Atlantic Economic Journal

, Volume 46, Issue 4, pp 419–439 | Cite as

What Are the Determinants of Public Spending? An Overview of the Literature

  • Francois FacchiniEmail author


The purpose of this paper is to present and assess the literature about the determinants of public spending. Its originality is the adoption of a methodological perspective. Does econometrics allow economists to discover universal constants for public spending or is it only another way of writing the history of public finance? The economic theory of the size of government includes 23 explanations and 78 explanatory variables. The size of government reflects the preferences of citizens (demand model), the power of politicians and bureaucrats to impose their interests against citizens’ interests (supply model) and the constitutional design that governments face in raising revenue. Nonetheless, the great instability of econometric tests shows, all the difficulties of the science of public finance in finding a constant and discovering real causality between these variables. The analytical consequence of this result is the great futility of the search for a general law of the dynamic of public spending. This futility can be interpreted as a consequence of the complexity of political exchange. The size of the state is a multi-causal phenomenon. The prescriptive consequence is that it is not possible to use quantitative analysis to defend a form of “causal manipulationism” and predict the timing of state reforms and a political strategy to reduce the share of public spending in production. Econometrics is only one way of reporting the history of public finances.


Causality Qualitative history Public spending and econometrics 




Supplementary material

11293_2018_9603_MOESM1_ESM.docx (22 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 21 kb)


  1. Agell, J., Lindh, T., & Ohlsson, H. (1997). Growth and the public sector: A critical review essay. European Journal of Political Economy, 13(1), 33–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Aidt, T., Dutta, J., & Loukoianova, E. (2006). Democracy comes to Europe: Franchise extension and fiscal outcomes 1830-1938. European Economic Review, 50(2), 249–283.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Akitoby, B., Clements, B., Gupta, S., & Inchauste, G. (2006). Public spending, voracity and Wagner’s law in developing countries. European Journal of Political Economy, 22(4), 908–924.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alesina, A., & Glaeser, E. (2004). Fighting poverty in the U.S. and in Europe: A world of difference. New York: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Alesina, A., & Tabellini, G. (1990). Voting on the budget deficit. American Economic Review, 80(1), 37–49.Google Scholar
  6. Alesina, A., & Wacziarg, R. (1998). Openness, country size and government. Journal of Public Economics, 69(3), 305–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Alt, J. (2006). Fiscal transparency, political parties, and debt in OECD countries. European Economic Review, 50(6), 1403–1439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Banzhaf, H. S., & Oates, W. E. (2013). On fiscal illusion in local public finance: Re-examining Ricardian equivalence and the renter effect. National Tax Journal, 66(3), 511–540.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Baumol, W. J. (1967). Macroeconomics of unbalanced growth: The anatomy of urban crisis. American Economic Review, 57(3), 415–426.Google Scholar
  10. Baumol, W.J. (2012). The Cost Disease: Why Computers Get Cheaper and Health Care Doesn’t, with contribution by David de Ferranti, Monte Malach, Ariel Pablos- Méndez, Hilary Tabish, Lilian Gomory Wu, Yale University Press.Google Scholar
  11. Bénabou, R. (2000). Unequal societies: Income distribution and the social contract. American Economic Review, 90(1), 96–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Bergh, A., & Bjørnskov, C. (2011). Historical trust levels predict the current size of the welfare state. Kyklos, 64(1), 1–19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Biehl, D. (1998). Wagner’s law: An introduction to and a translation of the last version of Adoph Wagner’s text of 1911. Public Finance/Finances Publiques, 53(1), 102–111.Google Scholar
  14. Bjørnskov, C., & Svendsen, G. (2013). Does social trust determine the size of the welfare state? Evidence using historical identification. Public Choice, 157(1–2), 269–286.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Borge, L.-E., & Rattso, J. (2004). Income distribution and tax structure: Empirical test of the Meltzer-Richard hypothesis. European Economic Review, 48(4), 805–826.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Brennan, G., & Buchanan, J.M. (1980). The power to tax: Analytical foundations of a fiscal constitution, Cambridge: Cambridge University press. Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  17. Brückner, M., Chong, A., & Gradstein, M. (2012). Estimating the permanent income elasticity of government expenditures: Evidence on Wagner’s law based on oil price shocks. Journal of Public Economis, 96(11/12), 1025–1035.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Buchanan, J. (1954). Social choice, democracy and free markets. Journal of Political Economy, 62(2), 114–123.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Buchanan, J., & Wagner, R. (1977). Democracy in deficit. The political legacy of Lord Keynes, New York: Academic Press. Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  20. Cartwright, N. (1979). Causal Laws and Effective strategies. Noûs, 13(4), 419–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Cebula, R. (1988). Federal budget deficits and interest rates. Southern Economic Journal, 55(1), 206–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cebula, R. (1995). The impact of federal government budget deficits on economic growth in the United States: An empirical investigation, 1955-1992. International Review of Economics & Finance, 4(3), 245–252.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Cebula, R. (2003). Budget deficits and real interest rates: Updated empirical evidence on causality. Atlantic Economic Journal, 31(3), 255–265.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Cebula, R. (2013). Budget deficits, economic freedom, and economic growth in OECD nations: P2SLS fixed-effects estimates, 2003-2008. The Journal of Private Enterprise, 28(2), 75–96.Google Scholar
  25. Christopoulos, D., K., & Tsionas, E. (2003). Testing the Buchanan-Wagner hypothesis: European evidence from panel unit root and cointegration test, Public Choice, 115 (3–4), 439–453.Google Scholar
  26. Cowen, T. (1996). Why I do not believe in the cost-disease, Comment on Baumol. Journal of Cultural Economics, 20(2), 207–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Cullis, J. G., & Jones, P. R. (1984). The economic theory of bureaucracy, X-inefficiency and Wagner’s law: A note. Public Finance/ Finances Publiques, 39(2), 191–201.Google Scholar
  28. de Tocqueville, A. (1835). Democracy in America: Historical-Critical Edition, vol. 2,, Accessed 20 june. 2018.
  29. Deaton, A. (2010). Instruments, randomization, and Learning about Development. Journal of Economic Literature, 48(june), 424–455.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Dell’Anno, R., & Dollery, B.E. (2012). Comparative fiscal illusion: a Fiscal Illusion Index for the European Illusion. MPRA Paper No. 42537, posted 11. November 2012 07:43 UTC. Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  31. Dell'Anno, R., & Mourão, P. (2012). Fiscal illusion around the world: An analysis using the structural equation approach. Public Finance Review, 40(2), 270–299.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Dickson, V., & Yu, W. (2000). Revenue structures, the perceived Price of government output, and public expenditures. Public Finance Review, 28(1), 48–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Dollory, B. E., & Worthington, A. (1996). The empirical analysis of fiscal illusion. Journal of Economic Survey, 10(3), 261–297.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Durevall, D., & Henrekson, M. (2011). The futile quest for a Grant explanation of long-run government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7/8), 708–722.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Dutt, A. K. (1990). Sectoral balance in development: A survey. World Development, 18(6), 915–930.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Eslava, M.,& Nupia, O. (2010). Political Fragmentation and Government Spending: Bringing Ideological Polarization into the Picture. Documentos CEDE 3. Universidad de Los Andes, Facultad de Economia., Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  37. Facchini, F. (2000). Les effets de l’absence de prix monétaire sur la coordination politique. Journal des économistes et des études humaines, 10(2/3), 345–362.Google Scholar
  38. Facchini F. (2014). The determinants of Public Spending: a survey in a methodological perspective, MPRA, Paper No. 53006, posted 19. January 2014 17:15 UTC., Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  39. Facchini, F. (2016). Political ideological change: A theoretical approach. Social Science Information, 55(4), 589–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Facchini, F., & Melki, M. (2013). Efficient government size: France in the 20th century. European Journal of Political Economy, 31(September), 1–14.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Facchini, F., Melki, M., & Pickering, A. (2017). The labor share and the size of government. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 251–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Ferris, J. S., & West, E. G. (1996). Testing theories of real government size: U.S. experience, 1959-1989. Southern Economic Journal, 62(3), 537–553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Ferris, J. S., & West, E. G. (1999). Cost disease versus leviathan explanations of rising government cost:An empirical investigation. Public Choice, 98(3–4), 307–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Friedman, M. (1978). Tax Limitation, Inflation and the Role of Government. Dallas: Fisher Institute.Google Scholar
  45. Golem, S. (2010). Fiscal decentralization and the size of government: A review of the empirical literature. Financial Theory and Practice, 34(1), 53–69.Google Scholar
  46. Henrekson, M., & Lybeck, J. A. (1988). Explaining the growth of government in Sweden: A disequilibrium approach. Public Choice, 57(3), 213–232.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Hetherington, M. J., & Globetti, S. (2002). Political trust and racial policy preferences. American Journal of Political Science, 46(2), 253–275.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Hettich, W., & Winer, S. L. (1984). Economic and political foundations of tax structure. American Economic Review, 78(4), 701–712.Google Scholar
  49. Higgs, R. (2007). Neither liberty nor safety: Fear, ideology, and the growth of government. Oakland: The Independent Institute.Google Scholar
  50. Hooghe, M., Reeskens, T., Dietlind, S., & Trappers, A. (2009). Ethnic diversity and generalized Trust in Europe, a cross-National Multilevel Study. Comparative Political Studies, 42(2), 198–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Hoover, K.D. (2008). Causality in economics and econometrics, New Palgrave Dictionary of Economics, Palgrave, MacMillan, 719–726.Google Scholar
  52. Huerta de Soto, J. (2013). In defense of the euro: An Austrian perspective (with a critique of the errors of the ECB and the interventionism of Brussels). Journal des economists et des Etudes Humaines, 19(1), 1–28.Google Scholar
  53. Huntington, S.P. (2007). Le Choc des civilisations, Odile Jacob, Paris; The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of World Order, 1996, Printed and bound in Great Britain by Cox & Wyman, Reading, Berkshire.Google Scholar
  54. Husted, T. A., & Kenny, L. W. (1997). The effect of the expansion of the voting franchise on the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 105(1), 54–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Inman, R.P. (2008). The Flypaper Effect. NBER Working Paper n°14579, Issued in December, NBER Program (s): Public Economics, Political Economy., Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  56. Jost, J. T., Federico, C. M., & Napier, J. L. (2009). Political ideology: Its structure, functions, and elective affinities. Annual Review of Psychology, 60(1), 307–337.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. Kau, J. B., & Rubin, P. H. (1981). The Size of Government. Public Choice, 37(2), 261–274.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Kau, J. B., & Rubin, P. H. (2002). The size of government: sources and limits. Public Choice, 113(3/4), 389–402.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. Kimakova, A. (2009). Government size and openness revisited: The case of financial globalization. Kyklos, 62(3), 394–406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. Kindleberger, C. P. (1951). Group behavior and international trade. Journal of Political Economy, 59(1), 30–46.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Kristoc, L., Lindert, P., & McClelland, R. (1992). Pressure groups and redistribution. Journal of Public Economics, 48(2), 135–163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Lewis-Beck, M. S., & Rice, T. W. (1985). Government growth in the United States. Journal of Politics, 47(1), 2–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Lizzeri, A., & Persico, N. (2001). The provision of public goods under alternative electoral incentives. American Economic Review, 91(1), 225–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. Martinez-Vasquez, J., & Yao, M. (2009). Fiscal decentralization and public sector employment: A cross-country analysis. Public Finance Review, 57(5), 539–571.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. Meltzer, A., & Richard, S. (1981). A rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. Meltzer, A., & Richard, S. (1983). Tests of a rational theory of the size of government. Journal of Political Economy, 89(5), 914–927.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Milesi-Ferretti, G. M., Perotti, R., & Rostagno, M. (2002). Electoral systems and public spending. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 117(2), 609–657.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Mourão, P. (2008). Towards a Puviani’s Fiscal Illusion Index. Hacienda Publica Espanola, 187(4), 49–86, Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.Google Scholar
  69. Mueller, D.C. (2003). Public choice III, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  70. Niskanen, W. J. (1975). Bureaucrats and politicians. Journal of Law and Economics, 18(3), 617–643.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. Niskanen, W. A. (1978). Deficits, government spending and inflation: What is the evidence? Journal of Monetary Economics, 4(3), 591–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. Niskanen, W.J. (1994). Bureaucracy and public economics, John Locke series, Aldershort Hants England E. Elgar Pub.Google Scholar
  73. OECD. (2017). Government at a glance 2017. Paris: OECD Publishing. Accessed 20 june. 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. Ostrosky, A. (1990). Federal budget deficits and interest rates: Comment. Southern Economic Journal, 56(3), 802–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. Oxley, L. (1994). Co-integration, causality and Wagner's law: A test for Britain 1870-1913. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 41(3), 286–298.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. Peacock, A. T., & Scott, A. (2000). The curious attraction of Wagner’s law. Public Choice, 102(1–2), 1–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Peacock, A. T., & Wiseman, J., (1961). The growth of public expenditures in the United Kingdom. Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  78. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2000). Political economics: Explaining economic policy. Cambridge: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  79. Persson, T., & Tabellini, G. (2004). Constitutional rules and fiscal policy outcomes. American Economic Review, 94(1), 25–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. Persson, T., Roland, G., & Tabellini, G. (1998). Towards micropolitical foundations of public finance. European Economic Review, 42(3), 685–694.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. Persson, T., Roland, G., & Tabellini, G. (2007). Electoral rules and government spending in parliamentary democracies. Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 2(2), 155–188.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Pickering, A. C., & Rockey, J. (2011). Ideology and the growth of government. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 93(3), 907–919.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. Pickering, A. C., & Rockey, J. (2012). Ideology and the size of US state government. Public Choice, 156(3–4), 443–465.Google Scholar
  84. Pitlik, H., Gerhard, S., Bechter, B., & Brandl, B. (2011). Near is my shirt but nearer is my skin: Ideology or self-interest as determinants of public opinion on fiscal policy issues. Kyklos, 64(2), 271–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. Prohl, S., & Schneider, F. (2009). Does decentralization reduce government size? A quantitative study of the decentralization hypothesis. Public Finance Review, 37(6), 639–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. Pryor, F. L. (1968). Public expenditure in communist and capitalist nations. London: George Allen and Unwin.Google Scholar
  87. Puviani, A. (1903). Teoria dell’Illusione Finanziana, 1° ed., Palermo, Milano : Instituo Editoriale Internazionale, 1973.Google Scholar
  88. Rambaud, J. (1895). Eléments d’économie politique, Paris, L. Larose.Google Scholar
  89. Reed, W. R., & Sidek, N. D. (2016). A replication of meta-analysis of the effect of fiscal policies on long-run growth (European Journal of Political Economy 2004). Public Finance Review, 44(3), 397–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. Rodrik, D. (1998). Why do more open economics have bigger governments? The Journal of Political Economy, 106(5), 997–1032.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. Rodrik, D. (2007). One economics, many recipes: Globalization, institutions, and economic growth. Princeton: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  92. Rodrik, D. (2008). The New Development Economics: We Shall Experiment, but how shall we Learn?, John F. Kennedy School of Government, Harvard University. Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  93. Rodrik, D. (2012). Why we learn nothing from regressing economic growth on policies. Seoul Journal of Economics, 25(2), 137–151.Google Scholar
  94. Romer, T. (1975). Individual welfare, majority voting, and the properties of a linear income tax. Journal of Public Economics, 4(2), 163–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. Rueff, J. (1964). L’âge de l’inflation, Payot, coll. Etudes et documents, Paris. Accessed 4 Feb. 2018.
  96. Shah, A., and Chunli, S. 2007. Reform of the Intergovernmental transfer system in China, Policy Research Working Papers,
  97. Shelton, C. A. (2007). The size and composition of government expenditure. Journal of Public Economics, 91(11), 2230–2260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. Shughart, W., & Tollison, R. (1986). On the growth of government and the political economy of legislation. Research in Law and Economics, 9, 111–127.Google Scholar
  99. Sims, C. A. (2010). But economics is not on experimental science. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 24(2), 59–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. Stichnoth, H., & Van der Straeten, K. (2013). Ethnic diversity, public spending, and individual support for the welfare state: A review of the empirical literature. Journal of Economic Surveys, 27(2), 364–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. Stigler, G. (1973). General economic conditions and national elections. American Economic Review, 63(2), 160–167.Google Scholar
  102. Storr, V.H. (2010). The Facts of the social sciences are what people believe and think, in Peter J. Boettke(eds.), Handbook on Contemporary Austrian Economics, Edward Elgar.Google Scholar
  103. Tullock, G. (1959). Problems of majority voting. Journal of Political Economy, 67(6), 571–579.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. Tullock, G. (1965). The Politics of Bureaucracy. Washington D.C.: Public Affairs Press.Google Scholar
  105. Wagner, A. (1893). Grundlegung der politischen Oekonomie, (3 rd ed.), Leipzig C.F. Winter.Google Scholar
  106. Wagner, R. E. (1976). Revenue structure, fiscal illusion and budgetary choice. Public Choice, 25(1), 45–61.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. Weingast, B. R., Shepsle, K. A., & Johnsen, C. (1981). The political economy of benefits and costs: A Neoclassical Approach to Distributive Politics. The Journal of Political Economy, 89(4), 642–664.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. West, E. G. (1991). Secular cost changes and the size of government. Towards a generalized theory. Journal of Public Economics, 45(3), 363–381.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. Wheeler, M. (1999). The macroeconomic impacts of government debt: An empirical analysis of the 1980s and 1990s. Atlantic Economic Journal, 27(3), 273–284.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. Winer, S., Tofias, M., Grofman, B., & Aldrich, J. H. (2008). Trending economic factors and the structure of congress in the growth of government, 1930-2002. Public Choice, 135(3–4), 415–448.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. Woodward, J. (2003). Making things happen. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  112. Yamamura, E. (2012). Government size and trust. Review of Social Economy, 70(1), 31–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Zahid, K. (1988). Government budget deficits and interest rates: The evidence since 1971, using alternative deficit measures. Southern Economic Journal, 54(4), 725–731.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. Zohlnhöfer, R., Engler, F., & Dümog, K. (2017). Review article: The retreat of the interventionist state in advanced democracies. British Journal of Political Science, 48(2), 535–562.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© International Atlantic Economic Society 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Maison des Sciences Economiques, Centre d’Economie de la SorbonneUniversity of Paris 1 Panthéon-SorbonneParisFrance

Personalised recommendations