Expenditures and receipts in state and local government finances: Reply |
| |
Authors: | Michael L. Marlow Neela Manage |
| |
Affiliation: | 1. U.S. Department of Treasury, 20220, Washington, DC 2. Department of Economics, Florida Atlantic University, 33431, Boca Raton, FL
|
| |
Abstract: | It is worth repeating that causality testing is a very complex task. The diversity of views on interpreting the definition of causality and on the methods for testing causality highlight this issue. In our study, we cite an excellent article which provides a detailed critique of various problems associated with causality tests (see Conway, et al., 1984). It would appear that Chowdhury's comment draws very strong conclusions and fails to consider some of the complex theoretical issues regarding causality tests as well as important data problems pertaining to state and local governments. Moreover, we find it somewhat curious that, given the strong similarities in our two studies, Chowdhury prefers to dwell on the mechanics of an alternative technique rather than concentrate on the fact that his alternative technique yields supporting results to our 1987 paper on the tax-spend hypothesis.The views expressed are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily represent those of the U.S. Department of Treasury. |
| |
Keywords: | |
本文献已被 SpringerLink 等数据库收录! |
|