the eco no metrics project
TRANSCRIPT
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 1/21
1 | P a g e
Candidate Number 2864B
Economics Tripos Part IIA Paper 3
Take Home Examination
Question 1: “Do large government deficits raise long-term interest rates?
Assess using time-series data on one country.”
Contents
1. Introduction
2. Theory
3. Literature review
4. The model
5. Data
6. Estimation
7. Conclusion
8. Appendix
Word Count: 1993 (Excluding footnotes and Appendix)
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 2/21
2 | P a g e
1. Introduction
The relationship between government deficits and long-term interest rates is a topic of
frequent debate. The two graphs below show the development of 10 Year US Treasury
Note Yields and the US federal deficit as share of GDP over the last 55 Years.
At first sight, it looks as if there is a weak inverse relationship between the two series, so
that higher deficits are correlated with higher interest rates. Using time series data onthe United States, I will estimate a vector autoregressive model (VAR) to see whether
large government deficits actually raise long-term interest rates.
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 3/21
3 | P a g e
2. Theory
Economic theory suggests several ways in which government deficits can raise long-term
interest rates.
1. More bonds issued by the government due to higher deficits increases bond
supply, which lowers their price. As bond prices and interest rates are inversely
related, this raises bond interest rates.1
2. Persistent government deficits lead to an increasing stock of debt, which could let
investors doubt the long-run ability of the government to serve the debt. They
may demand a higher risk premium, leading to higher interest rates as a result.2
3. If consumers viewed increased bond holdings as a consequence of government
deficits as wealth, higher consumption would increase output and money demand,
which subsequently raises the interest rate.3
4. In the IS-LM model, a bond-financed fiscal expansion requires an increase in the
interest rate to restore equilibrium in the money market.4 As the government
deficit persists, this will impact on long-term rates.
However, advocates of the Ricardian equivalence hypothesis (REH) endorse a different
view concerning the effect of deficits. According to REH, individuals realize that
government deficits mean future tax increases as the debt must ultimately be paid for,
so they adjust their saving behaviour accordingly. With private saving going up in
response to a decrease in public saving, any crowding out effect is eliminated.
5
In addition, causality between deficits and interest rates may run both ways. Reverse
causality could happen through the following channels:6
1. Higher interest rates would mean higher servicing costs for the existing stock of
debt, which increases future deficits.
2. An increase in interest rates reduces investment, which lowers output and the
capital stock, thereby increasing both the cyclical and structural deficit.
3. The collapse in investment and subsequent fall in output following higher interest
rates could induce the government to undertake additional investments to
stimulate the economy, thereby raising the deficit even further.
1 ”The Economics of Money, Banking and Financial Markets”, Frederic S. Mishkin, Ch5, 8th Edition.
2 Truman (2001)
3 Ussher (1998), p2.
4 Evans (1987), p282.
5 Barro (1979), p940.
6 Ussher (1998), p13-14.
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 4/21
4 | P a g e
3. Literature Review
Empirical studies examining the relationship between deficits and interest rates have
provided mixed results. Studies that have found positive effects of deficits on interestrates include Hoelscher (1986), Miller and Russek (1991, 1996), Cebula and Koch (1994)
and Engen and Hubbard (2004). Others have found no significant relationships, such as
Zimmerman (1997) or Evans (1985). By 2003, Gale and Orszag (2003) count 30 studies
for the US that find a positive relationship and 30 that do not.
A more recent approach has been the inclusion of “expected deficits” into the analysis.
Studies that incorporate expectations tend to find more significant positive relationships,
such as Elmendorf (1993), who concludes that higher deficits have a positive impact on
five-year bond yields. Laubach (2003) and Laubach, Engen and Hubbard (2004) use CBO
projections to find that increases in projected deficits as well as a higher projected debt-
to-GDP ratio raise long-term interest rates.
Studies using VARs to determine the relationship between deficits and interest rates
include Plosser (1987), Evans (1987), Miller and Russek (1996) and Dai and Phillippon
(2004). Whereas the former two find no relationship between deficits and interest rates,
the study by Miller and Russek concludes that innovations in the deficit explains between
10-50% of the innovations in the long-term interest rate, if Ricardian equivalence
specifications are excluded. Dai and Phillipon use a structural VAR with a no-arbitrage
restriction for their analysis and conclude that a 1% increase in the deficit/GDP ratioraises the 10-Year US Bond yield by 41 basis points.
4. The model
As mentioned earlier, causation between deficits and interest rates may run both ways,
which means that we would have to model both variables as endogenous. If we ignored
this bilateral causality and took government deficits as exogenous to do a single
equation regression, we would have simultaneity bias. The independent variable would
be correlated with the error terms, which renders all OLS estimates biased and
inconsistent.7
Because of the possible endogeneity, a vector autoregressive model (VAR) was used. A
VAR does not need an a priori distinction between exogenous and endogenous variables.
By using such “atheoretical” VARs, which include all variables as endogenous, we do not
have to impose any prior restrictions. Since all regressors are lagged variables, we can
7 Modern Econometrics, Thomas (1997), Ch8.
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 5/21
5 | P a g e
assume that they are contemporaneously uncorrelated with the error term, so that each
equation can be consistently estimated.8
In deciding which other variables determine the interest rate and should be included in
the VAR, basic economic theory was applied. According to the theory of liquidity
preference, money demand depends positively on income and negatively on the interest
rate. Together with real money supply, this equality determines the interest rate:9
Therefore, we should include real GDP, money supply and a measure of the price level as
additional variables. A relationship between nominal and real interest rates is given by
the Fisher equation:10
This suggests that we should include expected inflation as well if we use nominal interest
rates as dependent variable. Inflation expectations were modelled as adaptive, with
expected inflation being equal to last periods’ inflation. As a VAR includes lags, using
actual inflation will then account for both changes in the price level (as suggested by
equation (1)) and expected inflation. In order to see whether large deficits have a
separate effect on interest rates, a dummy variable for large deficits is included. The
dummy is equal to one if the deficit is higher than its mean value.
Accounting for non-stationarity of some series and seasonal effects, the VAR model then
looks as follows:11
If higher government deficits raise interest rates, we expect the coefficients γ(1i) to be
positive. If larger deficits have a separate impact on interest rates, we would expect η(1)
to be significant.
8 Modern Econometrics, Thomas (1997), p459.
9 Macroeconomics, Mankiw (2006), Ch4.
10 Macroeconomics, Mankiw (2006), Ch4.
11 ∆i is the change in nominal interest rates, ∆def is the change in deficit (with a positive number denoting a
deficit and a negative number denoting a surplus), ∆rgdp is the growth in real GDP,π
is the inflation rate,∆m2growth is the change in the growth of M2, lar is a dummy for large deficits and q2/3/4 are dummy
variables for the second, third and forth quarter, respectively.
)2(er i π +=
)1(),( / Y i LP M =
+
⋅
+
∆
∆
∆
∆
⋅
+
=
∆
∆
∆
∆
−
−
−
−
−
=
∑
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
t
it
it
it
it
it
n
i
iiiii
iiiii
iiiii
iiiii
iiiii
t
t
t
t
t
q
q
q
lar
growm
rdgp
def
i
growm
rdgp
def
i
5
4
3
2
1
5453525
4443424
3433323
2423222
1413121
1
55555
44444
33333
22222
11111
5
4
3
2
1
4
3
2
22 ε
ε
ε
ε
ε
ω ω ω η
ω ω ω η
ω ω ω η
ω ω ω η
ω ω ω η
π
θ ϕ δ γ β
θ ϕ δ γ β
θ ϕ δ γ β
θ ϕ δ γ β
θ ϕ δ γ β
α
α
α
α
α
π
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 6/21
6 | P a g e
5. Data12
The dataset was taken for the United States from the Federal Reserve Economic Data
(FRED). In this context, the 10-Year Treasury Note Rate is used for long-term interest
rates. The time period examined goes from 1966Q2 to 2009Q4.
The US was chosen for the analysis because it has the most comprehensive dataset with
a large sample size. This is especially important in using VARs because of two reasons:
Firstly, the occurrence of lagged dependent variables in VARs renders the OLS estimates
biased, but they are still consistent.13 Secondly, VARs tend to consume numerous
degrees of freedom because of the large number of regressors due to many lags.
Therefore, it is desirable to have a large sample size in order to obtain precise estimates.
6. Estimation
First, the augmented Dickey-Fuller test was carried out to test for the stationarity of the
series. Non-stationary series (interest rates, deficits, money supply growth) were
differenced, giving rise to a percentage point interpretation of the differenced series. As
the data for the federal deficit is not seasonally adjusted, seasonal dummies were
included to remove seasonal effects.
In deciding the number of lags to include in the VAR, the Akaike information criterion
suggested a lag length of 3 quarters. However, the LM test for serial correlation indicates
autocorrelation at this lag length. Therefore, successive lags are added until the VAR
model passes all diagnostic tests at the 5% level, giving us 7 lags.14
The numerical result for this VAR estimation can be found in the Appendix.15 For the
regression with ∆i (changes in the 10-Year Bond rate) as dependent variable, the large
deficits dummy coefficient is insignificant. The coefficients on ∆def (changes in the
federal deficit) have mixed signs, with the first three lags having negative coefficients
between -0.10 and 0 and the four coefficients after that being positive with values
between 0.06 and 0.08. They are all individually statistically insignificant at the 5% level.
12 See Appendix A3.1 for data source documentation and A3.2 for a full table.
13 Modern Econometrics, Thomas (1997), p209.
14 Diagnostic tests for A1.1.1 VAR_01_66to09: LM autocorrelation test (see Appendix A1.1.2), White
heteroskedasticity test (the joint test gave a p-value of 0.163), Jarque Bera normality test (no normality, but
the large sample size allows the application of the central limit theorem, so the residuals are asymptotically
normally distributed), Ramsey RESET Test (using a squared term for the equation with ∆i as dependent
variable, we obtained a p-value of 0.1993).
15 See Appendix A1.1.1 VAR_01_66to09 for VAR estimation output. See A1.1.2 for residuals plot and
A1.1.3 for impulse functions.
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 7/21
7 | P a g e
However, the coefficients could still be jointly significant. We will test whether all seven
lags of ∆def are relevant in explaining ∆i by using an F-Test for joint exclusion
restrictions. This is testing for Granger causality.
Our null hypothesis is that all the γ(1i) coefficient are jointly zero, which would mean
that ∆def does not Granger cause ∆i. The test shows us that this null hypothesis cannot
be rejected at a 5% significance level.16 Moreover, the Granger test could not detect any
reverse causality running from interest rates to deficits either. We conclude from this
VAR that there is no evidence that higher government deficits raise long-term interest
rates. The only variable that Granger causes (at a 5% level) changes in the interest
rates in this VAR is inflation, which has a positive effect.
By undertaking sensitivity analysis, we will now see whether the negative results are
robust to changing samples and adding variables.
In re-estimating the VAR for the subperiod 1991Q1-2009Q4, we can see whether the
results hold in a low-inflation environment, in which movements in the nominal interest
rate are less influenced by high and volatile inflation.17 The Granger causality test again
finds no Granger causality in any direction, with the large deficit dummy still being
insignificant. 18 Moreover, inflation does not Granger cause changes in the interest rate
any more, suggesting that its significant effect was confined to the high inflation period
in the 70s and 80s.
Now we include a new variable to our VAR, the current account as share of GDP. Possible
effects of deficits on interest rates could be diminished by the fact that financial markets
have become increasingly integrated. High deficits then do not necessarily increase
interest rates via the crowding out effect, as the government can borrow funds from
abroad. To account for the effect of capital flows, the current account as share of GDP
(differenced for stationarity) was included as another endogenous variable.
The modified VAR was estimated for the time period 1966Q2-2009Q4 using 7 lags and
passes all the diagnostic tests.19 It yields the same qualitative results as our first VAR.20
The γ(1i) coefficients are all individually insignificant and range between -0.17 and 0.12.
16 See Appendix A1.1.4 VAR_01_66to09 Granger causality test
17 Diagnostic tests for A1.2.1 VAR_02_91to09: LM autocorrelation test (p-values for 8 lags ranged from
0.2801 to 0.9687, with a p-value of 0.03 for the 8th lag) White heteroskedasticity test (the p-value of joint test
is 0.4125), Jarque Bera normality test (no normality, but the large sample size allows the use of central limit
theorem, so residuals are asymptotically normally distributed), Ramsey RESET Test (using a squared term for
the equation with ∆i as dependent variable, we obtained a p-value of 0.8655).
18 See Appendix A1.2.1 VAR_02_91to09 for estimation output and A1.2.2 VAR_02_91to09 Granger
causality test
19 Diagnostic tests: LM autocorrelation test (the p-values for 8 lags ranged from 0.0563 to 0.4989), White
heteroskedasticity test (the p-value of the joint test is 0.2279), Jarque Bera normality test (no normality, but
large sample size allows use of central limit theorem), Ramsey RESET Test (using a squared term for the
equation with ∆i as dependent variable, we obtained a p-value of 0.2528).
20 See Appendix A1.3.1 VAR_03_CurrentAccount for VAR estimation output
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 8/21
8 | P a g e
A test for Granger causality shows that there is no evidence for past changes in deficits
Granger causing changes in the interest rates at a 5% significance level.21 The coefficient
on the large deficit dummy is insignificant. Again, inflation is the only variable that
Granger-causes changes in the interest rate.
Sensitivity analysis has supported the robustness of our results. We conclude that there
is no evidence for government deficits of any size raising long-term interest rates.
7. Conclusion
Using a vector autoregressive model, we found no evidence for the claim that large
government deficits raise long-term interest rates. This does not necessarily prove
Ricardian equivalence right, since the actual mechanism through which interest rates are
equilibrated may be quite different from what REH postulates. One possible explanation
for our negative results is that worldwide capital flows were insufficiently modelled. One
way to deal with this is to estimate the model for the world as a closed economy, where
a first attempt has been made by Ford and Laxton (1999). Possible effects could also be
mitigated for the US in particular, because US bonds are considered as a very safe asset.
Investors might be less worried about US budget deficits than they would be in other
countries, which reduces the risk premium effect. Part of the results can also be
attributed to shortcomings of the VAR model, as VARs are more likely to suffer from
measurement error, which biases the coefficients towards zero.
22
In the future, moreefforts can be undertaken in the direction of looking at expected deficits rather than past
deficits, where studies have already delivered promising results. Taken together, all
these suggestions and limitations point to much scope for future studies in this area of
research.
21 See Appendix A1.3.2 VAR_03_CurrentAccount Granger causality test
22 Gale and Orszag (2004), p27.
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 9/21
9 | P a g e
8. Appendix
Overview
A1.1.1 Table: Vector autoregression estimation output VAR_01_66to09
A1.1.2 Graph/Table: VAR_01_66to09 residuals plot and serial correlation LM Test
A1.1.3 Graph: VAR_01_66to09 Impulse response functions
A1.1.4 Table: VAR_01_66to09 Granger causality test results
A1.2.1 Table: Vector autoregression estimation output VAR_02_91to09
A1.2.2 Table: VAR_02_91to09 Granger causality test results
A1.3.1 Table: Vector autoregression estimation output VAR_03_CurrentAccount
A1.3.2 Table: VAR_03_CurrentAccount Granger causality test results
A2 References
A3.1 Data source documentation
A3.2 Table: Full Data table
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 10/21
10 | P a g e
A1.1.1 Table: Vector autoregression estimation output VAR_01_66to09
VAR_01_66to09 Included observations: 167 after adjustments
Sample (adjusted): 1968Q2 2009Q4 Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
DINTEREST DDEFICIT GDPGROWTH INFLATION DM2GROWTH
C -0.265141 -0.171103 0.594538 -0.173569 0.481903
-0.18616 -0.17026 -0.30275 -0.23682 -0.29615
[-1.42430] [-1.00498] [ 1.96377] [-0.73293] [ 1.62723]
DDEFICIT(-1) -0.001414 -0.709845 -0.258683 -0.167765 -0.213776
-0.08925 -0.08163 -0.14516 -0.11354 -0.14199
[-0.01584] [-8.69581] [-1.78207] [-1.47753] [-1.50555]
DDEFICIT(-2) -0.062026 -0.533681 -0.18734 0.117582 -0.307614
-0.11399 -0.10425 -0.18538 -0.14501 -0.18134
[-0.54415] [-5.11918] [-1.01055] [ 0.81086] [-1.69635]
DDEFICIT(-3) -0.102381 -0.426973 -0.105671 0.19768 -0.265578
-0.12142 -0.11105 -0.19747 -0.15447 -0.19317
[-0.84319] [-3.84486] [-0.53512] [ 1.27977] [-1.37487]
DDEFICIT(-4) 0.07437 -0.084439 -0.191795 0.22464 -0.381472
-0.12801 -0.11708 -0.20819 -0.16285 -0.20365
[ 0.58096] [-0.72121] [-0.92124] [ 1.37942] [-1.87317]
DDEFICIT(-5) 0.077708 -0.209783 0.079429 0.318017 -0.478322-0.12204 -0.11162 -0.19848 -0.15526 -0.19415
[ 0.63673] [-1.87946] [ 0.40018] [ 2.04833] [-2.46362]
DDEFICIT(-6) 0.063933 -0.116505 -0.269467 0.12596 -0.380494
-0.12128 -0.11092 -0.19725 -0.15429 -0.19294
[ 0.52714] [-1.05031] [-1.36613] [ 0.81639] [-1.97204]
DDEFICIT(-7) 0.072754 0.000871 -0.173464 0.021897 -0.107968
-0.0953 -0.08716 -0.15499 -0.12123 -0.1516
[ 0.76345] [ 0.00999] [-1.11923] [ 0.18062] [-0.71217]
DUMMY_LARGE -0.101984 0.558235 -0.116876 -0.19461 0.08613
-0.09378 -0.08577 -0.15251 -0.1193 -0.14919
[-1.08753] [ 6.50879] [-0.76633] [-1.63131] [ 0.57734]
… other variables
R-squared 0.376305 0.734448 0.372323 0.61561 0.426628
Adj. R-squared 0.184776 0.652901 0.179571 0.497569 0.250553
Sum sq. resids 28.90378 24.17714 76.45097 46.77675 73.15163
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 11/21
11 | P a g e
-2.0
-1.5
-1.0
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
DINTEREST Residuals
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
DDEFICIT Residuals
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
GDPGROWTH Residuals
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
INFLATION Residuals
-2
-1
0
1
2
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05
DM2GROWTH Residuals
A1.1.2 Graph/Table: VAR_01_66to09 residuals plot and serial correlation
LM Test
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 12/21
12 | P a g e
A1.1.3 Graph: VAR_01_66to09 Impulse response functions
-.20
-.15
-.10
-.05
.00
.05
.10
.15
.20
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Response of DDEFICIT to CholeskyOne S.D. DINTEREST Innovation
-.15
-.10
-.05
.00
.05
.10
.15
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
Response of DINTEREST to Cholesky
One S.D. DDEFICIT Innovation
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 13/21
13 | P a g e
A1.1.4 Table: VAR_01_66to09 Granger causality test results
VAR Granger Causality/Block Exogeneity Wald Tests
Date: 05/05/10 Time: 19:27
Sample: 1947Q1 2009Q4
Included observations: 167
Dependent variable: DINTEREST
Excluded Chi-sq df Prob.
DDEFICIT 3.643830 7 0.8198
GDPGROWTH 8.104320 7 0.3235
INFLATION 17.09830 7 0.0168
DM2GROWTH 11.91664 7 0.1033
All 39.99320 28 0.0662
Dependent variable: DDEFICIT
Excluded Chi-sq df Prob.
DINTEREST 10.77719 7 0.1486
GDPGROWTH 12.62192 7 0.0819
INFLATION 6.525555 7 0.4799
DM2GROWTH 7.561830 7 0.3728
All 46.79342 28 0.0144
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 14/21
14 | P a g e
A1.2.1 Table: Vector autoregression estimation output VAR_02_91to09
VAR_02_91to09 Included observations: 76
Sample: 1991Q1 2009Q4 Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
DINTEREST DDEFICIT GDPGROWTH INFLATION DM2GROWTH
C -0.390838 -0.702851 1.446004 1.903676 -0.283247
-0.44715 -0.72929 -0.83798 -0.7474 -0.73623
[-0.87406] [-0.96375] [ 1.72559] [ 2.54706] [-0.38473]
DDEFICIT(-1) -0.090547 -0.625071 -0.23924 -0.286478 0.059454
-0.1227 -0.20013 -0.22995 -0.2051 -0.20203
[-0.73794] [-3.12340] [-1.04040] [-1.39680] [ 0.29428]
DDEFICIT(-2) 0.085836 -0.441449 -0.333808 -0.324128 -0.049441-0.17767 -0.28977 -0.33295 -0.29696 -0.29253
[ 0.48313] [-1.52346] [-1.00257] [-1.09147] [-0.16901]
DDEFICIT(-3) 0.07606 -0.214111 -0.389666 -0.429618 0.013112
-0.19443 -0.31712 -0.36438 -0.32499 -0.32014
[ 0.39119] [-0.67518] [-1.06940] [-1.32193] [ 0.04096]
DDEFICIT(-4) 0.138224 0.118391 -0.293815 -0.557069 -0.147529
-0.19939 -0.32519 -0.37366 -0.33327 -0.32829
[ 0.69325] [ 0.36406] [-0.78632] [-1.67152] [-0.44939]
DDEFICIT(-5) 0.257936 -1.38E-02 -0.230108 -0.268976 -0.427319
-0.17988 -0.29337 -0.3371 -0.30066 -0.29617
[ 1.43397] [-0.04695] [-0.68262] [-0.89462] [-1.44284]
DDEFICIT(-6) 0.141545 0.097133 -0.405803 -0.233567 -0.626154
-0.16356 -0.26676 -0.30652 -0.27339 -0.2693
[ 0.86540] [ 0.36412] [-1.32391] [-0.85434] [-2.32510]
DDEFICIT(-7) 0.03267 0.101211 -0.213772 -0.063592 -0.387133
-0.12343 -0.2013 -0.23131 -0.2063 -0.20322
[ 0.26469] [ 0.50277] [-0.92420] [-0.30824] [-1.90498]
DUMMY_LARGE -0.084003 0.76526 -0.042911 -0.183602 0.212917
-0.13448 -0.21934 -0.25202 -0.22478 -0.22142
[-0.62464] [ 3.48900] [-0.17027] [-0.81680] [ 0.96159]
… other variables
R-squared 0.675231 0.832256 0.559291 0.556533 0.817453
Adj. R-squared 0.323399 0.650534 0.081856 0.076111 0.619693
Sum sq. resids 3.63314 9.664411 12.75973 10.15041 9.849296
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 15/21
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 16/21
16 | P a g e
A1.3.1 Table: Vector autoregression estimation output
VAR_03_CurrentAccount
VAR_03_CurrentAccount Included observations: 167 after adjustments
Sample (adjusted): 1968Q2 2009Q4 Standard errors in ( ) & t-statistics in [ ]
DINTEREST DDEFICIT GDPGROWTH INFLATION DM2GROWTH DCURACNT
C -0.271418 -0.165014 0.615461 -0.219424 0.496245 -0.010857
-0.18432 -0.16976 -0.30074 -0.2292 -0.29803 -0.0316
[-1.47255] [-0.97202] [ 2.04647] [-0.95733] [ 1.66510] [-0.34352]
DDEFICIT(-1) 0.002194 -0.706698 -0.238593 -0.179661 -0.181892 0.031248
-0.08999 -0.08289 -0.14684 -0.11191 -0.14551 -0.01543
[ 0.02438] [-8.52612] [-1.62489] [-1.60545] [-1.25002] [ 2.02505]
DDEFICIT(-2) -0.095524 -0.503992 -0.163557 0.037488 -0.252777 0.026233
-0.11599 -0.10683 -0.18925 -0.14423 -0.18754 -0.01989
[-0.82356] [-4.71772] [-0.86423] [ 0.25991] [-1.34783] [ 1.31900]
DDEFICIT(-3) -0.172273 -0.364954 -0.074756 0.054408 -0.179121 0.051732
-0.12395 -0.11416 -0.20224 -0.15413 -0.20041 -0.02125
[-1.38988] [-3.19686] [-0.36964] [ 0.35300] [-0.89376] [ 2.43413]
DDEFICIT(-4) 0.019203 -0.042325 -0.166438 0.069896 -0.308005 0.0111
-0.1317 -0.1213 -0.21489 -0.16377 -0.21295 -0.02258
[ 0.14581] [-0.34893] [-0.77454] [ 0.42679] [-1.44639] [ 0.49153]
DDEFICIT(-5) 0.019335 -0.13822 0.131495 0.152479 -0.361103 4.95E-05
-0.12514 -0.11525 -0.20418 -0.15561 -0.20234 -0.02146
[ 0.15451] [-1.19926] [ 0.64402] [ 0.97988] [-1.78468] [ 0.00231]
DDEFICIT(-6) 0.028568 -0.085275 -0.217834 0.032243 -0.324293 -0.015448
-0.12232 -0.11266 -0.19958 -0.1521 -0.19778 -0.02097
[ 0.23356] [-0.75694] [-1.09148] [ 0.21198] [-1.63971] [-0.73657]
DDEFICIT(-7) 0.117141 0.049448 -0.175084 -0.025364 -0.04151 -0.021007
-0.09937 -0.09153 -0.16214 -0.12357 -0.16068 -0.01704
[ 1.17881] [ 0.54027] [-1.07983] [-0.20526] [-0.25834] [-1.23288]
DUMMY_LARGE -0.150708 0.59505 -0.073437 -0.282073 0.166227 0.026412-0.09508 -0.08757 -0.15514 -0.11823 -0.15374 -0.0163
[-1.58507] [ 6.79501] [-0.47337] [-2.38573] [ 1.08125] [ 1.62008]
… other variables
R-squared 0.426186 0.752229 0.418756 0.662089 0.455067 0.444215
Adj. R-squared 0.206224 0.65725 0.195946 0.532557 0.246176 0.231164
Sum sq. resids 26.59215 22.55831 70.79543 41.12065 69.52333 0.781835
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 17/21
17 | P a g e
A1.3.2 Table: VAR_03_CurrentAccount Granger causality test results
VAR Granger Causality/Block Exogeneity Wald Tests
Date: 05/05/10 Time: 19:45
Sample: 1947Q1 2009Q4
Included observations: 167
Dependent variable: DINTEREST
Excluded Chi-sq df Prob.
DDEFICIT 5.620068 7 0.5847
GDPGROWTH 8.625229 7 0.2807
INFLATION 17.40420 7 0.0150
DM2GROWTH 10.31800 7 0.1713
DCURACNT 10.43150 7 0.1654
All 51.50530 35 0.0356
Dependent variable: DDEFICIT
Excluded Chi-sq df Prob.
DINTEREST 9.930980 7 0.1925
GDPGROWTH 13.99562 7 0.0513
INFLATION 7.460963 7 0.3825
DM2GROWTH 6.758907 7 0.4544DCURACNT 8.611454 7 0.2818
All 55.99862 35 0.0136
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 18/21
18 | P a g e
A2 References
“Do Budget Deficits Raise Nominal Interest Rates? Evidence from six countries”, Paul Evans (1987),
Journal of Monetary Economics 20 (1987).
“Do Budget Deficits Raise Interest Rates?” L. Ussher (1998), p4, Working Papers Department of
Economics, Queens College of the City University of New York.
“Budget Deficits, National Saving and Interest Rates”, W. G. Gale and P. R. Orszag (2004), Brookings
Institution and Tax Policy Center.
“World public debt and real interest rates”, R. Ford and D. Laxton (1999), International Monetary Fund.
“Federal government debt and interest rates”, Eric M. Engen and R. Glenn Hubbard (2004), NBER
Macroeconomics Annual, Vol.19 (2004).
“A note on interest rates and structural federal budget deficits.” John Kitchen (2002), MPRA Paper No.
21069.
“Budget Deficits and Interest Rates. A fresh perspective”, Ari Aisen and David Hauner (2008), IMF
Working Paper.
“Government debt”, Douglas W. Elmendorf and N. Gregory Mankiw (1998), Handbook of
Macroeconomics.
“New evidence on Deficits and Interest Rates.”, Gregory Hoelscher (1986), Journal of Money, Credit and
Banking, Vol.18, No.1 (Feb 1987).
“New evidence on the Interest Rate effects of Budget Deficits and Debt.” Thomas Laubach (2003).
“Fiscal policy and the term structure”, Charles Plosser (1982), Elsevier Science Publishers.
“A note on budget deficits and Interest Rates. Evidence from a small open economy”, George
Vamvoukas (1997), Southern Economic Journal, Vol.63, No.3.
“A no arbitrage vector autoregression of term structure dynamics with macroeconomic and latent
variables.” Andrew Ang and Monica Piazzesi (2003), Journal of Monetary Economics 50 (2003).
“Government deficits and interest rates. A no-arbitrage structural VAR approach.” Qiang Dai and Thomas
Phillipon (2004), New York University.
“Do Federal deficits affect interest rates? Evidence from 3 econometric methods.”, Stephen M. Miller and
Frank S. Russek (1996), Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol.18.
“A Macro finance model of the term structure, monetary policy and the economy.”, Glenn D. Rudebusch,
Tao Wu (2003).
“The effects of Budget deficits on interest rates: A review of empirical results.” Thomas Laubach.
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 19/21
19 | P a g e
A2.1 Data source documentation
All data is taken from the Federal Reserve Economic Data (FRED), managed by the
Federal Reserve branch in St. Louis: http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/
10 Year Treasury Note monthly rates (GS10)
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GS10?cid=115
For long-term interest rates, the monthly 10-Year Treasury Note rate was used,averaged over three months to obtain quarterly data.
Federal government debt: Total public debt (GFDEBTN), not adjusted
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEBTN?cid=5
For the deficit, data on total federal debt in million dollars was used: Each value was
subtracted from the quarter before to get the deficit, then division by nominal GDP was
carried out to obtain the deficit in a quarter as percentage of GDP. In this connection, a
positive number is interpreted as a deficit and a negative number as a surplus.
Nominal GDP (GDP)
Used to calculate the deficit and current account balance, seasonally adjusted:
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDP?cid=106
Real GDP growth (GDPC1), seasonally adjusted
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GDPC1?cid=106
Quarterly data for real GDP was used to get a measure of quarterly growth.
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 20/21
20 | P a g e
Consumer price index for all urban consumers, all items (CPIAUCSL),
seasonally adjusted
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CPIAUCSL?cid=9
Inflation data was calculated using the CPI, dividing each value by the value three
months ago in order to get inflation per quarter.
M2 Money stock (M2SL), seasonally adjusted
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2SL?cid=29
Money supply growth was obtained by using monthly data on the stock of M2, dividingeach observation by the observation three months ago, which resulted in quarterly M2
growth.
Balance of current account (BOPBCA), seasonally adjusted
http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/BOPBCA?cid=125
In dividing the balance on current account by nominal GDP, the current account balanceas a share of GDP was obtained.
A3.2 Full Data table
8/6/2019 The Eco No Metrics Project
http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/the-eco-no-metrics-project 21/21
21 | P a g e
Year Quarter
10 Year
Treasury
Deficit %
of GDP
Real GDP
growth Inflation
M2
Growth
CA as %
of GDP Year Quarter
10 Year
Treasury
Deficit %
of GDP
Real GDP
growth Inflation
M2
Growth
CA as %
of GDP
1966 1 4.770 0.333 1.255 0.127 1988 1 8.417 1.104 1.284 1.034 2.223 -0.666
2 4.780 -0.618 0.658 0.527 0.341 0.101 2 8.910 1.169 0.516 1.109 1.279 -0.571
3 5.140 1.072 0.810 1.233 1.019 0.061 3 9.100 1.038 1.335 1.181 0.623 -0.543
4 5.003 0.559 0.881 0.152 1.240 0.096 4 8.957 1.534 0.939 1.084 0.885 -0.598
1967 1 4.583 0.198 0.021 0.608 2.180 0.107 1989 1 9.207 1.036 0.748 1.568 0.477 -0.532
2 4.820 -0.962 0.798 0.906 2.886 0.081 2 8.773 1.067 0.793 1.137 1.547 -0.461
3 5.247 1.525 0.763 0.898 2.350 0.067 3 8.107 1.030 0.218 0.723 2.037 -0.399
4 5.643 0.996 2.061 1.187 1.775 0.056 4 7.907 1.674 1.045 1.675 1.666 -0.426
1968 1 5.610 0.532 1.698 0.880 1.574 0.022 1990 1 8.423 1.707 0.397 1.098 1.100 -0.414
2 5.743 -0.446 0.684 1.453 1.848 0.036 2 8.677 1.569 -0.002 1.241 0.683 -0.337
3 5.460 1.001 0.433 1.146 2.199 0.015 3 8.703 1.532 -0.876 2.222 1.078 -0.3684 5.770 0.342 1.575 1.133 2.098 -0.005 4 8.397 2.236 -0.484 0.975 0.879 -0.244
1969 1 6.177 0.155 0.291 1.681 1.124 0.013 1991 1 8.017 1.683 0.675 0.297 1.373 0.169
2 6.353 -0.668 0.632 1.377 0.660 -0.013 2 8.130 1.207 0.421 0.814 0.689 0.042
3 6.857 0.776 -0.470 1.359 0.673 0.005 3 7.940 2.090 0.392 0.734 0.119 -0.069
4 7.297 0.741 -0.157 1.609 1.063 0.036 4 7.347 2.203 1.098 0.802 0.618 -0.089
1970 1 7.367 0.366 0.181 1.583 -0.204 0.061 1992 1 7.303 1.264 1.063 0.795 0.546 -0.101
2 7.713 -0.182 0.890 1.039 1.818 0.094 2 7.377 1.618 1.032 0.789 -0.179 -0.189
3 7.460 0.815 -1.060 1.285 2.888 0.049 3 6.617 1.231 1.052 0.854 0.886 -0.230
4 6.853 0.954 2.758 1.269 2.693 0.021 4 6.743 1.717 0.184 0.776 -0.128 -0.289
1971 1 6.017 0.224 0.567 0.501 4.013 0.062 1993 1 6.280 0.809 0.640 0.700 -0.222 -0.226
2 6.247 0.495 0.798 1.247 3.220 -0.037 2 5.990 1.815 0.526 0.487 0.899 -0.312
3 6.483 1.300 0.278 0.739 2.766 -0.047 3 5.617 0.874 1.321 0.761 0.432 -0.318
4 5.890 0.997 1.788 0.733 2.763 -0.102 4 5.607 1.796 0.974 0.481 0.540 -0.412
1972 1 6.033 0.262 2.372 0.728 2.884 -0.142 1994 1 6.067 0.570 1.368 0.615 0.282 -0.361
2 6.143 -0.073 0.958 0.723 2.858 -0.138 2 7.083 0.981 0.644 0.815 0.183 -0.406
3 6.290 0.584 1.647 0.957 3.608 -0.103 3 7.333 0.648 1.111 0.674 -0.123 -0.443
4 6.373 1.088 2.558 1.185 2.974 -0.088 4 7.837 1.470 0.245 0.736 0.212 -0.503
1973 1 6.603 0.739 1.157 2.342 1.160 0.011 1995 1 7.483 0.870 0.215 0.864 0.183 -0.430
2 6.807 -0.093 -0.534 1.144 2.050 0.064 2 6.620 1.171 0.840 0.527 1.959 -0.435
3 7.207 0.230 0.954 3.167 0.729 0.197 3 6.323 0.300 0.697 0.590 1.278 -0.3624 6.753 0.585 -0.877 2.632 2.029 0.236 4 5.893 0.192 0.685 0.782 0.958 -0.307
1974 1 7.053 0.310 0.256 2.778 1.535 0.111 1996 1 5.910 1.655 1.729 0.905 1.387 -0.359
2 7.543 0.037 -0.989 2.495 0.974 0.007 2 6.720 0.548 0.870 0.577 1.055 -0.383
3 7.963 0.466 -0.394 3.448 1.350 -0.019 3 6.780 0.794 1.092 0.764 0.852 -0.457
4 7.670 0.714 -1.216 2.549 1.455 0.034 4 6.343 1.209 0.769 0.759 1.379 -0.392
1975 1 7.540 1.059 0.764 1.338 3.178 0.268 1997 1 6.563 0.697 1.483 0.314 1.141 -0.443
2 8.050 1.415 1.684 1.887 4.278 0.312 2 6.697 -0.056 1.255 0.313 1.221 -0.348
3 8.297 1.194 1.306 1.667 2.328 0.245 3 6.243 0.435 0.767 0.686 1.655 -0.389
4 8.063 1.298 2.273 1.639 2.886 0.281 4 5.907 1.038 0.945 0.310 1.676 -0.507
1976 1 7.753 1.321 0.752 0.538 3.331 0.145 1998 1 5.587 0.460 0.899 0.123 1.974 -0.512
2 7.773 1.085 0.490 1.604 2.404 0.091 2 5.597 0.062 1.319 0.617 1.554 -0.590
3 7.730 0.757 0.726 1.579 3.563 -0.005 3 5.203 -0.241 1.731 0.429 2.505 -0.666
4 7.190 0.972 1.161 1.382 3.573 0.009 4 4.670 0.962 0.891 0.488 2.169 -0.674
1977 1 7.353 0.781 1.987 2.215 2.952 -0.139 1999 1 4.983 0.404 0.782 0.729 1.443 -0.692
2 7.370 0.253 1.788 1.333 2.259 -0.151 2 5.540 -0.136 1.272 0.482 1.510 -0.779
3 7.357 1.157 -0.021 1.316 2.225 -0.133 3 5.883 0.182 1.796 0.840 1.231 -0.858
4 7.597 0.935 0.341 1.786 2.049 -0.278 4 6.140 1.234 0.261 0.714 1.666 -0.890
1978 1 8.010 0.836 3.934 1.914 1.618 -0.327 2000 1 6.480 -0.027 1.951 0.945 2.078 -1.018
2 8.320 0.474 0.980 2.504 1.823 -0.166 2 6.177 -0.873 0.084 1.053 0.461 -1.001
3 8.490 0.932 1.323 2.443 2.130 -0.157 3 5.893 -0.116 0.592 0.695 1.757 -1.0804 8.820 0.717 0.167 2.086 1.427 -0.028 4 5.567 -0.118 -0.330 0.978 2.208 -1.094
1979 1 9.107 0.300 0.094 3.066 2.224 -0.017 2001 1 5.050 1.083 0.656 0.456 3.177 -1.058
2 9.113 0.312 0.719 3.399 2.332 -0.027 2 5.270 -0.455 -0.274 0.567 1.483 -0.948
3 9.103 0.812 0.275 3.014 1.784 0.036 3 4.980 0.777 0.353 0.113 2.575 -1.017
4 10.447 0.683 0.322 3.723 1.527 -0.004 4 4.770 1.295 0.859 0.056 2.292 -0.851
1980 1 11.987 0.672 -2.049 3.718 1.315 -0.127 2002 1 5.077 0.590 0.531 0.900 0.744 -0.992
2 10.477 0.509 -0.186 2.101 2.882 -0.034 2 5.100 1.125 0.500 0.390 1.730 -1.090
3 10.953 1.032 1.850 2.542 2.543 0.156 3 4.260 0.945 0.021 0.667 2.010 -1.085
4 12.423 0.738 2.078 2.952 1.394 0.082 4 4.007 1.630 0.405 0.773 1.697 -1.145
1981 1 12.960 1.113 -0.798 2.179 3.255 0.032 2003 1 3.920 0.500 0.798 0.329 1.686 -1.241
2 13.750 0.209 1.215 2.694 1.368 0.040 2 3.620 1.860 1.676 0.273 2.476 -1.184
3 14.847 0.835 -1.246 2.077 2.372 0.066 3 4.233 0.992 0.899 0.653 0.202 -1.156
4 14.087 0.969 -1.641 1.071 2.823 0.024 4 4.287 1.851 0.704 0.757 0.132 -1.103
1982 1 14.293 1.005 0.542 0.636 1.892 -0.009 2004 1 4.020 1.130 0.711 0.590 1.968 -1.178
2 13.930 0.560 -0.386 2.632 1.652 0.117 2 4.600 1.199 0.735 0.907 1.403 -1.325
3 13.117 1.884 0.079 0.615 2.181 -0.123 3 4.303 0.862 0.868 0.899 1.347 -1.331
4 10.667 1.628 1.244 -0.204 4.734 -0.151 4 4.173 1.754 0.998 0.419 0.765 -1.477
1983 1 10.563 1.362 2.248 0.919 3.501 -0.074 2005 1 4.297 1.444 0.426 1.096 0.601 -1.409
2 10.543 2.093 1.972 1.012 1.772 -0.225 2 4.160 0.467 0.760 0.620 1.206 -1.431
3 11.627 1.563 2.067 1.002 1.664 -0.360 3 4.213 0.745 0.517 2.155 1.509 -1.455
4 11.687 0.880 1.940 1.290 1.851 -0.419 4 4.490 1.803 1.312 0.050 1.385 -1.625
1984 1 11.943 1.358 1.727 1.175 2.500 -0.550 2006 1 4.570 1.504 0.360 0.703 1.021 -1.507
2 13.200 1.231 0.972 0.774 1.454 -0.600 2 5.070 0.363 0.027 1.147 1.299 -1.514
3 12.867 1.477 0.814 0.961 1.586 -0.588 3 4.897 0.639 0.731 -0.542 1.731 -1.597
4 11.743 2.203 0.944 0.571 3.264 -0.659 4 4.630 1.256 0.300 0.779 1.725 -1.381
1985 1 11.583 1.144 0.847 1.230 1.837 -0.571 2007 1 4.680 1.211 0.794 1.272 1.466 -1.443
2 10.813 1.501 1.562 0.654 2.279 -0.687 2 4.847 0.127 0.887 0.822 1.273 -1.361
3 10.337 1.122 0.759 0.743 1.587 -0.735 3 4.730 0.976 0.527 0.685 1.811 -1.210
4 9.760 2.803 0.961 1.290 1.384 -0.802 4 4.260 1.541 -0.182 1.508 1.321 -1.153
1986 1 8.557 0.924 0.402 -1.092 2.216 -0.781 2008 1 3.663 1.438 0.362 0.886 2.323 -1.247
2 7.603 1.615 0.964 0.736 2.715 -0.807 2 3.887 0.374 -0.676 2.333 1.138 -1.295
3 7.307 1.452 0.483 0.639 2.331 -0.847 3 3.863 3.713 -1.371 -1.036 2.695 -1.266
4 7.263 1.942 0.554 1.089 2.088 -0.863 4 3.253 4.761 -1.647 -2.247 3.667 -1.079
1987 1 7.193 0.680 1.063 1.167 0.874 -0.852 2009 1 2.737 3.018 -0.185 0.401 0.504 -0.735
2 8.343 1.313 0.867 0.976 0.411 -0.853 2 3.313 2.937 0.555 0.923 1.141 -0.691
3 8.877 0.839 1.711 1.054 1.297 -0.842 3 3.517 2.522 1.360 0.737 0.595 -0.719
4 9.123 1.646 0.517 0.870 1.178 -0.845 4 3.460 2.750 0.800 0.569 -0.027 -0.800