low-income) has a negative average saving ratio, China (low-income)
has high saving ratio and growth rate, and Saudi Arabia (medium-income) has an extremely high saving ratio. 7 The coefficient of determination (R2) is 0.0680 for the high-income countries, 0.0111 for the medium-income
countries and 0.0029 for the low-income countries. Contrary to these results, Schmidt-Hebbel and Servén (1999b, p. 14) report a strong positive association between the average growth rates of real per capita GNP and average gross national saving ratios for the market economies over the 1965-1994 time periods.
7
Figures 1-3: Contemporaneous correlation coefficients between saving ratio and growth rate
Medium-Income Countries
-0.5-0.4-0.3-0.2-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7
Alge
riaAr
gent
ina
Barb
ados
Bots
wan
aBr
azil
Chi
leC
olum
bia
Cos
taD
omin
ican
Ecua
dor
Egyp
t,El
Salv
ado
Fiji
Gua
tem
alIn
done
sia
Jam
aica
Mal
aysi
aM
aurit
ius
Mex
ico
Mor
occo
Papu
a N
.Pa
ragu
ayPe
ruPh
ilippi
neSa
udi
Sout
hTh
aila
ndTr
inid
ad &
Uru
guay
Vene
zuel
Low-Income Countries
-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.7
Bang
lade
shBe
nin
Boliv
iaBu
rkin
aBu
rund
iC
entra
lC
hina
Con
go,
Cot
e d'
Ivoi
reG
hana
Guy
ana
Hai
tiH
ondu
ras
Indi
aKe
nya
Leso
tho
Mad
agas
car
Mal
awi
Mau
ritan
iaN
icar
agua
Nig
erN
iger
iaPa
kist
anR
wan
daSe
nega
lSy
rian
Arab
Togo
Zam
bia
High-Income Countries
-0.10.00.10.20.30.40.50.60.70.8
Aust
ralia
Aust
riaBe
lgiu
mC
anad
aD
enm
ark
Finl
and
Fran
ceG
reec
eH
ong
Kong
Icel
and
Irela
ndIs
rael
Italy
Japa
nKo
rea
Rep
.Lu
xem
bour
Net
herla
nds
New
Nor
way
Portu
gal
Sing
apor
eSp
ain
Swed
enSw
itzer
land
U.K
.U
.S.A
.
8
-50
-40
-30
-20
-10
0
10
20
30
40
50
-2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7
Average growth rate
Aera
ge s
avin
g ra
te
High-Income Countries Medium-Income Countries Low-Income CountriesLinear trend Linear trend Linear trend
Figure 4: Average saving ratios versus growth rates
(1961-2000 averages by countries)
In these formulas, index i refers to the country (i = 1,..., N ), t to the time period (t = 1,..., T ), l
to the lag, and mly, mlx denote the longest lags in the system. The error terms, 1, ,i tε and 2, ,i tε ,
are supposed to be white-noises (i.e. they have zero means, constant variances and are
individually serially uncorrelated) that may be correlated with each other for a given country,
but not across countries.8 Moreover, it is assumed that yt and xt are stationary or cointegrated
so, depending on the time-series properties of the data, they denote levels or first
differences.9
With respect to this system, in country i there is one-way Granger causality running from X to
Y if in the first equation not all 1,iγ 's are zero but in the second all 2,iβ 's are zero, there is one-
way Granger causality from Y to X if in the first equation all 1,iγ 's are zero but in the second
not all 2,iβ 's are zero, there is two-way Granger causality between Y and X if neither all 1,iγ 's
8 ε 1,i,t and ε 2,i,t are correlated when there is feedback between X and Y, i.e. in the non-reduced form of (1), called
structural VAR, yt depends on xt and/or xt depends on yt. For a proof see Enders (2004, p. 266). 9 In case of cointegration, it is usually more appropriate to test for causality within a vector error correction, VEC,
framework. However, the usual Wald test in a level VAR remains valid if cointegration is ’sufficient’ in the sense of Toda and Phillips (1993), which is the case in bivariate cointegrated systems.
9
nor all 2,iβ ’s are zero, and there is no Granger causality between Y and X if all 1,iγ 's and
2,iβ 's are zero.10
As regards the estimation of (1), since for a given country both equations contain the same
predetermined, i.e. lagged exogenous and endogenous variables, the OLS estimates of the
parameters are consistent and asymptotically efficient.11 This suggests that the 2N equations
involved in the analysis can be estimated one-by-one, in any preferred order. For example,
we can divide the equations into two groups, the first one consisting of the equations on Y
and the second of the equations on X. In other words, instead of the N VAR systems like (1),
we can consider the following two sets of equations:
1 1
1 1
1 1
1, 1,1 1,1, 1, 1,1, 1, 1,1,1 1
2, 1,2 1,2, 2, 1,2, 2, 1,2,1 1
, 1, 1, , , 1, , , 1, ,1 1
:
mly mlx
t l t l l t l tl l
mly mlx
t l t l l t l tl l
mly mlx
N t N N l N t l N l N t l N tl l
y y x
y y x
y y x
α β γ ε
α β γ ε
α β γ ε
− −= =
− −= =
− −= =
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
(2a)
and
2 2
2 2
2 2
1, 2,1 2,1, 1, 2,1, 1, 2,1,1 1
2, 2,2 2,2, 2, 2,2, 2, 2,2,1 1
, 2, 2, , , 2, , , 2, ,1 1
:
mly mlx
t l t l l t l tl lmly mlx
t l t l l t l tl l
mly mlx
N t N N l N t l N l N t l N tl l
x y x
x y x
x y x
α β γ ε
α β γ ε
α β γ ε
− −= =
− −= =
− −= =
= + + +
= + + +
= + + +
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
∑ ∑
(2b)
Compared to (1), this alternative specification has two distinctive features. Firstly, each
equation in (2a), and also in (2b), has different predetermined variables. The only possible
link among individual regressions is contemporaneous correlation within the systems, which
might be due to the strong economic ties among several countries within each group. Hence,
these sets of equations are not VAR but SUR systems.12 Secondly, since we shall use country
specific bootstrap critical values, yt and xt are not supposed to be stationary, they denote the
10 This definition implies causality for one period ahead. This concept has been generalised by Dufour and Renault
(1998) to causality h periods ahead, and to causality up to horizon h, where h is a positive integer. 11 As Enders (2004, p. 281) points out, in spite of the possible correlation of the error terms across the two equations,
each equation can be estimated with OLS. However, if the lag lengths are allowed to be different in the equations, i.e. in the case of a near-VAR, then SUR is more efficient than OLS.
12 About the seemingly unrelated regressions model see, e.g. Greene (2003), Section 14.2.
10
levels of the saving ratio and the growth rate, irrespectively of the time-series properties of
these variables.
With respect to these SUR systems, in country i there is one-way Granger causality running
from X to Y if in (2a) not all 1,iγ 's are zero but in (2b) all 2,iβ ’s are zero, there is one-way
Granger causality from Y to X if in (2a) all 1,iγ 's are zero but in (2b) not all 2,iβ 's are zero,
there is two-way Granger causality between Y and X if neither all 1,iγ 's nor all 2,iβ 's are zero,
and there is no Granger causality between Y and X if all 1,iγ 's and 2,iβ 's are zero.
Estimation Method
The appropriate method to estimate (2a) and (2b) depends on the properties of the error
terms. If there is no contemporaneous correlation across countries, then each equation is a
classical regression. Consequently, the equations can be estimated one-by-one with OLS and
the OLS estimators of the parameters are the best linear unbiased estimators. On the other
hand, in the presence of contemporaneous correlation across countries the OLS estimators
are not efficient because they fail to utilise this extra information. In order to obtain more
efficient estimators, the equations in (2a), and also in (2b), must be stacked13 and the two
stacked equations can be estimated individually with the feasible generalised least squares or
maximum likelihood methods. In this study we use the SUR estimator proposed by Zellner
(1962).14
Prior to estimation, we have to specify the number of lags. This is a crucial step because the
causality test results may depend critically on the lag structure. In general, both too few and
too many lags may cause problems. Too few lags mean that some important variables are
omitted from the model and this specification error will usually cause bias in the retained
regression coefficients, leading to incorrect conclusions. On the other hand, too many lags
waste observations and this specification error will usually increase the standard errors of the
estimated coefficients, making the results less reliable.
Unfortunately, there is no simple rule to decide on the maximal lag, though there are formal
model specification criteria to rely on. Ideally, the lag structure is allowed to vary across
countries, variables and equation systems. However, for a relatively large panel like ours, this
would increase the computational burden substantially. For this reason in each system we
13 The stacked forms of (2a) and (2b) are shown in the Appendix. 14 The estimations were performed by the SUR routine of TSP4.5.
11
allow different maximal lags for Y and X, but do not allow them to vary across countries. This
means that altogether there are four maximal lag parameters. Assuming that their range is
1!4, we estimate (2a) and (2b) for each possible pair of mly1, mlx1 and mly2, mlx2 respectively,
and choose the combinations which minimize the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) and
Schwartz Criterion (SC) defined as:
22lnk
N qAICT
= +W (3)
and
2
ln ln( )kN qSC TT
= +W (4)
where W is the estimated residual covariance matrix, N is the number of equations, q is the
number of coefficients per equation and T is the sample size, all in system k = 1, 2.
Occasionally, these two criteria select different lag lengths.
The SUR estimators are more efficient than the OLS estimators only if there is
contemporaneous correlation in the system. Therefore, it is of interest to test whether the
variance-covariance matrix of the errors is diagonal. For a given k, the null and alternative
hypotheses are as follows:
0 , , , ,: ( , ) 0 fork i t k j tH Cov i jε ε = ≠
, , , ,: ( , ) 0 for at least one pair ofA k i t k j tH Cov i jε ε ≠ ≠
If H0 is true there is no payoff to SUR. Assuming normality, Breusch and Pagan (1980), BP in
brief, suggested the following Lagrange multiplier test statistic:
1
2
2 1
N i
iji j
T rλ−
= =
= ∑∑ (5)
where rij is the estimated correlation coefficient between εk,i,t and εk,j,t (for a given k and i≠j)
from individual OLS regressions. Under H0, this statistic has an asymptotic chi-square
distribution with N(N -1) / 2 degrees of freedom.15
15 Greene (2003), p. 350.
12
Testing for Granger Causality
After having estimated (2a) and (2b), we test for Granger causality performing Wald tests with
country specific bootstrap critical values. Bootstrapping is basically a re-sampling method.16
The main issue is how to generate and use the bootstrap samples. For the sake of simplicity,
we focus on testing causality from X to Y in (2a). A similar procedure is applied for causality
from Y to X in (2b). The procedure is as follows.
Step 1: Estimate (2a) under the null hypothesis that there is no causality from X to Y (i.e.
assuming the γ1,i,l = 0 restriction for all i and l ) and obtain the residuals
1
0 , , , 1, 1, , ,1
ˆˆmly
H i t i t i i l i t ll
e y yα β −=
= − −∑ for i = 1,..., N and t = 1,..., T.
From these residuals develop the N×T 0 , ,[ ]H i te matrix.
Step 2: Re-sample these residuals. In order to preserve the contemporaneous cross-
correlation structure of the error terms in (2a), do not the draw the residuals for
each country one-by-one, but rather select randomly a full column from the 0 , ,[ ]H i te
matrix at a time. Denote the selected bootstrap residuals as 0
*, ,H i te , where t = 1,...,
T* and T* can be greater than T.
Step 3: Generate a bootstrap sample of Y assuming again that X does not cause it, i.e.
using the following formula:
1
0
* * * *, 1, 1, , , , ,
1
ˆˆ , 1,...,mly
i t i i l i t l H i tl
y y e t Tα β −=
= + + =∑ (6)
Step 4: Substitute *,i ty for , ,i ty estimate (2a) without imposing any parameter restriction on it,
and for each country perform a Wald test implied by the no-causality null
hypothesis.
Step 5: Develop the empirical distributions of the Wald test statistics repeating steps 2-4
many times, and specify the bootstrap critical values by selecting the appropriate
percentiles of these sampling distributions.
There are a few remarks to be made. The maximal lags are allowed to vary between 1 and 4,
inclusively. In Steps 2 and 3, depending on the lag structure, we draw at least T* = 68
16 About bootstrapping in general see e.g. Maddala and Kim (1998, 10.2).
13
bootstrap residuals and generate the same number of bootstrap *,i ty values for each country.
To commence the recursive algorithm defined by (6), the first 2-5 *,i ty values are set equal to
zero and, to minimize the effect of this initialisation onto the results, in Step 4 the Wald tests
are performed over only the last 34-37 values. In Step 5, the bootstrap distribution of each
test statistic is derived from 10,000 replications.
3 Empirical Results
For each country group, the analysis consisted of three stages. First we estimated (2a) and
(2b) with SUR for all possible pairs of maximal lags, and selected mly1, mly2, mlx1 and mlx2 by
minimizing the model selection criteria (3) and (4). Interestingly, in all cases, AIC and SC took
their smallest values at a single lag for each variable. Then, we performed the BP test on (2a)
and (2b) with a single lag. In every case it was possible to reject the null hypothesis of no
contemporaneous correlation within the system even at the half percent significance level,
justifying the application of SUR. Finally, we tested for Granger causality with Wald tests and
country specific bootstrap critical values from saving ratio to growth rate and from growth rate
to saving ratio. Since our main interest is in testing for causality, only these latter results are
reported in this paper.17
Granger Causality Results
The Granger causality test results for the null hypothesis that the saving ratio does not cause
the growth rate can be found in Table 1. Notice that the bootstrap critical values vary
considerably from country to country, and that they are substantially higher than the
corresponding chi-square critical values usually applied with the Wald test.18 In fact, they are
so high, that at the ten percent or lower significance level we can reject the null hypothesis
only for five countries: Austria, Ireland, the Netherlands, Trinidad & Tobago and Burundi. In
these cases the point estimates of the coefficient of the lagged saving ratio, i.e. 1̂γ , are all
positive (0.340 for Austria, 0.247 for Ireland, 0.361 for the Netherlands, 0.387 for Trinidad &
Tobago, 0.625 for Burundi), that is they have the logical sign. They suggest that a one
percentage point increase of the saving ratio implies a 0.247 to 0.625 percentage point
increase of the growth rate a year later.
17 On request, all the details are available to interested readers. 18 The chi-square critical values for one degree of freedom, i.e. for Wald tests with a single restriction, are 6.6349
(1%), 3.8415 (5%) and 2.7055 (10%).
14
Table 1: Granger causality from saving ratio to growth rate;
Wald tests with bootstrapping, mly= mlx=1
Bootstrap Critical Values Country 1̂γ Test. Stat.
1% 5% 10%
Bootstrap p-value
High-Income Countries
Australia -0.338 15.7687 51.3467 27.9279 18.5124 0.13
Austria 0.340 23.6255 43.2185 22.2897 15.1186 0.05**
Belgium 0.115 8.0064 78.5239 46.3498 32.4158 0.44
Canada -0.111 2.4011 70.4232 38.6603 26.5552 0.63
Denmark -0.040 0.5119 67.4983 38.2752 26.2758 0.82
Finland -0.250 7.3501 73.0468 37.2492 25.3928 0.37
France 0.177 20.9408 65.0952 38.0125 26.2656 0.14
Greece 0.121 3.0022 46.0960 23.4940 16.2580 0.46
Hong Kong -0.160 4.8548 59.9534 31.0694 20.9566 0.42
Iceland 0.307 9.8460 34.1007 19.1581 13.2553 0.16
Ireland 0.247 29.6086 43.2594 23.5829 16.0528 0.04**
Israel -0.002 0.0021 50.0791 27.2313 17.8186 0.96
Italy 0.279 12.6021 60.7082 32.8782 21.9681 0.21
Japan -0.037 0.1885 62.5359 33.8663 23.6218 0.88
Korea Rep. 0.016 0.2127 38.3025 20.9026 14.1693 0.84
Luxembourg -0.007 0.0209 59.8193 31.6124 20.9949 0.96
Netherlands 0.361 31.9763 71.2150 39.4945 27.0135 0.08*
New Zealand -0.010 0.0028 66.2155 33.5541 22.1383 0.99
Norway 0.082 1.9923 54.8085 29.7316 20.2984 0.61
Portugal 0.158 3.1764 88.6382 47.9678 32.9351 0.60
Singapore -0.023 3.1899 60.5334 28.7711 19.5295 0.48
Spain -0.174 3.3034 57.8551 31.2381 20.8093 0.50
Sweden -0.127 3.6461 61.5158 33.4450 23.0439 0.51
Switzerland -0.105 3.5787 52.3685 28.8411 19.7054 0.48
UK -0.151 4.4086 64.5787 36.1282 25.2682 0.49
USA -0.257 8.4672 66.4818 37.6079 26.0329 0.35
15
Table 1 cont.
Bootstrap Critical Values Country 1̂γ Test. Stat.
1% 5% 10%
Bootstrap p-value
Medium-Income Countries
Algeria 0.055 0.5005 91.7048 48.6977 32.3906 0.84
Argentina -0.056 0.2818 95.3766 51.5353 34.2340 0.88
Barbados -0.012 0.0217 98.5507 49.8252 34.5186 0.97
Botswana -0.041 4.5724 108.4213 54.5314 37.2686 0.56
Brazil -0.288 4.9925 119.0029 61.6636 42.5040 0.57
Chile 2.992 2.9917 108.1988 59.1020 40.9687 0.65
Columbia 0.151 8.6646 125.5408 65.6551 46.1699 0.48
Costa Rica -0.132 9.8979 132.0316 71.3911 49.8104 0.47
Dominican Rep. -0.110 0.3704 85.4277 40.2059 26.7838 0.84
Ecuador -0.102 1.7352 93.1684 49.2057 33.7326 0.70
Egypt, Arab Rep. -0.207 5.7848 100.1075 53.0945 35.5552 0.50
El Salvador -0.065 2.0319 119.0146 66.2455 45.4494 0.72
Fiji -0.059 0.2085 120.0667 59.1051 40.0183 0.91
Guatemala -0.023 0.2732 134.3739 74.7315 55.1663 0.92
Indonesia 0.032 1.5584 98.4600 54.0959 36.6437 0.74
Jamaica 0.460 30.4794 102.2415 52.6800 35.8329 0.13
Malaysia 0.005 0.0452 114.9538 64.9606 45.7745 0.96
Mauritius 0.280 13.6866 99.9736 51.4443 35.9731 0.30
Mexico -0.015 0.0304 98.9824 50.5733 33.6640 0.96
Morocco -0.288 9.8000 84.9937 42.1114 28.7297 0.37
Papua New Guinea -0.100 5.1423 77.3147 41.2272 27.5733 0.45
Paraguay 0.132 6.5146 103.7357 55.1407 38.1417 0.50
Peru 0.003 0.0037 106.7329 55.4368 37.9625 0.99
Philippines -0.088 1.5959 91.6419 48.4485 31.6956 0.70
Saudi Arabia 0.030 0.6376 95.2967 53.0880 36.8823 0.82
South Africa 0.236 4.4020 95.1064 49.1641 31.9814 0.53
Thailand -0.064 1.9960 95.0619 46.9925 32.4828 0.67
Trinidad & Tobago 0.387 128.5246 104.9756 58.2251 38.5547 0.01***
Uruguay 0.060 0.7546 158.0392 77.8367 52.3517 0.84
Venezuela 0.138 5.7076 87.3378 45.6075 30.8603 0.46
16
Table 1 cont.
Bootstrap Critical Values Country 1̂γ Test. Stat.
1% 5% 10%
Bootstrap p-value
Low-Income Countries
Bangladesh 0.060 0.6987 64.2261 34.8607 24.3230 0.78
Benin 0.030 0.0834 59.3218 30.9764 20.3008 0.91
Bolivia -0.005 0.0145 74.2412 37.3383 24.6840 0.97
Burkina Faso 0.165 7.9981 57.7168 31.0566 21.1407 0.31
Burundi 0.625 29.4133 60.8294 32.5693 22.7695 0.07*
Central African Rep. 0.244 15.7680 63.9216 33.8054 22.5582 0.17
China -0.020 0.0996 58.9317 32.3302 58.9317 0.91
Congo, Rep. -0.045 1.0827 63.1680 32.7329 22.1115 0.70
Cote d'Ivoire 0.381 14.9844 70.6033 36.0192 24.3962 0.20
Ghana 0.022 0.0570 86.3536 45.3777 31.1445 0.94
Guyana 0.176 15.6125 91.2107 49.0552 33.0844 0.26
Haiti 0.173 6.0021 65.1895 34.1591 23.5450 0.39
Honduras -0.118 2.8888 59.9850 32.6845 22.9640 0.54
India 0.528 16.5326 52.5740 28.9989 19.9654 0.14
Kenya 0.249 11.7012 84.1549 44.9063 30.7580 0.30
Lesotho -0.058 3.2962 65.7236 34.2073 23.1023 0.53
Madagascar 0.217 1.9163 82.9124 43.4190 29.6587 0.67
Malawi -0.124 5.1104 60.3250 32.1070 22.4133 0.44
Mauritania 0.123 18.6270 69.4418 39.8351 27.4330 0.19
Nicaragua -0.197 7.7791 54.7666 28.5955 19.3795 0.30
Niger 0.090 0.4910 74.9443 39.2169 26.8764 0.83
Nigeria -0.174 4.0142 66.0100 35.2884 24.2040 0.49
Pakistan -0.049 0.6703 81.8932 43.1035 31.0168 0.81
Rwanda -0.509 19.9900 172.8405 45.1100 26.7036 0.14
Senegal 0.148 3.1719 63.6027 33.1146 22.5956 0.52
Syrian Arab Rep. -0.411 4.7276 62.5578 32.1757 22.3344 0.43
Togo 0.015 0.1396 84.0475 42.9647 28.8510 0.91
Zambia 0.057 2.9464 54.3379 28.8623 19.4486 0.52
Note: ***, ** and * indicate significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels, respectively.
17
The results for reverse Granger causality, that is for the null hypothesis that the growth rate
does not cause the saving ratio, are shown in Table 2. There are only seven countries for
which this hypothesis can be rejected at the ten percent or lower significance level: Finland,
France, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland, Saudi Arabia and Niger. The corresponding point
estimates of the coefficient of the lagged growth rate are again all positive (0.342 for Finland,
0.265 for France, 0.241 for Japan, 0.308 for Sweden, 0.248 for Switzerland, 0.670 for Saudi
Arabia, 0.278 for Niger), that is they also have the logical sign. They suggest that a one
percentage point increase of the growth rate implies a 0.241 to 0.670 percentage point
increase of the saving ratio in the following year.
Compared to the number of countries considered, Granger non-causality in either direction
can be rejected relatively rarely. The rejection rate is only about 14% for the high-income
countries and even lower, 3 and 3.5%, for the medium-income and low-income countries,
respectively.
Sensitivity Analysis
In order to check the robustness of the causality results, we have deliberately overfitted (2a)
and (2b). Although the overall AIC, SC measures (3) and (4) support a single lag for both
variables (mlyk = mlxk = 1) in each system, this specification is not necessarily the best for
every country. For this reason, we re-estimated both systems with two alternative lag
structures: mlyk = 1, mlxk = 2 and mlyk = 2, mlxk = 1 (k = 1, 2). For each country and each
specification, we re-performed the causality tests and calculated the following single-equation
versions of (3) and (4):
( )2 2ln ˆi ii
qAICT
σ= + (3*)
and
( )2ln ln( )ˆi ii
qSC TT
σ= + (4*)
where i refers to the country (i = 1, 2, …, N) and 2ˆ iiσ is the estimated variance of the residuals
from the i th equation, that is the (i,i)th element of the estimated residual covariance matrix W.
In the case of conflicting causality test results for a given country, we prefer the specification
with the lowest AICi and/or SCi value.
18
Table 2: Granger causality from growth rate to saving ratio;
Wald tests with bootstrapping, mly= mlx=1
Bootstrap Critical Values Country 1̂γ Test. Stat.
1% 5% 10%
Bootstrap p-value
High-Income Countries
Australia -0.084 1.7045 58.9178 29.3190 20.2017 0.62
Austria 0.195 11.5944 75.0598 42.2922 29.6411 0.30
Belgium 0.217 14.7411 67.0091 36.3050 25.6297 0.21
Canada 0.160 10.6232 70.2778 40.2054 27.6723 0.31
Denmark 0.120 5.3541 69.1374 35.9585 25.1984 0.44
Finland 0.342 44.4519 70.3267 35.7500 24.2745 0.04**
France 0.265 55.8097 73.0986 43.5010 30.8939 0.03**
Greece 0.148 6.1584 79.2685 42.5212 29.6589 0.46
Hong Kong -0.026 0.1904 54.4445 28.5742 19.6722 0.86
Iceland -0.119 5.8754 57.4611 29.3251 19.3751 0.35
Ireland 0.012 0.0227 51.0019 28.3578 19.5389 0.96
Israel -0.023 0.0548 72.7827 38.3813 26.2710 0.95
Italy 0.005 0.0104 54.5880 28.0322 19.5399 0.97
Japan 0.241 100.2680 72.9899 40.3424 27.1557 0.01**
Korea Rep. -0.053 1.1323 64.4011 33.3870 22.6720 0.70
Luxembourg 0.275 5.3482 65.9917 33.0069 21.7767 0.39
Netherlands -0.072 3.0116 67.9229 35.9924 24.1749 0.55
New Zealand -0.012 0.0392 73.3161 38.2097 26.0124 0.95
Norway -0.137 3.2629 60.1460 31.5247 21.4183 0.51
Portugal 0.123 1.8790 68.4593 35.3426 23.3315 0.64
Singapore -0.865 6.2432 75.6858 39.7958 27.4660 0.43
Spain 0.099 11.0670 71.8929 41.3588 28.3216 0.30
Sweden 0.308 24.7599 64.4207 36.0165 24.7593 0.10*
Switzerland 0.248 47.5127 69.2604 35.7798 24.2172 0.03**
UK 0.040 0.9058 51.9539 29.5059 19.6474 0.72
USA 0.034 0.5882 55.1693 28.3197 19.2794 0.77
19
Table 2 cont.
Bootstrap Critical Values Country 1̂γ Test. Stat.
1% 5% 10%
Bootstrap p-value
Medium-Income Countries
Algeria 0.100 6.8028 142.6243 73.7526 48.6411 0.52
Argentina 0.033 0.6138 107.1270 55.2907 37.5515 0.83
Barbados -0.018 0.1021 122.1390 65.7125 43.9966 0.94
Botswana 0.218 2.9440 114.4384 59.8585 40.2657 0.66
Brazil 0.006 0.0185 102.6791 54.3333 36.9004 0.98
Chile -0.187 13.2181 137.5215 71.4694 49.2870 0.40
Columbia -0.036 0.2097 110.1605 55.9953 37.7553 0.90
Costa Rica -0.092 1.1929 106.4896 56.7877 38.2853 0.76
Dominican Rep. 0.093 4.6907 127.1799 65.6405 43.0715 0.56
Ecuador -0.004 0.0090 127.7617 70.5524 48.5436 0.99
Egypt, Arab Rep. 0.274 22.4663 135.1104 69.9897 48.3052 0.27
El Salvador 0.169 7.6193 122.7106 62.1723 40.4181 0.46
Fiji 0.028 0.3881 121.1364 65.6252 43.1864 0.88
Guatemala 0.117 6.3210 116.4657 61.2834 41.3768 0.51
Indonesia 0.290 19.0127 145.6695 67.0024 42.6497 0.25
Jamaica 0.344 28.7605 118.0988 62.9272 42.1175 0.17
Malaysia -0.141 3.7346 100.8638 49.8880 33.0066 0.56
Mauritius -0.218 6.0788 118.8859 62.2649 43.2173 0.51
Mexico -0.018 0.1116 106.4500 56.8986 38.7325 0.93
Morocco -0.083 9.0255 126.5212 65.2234 43.1509 0.45
Papua New Guinea 0.345 20.8434 133.0222 72.9047 49.3188 0.29
Paraguay -0.021 0.0859 128.2619 72.1158 50.2122 0.95
Peru 0.113 4.8441 121.9641 63.2953 43.1352 0.58
Philippines 0.066 1.0243 146.6040 73.0870 48.5939 0.81
Saudi Arabia 0.670 66.6762 121.7180 67.5189 46.4831 0.06*
South Africa -0.140 10.6106 127.6984 71.0721 48.6045 0.45
Thailand 0.125 6.5015 107.2864 54.4743 34.9956 0.46
Trinidad & Tobago 0.036 0.2724 149.4539 78.7276 55.9595 0.92
Uruguay -0.167 4.7095 127.8116 65.3718 42.5186 0.56
Venezuela -0.159 12.6992 157.9070 84.6755 59.2651 0.47 Table 2 cont.
20
Bootstrap Critical Values Country 1̂γ Test. Stat.
1% 5% 10%
Bootstrap p-value
Low-Income Countries
Bangladesh -0.038 0.2024 78.2550 38.5674 25.1241 0.88
Benin 0.044 0.4860 103.6167 53.3225 36.1000 0.85
Bolivia 0.061 0.1832 96.1208 42.9326 28.0554 0.89
Burkina Faso -0.368 18.7380 85.4405 45.2536 30.1203 0.20
Burundi -0.123 6.9860 94.3007 50.6191 34.7074 0.46
Central African Rep. 0.180 3.7823 82.9141 42.8307 29.7724 0.55
China 0.209 21.1959 100.9221 44.6137 27.0276 0.14
Congo, Rep. 0.046 0.1438 84.2461 43.1496 28.4053 0.91
Cote d'Ivoire -0.038 0.2101 82.5931 41.2137 28.3177 0.89
Ghana 0.196 5.7981 79.4880 41.1778 27.4051 0.43
Guyana 0.344 10.0724 84.0413 43.0203 28.7741 0.31
Haiti 0.181 10.3062 72.4883 41.1334 27.7515 0.31
Honduras 0.212 7.9420 83.1172 43.8105 30.6271 0.39
India 0.098 5.0037 78.3117 40.3828 26.9450 0.46
Kenya -0.028 0.1523 77.2680 40.8304 27.5779 0.90
Lesotho 0.041 0.0703 61.6439 33.8370 22.0182 0.92
Madagascar 0.055 0.7864 73.8468 37.6401 25.0090 0.76
Malawi -0.154 8.4182 73.8240 37.9119 26.2072 0.34
Mauritania 0.026 0.0400 82.9308 42.7034 27.9570 0.95
Nicaragua 0.274 10.7901 102.1096 44.2628 28.4193 0.29
Niger 0.278 35.4965 90.8551 46.4273 31.0170 0.08*
Nigeria 0.149 4.3054 79.5079 42.0576 28.7484 0.51
Pakistan -0.104 2.5247 80.7374 43.8291 29.6604 0.62
Rwanda -0.028 0.1700 135.8177 44.4371 26.6979 0.88
Senegal -0.118 3.4280 82.5422 46.2225 31.9389 0.59
Syrian Arab Rep. -0.027 0.7019 83.0561 45.5500 30.9868 0.79
Togo -0.051 0.1450 91.2241 46.3752 30.4502 0.91
Zambia -0.110 0.4911 82.0245 41.0871 27.5307 0.83
Note: : ***, ** and * indicate significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels, respectively.
21
For most of the countries, 70 out of 84, the Granger causality tests over the three different
specifications led to the same conclusion, so in this sense our results are fairly robust. The
contradicting cases are shown in Table 3. Clearly, despite the conflicting outcomes, on the
basis of country specific AIC and SC, we can still maintain our original conclusions most of
the time.
Table 3: Contradicting Granger causality test results;
Wald tests with bootstrapping and alternative lag structures
Granger causality from saving ratio to growth rate
Lag structure
mlyk = mlxk = 1 mlyk = 1, mlxk = 2 mlyk = 2, mlxk = 1
Country AIC SC p AIC SC p AIC SC p
Austria 2.225 2.354 0.05** 2.311 2.485 0.11 2.307 2.481 0.06*
Ireland 3.317 3.446 0.04** 3.367 3.541 0.04** 3.383 3.557 0.05**
Netherlands 2.156 2.285 0.08* 2.050 2.225 0.55 2.090 2.264 0.28
Burundi 6.829 6.957 0.00*** 6.718 6.890 0.12 6.905 7.078 0.11
Central Afr. Rep. 5.389 5.516 0.17 5.160 5.333 0.07* 5.349 5.521 0.11
Mauritania 6.734 6.862 0.19 6.852 7.025 0.31 6.706 6.878 0.09*
Granger causality from growth rate to saving ratio
Lag structure
mlyk = mlxk = 1 mlyk = 1, mlxk = 2 mlyk = 2, mlxk = 1
Country AIC SC p AIC SC p AIC SC p
Austria 0.207 0.336 0.30 -0.056 0.118 0.01*** 0.257 0.431 0.27
Denmark 0.937 1.066 0.44 1.029 1.203 0.08* 0.927 1.101 0.58
Finland 1.694 1.824 0.04** 1.698 1.872 0.11 1.733 1.907 0.01***
France -0.833 -0.704 0.03** -0.723 -0.549 0.14 -0.737 -0.563 0.21
Iceland 2.279 2.408 0.35 2.300 2.474 0.21 2.323 2.497 0.09*
Sweden 0.613 0.743 0.10* 0.616 0.790 0.14 0.748 0.922 0.35
Indonesia 5.343 5.471 0.25 5.352 5.524 0.16 5.361 5.534 0.08*
Saudi Arabia 6.978 7.106 0.06* 7.087 7.259 0.07* 6.966 7.138 0.15
Niger 5.029 5.157 0.08* 5.088 5.260 0.13 5.142 5.314 0.07*
Note: p refers to the bootstrap p-value. In each row the items in bold are the lowest AIC and SC values and the corresponding p-values. : ***, ** and * indicate significance at the 1, 5 and 10 percent levels, respectively.
22
There are only 6 cases where they have to be revised. Namely, there is probably no Granger
causality from the saving ratio to the growth rate in the Netherlands and in Burundi, while
there is support for Granger causality from the saving ratio to the growth rate in the Central
African Republic, and from the growth rate to the saving ratio in Austria. In the remaining two
cases, Mauritania and Saudi Arabia, AIC and SC support different outcomes.
4 Summary
In this paper we have studied the possibility of Granger causality between the saving ratio
and the growth rate in eighty-four countries from 1961 to 2000. For technical reason, on the
basis of their per capita GDP in 1995, the countries have been classified as high-income (at
least 10000 $US), medium-income (between 1000 and 10000 $US) and low-income (less
than 1000 $US) countries, and the three panels of twenty-six, thirty and twenty-eight
countries, respectively, have been considered separately.
A new panel-data approach has been applied which is based on SUR systems and Wald
tests with country specific bootstrap critical values. This approach has two advantages. On
the one hand, it does not assume that the panel is homogeneous, so it is possible to perform
Granger-causality tests on each individual panel member separately. However, since
contemporaneous correlation is allowed across countries, it makes it possible to exploit the
extra information provided by the panel data setting. On the other hand, this approach does
not require pretesting for unit roots and cointegration, though it still requires the specification
of the lag structure. This is an important feature since the unit-root and cointegration tests in
general suffer from low power. Different tests often lead to contradictory outcomes, so the
conclusions drawn from them are usually conditional on some more or less arbitrary decisions
made by the researcher.
In order to check how sensitive the Granger causality test results are to lag selection, we
have repeated the calculations on three different specifications, but our final conclusions were
affected in only a few cases.
All things considered, we are confident to conclude that there is two-way Granger causality
between the saving ratio and the growth rate in Austria, there is one-way causality from
saving to growth in Ireland, Trinidad & Tobago and the Central African Republic, and from
growth to saving in Finland, France, Japan, Sweden, Switzerland and Niger. Our results also
lend some support to causality from saving to growth in Mauritania and from growth to saving
in Saudi Arabia. In all other cases, however, there is no empirical evidence of Granger
causality between the saving ratio and the growth rate in either direction.
23
References
Andersson, B. (1999): On the Causality Between Saving and Growth: Long- and Short Run
Dynamics and Country Heterogeneity, Working Paper, Department of Economics,
Uppsala University, No. 1999:18.
Attanasio, O.P., Picci, L. and Scorcu, A.E. (2000): Saving, Growth, and Investment: A
Macroeconomic Analysis Using a Panel of Countries, The Review of Economics and
Statistics, vol. 82, pp. 182-211.
Barro R.J. (1997): Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical Study, The
MIT Press.
Breusch, T. and Pagan, A. (1980): The LM Test and Its Applications to Model Specification in
Econometrics, Review of Economic Studies, vol. 47, pp. 239-254.
Breuer, J.B., McNown, R. and Wallace, M. (2002): Series-specific Unit Root Tests with Panel
Data, Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, vol. 64, pp. 527-546.
Carroll, C.D., Overland, J. and Weil, D.N. (2000): Saving and Growth with Habit Formation,
American Economic Review, vol. 90, pp. 341-355.
Carroll, C.D. and Weil, D.N. (1994): Saving and Growth: a Reinterpretation, Carnegie-
Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy, vol. 40, pp. 133-192.
Claus, I., Haugh, D., Scobie, G. and Törnquist, J. (2001): Saving and Growth in an Open
Economy, Working Paper, The Treasury, Wellington, New Zealand, 01/32.
Deaton, A. (1992): Understanding Consumption, Oxford University Press.
Deaton, A. (1999): Saving and Growth, in Schmidt-Hebbel and Servén (1999a), pp. 33-70.
Dufour, J.M. and Renault, E. (1998): Short Run and Long Run Causality in Time Series:
Theory, Econometrica, vol. 66, pp. 1099-1125.
Edwards, S. (1996): Why are Latin America’s Saving Rates So Low? An International
Comparative Analysis, Journal of Development Economics, vol. 51, pp. 5-44.
Enders, W. (2004): Applied Econometric Time Series, 2nd ed., Wiley.
24
Flavin, M.A. (1981): The Adjustment of Consumption to Changing Expectations about Future
Income, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 89, pp. 974-1009.
Greene, W.H. (2003): Econometric Analysis, 5th ed., Prentice-Hall.
Holmes, M.I. (2003): Are the Trade Deficits of Less Developed Countries Stationary?
Evidence for African Countries, Applied Econometrics and International Development,
vol. 3-3, pp. 7-24.
Kónya, L., (2000): Export-Led Growth or Growth-Driven Export? New Evidence from Granger
Causality Analysis on OECD Countries, Working Paper, Central European University,
Economics Department, No. 15/2000, p. 30.
Kónya, L., (2001): Panel Data Unit Root Tests with an Application, Working Paper, Central
European University, Economics Department, No. 2/2001, p. 23.
Levine, R. and Renelt, D. (1992): A Sensitivity Analysis of Cross-Country Growth
Regressions, American Economic Review, vol. 82, pp. 942-963.
Lucas, R.E. (1988): On the Mechanics of Economic Development, Journal of Monetary
Economics, vol. 22, pp. 3-42,
Maddala, G.S. and Kim, I-M. (1998): Unit Roots, Cointegration, and Structural Change,
Cambridge University Press.
Mankiw, N.G., Romer, D. and Weil, D.N. (1992): A Contribution to the Empirics of Economic
Growth, Quarterly Journal of Economics, vol. 107, pp. 407-437.
Modigliani, F. (1970): The Life Cycle Hypothesis of Saving and Intercountry Differences in the
Saving Ratio, in Eltis, W.A., Scott, M.FG. and Wolfe, J.N. (ed.) (1970), Induction,
Growth and Trade: Essays in Honour of Sir Roy Harrod, Clarendon Press, Oxford. pp.
197-225.
Modigliani, F. (1986): Life Cycle, Individual Thrift, and the Wealth of Nations, American
Economic Review, vol. 76, pp. 297-313.
Palumbo, A. (1996): Notes on Investment, Saving and Growth, Contributions to Political
Economy, vol. 15, pp. 105-115.
25
Romer, P.M. (1986): Increasing Returns and the Long-Run Growth, Journal of Political
Economy, vol. 94, pp. 1002-1037.
Romer, P.M. (1990): Endogenous Technical Change, Journal of Political Economy, vol. 98,
pp. 71-102.
Schmidt-Hebbel, K. and Servén, L. (Ed.) (1999a): The Economics of Saving and Growth:
Theory, Evidence, and Implications for Policy, Cambridge University Press.
Schmidt-Hebbel, K. and Servén, L. (1999b): Saving in the World: The Stylized Facts, in
Schmidt-Hebbel and Servén (1999a), pp. 6-32.
Sinha, D. and Sinha, T. (1998): Cart Before the Horse? The Saving-Growth Nexus in Mexico.
Economics Letters, vol. 61, pp. 43-47.
Solow, R.M. (1956): A Contribution to the Theory of Economic Growth, Quarterly Journal of
Economics, vol. 70, pp. 65-94.
Toda, H.Y. and Yamamoto, T. (1995): Statistical Inference in Vector Autoregressions with
Possibly Integrated Processes, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 66, pp. 225-250.
Triantis, S.G. (1999): Economic Growth and Saving Theory, Kyklos, vol. 52, pp. 45-62.
Vanhoudt, P. (1998): A Fallacy in Causality Research on Growth and Capital Accumulation,
Economics Letters, vol. 60, pp. 77-81.
Zellner, A. (1962): An Efficient Method of Estimating Seemingly Unrelated Regressions and
Tests for Aggregation Bias, Journal of the American Statistical Association, vol. 57,
pp. 348-368.
26
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Australia
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
Austria
Appendix
Data The following figures exhibit the data used in this study. In each plot the saving ratio (1960-
2000, percentage) is measured on the left vertical axis and is illustrated by the smooth line,
while the growth rate (1961-2000, percentage) is measured on the right vertical axis and is
illustrated by the dashed line.
High-Income Countries
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Belgium
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
17
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Canada
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Denmark
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Finland
27
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
40
35
30
25
20
15
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Hong Kong
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Iceland
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Ireland
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Israel
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Italy
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
42
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Japan
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
France
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Greece
28
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Korea, Rep.
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
Netherlands
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Portugal
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Spain
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Luxembourg
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
New Zealand
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
40
38
36
34
32
30
28
26
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
Norway
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
60
40
20
0
-20
-40
-60
-80
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Singapore
29
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
33
32
31
30
29
28
27
26
25
24
23
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Switzerland
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
27
26
25
24
23
22
21
20
19
18
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
Sweden
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
14
7
6
5
4
3
2
1
0
-1
-2
-3
United Kingdom
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
22
21
20
19
18
17
16
15
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
United States
30
Medium-Income Countries
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
Algeria
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
34
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Argentina
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
20
15
10
5
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Barbados
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
20
15
10
5
0
-5
Botswana
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Brazil
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
25
20
15
10
5
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Chile
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Colombia
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Costa Rica
31
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Dominican Rep.
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Ecuador
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
Egypt, Arab Rep.
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
El Salvador
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Fiji
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Guatemala
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Indonesia
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
25
20
15
10
5
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Jamaica
32
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Malaysia
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Mauritius
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Mexico
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
Morocco
1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Papua New Guinea
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Paraguay
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Peru
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Philippines
33
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Saudi Arabia
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
32
30
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
South Africa
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Thailand
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Trinidad & Tobago
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Uruguay
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Venezuela
34
Low-Income Countries
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
20
15
10
5
0
-5
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Bangladesh
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
Benin
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
50
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Bolivia
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Burkina Faso
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Burundi
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
-10
-12
Central African Rep.
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
45
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
China
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Congo, Rep.
35
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Cote d'Ivorie
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Ghana
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Guyana
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Haiti
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
28
26
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
Honduras
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
24
22
20
18
16
14
12
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
-6
-8
India
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Kenya
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
-70
-80
-90
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Lesotho
36
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Madagascar
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Malawi
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
40
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Mauritania
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
-30
-35
Nicaragua
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
-2
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
-25
Niger
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Nigeria
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
8
6
4
2
0
-2
-4
Pakistan
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
30
20
10
0
-10
-20
-30
-40
-50
-60
Rwanda
37
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
Senegal
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
-20
Togo
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
-10
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Zambia
1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000
25
20
15
10
5
20
15
10
5
0
-5
-10
-15
Syrian Arab Rep.
38
Model For the ith panel member (2a) and (2b) can be written in matrix form as
1, 1, 1, 1, 1, 1,i i i i i i iα * *Y = ι +Y β + X γ + ε (2a*)
and 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2,i i i i i i iα * *X = ι +Y β +X γ +ε (2b*) where 4 is a T ×1 vector of ones, Yi and Xi are T ×1 vectors of the observed values of Y and X,
*1,iY , *
1,iX , *2,iY and *
2,iX are T ×1 vectors of the values of the error variables, ∀1,i and ∀2,i are the
intercept terms, and 1,iβ , 1,iγ , 2,iβ and 2,iγ are mly1×1, mlx1×1, mly2×1 and mlx2×1 vectors of
the slope coefficients, all for country i.
Stacking the equations for all i (i = 1,..., N ), the two sets of equations can be written as * *
1 1 1 1 1 1= + + +Y α Y β X γ ε (2a**)
and * *2 2 2 2 2 2= + + +X α Y β X γ ε (2b**)
where
1
2
:
N
=
YY
Y
Y
,
1
2
:
N
=
XX
X
X
,
1,1
1,21
1,
:
N
αα
α
=
ιι
α
ι
,
2,1
2,22
2,
:
N
αα
α
=
ιι
α
ι
,
1,1
1,21
1,
:
N
=
εε
ε
ε
,
2,1
2,22
2,
:
N
=
εε
ε
ε
are N T × 1 vectors,
*1,1
*1,2*
1
*1,
...
...: : : :
... N
=
Y 0 00 Y 0
Y
0 0 Y
,
*1,1
*1,2*
1
*1,
...
...: : : :
... N
=
X 0 00 X 0
X
0 0 X
*2,1
*2,2*
2
*2,
...
...: : : :
... N
=
Y 0 00 Y 0
Y
0 0 Y
,
*2,1
*2,2*
2
*2,
...
...: : : :
... N
=
X 0 00 X 0
X
0 0 X
are N T ×N mly1, N T ×N mlx1, N T ×N mly2 and N T ×N mlx2 matrices, and
39
1,1
1,21
1,
:
N
=
ββ
β
β
,
1,1
1,21
1,
:
N
=
γγ
γ
γ
,
2,1
2,22
2,
:
N
=
ββ
β
β
,
2,1
2,22
2,
:
N
=
γγ
γ
γ
are N mly1×1, N mlx1×1, N mly2×1 and N mlx2×1 vectors.