Public Capital Maintenance, Decentralization, and US Productivity Growth
AbstractData published by the US Congressional Budget Office show that over the last fifty years expenditures for infrastructure's operations and maintenance (O&M) have roughly equalled those for new capital. We use this data set to investigate the productive impact of public infrastructure spending, taking into account its composition for each government level. We find that a rise (fall) in infrastructure expenditures by states and localities (the federal government) would enhance future productivity growth and that the rise in state and local spending should mainly come from additional O&M outlays in the transport sector.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoArticle provided by in its journal Public Finance Review.
Volume (Year): 39 (2011)
Issue (Month): 6 (November)
Contact details of provider:
Other versions of this item:
- Eugenia Vella & Sarantis Kalyvitis, . "Public Capital Maintenance, Decentralization and U.s. Productivity Growth," DEOS Working Papers 1126, Athens University of Economics and Business.
- E22 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Consumption, Saving, Production, Employment, and Investment - - - Capital; Investment; Capacity
- E62 - Macroeconomics and Monetary Economics - - Macroeconomic Policy, Macroeconomic Aspects of Public Finance, and General Outlook - - - Fiscal Policy
- H54 - Public Economics - - National Government Expenditures and Related Policies - - - Infrastructures
- H76 - Public Economics - - State and Local Government; Intergovernmental Relations - - - Other Expenditure Categories
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Estache, A., 1995. "Decentralizing Infrastructure. Advantages and Limitations," World Bank - Discussion Papers 290, World Bank.
- Tao Zhang & Heng-fu Zou, 2001.
"Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China,"
CEMA Working Papers
58, China Economics and Management Academy, Central University of Finance and Economics.
- Zhang, Tao & Zou, Heng-fu, 1998. "Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 67(2), pages 221-240, February.
- Tao Zhang & Heng-fu Zou, 1996. "Fiscal decentralization, public spending, and economic growth in China," Policy Research Working Paper Series 1608, The World Bank.
- Kalaitzidakis, Pantelis & Kalyvitis, Sarantis, 2004. "On the macroeconomic implications of maintenance in public capital," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 88(3-4), pages 695-712, March.
- Akai, Nobuo & Sakata, Masayo, 2002. "Fiscal decentralization contributes to economic growth: evidence from state-level cross-section data for the United States," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 52(1), pages 93-108, July.
- Romp, Ward & de Haan, Jakob, 2005.
"Public capital and economic growth: a critical survey,"
2/2005, European Investment Bank, Economics Department.
- Ward Romp & Jakob de Haan, 2007. "Public Capital and Economic Growth: A Critical Survey," Perspektiven der Wirtschaftspolitik, Verein für Socialpolitik, vol. 8(s1), pages 6-52, 04.
- Michael Bleaney & Norman Gemmell & Richard Kneller, 2001. "Testing the endogenous growth model: public expenditure, taxation, and growth over the long run," Canadian Journal of Economics, Canadian Economics Association, vol. 34(1), pages 36-57, February.
- Rioja, Felix K., 2003. "Filling potholes: macroeconomic effects of maintenance versus new investments in public infrastructure," Journal of Public Economics, Elsevier, vol. 87(9-10), pages 2281-2304, September.
- Thornton, John, 2007. "Fiscal decentralization and economic growth reconsidered," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 61(1), pages 64-70, January.
- Chandra, Amitabh & Thompson, Eric, 2000. "Does public infrastructure affect economic activity?: Evidence from the rural interstate highway system," Regional Science and Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 30(4), pages 457-490, July.
- Feltenstein, Andrew & Iwata, Shigeru, 2005. "Decentralization and macroeconomic performance in China: regional autonomy has its costs," Journal of Development Economics, Elsevier, vol. 76(2), pages 481-501, April.
- Dioikitopoulos, Evangelos V. & Kalyvitis, Sarantis, 2008. "Public capital maintenance and congestion: Long-run growth and fiscal policies," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 32(12), pages 3760-3779, December.
- Barbara M. Fraumeni, 2009. "The Contribution of Highways to GDP Growth," NBER Working Papers 14736, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Iimi, Atsushi, 2005. "Decentralization and economic growth revisited: an empirical note," Journal of Urban Economics, Elsevier, vol. 57(3), pages 449-461, May.
- Oates, Wallace E., 1993. "Fiscal Decentralization and Economic Development," National Tax Journal, National Tax Association, vol. 46(2), pages 237-43, June Cita.
- Antonio Estache, 1995. "Decentralizing Infrastructure: Advantages and Limitations," ULB Institutional Repository 2013/44118, ULB -- Universite Libre de Bruxelles.
- Sugata Ghosh & Andros Gregoriou, 2008. "The composition of government spending and growth: is current or capital spending better?," Oxford Economic Papers, Oxford University Press, vol. 60(3), pages 484-516, July.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (SAGE Publications).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.