DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Causality Analysis for Public and Private Expenditures on Health Using Panel Granger-Causality Test

  • Lee, Su-Dong (Department of Industrial & Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Lee, Junghye (Department of Industrial & Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology) ;
  • Jun, Chi-Hyuck (Department of Industrial & Management Engineering, Pohang University of Science and Technology)
  • Received : 2015.03.02
  • Accepted : 2015.03.17
  • Published : 2015.03.30

Abstract

Every year governments spend their national budget on public health in order to reduce financial burden of individuals on health. Although it has been widely believed that the increase of public expenditure on health decreases private health expenditure, it has not been proved by analysis with real data. For better understanding, we conducted an empirical study on the real data of 17 OECD countries-Australia, Austria, Canada, Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Ireland, Japan, Korea, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, the United Kingdom, and the United States. The panel Granger-causality test is used to verify the cause-and-effect relationship between the two expenditures. As a result, public expenditure on health has a 3 to 4 year-lagged negative effect on private health expenditure in the cases of the 16 countries except for the United States.

Keywords

Panel Granger-Causality Test;Public Health;Health Expenditure

Acknowledgement

Supported by : National Research Foundation of Korea

References

  1. Akinkugbe, O. and Afeikhena, J. (2006), Public health care spending as a determinant of health status: a panel data analysis for SSA and MENA, Applied macroeconomics and economic development, Ibadan University Press.
  2. Anyanwu, C. J. and Erhijakpor, E. O. A. (2007), Health expenditures and health outcomes in Africa, African Development Bank Economic Research, Working Paper No 91.
  3. Burnside, C. and Dollar, D. (1998), Aid, the incentive regime and poverty reduction, The World Bank, Washington DC.
  4. Granger, C. W. J. (1969), Investigating causal relations by econometric models and cross-spectral methods, Econometrica, 37, 424-438. https://doi.org/10.2307/1912791
  5. Hartwig, J. (2010), Is health capital formation good for long-term economic growth?-Panel Granger-causality evidence for OECD countries, Journal of macroeconomics, 32(1), 314-325. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jmacro.2009.06.003
  6. Holtz-Eakin, D., Newey, W., and Rosen, H. (1988), Estimating vector autoregressions with panel data, Econometrica, 56, 1371-1395. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913103
  7. Levin, A., Lin, C. F., and Chu, C. S. J. (2002), Unit root tests in panel data: Asymptotic and finite-sample properties, Journal of Econometrics, 108, 1-24. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7
  8. Motonishi, T. and Yoshikawa, H. (1999), Causes of the long stagnation of Japan during the1990s: financial or real, Journal of the Japanese and International Economies, 13, 181-200. https://doi.org/10.1006/jjie.1999.0429
  9. Musgrove, P. (1996), Public and private roles in health, Technical report 339, The World Bank, Washington DC.
  10. Tuohy, C. H., Flood, C. M., and Stabile, M. (2004), How does private finance affect public health care systems? Marshaling the evidence from OECD nations, Journal of Health Politics, Policy and Law, 29(3), 359-396. https://doi.org/10.1215/03616878-29-3-359