Displacement Effect And Economic Growth In The Uk Finance Essay - Free Essay Example

Sample details Pages: 20 Words: 5914 Downloads: 9 Date added: 2017/06/26 Category Finance Essay Type Analytical essay Did you like this example? In this chapter of the research, will discuss the assumption made by both the Peacock and Wiseman (1961) displacement hypothesis to explain the increases in the proportion of time government expenditure to economic growth in the United Kingdom. They found that government expenditure in the United Kingdom did not follow a smooth trend, but instead, it seems to jump up in separate times. Peacock and Wiseman (1961) proposed the displacement effect hypothesis. It had related to the Wagners law even though there are a few differences between them. Thus, they contend that under normal conditions of peace and economic stability, changes in public expenditure are quite limited. Don’t waste time! Our writers will create an original "Displacement Effect And Economic Growth In The Uk Finance Essay" essay for you Create order The effect of the public expenditure on the time pattern of the general government expenditure is that public sector size will tend to be constant over time, rather than increasing, unless same major crisis periods occur, which require an increase in government intervention. The equivalent expansion of the public sector will not be just temporary, since the new levels of government expenditure and taxation will be accepted by the electors, and therefore public sector size will remain stable at an higher level until the next shock. The data used in this study is the time series Quarterly data for two periods of (1980q1 to 1990q2), and (1990q3 to 2007q4), have utilized to analyze the relationship between government expenditures and economic growth by measuring the gross domestic product in the Saudi economy. The rest of the chapter is organizing as following: section one, presents some empirical results of relevant theoretical and empirical literature on the relationship between government expenditure and economic growth. Section tow, presents the version of Peacock and Wiseman and their formula to explain the Displacement Effect. Section three, investigates the data and empirical results and analysis by using the methods. In addition, Section four, presents the results of analysis by using the time series techniques , such as the Ordinary Least Square (OLS), Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, co-integration test , Causality Granger test , and Error Correction Model (ECM) , that for real GDP and Non-Oil GDP . While section five, concludes the chapters and presents. 9.2. The Displacement Effect Hypothesis 9.2.1. Structural Break Theory As we mentioned before in chapter three, wars are capable of displacing this notion of tolerable tax rates. In addition, expenditure may fall again, but not to their previous levels. Therefore, public expenditure grows in a discontinuous and stepwise fashion, the steps coming at times of major social upheavals (Safa, 1998). According to, Tussing and Henning (1991:397) the upward displacement effect by Peacock and Wiseman is an example, but obviously not the only one of such a structural change. Nelson and Plosser (1982) examined the relationship between the unable to reject the null of a unit root against trend stationary alternatives their data set. They found that impact on the way economic series have viewed and treated subsequently, which have further discussed by Perrons (1989). Zivot and Andrews (1992) pointed out the specification argued in favour of the need to view break points as endogenous and to develop procedures, which considered this endogenously. Diamond (1977) presented the displacement effect as a theory of structural break, which means that the usual ceteris paribus assumption of unchanged tastes, preferences and institutions after the upheaval has denied. He has used the Chow test comparing two periods separated by a social upheaval, and he found that, if this shows significant structural change and there has been displacement. 9.2.2. A Ratchet Effect As mentioned previously, the main argument of the ratchet effect is that if there a crisis and GNP decline, then the public expenditure decline but less than GNP. According to Bird (1972), he has explained the displacement effect and called it the ratchet effect. Moreover, Bird (1972) has argued that crises are likely to have short-term implications for (E / GNP) rather than crises lead to a permanent upward displacement for (E / GNP). Henrekson (1992) argued that the (E / GNP) is fall in the short run in times of unexpectedly rapid GNP growth. Other study for Peacock and Wiseman (1979) they argued that at the extreme, the ratchet effect interpretation of the displacement effect leads to the denial of its very existence. 9.3. Empirical Testing of Displacement Effect: Previous Studies Gupta (1967) was the first attempt to subject the displacement effect to empirical testing. He found significant displacement after the world wars in all cases except for Sweden after World War II. However, this result seems to be due to an estimation error, he also found significant displacement caused by the Great Depression in the case of the U.S. and Canada. According to, Henrekson (1990:246) Peacock and Wiseman (1961), adopt a clearly inductive approach to explaining the growth of government expenditure. When Peacock and Wiseman observed that expenditures over time appeared to outline a series of plateaus separated by peaks, and that these peaks coincided with periods of war and preparation for war they were led to expound the displacement effect hypothesis. Legrenzi (2003) argued that the displacement effect for Italy within a multivariate revenue-expenditure model of government growth. His result for long-run analysis shows an effect of GDP on the governments growth. Otherwise, the short-run analysis shows some evidence for the displacement effect, in terms of a lower resistance against tax financing of government expenditures in the war. The similar test of Guptas version in many ways is for Bonin, Finch and Waters (1969); they have tested displacement effect in the U.K. after the two world wars. In addition, Peacock and Wiseman investigated that both citizens and government hold divergent views about the desirable size of public expenditures and the possible level of government taxation. This divergence can adjust by social disturbances that destroy established conceptions and produce a displacement effect. People will accept, in a period of crisis, tax levels and methods of raising revenue that in quieter times would have though intolerable, and this acceptance remains when the disturbance itself has disappeared. As a result, the revenue and expenditure statistics of the government show a displacement after periods of social disturbance. Expenditures may fall when the disturbance is over, but they are less likely to return to the old level. The state may begin doing some of the things it might formerly have wanted to, but for which it had hitherto felt politically unable to raise the necessary revenues (Peacock and Wiseman 1961: 26). Other study for Henry and Olekalns (2000), investigated the Peacock and Wisemans displacement effect to explain the increases in the ratio of government expenditure to GDP in the United Kingdom. They used a data set extending back to 1836; they found instances where displacement may say to have occurred. 9.4. The formulating of the versions of Displacement Effect We tested the Displacement Effect by reversing the Peacock-Wiseman version of Wagners, which are with real GDP (9.1): Table 9.1: The original Version of Peacock-Wiseman with real GDP No Function Version Year 1 L(GE) = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + L(GDP) Peacock-Wiseman 1967 Moreover, we will use non-oil sector of Growth Domestic Product (GDP) table (9.2). Table 9.2: The Version of Peacock-Wiseman with real Non-Oil Sector of GDP No Function Version Year 1 L(GE) = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + L(Non-Oil GDP) + e Peacock-Wiseman 1967 9.5. The Econometric Methodology and Analysis 9.5.1. Ordinary least square test (OLS) The ordinary Least Square test (OLS), has used to estimate the coefficients in the equations. The Durbin-Watson statistic indicates the absence of the serial correlation among the residuals; the closer the DW statistic and better result are to (2). Test reflects the regression equations ability to determine the dependent variables performance. In contrast, the coefficients of the logarithm model have an interpretation, as elasticises. The logarithm transformation is applicable only when all the observations in the data set are positive. In contrast, the parameters of the logarithm model have an interpretation as elasticises. The logarithm transformation is applicable only when all the observations in the data set are positive. According to, Gujarati (1995), the normal regression model by taking logs of both sides of the equation: Y = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + X + e (9.1) To be: Log Y = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + Log X + e (9.2) The slope is: Slope = (9.3) The elasticity is: Elasticity = = (9.4) For simplification, E can write as: = (9.5) The normal equation of Peacock and Wiseman version is: GE = f (GDP) f 0 f (9.6) Where: GE = Total Government Expenditure level in real terms. GDP= Gross Domestic Product in real terms. GE = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + GDP + e (9.7) The equation by using logarithm model: L (GE) = ÃÆ'Ã… ½Ãƒâ€šÃ‚ ± + L (GDP) + e (9.8) E (Peacock Wiseman) = (9.9) 9.5.1.1. Structural Break Chow Test with Real GDP To find out whether there is a structural break between two periods we divide the observations, we need to calculate the chow test, which is like a F- test, the test statistic from the following formula (9.10): (9.10) The hypotheses tests are: Source RSSc RSS1 RSS2 df Model 9.33377 0.123032 4.65830 1 Residual 0.7410185 0.0067273 0.4136198 110 By using the formula above we can conclude, F-test (1, 110) = 83.914, and the critical value from the F-Table (5%) = 3.92. We have found that since the test F test (1, 110) = 83.914 is greater than the critical F- table = 3.92, we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no structural break and instead accept the alternative hypothesis that there is structural break, It means we have a structural break in the data. Thus, we need to divide the data into tow sup-samples. In the case of Saudi Arabia, we can analysis the Peacock-Wiseman version as: 9.5.1.1.1. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) with Real GDP Peacock-Wiseman (1980Q1 TO 1990Q2) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)= 6.43204+ 0.3737 L(GDP) (9.11) (14.44) (8.58) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.11), we will get elasticity value directly as (E=0.3737) 0, that means an increase of (99.63%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) generates a (99.63%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (65%) change in Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (table (9.3). Table 9.3: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) with Real GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 6.43204 L (GDP) 0.3737203 0.6480 Peacock-Wiseman (1990Q2 TO 2007Q4) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)= 0.554041+ 0.94752 L(GDP) (9.12) (1.51) (27.67) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.12), we will get elasticity value directly as (E = 0.94752) 0 , that means an increase of (99.05%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) Gross Domestic Products (GDP) generates a (99.05%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (91.8%) change in Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (table 9.4). Table 9.4: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) with Real GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.554041 L (GDP) 0.9475297 0.918 9.5.1.2. Structural Break Chow Test with Real Non-Oil-GDP To find out whether there is a structural break between two periods we divide the observations, we need to calculate the chow test, which is like a F- test, the test statistic from the following formula: The hypotheses tests are: Source RSSc RSS1 RSS2 df Model 8.62851 0.0943032 4.040055 1 Residual 1.44628 0.096802 1.0318692 110 By using the formula above we can conclude, F-test (1, 110) = 30.953, and the critical value from the F-Table (5%) = 3.92. We have found that since the test F test (1, 110) = 30.953 is greater than the critical F- table = 3.92, we can reject the null hypothesis that there is no structural break and instead accept the alternative hypothesis that there is structural break, It means we have a structural break in the data. Thus, we need to divide the data into tow sup-samples. 9.5.1.2.1. Ordinary Least Square (OLS) with Real NON-OIL-GDP Peacock-Wiseman (1980Q1 TO 1990Q2) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)=6.664974+0.3234 L(Non-Oil GDP) (9.13) (11.59) (6.24) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.13), we will get elasticity value directly as (E=0.3234) 0, that means an increase of (99.68%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) generates a (99.68%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (65%) change in Gross Domestic Products (GDP) (table (9.5). Table 9.5: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) with Real Non-Oil GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 6.664974 L (Non-Oil GDP) 0.32340 0.6480 Peacock-Wiseman (1990Q3 TO 2007Q4) The Peacock and Wiseman version would present as following: L(GE)= -0.568392+ 0.9721244 L(Non-Oil GDP) (9.14) (-0.82) (16.32) The numbers between parentheses are (t- statistics) for each estimated parameter and intercept. In the equation (9.14), we will get elasticity value directly as (E = 0.9721244) 0 , that means an increase of (99.03%) unit in Government Expenditure (GE) Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP) generates a (99.03%) unit increase Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP). Moreover, the Government Expenditure (GE) explains (79.7%) change in Gross Domestic Products (Non-Oil GDP) (table 9.6). Table 9.6: Regression results for Peacock Wiseman Version for (OLS) test from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) with Real Non-Oil GDP Versions D-Variable Constant In-Variable Coefficient R ² Peacock Wiseman L(GE) -0.568392 L (Non-Oil GDP) 0.9721244 0.797 9.5.2. Unit Roots Test Unit Root test aims to examine the properties of time series quarterly data for each of the Government Expenditures (LGE), Gross Domestic Product (LGDP), during the period from (1980q1-1990q2) to (1990q3-2007q4). To test the stationary time series model for the study variables, it requires the unit root test (Enders: 1995). Despite the multiplicity of the unit root tests, but we will use Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, through the following equation:   (9.15) Where: = the first difference of the series. is the series under consideration (GDP, government expenditures, or government revenues), t = the time trend. k= the number of lag. is a t is a stationary random error (white noise residual). The hypotheses tests are: If we fail to reject the , then we have a unit root process. On the other hand , if the outcome indicates that the series are stationary after the first difference , in other words , the series integrated of order one I(1) , then we have to proceed to perform a co-integration test. Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests have used to test for unit roots. If the null hypothesis that the variable contains a unit root cannot be rejected, In this section we have to test the Unit Root Tests for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). Table (9.7) presents the calculated t-value from Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests on each variable. Table 9.7: Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) Variables Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Test Statistics L(GDP) -2.725 L(GE) -3.514 L(Non-Oil GDP) -3.426 Critical Values 1% level -2.431 Critical Values 5% level -1.687 Critical Values 10% level -1.305 For the period during (1980Q1 to 1990Q2), according to the result in table (9.7), while all variables under examination are time-series variables, we needed first to test the properties of the series. In order to avoid the problem of spurious regression, each series has tested for stationary. To do so, we apply Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, considering 5% level of significance, for the unit root test whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis. However, we found the results of each variable used in Peacock Wiseman version in Saudi Arabia indicate that the series are non-stationary in level but stationary after the first difference. The number of observation is 41 for Saudi Arabia and the following table (9.7) summarize the results of the unit root test for Saudi Arabia. Based on these test it can concluded that all variables tested (LGDP, LGE, LNON OIL GDP) are contained a unit root insignificant level of 5% for Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests. These results are consistent with the standard theory, which assumes that most macroeconomic variables are not static level, but become stationary in first difference (Enders: 1995).The next step would be to test for co-integration by testing the residual from the co-integrating regression. Table 9.8: Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) Variables Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Test Statistics L(GDP) -4.199 L(GE) -7.332 L(Non-Oil GDP) -6.301 Critical Values 1% level -4.110 Critical Values 5% level -3.482 Critical Values 10% level -3.169 On the other hand, for the period during (1990Q3 to 2007Q4), according to the result in table (9.8), while all variables under examination are time-series variables, we needed first to test the properties of the series. In order to avoid the problem of spurious regression, each series has tested for stationary. To do so, we apply Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, considering 5% level of significance, for the unit root test whether to accept or reject the null hypothesis. However, we found the results of each variable used in Peacock Wiseman version in Saudi Arabia indicate that the series are non-stationary in level but stationary after the first difference. The number of observation is 69 for Saudi Arabia and the following table (9.8) summarize the results of the unit root test for Saudi Arabia. Based on these test it can concluded that all variables tested (LGDP, LGE, LNON OIL GDP) are contained a unit root insignificant level of 5% for Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests. These results are consistent with the standard theory, which assumes that most macroeconomic variables are not static level, but become stationary in first difference (Enders: 1995).The next step would be to test for co-integration by testing the residual from the co-integrating regression. 9.5.3. Co-integration Test In this section we have to test the Co-integration Test for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). As mentioned previously, the concept of integration common that if the level variables of the form are non-stationary any package of first class, if possible, to generate a linear combination of these variables is characterized by a static zero-class integrated I (0). It is in this case, the  integrated real-time variables of the same rank co-integrated, and thus it can use the level variables in the regression, nor is the decline in this case a false spurious, (Rau, 1994). The null hypothesis is that the variables under investigation are not co-integrated. The rejection of the null hypothesis requires that the trace value of the co-integration test to be greater than at least one of the different critical values. Therefore, failing to reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration leads us to conclude that no relationship in the long-term equilibrium between government spending and national income. Co-integrating test in this study are conducted using the method developed by Johansen (1988), and Johansen and Juselius (1990). Many studies used the Engle Granger two-step, but there are those who used a Johansen and Juselius )1990) , for so many advantages, such as first, that tests for all of the variables and, secondly, all variables are treated as internal variables, so that the choice of the variable is not arbitrary. This procedure is the most reliable test for co-integration. To determine whether stochastic trends in series have related to each other or not, we will test for co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version. In addition, after determining the order of integration by Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests, we test whether the series are co-integrated or not, and if they are, we have to identify the co-integrating long-run equilibrium relationship (Brooks, 2008). In this section, we have to test the Co-integration Test with (Real GDP) and Co-integrati on Test with (Real Non-Oil GDP). 9.5.3.1. Co-integration Test with (Real GDP) In the case of Real GDP for the period during (1980q1 to 1990q2), table (9.9) shows that co-integration relationship were found and the test support the existence of one co-integration equation in the relationship between LGE and LGDP. By looking at the Trace Statistic value in table (9.9), we conclude that we must reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration in of Peacock Wiseman version with, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. The existence of co-integration vector has pointed out by trace test since t-test value exceeds critical value in 5% level of significant. This means the co-integration tests are statistically significant at five percent level for determining the long-run relationship between LGE and LGDP. Otherwise, there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version that the trace tests indicates at 5%. At the Trace Statistic value in table (9.9), we can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real GDP, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.9: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real GDP) from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic (Long Run) Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None 0.51356   33.2534   15.41   0.0000 At most 1 0.08645   3.79   3.76   0.0000 On the other hand , In the case of Real GDP for the period during (1990q3 to 2007q4), table (9.10) shows that co-integration relationship were found and the test support the existence of one co-integration equation in the relationship between LGE and LGDP. By looking at the Trace Statistic value in table (9.9), we conclude that we must reject the null hypothesis of no co-integration in of Peacock Wiseman version with, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. The existence of co-integration vector has pointed out by trace test since t-test value exceeds critical value in 5% level of significant. This means the co-integration tests are statistically significant at five percent level for determining the long-run relationship between LGE and LGDP. Otherwise, there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version that the trace tests indicates at 5%. At the Trace Statistic value in table (9.10), we can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real GDP, because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.10: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real GDP) from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic (Long Run) Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None 0.75275   105.5668   15.41   0.0000 At most 1 0.12419 9.1496   3.76   0.0000 9.5.3.2. Co-integration Test with (Real Non-Oil GDP) In the case of Real Non-Oil GDP for the period during (1980q1 to 1990q2), table (9.11) shows that there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP at 5% levels . We can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP table (9.11), because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.11: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real Non-Oil GDP) from (1980Q1) to (1990Q2) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None   0.70444   79.2146   15.41   0.0000 At most 1   0.50992   29.2407   3.76   0.0000 On the other hand , In the case of Real Non-Oil GDP for the period during (1990q3 to 2007q4), table (9.12) shows that there is long run equilibrium relationship between Real GDP and Government Expenditures has found in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP at 5% levels . We can reject the null hypothesis of co-integration in Peacock Wiseman version with respect to real non-oil gross GDP table (9.12), because the Trace Statistic values are greater than the critical values at 5% levels. Table 9.12: Johansen Co-integration Test results with (Real Non-Oil GDP) from (1990Q3) to (2007Q4) Versions Hypothesized No. of CE(s) Eigen value Trace Statistic Critical Value 5% Prob Peacock Wiseman None   0.73329   158.7948   15.41   0.0000 At most 1   0.62460 67.6036   3.76   0.0000 9.5.4. Causality Test: After making sure of the time series model to study the variables that they are not stationary in the level and stationary in the difference, and then check it all-integrated joint, it is clear that there is a long-term equilibrium relationship. According to, Engle and Granger (1987), the variables that integrate common equilibrium reflects a long-term, it should be a representation of Error Correction Model (ECM), which has the potential to test and assess the relationship in the short and long term between the variables of the form, as it avoids  problems arising from the spurious correlation.   To apply the Error Correction Model (ECM) for Peacock Wiseman version in Saudi Arabia, we must employ Granger-causality as follows: In the context of error correction model (ECM) of the variables that are co-integrated. Standard Granger-Causal for the variables that do not co-integrated. 9.5.4.1. Granger Causality Test The Engle and Granger approach have two phases, the first: Assessing the relationship model equilibrium in the long term, called the decline of joint integration.  The second: an assessment error correction model to reflect the relationship in the short term or short-term volatility on the direction of the relationship in the long run, this model is estimated by the introduction of short-term residuum estimated long-term decline in the independent variable Decelerated for a single. In this section we have to test the Granger Causality for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). 9.5.4.1.1. Granger Causality Test from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with Real GDP Table (9.13) shows the probability values from Granger Causality Test for Peacock and Wiseman Version during periods from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with Real GDP. The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only 0.1% while 99.9% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LGDP by around 99.9% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.13) the feedback of causality from LGDP to LGE has presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 2.8% while 97.2% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LGDP cause LGE by about 97.2% all of them in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.13: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with Real GDP Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP 40.212 0.0010 LGDP does not Granger Cause LGE 7.1809 0.0280 The probability values from Granger Causality Test, table (9.14) present the causality test result from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with Real GDP. The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only (1%) while 99% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LGDP by around 99% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.14) the feedback of causality from LGDP to LGE presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 0.1% while 99.9% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LGDP cause LGE by about 99.9% all of them. Table 9.14: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with Real GDP Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LGDP 115.16 0.010 LGDP does not Granger Cause LGE 48.24 0.001 9.5.4.1.2. Granger Causality Test with Real Non-Oil GDP from (1990q3) to (2007q4) The probability values from Granger Causality Test, table (9.15) present the causality test result from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real Non-Oil GDP). The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only 41% while 59% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LNON_OIL_GDP by around 59% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.15) the feedback of causality from LNON_OIL_GDP to LGE presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 0.1% while 99.9% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LNON_OIL_GDP cause LGE by about 99.9% all of them. Table 9.15: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP 1.7821 0.410 LNON_OIL_GDP does not Granger Cause LGE 32.534 0.001 The probability values from Granger Causality Test, table (9.16) present the causality test result from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real Non-Oil GDP). The reported F-statistics are standard test for the joint hypothesis that LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP. In the case of Saudi Arabia, the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was only 0.9% while 99.1% rejecting this hypothesis, which means LGE, cause LNON_OIL_GDP by around 99.1% all the time in Peacock and Wisemans Version. In table (9.16) the feedback of causality from LNON_OIL_GDP to LGE presented where the probability for accepting the Null-Hypothesis was, only 0.2% while 99.8% rejecting the hypothesis, which means LNON_OIL_GDP cause LGE by about 99.8% all of them. Table 9.16: Granger Causality test for Peacock and Wiseman Version from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Null Hypothesis F-Statistic Prob. LGE does not Granger Cause LNON_OIL_GDP 9.5193 0.009 LNON_OIL_GDP does not Granger Cause LGE 40.708 0.002 9.5.4.2. Error Correction Model (ECM) The Error Correction Model (ECM) differs as discussed by Granger (1988) for the number of error correction terms. The concept of error correction is related to co-integration because the co-integration relationship describes the long run equilibrium. If a set of variables are co-integrated, then there exists an error correction model to describe the short run adjustment to equilibrium Engle and Granger (1987). The incidence of mutual co-integration between the variable indicates that the Granger must be Causal in one direction, at least, but the rules of engagement did not refer to the direction of causality between the variables. To verify the rules of engagement we are conducting tests of causation in the context of Error Correction Model (ECM). With regard to periods of lag length, and use the same lag length for Peacock Wiseman version, which we were when we tested for co-integration. In addition, the t-statistics on the coefficients of the lagged error correction term (ECTt-1 (indicate the significance of the long-run causality between the two variables. The statistical significance of the t-statistics is in our tests should be at most 5% level. These analyses regarded as usual analyses of the displacement hypothesis and the hypothesis that the part of national income constant to government expenditure increases with income (Gupta 1967, Diamond 1977, Nomura 1991, 1995). Moreover, Peacock and Wiseman agree with Wagners version of Wagners law. In this section we have to test The Error Correction Model (ECM) for Peacock and Wiseman version for real GDP and Non Oil GDP during two periods, firstly from (1980q1) to (1990q2) and from (1990q3) to (2007q4). 9.5.4.2.1. Error Correction Model (ECM) from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (real GDP) In the table (9.17), the results from (1980q1) to (1990q2) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). We draw this conclusion because the sign for GE is positive, and at the same time, the coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.17: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.0094398 7.69 L(GDP) 0.1036134 1.56 In the table (9.18), the results from (1990q3) to (2007q4) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). We draw this conclusion because the sign for GE, positive, and at the same time it coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, while the signs for GDP is either positive, and/or the coefficient is statistically insignificant at the 5% level. Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.18: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.0086968 9.99 LGDP 0.2657211 3.53 9.5.4.2.2. Error Correction Model (ECM) from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (real Non-Oil GDP) In the table (9.19), the results from (1980q1) to (1990q2) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from Non-Oil-GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). We draw this conclusion because the sign for GE is positive, and at the same time, the coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for Non-Oil-GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.19: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1980q1) to (1990q2) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) 0.0101674 1.73 L(Non-Oil GDP) 2.316124 6.43 In the table (9.20), the results from (1990q3) to (2007q4) indicate that there is long-run unidirectional causality that runs from Non-Oil-GDP to GE (Peacock Wiseman Version). we draw this conclusion because the sign for GE, is incorrect, negative, and at the same time it coefficient is statistically significant at the 5%level, while the signs for Non-Oil-GDP is either positive, and/or the coefficient is statistically insignificant at the 5% level. Thus, Peacock Wiseman version has found to hold for Non-Oil-GDP in the case of Saudi Arabia. Table 9.20: Causality with Error Correction Model (ECM) test from (1990q3) to (2007q4) with (Real Non-Oil GDP) Versions Variables ECTt-1 T-Stat Peacock Wiseman L(GE) -0.0037897 -3.42 L(Non-Oil GDP) 0.8948453 6.33 9.6. Conclusion According to, (Gupta, 1967) and (Diamond 1977,) argued that the displacement effect led to the share of national income devoted to government expenditures increases with GDP. In this chapter, we examined the relationship between the expenditures and economic growth of Peacock Wiseman version for Saudi Arabia by using time series quarterly data for the periods during (1980Q1 to 1990Q2) and during (1990Q3 to 2007Q4) . It has applied three distinct time series techniques. We have examined the regressions for Peacock Wiseman version by using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP. The displacement literature surveys have shown that the earlier empirical tests of displacement suffer from several methodological compare between the studies has impaired by different choices of periods and data series. The next step is the Unit Root tests by using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP, also we have used Co-integrating test for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP. Finally, Causality tests by using Granger causality tests and Error Correction Model (ECM). First, the regressions for Peacock Wiseman version by using Ordinary Least Square (OLS) for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP, to presents the probability of the equations and to analysis the R-square and DW, for Peacock Wiseman version. Second, The Unit Root tests by using the Augmented Dickey-Fuller for stationary Unit Root Tests for Real GDP and Non Oil GDP. In the case of the levels of the series, the null-hypothesis of non-stationary cannot reject for any of the series. Third, these results suggest that there is a co-integrating relationship between the share of government spending in national output and per capita income. In this situation, if co-integration exists between government expenditure and GDP, then Peacock Wiseman version holds. The equilibrium relationship indicates that the major determinant of government expenditure in Saudi Arabia, in the long run, is national income. Fourth, Granger causality tests have used to confirm the causality direction between the Variables. In the long run we found statistically significant evidence in favour of per capita GDP Granger-causing the share of government Expenditures in GDP, which is consistent with Peacock Wiseman version. The result of causality test indicate that the existence of strong feedback causality for Peacock Wiseman version in the long run. On the other hand, by using Error Correction Model (ECM), the concept of error correction, this has related to co-integration because the co-integration relationship describes the long run equilibrium. If a set of variables are co-integrated, then there exists an error correction model to describe the short run adjustment to equilibrium. Overall studies with the exception of Pryor (1968), the time dimension has completely suppressed, despite the fact that the Peacock and Wiseman hypothesis purports to explain the development of government expenditure over time.

Kohlberg s Stages Of Moral Development - 815 Words

For this week’s assignment in our complete section, students were asked to identify two immediate family members that vastly differ in age. We were asked to compare and contrast the moral developments of each. For this exercise, I have chosen to compare and contrast my thirteen year old autistic son, Matthew and my late grandfather, Merritt Cole who was 84 years old. Before delving into the subject matter, I feel compelled to provide background information on the stages of moral development according to esteemed psychologist Lawrence Kohlberg. According to Williams and Arrigo (2008), Kohlberg suggested that morality and moral reasoning proceed through a series of stages, more specifically, three levels with two stages in each. It is believed that people progress through these stages at various points in their life, with and without influences through everyday social interactions. Critics of Kohlberg’s stages of moral development felt as is Kohlberg’s stages were specifically developed for men and did not include women. One such critic was Carol Gilligan. Gilligan stated â€Å"that both men and women use two judgements from time to time which are ethic of care and ethic of justice (Cam,Cavdar, Cok Seydoogullari, 2012, p.1223). Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development are (Williams Arrigo, 2008, p. 123): Level 1: Preconventional Morality Stage 1: Punishment and Obedience Stage 2: Instrumental Purpose and ExchangeShow MoreRelatedKohlberg s Stages Of Moral Development Essay1280 Words   |  6 PagesStephen Lavely 4-21-16 Col-299 Jacqueline Gray Reflection Essay I personally identify with many aspects of these papers. In Kohlberg s Stages of Moral Development, specifically in Stage 6, I identify with basing my principles and moral values on â€Å"equality and worth of all living things (Kohlberg)†.I definitely think all individuals are valuable and are of equal importance and deserve their individual liberties. As a whole, if a the liberty of each person isn t taken into consideration, itRead MoreKohlberg s Stages Of Moral Development2136 Words   |  9 PagesKohlberg’s stages of moral development were based on a moral philosopher by the name of Lawrence Kohlberg. His main interest was to observe children during growth to develop and conclude which stages they best fit into. After observing both adults and children, he concluded that, â€Å"Human beings progress consecutively from one stage to the next in an invariant sequence† (â€Å"Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development†). All of the 6 stages he create d, represent the morality in which a child or adult can beRead MoreKohlberg s Six Stages Of Moral Development1987 Words   |  8 PagesExam One 1. a. Kohlberg’s six stages of moral development are complex yet very applicable ideas to moral development. The whole point of his six stages is to set the foundation for one’s ethical behavior with a psychological approach. The first stage of moral development is the â€Å"punishment/ obedience orientation†, which refers to how people will only focus on the consequences of certain actions. For example, when a student in elementary school brings a toy weapon to school after being told notRead MoreKohlberg s Six Stages Of Moral Development1575 Words   |  7 Pagessix stages of moral development can be applied to corporations. Corporations are made up of individuals, and the corporate culture can contribute to an individual’s moral decision making. Mintz tells us that â€Å"an individual’s moral development can be influenced by corporate culture, especially ethics training.† (p. 58) Since the corporate culture can so heavily influence in dividual ethical decision making, the stage of moral development of the corporation is important. An example of Stage 2 preconventionalRead MoreThe Six Stages Of Kohlberg s Moral Development2377 Words   |  10 PagesEXAM – 1 BUS 522 – Dr. S. Jasso APU Summer 2016 1. MORAL DEVELOPMENT a. The six stages of Kohlberg’s moral development: Level I. Preconventional Morality †¢ STAGE 1: Punishment and Obedience – Right and wrong is determined by rewards and punishment. Our behavior is motivated by fear of being punished;; an example of this would be that most people will not steal for fear of being punished (i.e. going to jail). †¢ STAGE 2: Instrumental Relativist Orientation - aka – looking out for number oneRead MoreKohlberg s Theory Of Moral Development And Fowler s Stages Of Faith Development852 Words   |  4 Pagesso basic to human development that we sometimes overlook its importance.† (Macionis, Pg. 84) Both Lawrence Kohlberg and James Fowler developed theories on how people develop in stages. Both Kohlberg’s Theory of Moral Development and Fowler’s Stages of Faith Development contain 6 stages that people are believed to go through as they develop. Kohlberg’s theory is related to how people develop a sense of what is right and wrong. It was influenced by the work of Jean Piaget, on moral reasoning. He classifiesRead MorePiaget s Theory Of Cognitive Development And Kohlberg s Stages Of Moral Development1439 Words   |  6 PagesThe two life stages that I focused on are: Piaget’s Theory of Cognitive Development and Kohlberg’s Stages of Moral Development. According to psychologist Jean Piaget, kids progress through a progression of four basis phases of cognitive advancement. Every stage is stamped by the movements in how children comprehend the world. Following his perceptions, he reasoned that children were not less intelligent than adults, they simply think in an unexpected way. Through his perceptions of his kids, PiagetRead MoreKohlberg : Theory Of Moral Development997 Words   |  4 PagesLawrence Kohlberg: Theory of Moral Development Lawrence Kohlberg was a well known psychologist best known for his thorough research into the development and better understanding of the processes needed to grow into a well developed human being. Kohlberg grew up in New York City on October 25, 1927. Growing up in such a diverse area is what struck his interest in the development of all beings. In only one short year he received his bachelors degree and then went on to devote his career to study theRead MoreMoral Development : What Are Morals And How Are They Developed? Essay898 Words   |  4 PagesMoral Development: Jimmy What are morals and how are they developed? The word moral has many definitions to define its meaning. In this case the proper definition to define moral would be â€Å"of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior† (Moral, n.d.). This definition is pertaining to one’s judgment. Kohlberg is the psychologist who developed a theory on moral development. He used ideas from Piaget and developed his own theory. His theory will be discussed throughout this easy, whileRead MoreKohlberg s Theory Of Moral Development And Moral Maturity Essay1305 Words   |  6 PagesIntroduction: Lawrence Kohlberg (1927–1987) is the pioneer of the theory of stages of moral development and participated actively in the development of the fields of moral psychology and moral education. Kohlberg was especially inspired by Jean Piaget, a Swiss psychologist who created the theory of cognitive development. Mark Baldwin, John Dewey, and George Herbert Mead also influenced his thinking (Barger, 2000; Encyclopedia of Education, 2002). In this paper, I will analyze in-depth Kohlberg’s

Accounting Standard & Regulations for ASX Firm - myassignmenthelp

Question: Discuss about theAccounting Standard Regulations for ASX Listed Firms. Answer: Introduction The present report presents the major accounting issues need to be considered by Myer Holdings Ltd, an ASX listed firm in the development of its general purpose financial report. The major area of the concern in this context is to develop a report for the CFO as an accounting graduate of the company for consideration of impairment of assets. The AASB 136 standard represents amendment in the current reporting standard regarding assets impairment that applies to annual reporting periods beginning on or after 1 July 2009 but before 1 January 2010. The reduce disclosure requirements as per the AASB 136 requires business corporations to ensure that its assets are not carried at more than its recoverable amount (Bond, Govendir and Wells, 2016). The report has addressed the processes, information and flexibility required by businesses for determining asset impairments with reference to Myer. Outlining the Evidence Determining the Necessity of Impairment Testing of Assets In Relation to Myer The AASB 136 amendment adopts IAS 36 impairment of assets standard as developed by the IASB. As analyzed from the data flow of the company, the evidence gathered in relation to necessity for asset impairment is as follows: Asset Flow: It can be stated from the data analysis of the company that asset amount in all its stores is either uniform or has demonstrated an increasing trend. It has been observed that none asset presents a declining trend over the last financial year in all its stores and therefore there is no signal of asset impairment. Asset Amount: it has been analyzed from the asset base that its net assets have not undergone major changes and all are contributing equally towards its overall assets indicating no asset impairment. Turnover of Assets: As analyzed from the financial figures of asset turnover ratio of the company, there is no asset impairment as the ratio is relatively same over the past few years (Myer Holdings Limited 2016 Annual Report, 2016). Outlining the processes required to be addressed in determining any asset impairments by Myer The goodwill recognized by the company on acquiring Myer business amounts to $349.5 million have been allocated to each of the cash generating units of the group as depicted from its consolidated financial statements. As per the AASB 136 Impairment of Assets standard, the goodwill and intangible assets with unpredictable useful life of a business entity need to be tested on an annual basis for impairment. The asset impairment for these assets has been tested by the Group through the adoption of use discounted cash flow model. This model is based on using the cash flow estimates of the group for the five year term. The cash flows generated beyond the period of five years are extrapolated through the use of a terminal growth rate. The model is based on utilizing the following assumptions: Discount or pre-tax rate at 14.4% Terminal growth rate at 2.5% Gross operating profit margin at 39.5% The management on the basis of the model has tested the asset impairment if any exists. The management has concluded that increase in the value of future cash flows over the net carrying values of assets of CGUs there is no alteration in the key assumptions adopted. As such, there is no possible reason for carrying value of CGU to exceed from the asset recoverable amount. The review of net carrying value of asset in the group store was carried out for identifying the asset impairment. The recoverable amount of assets in stores was estimated through discounted cash flow model and the major assumptions were found to be in consistency with those mentioned above. Thus, on the basis of sensitivity analysis of the key assumptions, it can be said that there is no asset impairment at Myers stores (Myer Holdings Limited 2016 Annual Report, 2016). Information required in determining asset impairments The IAS 36 accounting standard is developed for carrying out impairment testing of all tangible and intangible assets. As per the standard, all assets need to test that they are within the impairments scope when there is indication of any impairment. The impairment testing of goodwill and intangible assets need to be carried about annually (Hussey, 2010). The major information needed for determination of asset impairments by Myer Holdings can be depicted through the following diagram: The information required by the Group on the basis of above diagram can be described as follows: The asset impairment test is initiated through estimating its recoverable amount or of the CGU whenever there is any indication that a particular asset is impaired The recoverable amount of goodwill and intangible assets with unpredictable useful lives need to be assessed annually without considering the fact there is an indication of impairment or not In the case of identification of an exceed in the carrying amount of asset over the recoverable amount, the particular asset or CGU is impaired The recoverable amount if an asset can be regarded as the value in use of a particular asset. The value in use is the present value of expected future cash flows to be realized from an asset or a CGU (Collings, 2015). In determining the profit or loss of an asset carried out at cost, the impaired loss is estimated to be expenditure. In the event of impaired asset to be a revalued asset, the loss of impairment is recognized against the previous revaluation gains as directed by the IAS 38 Intangible assets (Zhuang, 2016). The Group is required to provide appropriate disclosure regarding the impairment test and losses realized from impairment. The loss arising from asset impairment in the condition of its previous recognition should be reversed if there is change in estimates on the basis of its recoverable amount was determined. However, this condition is not applicable to goodwill (Impairment accounting the basics of IAS 36 Impairment of Assets, 2011). Evaluating the flexibility management available in the determination of asset impairments The Myer Holdings Ltd has adequately followed and adopted AASB 136 standard for determine the asset impairment as annoyed from its annual report. The Group has carried out the asset impairment test through the use of appropriate technique and models. The management annually reviews the carrying value if assets and level of future cash flows for identifying the existence of any impaired asset for each of its CGUs. The management incorporates the use of discounted cash flow model for estimating the asset recoverable amount in the condition of identification of any indication regarding the asset impairment. The management undertakes the sensitivity analysis of the key assumptions used in the model for identifying whether the asset impairment ahs occurred or not. Also, it the asset does not generate cash inflows, its recoverable amount is determined for the CGU to which it belongs by the management. Thus, it can be stated that management of Myer is very flexible in incorporating the requ ired methods and procedures for carrying out asset impairment test (Everingham and Kana, 2008). Conclusion Thus, it can be stated from the overall analysis of asset impairment test of Myer Holdings Ltd that impairment of assets is an not a major issue requiring to be address for the firm in the currents scenario. However, the firm is required to conduct asset impairment test at regular intervals for identifying whether there is an impaired asset. References Bond, D., Govendir, B. and Wells, P., 2016. An evaluation of asset impairments by Australian firms and whether they were impacted by AASB 136. Accounting Finance 56(1), pp.259-288. Collings, S. 2015. Interpretation and Application of UK GAAP: For Accounting Periods Commencing On or After 1 January 2015. John Wiley Sons. Everingham, G. and Kana, S. 2008. Corporate Reporting: 8th Edition. Juta and Company Ltd. Hussey, R. 2010. Fundamentals of International Financial Accounting and Reporting. World Scientific Publishing Company. Impairment accounting the basics of IAS 36 Impairment of Assets. 2011. [Online]. Available at: https://www.ey.com/Publication/vwLUAssets/Impairment_accounting_the_basics_of_IAS_36_Impairment_of_Assets/$FILE/Impairment_accounting_IAS_36.pdf [Accessed on: 26 August, 2017]. Myer Holdings Limited 2016 Annual Report. 2016. [Online]. Available at: https://investor.myer.com.au/FormBuilder/_Resource/_module/dGngnzELxUikQxL5gb1cgA/file/Myer_Annual_Report_2016.pdf [Accessed on: 26 August, 2017]. Zhuang, Z., 2016. Discussion of An evaluation of asset impairments by Australian firms and whether they were impacted by AASB 136. Accounting Finance 56(1), pp.289-294.