Open Economies Review

, Volume 30, Issue 2, pp 219–253 | Cite as

Financial Globalization and the Increase in the Size of Government: Are They Related?

  • Iñaki Erauskin
  • Stephen J. TurnovskyEmail author
Research Article


We employ a stochastic growth model to study the impact of international financial liberalization and changes in volatility on the share of government consumption in GDP. Financial liberalization is specified in terms of reducing the costs of both foreign lending and borrowing. The mechanism is their impact on the international portfolio and its consequences for the share of domestic capital and its effect on domestic activity. Reduced foreign lending costs tends to divert resources from the domestic economy, raising the share of domestic output allocated to the government, while reducing borrowing costs have the opposite effects. Consequently more international financial liberalization is associated with larger governments in creditor countries, but not necessarily so in debtor economies. These results are supported by numerical simulations, as are our results for volatility. The empirical evidence, using the most recent data for a sample of 95 countries over the period 1990 to 2015 also broadly supports the main findings of the model.


Financial liberalization Size of government Borrowing and lending constraints 

JEL Classification

F41 F43 



We thank the Editor-in-Chief George S. Tavlas for his constructive suggestions. Iñaki Erauskin acknowledges financial support from Programa de Movilidad del Personal Investigador del Departamento de Educación, Política Lingüística y Cultura del Gobierno Vasco and Programa de apoyo a los grupos del sistema universitario vasco del Departamento de Educación, Política Lingüística y Cultura del Gobierno Vasco (Grupo de investigación IT885-16). This paper was written in part while Iñaki Erauskin was visiting the University of Washington. An earlier version of this paper has benefited from comments received at the 2018 Simposio de Análisis Económico in Madrid. Stephen J. Turnovsky’s research was supported in part by the Van Voorhis endowment at the University of Washington.

Supplementary material

11079_2019_9525_MOESM1_ESM.pdf (94 kb)
ESM (PDF 93.6 kb)


  1. Alesina A, Wacziarg R (1998) Openness, country size and government. J Public Econ 69:305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Andrés J, Doménech R, Fatás A (2008) The stabilizing role of government size. J Econ Dyn Control 32:571–553CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arellano M, Bond S (1991) Some tests of specification for panel data: Monte Carlo evidence and an application to employment equations. Rev Econ Stud 58:277–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arellano M, Bover O (1995) Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components models. J Econ 68:29–51CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bakker A, Chapple B (2002) Advanced country experiences with capital account liberalization, Occasional Paper 214, IMFGoogle Scholar
  6. Baltagi BH (2013) Econometric analysis of panel data, 5th edn. Wiley, Chichester, West Sussex, EnglandGoogle Scholar
  7. Baltagi BH, Demetriades P, Law SH (2009) Financial development and openness: evidence from panel data. J Dev Econ 89:285–296CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Blundell R, Bond S (1998) Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. J Econ 87:115–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Branson WH, Henderson DW (1985) The specification and influence of asset markets. In: Jones RW, Kenen PB (eds) Handbook of international economics vol II. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  10. Cameron D (1978) The expansion of the public economy: a comparative analysis. Am Polit Sci Rev 72:1243–1261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Collard F, Dellas H, Tavlas G (2017) Government size and macroeconomic volatility. Economica 84:797–819CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Dreher A (2006) Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Appl Econ 38:1091–1110CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Easton B (1989) Liberalization Sequencing: the New Zealand case, Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  14. Epifani P, Gancia G (2009) Openness, government size, and the terms of trade. Rev Econ Stud 76:629–668CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Erauskin I (2013) The impact of financial openness on the size of utility-enhancing government. Economics-Kiel 7(2013-38):1-56.
  16. Erauskin I (2015) The net foreign asset position and government size. Int Rev Econ Financ 35:130–148CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Erauskin I, Turnovsky SJ (2018) International Financial Integration and Income Inequality in a Stochastically Growing Economy, unpublished ms.Google Scholar
  18. European Commission (2008) Standard Eurobarometer 66 Spring, available at Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  19. European Commission (2016) Standard Eurobarometer 85 Spring, available at Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  20. Fatás A, Mihov I (2001) Government size and automatic stabilizers: international and intrantional evidence. J Int Econ 55:3–28Google Scholar
  21. Fujii E (2017) Government size, trade openness, and output volatility: a case of fully integrated economies. Open Econ Rev 28:661–684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Galí J (1994) Government size and macroeconomic stability. Eur Econ Rev 38:117–132CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Gygli S, Haelg F, Potrafke N, Sturm J-E (2019) The KOF Globalisation Index – Revisited. Rev Int Organ.
  24. IMF (2015) Making Investment more Efficient, IMF Board Paper, available at Accessed 29 Jan 2019
  25. IMF (2017) Investment and Capital Stock Dataset, 2017Google Scholar
  26. Kim D-H, Suen Y-B, Lin S-C, Hsieh J (2017) Government size, government debt and globalization. Appl Econ 50:2792–2803. CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Kimakova A (2009) Government size and openness revisited: the case of financial globalization. Kyklos 62:394–406CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lane PR, Milesi-Ferretti GM (2003) International integration. IMF Staff Pap 50:82–113Google Scholar
  29. Lane PR, Milesi-Ferretti GM (2007) The external wealth of nations mark II: revised and extended estimates of foreign assets and liabilities, 1970-2004. J Int Econ 73:223–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Lane PR, Milesi-Ferretti GM (2017) International financial integration in the aftermath of the global financial crisis, IMF Working Paper WP/17/115Google Scholar
  31. Liberati P (2007) Trade openness, capital openness and government size. J Publ Policy 27:215–247CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Malliaris AG, Brock WA (1982) Stochastic methods in economics and finance. North-Holland, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  33. Merton RC (1969) Lifetime portfolio selection under uncertainty: the continuous-time case. Rev Econ Stat 51:247–257CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Merton RC (1971) Optimum consumption and portfolio rules in a continuous-time model. J Econ Theory 3:373–413CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Ram R (1987) Wagner’s hypothesis in time series and cross-section perspectives: evidence from “real” data for 115 countries. Rev Econ Stat 69:194–204CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ram R (2009) Openness, country size, and government size: additional evidence from a large cross-country panel. J Public Econ 93:213–218CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Rodrik D (1998) Why do more open economies have bigger governments? J Polit Econ 106:997–1032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Polit Econ 94:1002–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Roodman D (2009a) A note on the theme of too many instruments. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 71:135–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Roodman D (2009b) How to do xtabond2: an introduction to difference and system GMM in Stata. Stata J 9:86–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Schulze G, Ursprung HW (1999) Globalization of the economy and the nation state. World Econ 22:295–352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Tridimas G, Winer SL (2005) The political economy of government size. Eur J Polit Econ 21:643–666CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Turnovsky SJ (1999) On the role of government in a stochastically growing open economy. J Econ Dyn Control 23:873–908CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Turnovsky SJ (2000) Methods of macroeconomic dynamics, 2nd edn. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  45. Wooldridge JM (2005) Fixed-effects and related estimators for correlated random-coefficient and treatment-effect panel data models. Rev Econ Stat 87:385–390CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Deusto Business SchoolUniversity of DeustoDonostia-San SebastiánSpain
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsUniversity of WashingtonSeattleUSA

Personalised recommendations