Skip to main content
. 2022 Jan 28;64(4):710–747. doi: 10.1057/s41294-022-00183-6

Table 3.

The effect of fiscal consolidation on social expenditure

Dynamic Panel Estimation SGMM
(1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6)
Sexpit-1

0.800***

(0.180)

0.756***

(0.189)

0.843***

(0.136)

0.897***

(0.079)

0.881**

(0.094)

0.882***

(0.086)

fait

−0.13***

(0.048)

−0.160***

(0.043)

−0.152***

(0.041)

−0.156***

(0.047)

−0.158***

(0.047)

−0.158***

(0.047)

gdpgit

−0.046**

(0.022)

−0.043*

(0.023)

−0.041*

(0.023)

−0.043**

(0.020)

−0.045**

(0.021)

corrpit

−0.028

(0.271)

−0.041

(0.267)

−0.160

(0.220)

−0.169

(0.230)

debtit

−0.011*

(0.006)

−0.015**

(0.007)

−0.015**

(0.007)

eldyit

0.031

(0.026)

0.043

(0.035)

youngit

0.011

(0.022)

N 230 229 207 207 207 207
groups 23 23 23 23 23 23
N-instr 6 11 15 19 15 21
AR(1) 0.050 0.048 0.047 0.031 0.035 0.034
AR(2) 0.128 0.103 0.159 0.133 0.135 0.134
Hansen 0.2016 0.146 0.296 0.473 0.432 0.442

Robust standard errors are in parentheses. Regressions are based on the Blundell-Bond estimator. Starting from the most parsimonious specification (column 1), we progressively introduce GDP growth, corruption, public debt, eldy and young population in columns (2)–(6). Significance level at which the null hypothesis is rejected: p < 0.1*; p < 0.05**; p < 0.01***