Advertisement

Empirical Economics

, Volume 57, Issue 2, pp 631–652 | Cite as

Stationarity and cointegration of health care expenditure and GDP: evidence from tests with smooth structural shifts

  • Hyejin Lee
  • Dong-Yop OhEmail author
  • Ming Meng
Article

Abstract

This paper studies stationarity and cointegration of healthcare expenditure (HE) and GDP for a sample of OECD countries. In particular, we employ newly developed unit root and cointegration tests which approximate an unknown number of smooth structural shifts in the low-frequency components of a Fourier expansion. The new unit root test indicates that HE and GDP are non-stationary. In the presence of a number of smooth shifts in the cointegration regression, our empirical results support the existence of stochastic comovement between HE and GDP in 14 out of 20 OECD countries. In addition, we examine the income elasticity of HE for the countries that we found cointegration relationship between HE and GDP. We found 13 out of 14 countries with income elasticity of HE higher than 1, which implies that health care is a luxury good.

Keywords

Unit root Cointegration Fourier approximation Healthcare expenditure OECD 

JEL Classification

C12 C22 C23 I10 

References

  1. Amsler C, Lee J (1995) An LM test for a unit root in the presence of a structural change. Econom Theor 11:359–368Google Scholar
  2. Baltagi BH, Moscone F (2010) Health care expenditure and income in the OECD reconsidered: evidence from panel data. Econ Model 27:804–811Google Scholar
  3. Baltagi BH, Lagravinese R, Moscone F, Tosetti E (2017) Health care expenditure and income: a global perspective. Health Econ 26:863–874Google Scholar
  4. Banerjee A, Dolado J, Galbraith JW, Hendry DF (1993) Co-integration, error-correction, and the econometric analysis of non-stationary data. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  5. Banerjee A, Dolado J, Mestre R (1998) Error-correction mechanism tests for cointegration in a single-equation framework. J Time Ser Anal 19:283–297Google Scholar
  6. Banerjee P, Arčabić V, Lee H (2017) Fourier ADL cointegration test to approximate smooth breaks with new evidence from crude oil market. Econ Model 67:114–124Google Scholar
  7. Becker R, Enders W, Hurn S (2004) A general test for time dependence in parameters. J Appl Econom 19:899–906Google Scholar
  8. Blomqvist AG, Carter RAL (1997) Is health care really a luxury? J Health Econ 16:207–229Google Scholar
  9. Campos J, Ericsson N, Hendry D (1996) Cointegration tests in the presence of structural breaks. J Econom 70(1):187–220Google Scholar
  10. Carrion-i-Silvestre JL (2005) Health care expenditure and GDP: are they broken stationary? J Health Econ 24(5):839–854Google Scholar
  11. Clemente J, Marcuello C, Montañés A, Pueyo F (2004) On the international stability of health care expenditure functions: are government and private functions similar? J Health Econ 23(3):589–613Google Scholar
  12. Culyer AJ (1988) Health care expenditures in Canada: myth and reality; Past and future. Canadian Tax Foundation, TorontoGoogle Scholar
  13. Cutler D (2002) Equality, efficiency, and market fundamentals: the dynamics of international medical care reform. J Econ Lit 40(3):881–906Google Scholar
  14. Di Matteo L (2003) The income elasticity of health care spending: a comparison of parametric and nonparametric approaches. Eur J Health Econ 4:20–29Google Scholar
  15. Di Matteo L, Di Matteo R (1998) Evidence on the determinants of canadian provincial government health expenditures: 1965–1991. J Health Econ 17:211–228Google Scholar
  16. Enders W, Lee J (2012a) The flexible fourier form and Dickey–Fuller type unit root test. Econ Lett 117:196–199Google Scholar
  17. Enders W, Lee J (2012b) A unit root test using a fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxf B Econ Stat 74:574–599Google Scholar
  18. Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Co-integration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55(2):251–276Google Scholar
  19. Fuchs V (1996) Economics, values, and health care reform. Am Econ Rev 86(1):1–24Google Scholar
  20. Fuinhas JA, Marques AC (2012) Energy consumption and economic growth nexus in Portugal, Italy, Greece, Spain and Turkey: an ARDL bounds test approach (1965–2009). Energ Econ 34(2):511–517Google Scholar
  21. Gallant AR (1981) On the bias in flexible functional forms and an essentially unbiased form: the flexible fourier form. J Econom 15:211–245Google Scholar
  22. Gerdtham UG, Lӧthgren M (2000) On stationarity and cointegration of international health expenditure and GDP. J Health Econ 19:461–475Google Scholar
  23. Getzen TE (2000) Health care is an individual necessity and a national luxury: applying multilevel decision models to the analysis of health care expenditures. J Health Econ 19:259–270Google Scholar
  24. Gregory AW, Hansen BE (1996a) Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. J Econom 70(1):99–126Google Scholar
  25. Gregory AW, Hansen BE (1996b) Tests for cointegration in models with regime and trend shifts. Oxf B Econ Stat 58:555–560Google Scholar
  26. Grossman M (1972) On the concept of health capital and the demand for health. J Polit Econ 80:223–255Google Scholar
  27. Hansen P, King A (1996) The determinants of health care expenditure: a cointegration approach. J Health Econ 15:127–137Google Scholar
  28. Hitiris T, Posnett J (1992) The determinants and effects of health expenditure in developed countries. J Health Econ 11:173–181Google Scholar
  29. Im KS, Lee J, Tieslau M (2005) Panel LM unit-root tests with level shifts. Oxf B Econ Stat 67:393–419Google Scholar
  30. Jewell T, Lee J, Tieslau M, Strazicich MC (2003) Stationarity of heath expenditures and GDP: evidence from panel unit root tests with heterogeneous structural breaks. J Health Econ 22:313–323Google Scholar
  31. Kapetanios G, Shin Y, Snell A (2003) Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR framework. J Econometrics 112:359–379Google Scholar
  32. Kleiman E (1974) The determinants of national outlay on health. The economics of health and medical care. International Economic Association Series. Palgrave Macmillan, LondonGoogle Scholar
  33. Lee H, Lee J, Im KS (2015) More powerful cointegration tests with non-normal errors. Stud Nonlinear Dyn E 19(4):397–413Google Scholar
  34. Leu RR (1986) The public-private mix and international health care cost. Public and private health services: Complementaries and conflicts. Basil Blackwell, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  35. Leybourne S, Newbold P (2003) Spurious rejections by cointegration tests induced by structural breaks. Appl Econ 35:1117–1121Google Scholar
  36. Leybourne S, Newbold P, Vougas D (1998) Unit roots and smooth transitions. J Time Ser Anal 19:83–97Google Scholar
  37. Li J, Lee J (2010) ADL tests for threshold cointegration. J Time Ser Anal 31:241–254Google Scholar
  38. McCoskey S, Kao C (1998) A residual-based test of the null of cointegration in panel data. Econom Rev 17:57–84Google Scholar
  39. McCoskey S, Selden TM (1998) Health care expenditures and GDP: panel data unit root test results. J Health Econ 17:369–376Google Scholar
  40. Moscone F, Tosetti E (2010) Health expenditure and income in the United States. Health Econ 19:1385–1403Google Scholar
  41. Newhouse JP (1977) Medical care expenditure: a cross-national survey. J Hum Resour 12:115–125Google Scholar
  42. Newhouse J (1992) Medical care costs: how much welfare loss? J Econ Perspect 6:3–21Google Scholar
  43. Ng S, Perron P (2001) Lag length selection and the construction of unit root tests with good size and power. Econometrica 69:1519–1554Google Scholar
  44. Perron P (1989) The great crash, the oil price shock and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57:1361–1401Google Scholar
  45. Perron P (2006) Dealing with structural breaks. Palgrave handbook of econometrics. Palgrave Macmillan, New York, pp 278–352Google Scholar
  46. Pesavento E (2004) Analytical evolution of the power of the tests for the absence of cointegration. J Econometrics 122:348–349Google Scholar
  47. Schmidt P, Phillips PCB (1992) LM tests for a unit root in the presence of deterministic trends. Oxford B Econ Stat 54:257–287Google Scholar
  48. Shin Y (1994) A residual-based tests of the null of cointegration against the alternative of no cointegration. Econom Theor 10:91–115Google Scholar
  49. Wang Z, Rettenmaier AJ (2007) A note on cointegration of health expenditures and income. Health Econ 16:559–578Google Scholar
  50. Zivot E (2000) The power of single equation tests for cointegration when the cointegrating vector is prespecified. Econom Theory 16(3):407–439Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Accounting, Economics and FinanceTuskegee UniversityTuskegeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Information SystemsAuburn University at MontgomeryMontgomeryUSA
  3. 3.Model Risk Management DepartmentFifth Third BankCincinnatiUSA

Personalised recommendations