International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics
Volume 2, Issue 1, October 2016, Pages: 24-27

Relationship among Government Revenue, Expenditure and Gross Domestic Product in Nigeria: Generalized Two Stage Principal Component Approach

Adewale F. Lukman*, Samuel Binuomote, Sodiq O. Omosanya

Department of Statistics, Ladoke Akintola University of Technology, Ogbomoso, Nigeria

Email address:

(Adewale F. L.)
(S. Binuomote)
(S. O. Omosanya)

*Corresponding author

To cite this article:

Adewale F. Lukman, Samuel Binuomote, Sodiq O. Omosanya. Relationship among Government Revenue, Expenditure and Gross Domestic Product in Nigeria: Generalized Two Stage Principal Component Approach. International Journal of Theoretical and Applied Mathematics. Vol. 2, No. 1, 2016, pp. 24-27. doi: 10.11648/j.ijtam.20160201.14

Received: September 9, 2016; Accepted: October 8, 2016; Published: October 17, 2016


Abstract: This study examined the relationship between gross domestic product (GDP) and some selected government revenue/expenditure namely; oil revenue, non-oil revenue, administrative expenditure, economic expenditure, social expenditure and transfer expenditure for the period 1981–2013. The econometric techniques employed in this study include Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test, Co-integration analysis, Generalized Two-Stage Principal Component analysis (GT-PC). ADF reveals that all the variables in their natural logarithm form are not stationary in their original level but stationary after first difference. Co-integration test shows that the variables are integrated of the same order. The Long run estimates revealed that the model suffers the problem of Autocorrelation and Multicollinearity and this necessitated the use Generalized Two-stage PC1 method to handle the problem jointly. Results revealed that there exists a positive relationship between GDP, government revenue and expenditure.

Keywords: Unit Root Test, Co-integration Test, Generalized Two-Stage Principal Component


1. Introduction

Gross domestic product (GDP) is an economic indicator for measuring the total output of goods and services of a country during a certain period of time. It is used for comparing the economic performance of countries, but very often the comparison is broadened to evaluate and make estimates of living standards, progress or social welfare between countries, although GDP was not originally developed for this purpose.

The relationship between public expenditure and economic growth has continued to generate series of debate among scholars in economic literature (Abu and Abdullahi, 2010). Wagner (1883) shows that there exist long-run tendencies for public expenditure to grow relatively to Gross Domestic Product (GDP). However, Keynes (1936) raised the idea that during depression the use of fiscal policies raises economic activities. Thus, public expenditure on all sectors of the Nigerian economy is expected to lead to economic growth in the sense that capital and recurrent expenditure ought to boost the productive base of the economy which in turn leads to growth. The interest by economists in Nigeria and other jurisdictions on the role of government expenditure are inconclusive. Barro (1990) endogenized government spending in a growth model and analyzed the relationship between size of government and rates of growth and saving. He concluded that an increase in resources devoted to non-productive government services is associated with lower per capita growth. Therefore, government expenditure which enhances economic growth should be tailored towards productive services. This necessitates the need to determine whether the behavior of Nigerian public expenditure and the economy can be hinged on the Wagner’s (1883) Law of Ever-increasing State Activity, or the Keynes (1936) theory and Friedman (1978) or Peacock and Wiseman’s (1979) hypotheses. In Nigeria, some authors contend that the link between public expenditure and economic growth is weak or non-existing while others have reported varying degree of causality relationship between them (Onakoya et al., 2012).

Furthermore, government expenditure has been on the increase owing to the huge receipts from production and sales of crude oil, and the increased demand for public (utilities) goods like roads, communication, power, education and health in Nigeria. The rising government expenditure has not translated into meaningful growth and development, as Nigeria still ranks among the poorest countries in the world. In addition, many Nigerians have continued to wallow in abject poverty while more than 50 percent live on less than US$2 per day (Louis, 2012). Couple with this, are dilapidated infrastructures (especially roads and power supply) that have led to the collapse of many industries, including high level of unemployment and abandonment of elephant projects. Another problem has also been on how to channel public expenditure into those areas of the economy where its effects will be optimal in terms of growth, consumption and distribution. More so, contributors have undermined the relationship between the specific components of public expenditure and economic growth (Louis, 2012). The longrun relationships between the government revenues and expenditures in Nigeria over the period 1970 to 2008 was examined by Omo and Taofik (2012) using Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) bound test. The results indicate that there is the existence of a long run relationship between government expenditures and revenues when government expenditure is made the dependent variable. However, when revenue was made the dependent variable, no evidence of a long run relationship was found which confirmed the tax- spend hypothesis. Mansour et al. (2012) states that oil is one of the main sources of energy that always had an effective role on the world economy and the macroeconomic variables, especially in the oil exporting countries to justify their influence. It is important to evaluate the effect of this on Nigeria economic growth.

The objective of this paper is to investigate the relationship some selected government revenue/expenditure namely; oil revenue, non-oil revenue, administrative expenditure, economic expenditure, social expenditure and transfer expenditure on economic growth whose proxy is taken as gross domestic product.

2. Data and Methodology

This paper uses an annual data for gross domestic product (GDP) and some selected government revenue/expenditure namely; oil revenue, non-oil revenue, administrative expenditure, economic expenditure, social expenditure and transfer expenditure for the period 1981 – 2013. Data was extracted from Central Bank of Nigeria, Statistical Bulletin. The variables are transformed into logarithmic form. The long run model is specified as follows:

lnY= β0 + β1lnX1 + β1lnX1 + β2lnX2 + β3lnX3 + β4lnX4 + β5lnX5 + β6lnX6 + εi                                       (1)

where Y is the Total Gross Domestic Product (GDP), X1 is the Oil Revenue (OIR), X2 is the Non-Oil Revenue (NOR), X3 is the Administrative Expenditure (ADE), X4 is the Economics Expenditure (ECE), X5 is the Social Expenditure (SCE), X6 is the Transfer Expenditure (TFE) and εi is the error term.

Engle and Granger (1987) Co-integration Test is used to examine whether there exists a long run relationship among the variables in equation (1). Generalized Two-Stage Principal Component analysis is used to model the relationship among the variables. The subsection briefly explains each of the methodology.

2.1. Co-integration Test

Engle and Granger (1987) Co-integration Test basically follows two steps. The long-run relationship in equation (1) is estimated using OLS and residuals are obtained. Second, an Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test is performed on the residuals to determine its stationarity. The null hypothesis is that the residuals are non-stationary implying no co-integration, while the alternative hypothesis is that they are stationary implying co-integration. ADF t-statistic on the residuals is used to test the null hypothesis. The generated p-value is used to decide whether the null hypothesis is rejected which implies co-integration.

2.2. Generalized Two-Stage Principal Component Analysis

This analysis combines Two Stage Least Square (TS) and Principal component regression to jointly handle the problem of autocorrelation and multicollinearity. This concept was adopted from the work of Ayinde et al. (2015). The procedures are as follows:

i.      Use the  obtained from OLS estimator to transform the model

ii.     Apply OLS estimator to estimate the transformed data sets and carryout a diagnostic test to check if the problem of autocorrelation has been handled.

iii.   If the problem of autocorrelation has been solved, then applied Principal component regression to the transformed data. The component is extracted by taking the components whose eigenvalue is greater than or equal to one.

3. Empirical Results

3.1. Unit Root Test

It is required that the variables are integrated of the same order to carry out co-integration tests. This paper employs the Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) test. The null hypothesis is that there is a unit root. Table 1 presents the test results for the variables. The results show that the variables are not stationary at original level but become stationary after first differencing. Thus, the variables have the same order of integration, I (1).

Table 1. Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) Test.

Variable Status Variable Name Variable (Natural log) Statistic Intercept Intercept and Trend Without Intercept
Original Gross Domestic Product (GDP) ln(Y) Value -0.7599 -0.9621 6.3761
p-value 0.8168 0.9355 1.0000
Oil Revenue (OILR) ln(X1) Value -1.3509 -1.9336 2.7484
p-value 0.5925 0.6139 0.9978
Non-Oil Revenue (NOILR) ln(X2) Value -0.4493 -3.0839 2.9299
p-value 0.8881 0.1271 0.9986
Administrative Expenditure (ADME) ln(X3) Value -1.5257 1.7007 3.4405
p-value 0.5071 1.0000 0.9996
Economics Expenditure (ECE) ln(X4) Value -0.9392 -3.3222 1.8745
p-value 0.7623 0.0808 0.9832
Social Expenditure (SCE) ln(X5) Value -1.1064 -3.9848 2.4703
p-value 0.6989 0.0196 0.9957
Transfer Expenditure (TFE) ln(X6) Value -0.8155 -2.4566 3.4141
p-value 0.8006 0.3458 0.9996
1st Differencing Gross Domestic Product (GDP) Δln(Y) Value -4.6989 -4.7560 -2.4183
p-value 0.0007 0.0032 0.0013
Oil Revenue (OILR) Δln(X1) Value -5.0200 -5.1479 -4.8367
p-value 0.0003 0.0013 0.0000
Non-Oil Revenue (NOILR) Δln(X2) Value -7.1821 -7.0440 -5.2219
p-value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Administrative Expenditure (ADME) Δln(X3) Value -5.7214 -5.9641 -5.3375
p-value 0.0000 0.0002 0.0000
Economics Expenditure (ECE) Δln(X4) Value -6.9132 -6.8554 -5.8721
p-value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0000
Social Expenditure (SCE) Δln(X5) Value -4.7901 -4.8674 -6.2740
p-value 0.0007 0.0028 0.0000
Transfer Expenditure (TFE) Δln(X6) Value -7.6897 -7.6216 -2.3918
p-value 0.0000 0.0000 0.0185

3.2. Co-integration

Engle and Granger co-integration test was employed to examine the existence of a long-run relationship in equation (1). The result shows that a long run relationship exists among the variable. The Engle Granger statistic and p-value are -7.994463 and 0.0000.

3.3. Long Run Regression Estimates

Results from Table 2 showed that 99.3% of the variability in GDP is accounted for by predictor variables. F-Statistics of 650.259 (0.000) revealed that the overall model is significant. The regression coefficients of some explanatory variables (OIR, NOR, ADE and TFE) shows a positive coefficient which have positive effect on economic growth and some explanatory variables (ECE and SCE) shows a negative coefficient which have negative effect on the economic growth. However, non-oil revenue (NOR) and administrative expenditure (ADE) were significant because its p-value is less than the 5% level of significant; while the remaining independent variables (OIR, ECE, SCE and TFE) were insignificant because their p-value is greater than the 5% level of significant. Further diagnostic checks shows that the model suffers model suffers the problem of Autocorrelation and Multicollinearity and this necessitates the use of Generalized Principal Components Method to handle the problem jointly.

Table 2. Long Run regression output based on OLS estimates.

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-ratio p-value VIF
Constant 2.612 0.531 4.923 0.000 ***  
lnoir 0.193 0.166 1.165 0.255 120.233
lnnor 0.374 0.129 2.911 0.007 *** 64.082
lnade 0.514 0.214 2.397 0.024 ** 201.974
lnece -0.172 0.109 -1.573 0.128 59.754
lnsce -0.008 0.108 -0.077 0.939 61.750
lntfe 0.098 0.172 0.569 0.574 82.944
R-squared 0.993 Adj. R-squared 0.992
F-Statistic 650.259 (0.000) Durbin-Watson 1.1950 (0.0020)
Shapiro Wilk 0.9437 (0.0871) White Test 31.6001 (0.2472)
    RHO 0.396

3.4. Generalized Two Stage Principal Component

The original data is transformed using  = 0.396 to correct the problem of autocorrelation. A new data is obtained after the transformation and the variables were change (for instance LOGOIR changed to LOGOIRT). Table 3 gives a summary statistics of the analysis indicating that the problem of autocorrelation has been handled since DW p-value = 0.2190 but problem of multicollinearity still occur since VIF > 10.

Table 3. Transformed Data (Generalized Two Stage Estimate).

Variable Coefficient Std. Error t-value p-value VIF
Const. 1.27333 0.345620 3.684 0.0011  
Lnoirt 0.196094 0.176909 1.108 0.2778 43.325
Lnnort 0.458389 0.132829 3.451 0.0019 22.575
Lnadet 0.463269 0.243927 1.899 0.0687 81.754
Lnecet -0.263551 0.120171 -2.193 0.0374 23.534
Lnscet -0.0336411 0.104868 -0.3208 0.7509 19.084
Lntfet 0.200856 0.184425 1.089 0.2861 29.844
R-squared 0.979036 Adj. R-squared 0.974198
F-Statistic 202.3673(1.53e-20) Durbin-Watson 1.817934 (0.2190)

To handle the problem of multicollinearity, this necessitates the use of Principal Component as alternative to Ordinary Least Square to obtain the long run regression estimates. Results of selection of the component and estimates are provided in Table 4 and 5 respectively.

Table 4. Eigenvalues.

F1 F2 F3 F4 F5 F6
Eigenvalue 5.788 0.091 0.058 0.036 0.020 0.008

Component 1 is selected since its eigenvalue is greater than 1.

Table 5. Generalized Two Stage Principal Component 1 (GT-PC1) Estimates.

Model B Standard error
Intercept 2.285 0.258
Lnoirt 0.158 0.005
Lnnort 0.164 0.005
Lnadet 0.160 0.005
Lnecet 0.145 0.004
Lnscet 0.139 0.004
Lntfet 0.198 0.006
0.975 MSE (0.050)
Adjusted R² 0.974 RMSE (0.223)

4. Conclusion

It was revealed that there exists a positive linear relationship among variables (oil revenue, non-oil revenue, administrative expenditure, economic expenditure, social expenditure, transfer expenditure and gross domestic product). The R-squared value of 0.974 indicates that about 97.4% of the variability in GDP is accounted for by the predictor variables.


References

  1. Abu, N. and Abdullahi, U. (2010). Government Expenditure and Economic Growth inNigeria, 1970-2008: A Disaggregated Analysis. Business and Economics Journal,ol. 4, 2-10.
  2. Ayinde, K., Lukman, A. F. and Arowolo, O.T. (2015). Combined parameters estimationmethods of linear regression model with multicollinearity and autocorrelation. Journal ofAsian Scientific Research, 5(5), 243-250.
  3. Barro, R. (1990): "Government Spending in a Simple Model of Endogenous Growth".
  4. Journal of Political Economy, Vol. 98, S103-S107.
  5. Engle, R.F. and C.W. Granger, 1987. Co-integration and error correction: Representation,estimation and testing. Econometrica, 55(2): 251-276.
  6. Friedman, M. (1978): The Limitations of Tax Limitation. Policy Review, summer, 7-14.
  7. Keynes, J.M. (1936) General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money, London: Macmillan.
  8. Louis, N.S. (2012), Government Expenditure and Economic Growth in Nigeria: An empiricalinvestigation. Journal of Economic Analysis, Volume III, Issue I, pp 8-51.
  9. Mansour, G., Fereydoon, A. and Reza, J. (2012). Relationship between oil revenues andgovernment expenditure using wavelet analysis method: Evidence from Iran. Economicsand Finance Review, 2(5), 52–61.
  10. Omo Aregbeyen and Taofik Mohammed (2012). Testing the Revenue and Expenditure Nexus inNigeria: An Application of the Bound Test Approach, European Journal of SocialSciences, 27(3), 374-380.
  11. Onakoya, A. B., Tella S. A. and Osoba, A. M. (2012). Investment in infrastructure and Nigerianeconomic growth. British Journal of Economics, Management & Trade 2(4): 309-326.
  12. Peacock, A. and J. Wiseman (1979): Approaches to the Analysis of Government ExpendituresGrowth. Public Finance Quarterly, 3-23.
  13. Wagner, A., (1883), Three Extracts on Public Finance. Translated and reprinted inMusgrave R.A and Peacock A.T. (Eds), Classics in the Theory of Public Finance,London: Macmillan.

Article Tools
  Abstract
  PDF(195K)
Follow on us
ADDRESS
Science Publishing Group
548 FASHION AVENUE
NEW YORK, NY 10018
U.S.A.
Tel: (001)347-688-8931