Computational Economics

, Volume 50, Issue 4, pp 549–577 | Cite as

Influence of Inefficiency in Government Expenditure on the Multiplier of Public Investment



The multiplier of public investment has been expected to far exceed 1, owing to the indirect influence of public spending. However, it has been reported that actual multipliers for a real economy are sometimes <1; the reason for this has not been adequately explained in the literature. This study analyzes the influence of inefficient public expenditure on gross domestic product, using both an agent-based model and a theoretical derivation of the equation for the multiplier of public investment, the latter of which is based on our revised version of Morishima’s economic linkage table. The use of both of these instruments indicates that gross domestic product decreases with an increase in the inefficiency of public expenditure, which is defined as the ratio of firm subsidies to the government’s total expenditure. The multiplier of public investment becomes <1 when the degree of inefficiency is sufficiently large, and the ratio of the firm’s investment spending to the total amount of subsidy funding is sufficiently small. A multiplier lower than 1 is thought to appear when the degree of inefficiency in public expenditure is sufficiently large and firms are reluctant to invest; much of the surplus amount of subsidized funds can be deposited into a bank account, thus reducing the money stock in the market.


Agent-based modeling Inefficiency of government expenditure Multiplier Public investment 


  1. Andrews, P. W. S. (1940). Further inquiry into the effect of rates of interest. Oxford Economic Papers, 3, 33–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Baum, A., Poplawski-Ribeiro,M., & Weber, A. (2012). Fiscal multipliers and the state of the economy. IMF Working Paper. International Monetary Fund, WP/12/286.Google Scholar
  3. Bruckner, M., & Tuladhar, A. (2010). Public investment as a fiscal stimulus: Evidence from Japan’s regional spending during the 1990s. IMF Working Paper, WP/10/110.Google Scholar
  4. Haavelmo, T. (1941). The effect of the rate of interest on investment: A note. The Review of Economics and Statics, 23(1), 49–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Krugman, P., & Wells, R. (2009). Economics (2nd ed.). New York: Worth Publishers.Google Scholar
  6. Marks, R. E. (2007). Validating simulation models: A general framework and four applied examples. Computational Economics, 30(3), 265–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Murata, K., Saito, T., Tanabe, K., & Iwamoto, K. (2005). The ESRI short-run macroeconometric model of Japanese economy (2005 version)—Basic structure, multipliers, and economic policy analyses. ESRI Discussion Paper Series No. 152. Economic and Social Research Institute, Cabinet Office, Japan.Google Scholar
  8. Morishima, M. (1984). The economics of industrial society. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Napoletano, M., Roventini, A., & Gaffard, J. L. (2015). Time-varying fiscal multipliers in an agent-based model with credit rationing. LEM Working Paper Series, No. 2015/19.Google Scholar
  10. OECD. (2009). The effectiveness and scope of fiscal stimulus. OECD Economic Outlook, Interim Report March 2009 (pp. 105–150).Google Scholar
  11. Ogibayashi, S., & Takashima, K. (2009). Multi-agent simulation of fund circulation in an artificial economic system involving self-adjusted mechanism of price, production and investment. In 2009 fourth international conference on innovative computing, information and control (ICICIC), (pp. 1127–1130). IEEE.Google Scholar
  12. Ogibayashi, S., & Takashima, K. (2013). Influence of government expenditure policies and tax rate on GDP in an agent-based artificial economic system. In Agent-based approaches in economic and social complex systems (Vol. VII, pp. 147–161). Tokyo: Springer Japan.Google Scholar
  13. Ogibayashi, S., & Takashima, K. (2014). Influence of corporation tax rate on GDP in an agent-based artificial economic system. In Advances in computational social science (pp. 157–173). Tokyo: Springer Japan.Google Scholar
  14. Perroti, R. (2004). Public investment: Another (different) look. Working Paper no. 277, Universita Bacconi. Via Salasco (pp. 1–47).Google Scholar
  15. Sugimoto, A. (2008). Reconsideration of multiplier theory and fiscal policy. Management Information Research, Setsunan University, 16(2), 11–28.Google Scholar
  16. Takashma, K., & Ogibayashi, S. (2014). Model structure of agent-based artificial economic system responsible for reproducing fundamental economic behavior of goods market. In Proceedings of the 5th. World Congress on social simulation (pp. 40–51).Google Scholar
  17. Whalen, C. J., & Reichling, F. (2015). The fiscal multiplier and economic policy analysis in the United States. Contemporary Economic Policy, 33(4), 735–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Yoshikawa, H., Aoyama, H., Fujiwara, Y., & Iyetomi, H. (2015). Deflation/inflation dynamics: Analysis based on micro prices. Available at SSRN 2565599.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Social ScienceChiba Institute of TechnologyChibaJapan
  2. 2.Research InstituteChiba Institute of TechnologyChibaJapan

Personalised recommendations