Analysis Of Pakistan India And Bangladesh

Published Date: 02 Nov 2017

1) INTRODUCTION:

The concept big push was given decades ago for the development of the economy. The big push is a concept in the development economics or welfare economics that emphasizes on the firm’s decision whether to industrialize or not depends on its expectation of what other firms will do. It surely assumes economies of scale and oligopolistic market structure. It also explains when industrialization would happen.

The originator of this theory was Paul Rosenstein-Rodan in 1943. Further contributions were made later on by Murphy, Shleifer and Robert W. Vishny in 1989. Analysis of this economic model ordinarily involves using game theory.

The theory of the model emphasizes that underdeveloped countries require large amounts of investments (BIGPUSH) to embark on the path of economic development from their present state of rut. This theory proposes that a 'bit by bit' investment program me will not impact the process of growth as much as is required for developing countries. In fact, injections of small quantities of investments will merely lead to wastage of resources. Paul Rosenstein-Rodan, 

Rather, we should say that the big push is required to get it out of the state of rut. The theory named as "BIG PUSH "was basically given by PAUL RODESTEIN RODEN. The concept has been the focal point for many economists. Many researches have been made using this concept. Rostov’s model included the condition named as "TAKE OFF", which was clearly indicating that, the nation through a big push pour towards better economic circumstances. : Thanks to increase in investment. Rostow argued that countries can came out of the stagnation into self-sustained growth the concept itself is an important asset to all of us because the previous studies about Development have been linked to this concept so we have to deal it in a sensitive manner. It basically reveals the secret of success for any nation. Take Off condition is all related to Big Push .Basically, there are three concepts which are inter-related: big push, Poverty trap & Take Off. Least Developed nations are caught in poverty trap and need a big push to take off into self-sustained growth but one could find evidence of the poverty easily but not take off.

Economists have tested this concept for different reasons and with different conditions on many nations throughout the decades. Some famous names such as William Easterly, Jeffrey Sachs , Frederick A.Praeger, Lant Pritchett , P Guillaomont , SG Jeaneneny , J.R Magruder , A. Shleifer , D.Stuckler , A.Akonia , K.Fisher , D.Biello have written articles on BIGPUSH . The articles written by the above authors have explained the context of this optimal concept in a far broader way. The studies so far made on this concept have paved way to a larger reality for nations. We will go through the variables to see whether our desired nations over the years have managed to achieve the optimal point or not. The Previous studies have also assured that the nations achieve big push through firm investment but they often go far from the required focus. This study includes the behavior of four Asian nations for observing BIGPUSH. This research paper includes the all important variables that necessarily contributes towards Big Push .The selected nations have a vast history related to one another and their cultural, social & economic patterns are somehow the same. So their behavior towards the success of their economy will show their important aspects and actions of last few decades. The Seven variables have been selected for this purpose and using eviews, we have shown the relationship between them in a clear way .The current research should show the success patterns of PAKSITAN, BANGLEDESH, INDIA and SRI-LANKA in a clear way. The results of circumstances in the selected nations will show an authentic picture of these nations.

2) Literature view: The need for the bulk volume of investment for the improvement of developing economies is becoming common with the passage of time. The Big push has shown considerable improvements in the fate of many economies. Our targeted nations too have shown the expected results. The differences can be seen with the calculations of the desired nations. Now the focal point of the discussion here should be the hypothesis to ensure the right track for big push. The proxy of big push here are Total assets as well as the use of credit from International Monetary Fund. They will be countering the independents variables as credit from IMF, poverty, income held by highest 20% of the population, gross national income per capita, trade % of GDP and air transport etc. The function can be targeted in many as well. The effect on the nation’s condition somehow becomes viable because of the present function. More technicality sound relation can be made for the takeoff indicators. Anyhow, we in the mean time know that probably the most authentic data source have been used to conduct this research. The institutions such as Asian development bank and World Bank’s data are used to carry out our study. The sources such as Google Scholar and Econ lit are also worthwhile to mention here. The literatures of many profound scholars have been used to use the right direction.

Easterly, William (2006) "The Big Push Déjà Vu: A Review of Jeffrey Sachs's the End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time", Volume 44, Number 1, pp. 96-105(10). Jeffrey Sachs's new book (The End of Poverty: Economic Possibilities for Our Time, Penguin Press: New York, 2005) advocates a "Big Push" featuring large increases in aid to finance a package of complementary investments in order to end poverty. These recommendations are similar to those first made in the 1950s and 1960s in development economics. Today, as then, the Big Push recommendation overlooks the unsolvable problems facing any large-scale planning exercise. A more promising approach would be to design incentives for aid agents to implement interventions piecemeal whenever they deliver large benefits for the poor relative to costs". William easterly explained the specific points of the Jeffrey Sachs’s remarks about one of the most discussed topic in the history of Economics.

Easterly, William (2006) "Reliving the 1950s: the big push, poverty traps, and takeoffs in economic development", volume 11, pp. 289-318. The classic narrative of economic development—poor countries are caught in poverty traps, out of which they need a Big Push involving increased investment, leading to a takeoff in per capita income—has been very influential in foreign aid debates since the 1950s. This was the original justification for foreign aid. The narrative lost credibility for a while but has made a big comeback in the new millennium. Once again it is invoked as a rationale for large foreign aid programs. This paper applies very simple tests to the various elements of the narrative. Evidence to support the narrative is scarce. Poverty traps in the sense of zero growth for low-income countries are rejected by the data in the whole period 1950–2001 and for most sub-periods. The poorest quintile also does not have significant negative growth of the relative income ratio to the world’s richest country over 1950–2001, nor is relative growth for the lowest quintile significantly different than other quintiles. The claim that "well-governed poor nations" are caught in poverty traps is rejected by simple regressions that control for both initial income and quality of government (incrementing for the latter). The idea of the takeoff also does not garner much support in the data. Takeoffs are rare in the data, most plausibly limited to the Asian success stories. Even then, the takeoffs are not associated with aid, investment, or education spending as the standard narrative would imply.

Collier, Paul (2006) "African Growth: Why a Big Push ", Volume 15, pp. 188-211. From the last 40years, the African economies have remained stagnant as compared to other developing economies of the world. Many developing economies have grasped the opportunities to get out from the state of rut but African economies have been stagnant. The credit from IMF has become useless for them mainly due to internal problems. The factors such as Trade preference and good governance have been taken into consideration.

Skott, Peter and Ros , Jaime (1997) " Big Push in an open economy with non-tradable inputs " , Volume 20 , N.o 01 . The article states the origin of the concept Big Push in 1940’s and 1950’s by the writings of Rosenstein roden , Nurkse ,Hirschman and Leibenstein. The point of view collectively was that the developing countries face barriers to industrialization. Whereas industrialization is seen as an important aspect of development. It was said that the deliberate policy intervention was needed to overcome various inhibiting factors, including the presence of externalities and some form of Increasing returns to Scale. The point of argument was whether trade openness has the capacity to overcome all poverty gaps.

D, Jeffery, Sachs and Warner, M (1999) "The Big Push, Natural resource boom and growth ", volume 59, pp. 43-76 .the article basically focuses on the basic element of any nation: natural resources. The boom in the natural resources can be a good catalyst for the poorer nations. They have presented a model with the natural resources and increasing returns to the spirit of Big Push.

Economist’s view (2008), "Big Push and Economic Development in American south" The focus was basically on the large public capital investments in the column. The story of Southern part of America was portrayed .The southern part became the Industrial hub in the 20th century mainly due to the public capital investments.

3) HYPOTHESIS DEVELOPMENT: The idea is to show the exact picture of Big Push in context to these nations. The take off itself depends upon various variables. In the detailed search of researches of profound scholars we have came across few vital factors which play a pivot role in addressing the issue properly and in describing their roles in the condition of a nation. The factors such as Credit from IMF , Gross Domestic Savings , Per of Trade share in GDP, GNP per capita, Income share held by highest 205 of population , Poverty Gap at 2 $ per day & Air transport are the important factors taken into consideration for proving the capacity of take off by the selected four nations.

TAKE OFF = f (Credit from IMF, Gross domestic savings, trade % in GDP, GNP per capita,

Income share Held by highest 20% of population, Poverty Gap at 2$ per day,

Air Transport)

Another important aspect here is the proxy used in place of "takeoff" or "Big push". This article uses two valiant factors as a proxy for our optimal concept: usage of credit from IMF & total assets held by a nation .The theory explains 0r rather reveals the secret itself. The economy currently in a backward state will tend to move forward due to fresh investment basically in a healthy amount in common means .But it isn’t the case always. The proxies used here are possibly essential to help a nation. We obviously find it through testing the variables by econometric techniques. Now as obvious, we have taken the data of the selected variables of thirty years (1980-2011). Looking at the function above, the independent variables are on the right side of the equation and our dependent variable is big push .The desired feature as big push is not a simple one to calculate. We use total reserves (U.S $) of nations for this purpose and use of IMF credit as well simultaneously. The econometric techniques will enable us to comprehend the optimal result which will show the suitable nation for this purpose.

4) Data description: Obviously, data selected is one of the most important elements in a research paper and it is too in our analysis as well. The thing is that good sources are the key to efficient information; we have gone through data sources: WDI, Google searches & Asian Development bank precisely. The choice of these variables is due to their grand influence on our dependent variables. The next important thing here is the unit of analysis: international currency dollar is been under way here too. Moreover, panel data is targeted here is getting the understanding of the concept more clearly. Another important aspect about data is that it is never perfect. Current data too have some approximations as well. It’s impossible for a researcher to use every bit of data without some approximations but the real deal is that data should have least distortions to get more precise result.

5) Econometric methodology: The accuracy of any research depends upon its methodology used to get the desired results. The proxies of Take-off used (total reserves and credit from IMF) were the most prominent variables available to test our hypothesis. The most common profound method used to check the relationship between the variables is OLS. The software e-views are used to run our tests. Regression analysis is poured through e-views for the 4-nations: independent as well as dependent variables. Firstly, we tested unit root problem for the variables of all nations simultaneously and the credibility of the data of each and every variable is proved then OLS is applied on them. GRANGER CASUALITY test is also used here to show the results. The causality between variables shows the path of success.

The calculations have been made on the software and we have pasted the desired results on this sheet because these calculations show the real performance of the economies.

Dependent Variable: UOL

Method: Least Squares

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 22:56

Sample (adjusted): 1981 2010

Included observations: 30 after adjustments

Variable

Coefficient

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.  

G

-2.61E-08

7.06E-08

-0.369412

0.7178

GD

6.68E-07

8.15E-07

0.820292

0.4268

GDLOG

-1.76E-07

2.67E-06

-0.065918

0.9484

GLOG

-2.15E-05

3.12E-05

-0.689735

0.5025

IN

-1.21E-09

8.43E-10

-1.434787

0.1750

INLOG

1.04E-05

7.77E-06

1.337842

0.2039

IS

1.64E-06

1.25E-06

1.315405

0.2111

ISLOG

-5.45E-05

4.91E-05

-1.109974

0.2871

P

-9.42E-07

4.57E-07

-2.064218

0.0595

PLOG

-2.09E-06

4.66E-05

-0.044778

0.9650

R

-7.18E-17

2.88E-15

-0.024907

0.9805

RLOG

-2.64E-06

3.15E-06

-0.838240

0.4170

T

-8.56E-07

5.44E-07

-1.573682

0.1396

TLOG

1.10E-05

1.52E-05

0.724043

0.4819

U

1.000000

1.42E-14

7.02E+13

0.0000

CILOG

-7.27E-07

4.25E-06

-0.170980

0.8669

C

0.000000

4.60E-05

0.000000

1.0000

R-squared

1.000000

    Mean dependent var

5.82E+08

Adjusted R-squared

1.000000

    S.D. dependent var

3.00E+08

S.E. of regression

4.79E-06

    Akaike info criterion

-21.36236

Sum squared resid

2.98E-10

    Schwarz criterion

-20.56835

Log likelihood

337.4354

    Hannan-Quinn criter.

-21.10835

F-statistic

7.12E+27

    Durbin-Watson stat

1.153894

Prob(F-statistic)

0.000000

A

R-Squared show that it is a perfect fit because its value is equal to the 1.

Use of IMF loan is significant is every sector of the Bangladesh model.

Pairwise Granger Causality Tests

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:00

Sample: 1980 2011

Lags: 2

 Null Hypothesis:

Obs

F-Statistic

Prob. 

 G does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 2.42364

0.1091

 CI does not Granger Cause G

 0.21861

0.8052

 GD does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 0.35730

0.7031

 CI does not Granger Cause GD

 0.52083

0.6003

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.20895

0.8129

 CI does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 0.22701

0.7986

 GLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 2.08530

0.1462

 CI does not Granger Cause GLOG

 0.58139

0.5668

 IN does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.10754

0.8985

 CI does not Granger Cause IN

 0.74964

0.4833

 INLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 28

 8.71407

0.0015

 CI does not Granger Cause INLOG

 0.30651

0.7390

 IS does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 0.17389

0.8414

 CI does not Granger Cause IS

 0.42471

0.6586

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.47207

0.6294

 CI does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 0.65805

0.5270

 P does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 1.44919

0.2538

 CI does not Granger Cause P

 0.33200

0.7206

 PLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.56238

0.5772

 CI does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.58448

0.5651

 R does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 0.93250

0.4068

 CI does not Granger Cause R

 2.20764

0.1309

 RLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.22325

0.8016

 CI does not Granger Cause RLOG

 0.02966

0.9708

 T does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 0.84818

0.4401

 CI does not Granger Cause T

 3.85017

0.0349

 TLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.01681

0.9833

 CI does not Granger Cause TLOG

 2.06656

0.1486

 U does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 NA

 NA

 CI does not Granger Cause U

 NA

 NA

 ULOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.16042

0.8527

 CI does not Granger Cause ULOG

 1.17593

0.3257

 GD does not Granger Cause G

 30

 0.37692

0.6898

 G does not Granger Cause GD

 0.19861

0.8211

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 1.00318

0.3816

 G does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 1.47944

0.2478

 GLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 4.41840

0.0232

 G does not Granger Cause GLOG

 3.38091

0.0509

 IN does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.65321

0.5294

 G does not Granger Cause IN

 0.69602

0.5084

 INLOG does not Granger Cause G

 28

 2.05477

0.1510

 G does not Granger Cause INLOG

 0.55448

0.5819

 IS does not Granger Cause G

 30

 1.29046

0.2928

 G does not Granger Cause IS

 1.06337

0.3604

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.00244

0.9976

 G does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 0.18761

0.8301

 P does not Granger Cause G

 30

 2.04942

0.1499

 G does not Granger Cause P

 4.55527

0.0206

 PLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 1.13715

0.3374

 G does not Granger Cause PLOG

 5.86677

0.0084

 R does not Granger Cause G

 30

 1.51191

0.2400

 G does not Granger Cause R

 4.62431

0.0196

 RLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.32488

0.7257

 G does not Granger Cause RLOG

 0.77641

0.4713

 T does not Granger Cause G

 30

 0.42388

0.6591

 G does not Granger Cause T

 3.52251

0.0449

 TLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 1.14194

0.3359

 G does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.23956

0.7888

 U does not Granger Cause G

 30

 0.21861

0.8052

 G does not Granger Cause U

 2.42364

0.1091

 ULOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.46230

0.6353

 G does not Granger Cause ULOG

 1.35546

0.2769

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.04156

0.9594

 GD does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 1.94552

0.1648

 GLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.16233

0.8511

 GD does not Granger Cause GLOG

 1.55800

0.2311

 IN does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.11862

0.8887

 GD does not Granger Cause IN

 2.15710

0.1376

 INLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 28

 0.23405

0.7932

 GD does not Granger Cause INLOG

 1.32207

0.2861

 IS does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 0.41198

0.6668

 GD does not Granger Cause IS

 8.95734

0.0012

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 2.82151

0.0793

 GD does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 1.90151

0.1712

 P does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 1.09459

0.3502

 GD does not Granger Cause P

 1.36999

0.2725

 PLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.47492

0.6277

 GD does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.41534

0.6648

 R does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 0.70956

0.5015

 GD does not Granger Cause R

 1.82779

0.1816

 RLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 1.74961

0.1953

 GD does not Granger Cause RLOG

 2.30440

0.1215

 T does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 0.21767

0.8059

 GD does not Granger Cause T

 1.49307

0.2440

 TLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.38417

0.6851

 GD does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.07819

0.9250

 U does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 0.52083

0.6003

 GD does not Granger Cause U

 0.35730

0.7031

 ULOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 2.72426

0.0859

 GD does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.77499

0.4719

 GLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.87261

0.4307

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 2.09650

0.1448

 IN does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 28

 0.63248

0.5403

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause IN

 0.13770

0.8721

 INLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 28

 0.32296

0.7272

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause INLOG

 0.29088

0.7503

 IS does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 1.28032

0.2963

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 6.40608

0.0059

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 5.61069

0.0100

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 7.66998

0.0027

 P does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 1.59586

0.2235

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause P

 0.35395

0.7055

 PLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.68876

0.5119

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.48862

0.6194

 R does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 1.11619

0.3439

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause R

 0.57917

0.5680

 RLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 2.11450

0.1426

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause RLOG

 6.88734

0.0043

 T does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 1.42012

0.2613

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause T

 0.04892

0.9523

 TLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.35002

0.7082

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.19467

0.8244

 U does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.22701

0.7986

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause U

 0.20895

0.8129

 ULOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 1.96683

0.1618

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.10913

0.8971

 IN does not Granger Cause GLOG

 28

 3.53520

0.0458

 GLOG does not Granger Cause IN

 0.37390

0.6922

 INLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 28

 3.94011

0.0338

 GLOG does not Granger Cause INLOG

 0.25855

0.7744

 IS does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.30004

0.7435

 GLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 1.16557

0.3288

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.01221

0.9879

 GLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 1.13438

0.3383

 P does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 4.45277

0.0227

 GLOG does not Granger Cause P

 2.95272

0.0714

 PLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.61073

0.5512

 GLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 3.43359

0.0488

 R does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 4.03361

0.0309

 GLOG does not Granger Cause R

 0.55643

0.5805

 RLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.33629

0.7177

 GLOG does not Granger Cause RLOG

 0.18721

0.8305

 T does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 2.48332

0.1047

 GLOG does not Granger Cause T

 0.42625

0.6578

 TLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.86286

0.4346

 GLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.20342

0.8173

 U does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.58139

0.5668

 GLOG does not Granger Cause U

 2.08530

0.1462

 ULOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.52437

0.5986

 GLOG does not Granger Cause ULOG

 1.96919

0.1615

 INLOG does not Granger Cause IN

 28

 0.95884

0.3981

 IN does not Granger Cause INLOG

 1.99792

0.1585

 IS does not Granger Cause IN

 29

 1.10095

0.3488

 IN does not Granger Cause IS

 0.30489

0.7400

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause IN

 28

 0.01298

0.9871

 IN does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 0.91184

0.4158

 P does not Granger Cause IN

 29

 0.12605

0.8821

 IN does not Granger Cause P

 4.11460

0.0291

 PLOG does not Granger Cause IN

 28

 0.27401

0.7628

 IN does not Granger Cause PLOG

 1.33439

0.2830

 R does not Granger Cause IN

 29

 0.90809

0.4167

 IN does not Granger Cause R

 0.33555

0.7182

 RLOG does not Granger Cause IN

 28

 0.84283

0.4434

 IN does not Granger Cause RLOG

 0.34459

0.7121

 T does not Granger Cause IN

 29

 0.19741

0.8222

 IN does not Granger Cause T

 1.42089

0.2611

 TLOG does not Granger Cause IN

 28

 0.55752

0.5802

 IN does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.49253

0.6174

 U does not Granger Cause IN

 29

 0.74964

0.4833

 IN does not Granger Cause U

 0.10754

0.8985

 ULOG does not Granger Cause IN

 28

 0.42598

0.6582

 IN does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.72862

0.4934

 IS does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.20112

0.8192

 INLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 0.07735

0.9258

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.03897

0.9618

 INLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 0.05724

0.9445

 P does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.95314

0.4002

 INLOG does not Granger Cause P

 1.59376

0.2248

 PLOG does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.15890

0.8540

 INLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 1.56231

0.2311

 R does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 1.24342

0.3071

 INLOG does not Granger Cause R

 5.19431

0.0138

 RLOG does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.91765

0.4136

 INLOG does not Granger Cause RLOG

 3.69205

0.0407

 T does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.70666

0.5037

 INLOG does not Granger Cause T

 1.02692

0.3740

 TLOG does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.21510

0.8081

 INLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.74854

0.4842

 U does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.30651

0.7390

 INLOG does not Granger Cause U

 8.71407

0.0015

 ULOG does not Granger Cause INLOG

 28

 0.47879

0.6256

 INLOG does not Granger Cause ULOG

 4.11999

0.0296

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 1.43015

0.2589

 IS does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 1.52207

0.2386

 P does not Granger Cause IS

 30

 0.27504

0.7618

 IS does not Granger Cause P

 0.75955

0.4784

 PLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 0.19656

0.8229

 IS does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.30696

0.7385

 R does not Granger Cause IS

 30

 1.38435

0.2690

 IS does not Granger Cause R

 1.20398

0.3168

 RLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 1.31364

0.2875

 IS does not Granger Cause RLOG

 2.19235

0.1335

 T does not Granger Cause IS

 30

 0.92693

0.4089

 IS does not Granger Cause T

 1.22003

0.3122

 TLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 1.46064

0.2520

 IS does not Granger Cause TLOG

 1.87299

0.1754

 U does not Granger Cause IS

 30

 0.42471

0.6586

 IS does not Granger Cause U

 0.17389

0.8414

 ULOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 0.29498

0.7472

 IS does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.18402

0.8331

 P does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.22742

0.7983

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause P

 0.63450

0.5389

 PLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.11850

0.8888

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.50192

0.6116

 R does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.77925

0.4700

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause R

 1.40996

0.2637

 RLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 1.36362

0.2748

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause RLOG

 3.63647

0.0417

 T does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.01064

0.9894

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause T

 1.52299

0.2384

 TLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 1.38661

0.2692

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 2.38544

0.1135

 U does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.65805

0.5270

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause U

 0.47207

0.6294

 ULOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.21715

0.8064

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.62985

0.5412

 PLOG does not Granger Cause P

 29

 0.96634

0.3948

 P does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.96328

0.3959

 R does not Granger Cause P

 30

 0.69081

0.5105

 P does not Granger Cause R

 1.27944

0.2958

 RLOG does not Granger Cause P

 29

 1.00549

0.3808

 P does not Granger Cause RLOG

 0.13411

0.8751

 T does not Granger Cause P

 30

 2.59533

0.0946

 P does not Granger Cause T

 0.46744

0.6320

 TLOG does not Granger Cause P

 29

 1.23183

0.3096

 P does not Granger Cause TLOG

 1.59594

0.2235

 U does not Granger Cause P

 30

 0.33200

0.7206

 P does not Granger Cause U

 1.44919

0.2538

 ULOG does not Granger Cause P

 29

 0.48939

0.6190

 P does not Granger Cause ULOG

 1.95105

0.1640

 R does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 0.09692

0.9080

 PLOG does not Granger Cause R

 0.01809

0.9821

 RLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 1.08915

0.3526

 PLOG does not Granger Cause RLOG

 0.50759

0.6083

 T does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 0.89216

0.4229

 PLOG does not Granger Cause T

 0.35527

0.7046

 TLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 1.51861

0.2393

 PLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 1.09326

0.3512

 U does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 0.58448

0.5651

 PLOG does not Granger Cause U

 0.56238

0.5772

 ULOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 0.89543

0.4216

 PLOG does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.62559

0.5434

 RLOG does not Granger Cause R

 29

 0.27252

0.7638

 R does not Granger Cause RLOG

 0.31238

0.7346

 T does not Granger Cause R

 30

 4.63974

0.0193

 R does not Granger Cause T

 8.57267

0.0015

 TLOG does not Granger Cause R

 29

 0.39740

0.6764

 R does not Granger Cause TLOG

 2.71099

0.0868

 U does not Granger Cause R

 30

 2.20764

0.1309

 R does not Granger Cause U

 0.93250

0.4068

 ULOG does not Granger Cause R

 29

 0.32972

0.7223

 R does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.07263

0.9302

 T does not Granger Cause RLOG

 29

 0.52584

0.5977

 RLOG does not Granger Cause T

 1.86923

0.1760

 TLOG does not Granger Cause RLOG

 29

 0.34371

0.7126

 RLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 2.72826

0.0856

 U does not Granger Cause RLOG

 29

 0.02966

0.9708

 RLOG does not Granger Cause U

 0.22325

0.8016

 ULOG does not Granger Cause RLOG

 29

 0.03705

0.9637

 RLOG does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.04587

0.9553

 TLOG does not Granger Cause T

 29

 0.43267

0.6537

 T does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.34898

0.7089

 U does not Granger Cause T

 30

 3.85017

0.0349

 T does not Granger Cause U

 0.84818

0.4401

 ULOG does not Granger Cause T

 29

 4.75211

0.0183

 T does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.58620

0.5642

 U does not Granger Cause TLOG

 29

 2.06656

0.1486

 TLOG does not Granger Cause U

 0.01681

0.9833

 ULOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 29

 2.83135

0.0787

 TLOG does not Granger Cause ULOG

 0.48437

0.6220

 ULOG does not Granger Cause U

 29

 0.16042

0.8527

 U does not Granger Cause ULOG

 1.17593

0.3257

It shows that the causality between the dependent variables and Independent variable does cause any change

In independent variables is due to Use of IMF Loan.

Group unit root test: Summary 

Series: CI, CILOG, G, GD, GDLOG, GLOG, IN, INLOG, IS, ISLOG, P, PLOG,

        R, RESID, RLOG, T, TLOG, U, ULOG

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:12

Sample: 1980 2011

Exogenous variables: None

User specified lags at: 1

Newey-West bandwidth selection using Bartlett kernel

Cross-

Method

Statistic

Prob.**

sections

Obs

Null: Unit root (assumes common unit root process) 

Levin, Lin & Chu t*

 0.90286

 0.8167

 19

 557

Null: Unit root (assumes individual unit root process) 

ADF - Fisher Chi-square

 138.321

 0.0000

 19

 557

PP - Fisher Chi-square

 444.875

 0.0000

 19

 576

** Probabilities for Fisher tests are computed using an asymptotic Chi

        -square distribution. All other tests assume asymptotic normality.

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:13

Sample: 1980 2011

Included observations: 32

Autocorrelation

Partial Correlation

AC 

 PAC

 Q-Stat

 Prob

     . |******|

     . |******|

1

0.787

0.787

21.733

0.000

     . |**** |

     .**| . |

2

0.496

-0.322

30.672

0.000

     . |**. |

     . *| . |

3

0.217

-0.134

32.440

0.000

     . | . |

     . |* . |

4

0.073

0.159

32.650

0.000

     . | . |

     .**| . |

5

-0.065

-0.264

32.821

0.000

     .**| . |

     .**| . |

6

-0.231

-0.254

35.059

0.000

     ***| . |

     . | . |

7

-0.353

0.058

40.482

0.000

     ***| . |

     . *| . |

8

-0.409

-0.115

48.066

0.000

     ***| . |

     . *| . |

9

-0.398

-0.120

55.554

0.000

     ***| . |

     . | . |

10

-0.347

0.050

61.493

0.000

     .**| . |

     . *| . |

11

-0.295

-0.120

65.997

0.000

     .**| . |

     . *| . |

12

-0.260

-0.185

69.684

0.000

     .**| . |

     . | . |

13

-0.209

0.046

72.176

0.000

     . *| . |

     . *| . |

14

-0.141

-0.079

73.371

0.000

     . | . |

     . | . |

15

-0.043

-0.049

73.487

0.000

     . | . |

     . | . |

16

0.038

0.016

73.584

0.000

It shows that the data is stationary at level.

India…

Pair wise Granger Causality Tests

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:24

Sample: 1980 2011

Lags: 2

 Null Hypothesis:

Obs

F-Statistic

Prob. 

 G does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 3.75769

0.0374

 CI does not Granger Cause G

 0.65012

0.5306

 GD does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 1.05927

0.3618

 CI does not Granger Cause GD

 0.34195

0.7137

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 1.00692

0.3803

 CI does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 0.19577

0.8235

 GLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 3.87182

0.0349

 CI does not Granger Cause GLOG

 0.10920

0.8970

 IS does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 0.47292

0.6286

 CI does not Granger Cause IS

 1.92587

0.1668

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 0.29105

0.7501

 CI does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 2.24265

0.1280

 P does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 5.55837

0.0101

 CI does not Granger Cause P

 0.34534

0.7113

 PLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 11.6661

0.0003

 CI does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.79071

0.4650

 RESID does not Granger Cause CI

 28

 1.42297

0.2614

 CI does not Granger Cause RESID

 2.67638

0.0902

 T does not Granger Cause CI

 30

 2.74577

0.0836

 CI does not Granger Cause T

 0.14564

0.8652

 TLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 1.05399

0.3641

 CI does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.10402

0.9016

 TR does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 2.19778

0.1329

 CI does not Granger Cause TR

 0.23276

0.7941

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause CI

 28

 0.76978

0.4747

 CI does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 0.02436

0.9760

 CILOG does not Granger Cause CI

 29

 1.32359

0.2849

 CI does not Granger Cause CILOG

 1.65205

0.2127

 GD does not Granger Cause G

 30

 0.64988

0.5307

 G does not Granger Cause GD

 0.79287

0.4636

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.58822

0.5631

 G does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 0.89845

0.4205

 GLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.88397

0.4262

 G does not Granger Cause GLOG

 0.42249

0.6602

 IS does not Granger Cause G

 30

 0.04660

0.9545

 G does not Granger Cause IS

 0.26455

0.7697

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.52639

0.5974

 G does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 0.94000

0.4045

 P does not Granger Cause G

 30

 1.00501

0.3804

 G does not Granger Cause P

 5.71031

0.0091

 PLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.05395

0.9476

 G does not Granger Cause PLOG

 3.57535

0.0437

 RESID does not Granger Cause G

 28

 1.51240

0.2415

 G does not Granger Cause RESID

 3.40863

0.0505

 T does not Granger Cause G

 30

 5.51292

0.0104

 G does not Granger Cause T

 2.25012

0.1263

 TLOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 3.21309

0.0580

 G does not Granger Cause TLOG

 2.08288

0.1465

 TR does not Granger Cause G

 29

 3.09310

0.0638

 G does not Granger Cause TR

 5.73067

0.0092

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause G

 28

 3.76348

0.0385

 G does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 1.45326

0.2545

 CILOG does not Granger Cause G

 29

 0.71288

0.5003

 G does not Granger Cause CILOG

 10.8724

0.0004

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.48763

0.6200

 GD does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 0.55226

0.5828

 GLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 1.07643

0.3567

 GD does not Granger Cause GLOG

 0.41945

0.6621

 IS does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 3.04278

0.0657

 GD does not Granger Cause IS

 1.09755

0.3492

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 3.05736

0.0656

 GD does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 1.15582

0.3317

 P does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 1.43498

0.2571

 GD does not Granger Cause P

 10.7754

0.0004

 PLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 1.36725

0.2739

 GD does not Granger Cause PLOG

 14.2782

8.E-05

 RESID does not Granger Cause GD

 28

 1.20962

0.3166

 GD does not Granger Cause RESID

 0.46924

0.6313

 T does not Granger Cause GD

 30

 2.94115

0.0713

 GD does not Granger Cause T

 3.77011

0.0371

 TLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 1.73153

0.1984

 GD does not Granger Cause TLOG

 3.44237

0.0485

 TR does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.19674

0.8227

 GD does not Granger Cause TR

 2.73205

0.0853

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause GD

 28

 0.57946

0.5682

 GD does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 0.60815

0.5529

 CILOG does not Granger Cause GD

 29

 0.02383

0.9765

 GD does not Granger Cause CILOG

 4.88505

0.0166

 GLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.64320

0.5344

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 0.26199

0.7717

 IS does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 2.34698

0.1172

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 1.74863

0.1955

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 2.21542

0.1309

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 0.58131

0.5668

 P does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 1.96642

0.1619

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause P

 1.80331

0.1864

 PLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.89727

0.4209

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 1.16533

0.3288

 RESID does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 28

 1.38515

0.2704

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause RESID

 0.84313

0.4432

 T does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.74701

0.4845

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause T

 4.05469

0.0304

 TLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 1.51978

0.2391

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 2.82942

0.0788

 TR does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 28

 0.07500

0.9280

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause TR

 0.49067

0.6185

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 28

 0.39027

0.6813

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 0.31192

0.7351

 CILOG does not Granger Cause GDLOG

 29

 0.17523

0.8403

 GDLOG does not Granger Cause CILOG

 1.53972

0.2349

 IS does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.03594

0.9647

 GLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 0.85754

0.4368

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.90860

0.4165

 GLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 0.21571

0.8075

 P does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.49148

0.6177

 GLOG does not Granger Cause P

 3.02959

0.0671

 PLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.13204

0.8769

 GLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 2.88476

0.0754

 RESID does not Granger Cause GLOG

 28

 3.60992

0.0433

 GLOG does not Granger Cause RESID

 5.17312

0.0140

 T does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 2.97870

0.0699

 GLOG does not Granger Cause T

 3.44759

0.0483

 TLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 2.12601

0.1412

 GLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 2.59655

0.0953

 TR does not Granger Cause GLOG

 28

 1.93885

0.1667

 GLOG does not Granger Cause TR

 1.05926

0.3630

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 28

 3.38348

0.0515

 GLOG does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 1.05949

0.3629

 CILOG does not Granger Cause GLOG

 29

 0.29957

0.7439

 GLOG does not Granger Cause CILOG

 2.05030

0.1506

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 1.57275

0.2281

 IS does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 2.71218

0.0867

 P does not Granger Cause IS

 30

 2.27286

0.1239

 IS does not Granger Cause P

 0.45022

0.6426

 PLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 0.04908

0.9522

 IS does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.60678

0.5533

 RESID does not Granger Cause IS

 28

 5.28134

0.0130

 IS does not Granger Cause RESID

 1.63678

0.2165

 T does not Granger Cause IS

 30

 0.35989

0.7013

 IS does not Granger Cause T

 0.33710

0.7170

 TLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 0.38016

0.6878

 IS does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.02915

0.9713

 TR does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 0.63051

0.5409

 IS does not Granger Cause TR

 1.70934

0.2023

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause IS

 28

 3.84354

0.0363

 IS does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 5.01607

0.0156

 CILOG does not Granger Cause IS

 29

 0.46397

0.6343

 IS does not Granger Cause CILOG

 0.91279

0.4149

 P does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.52825

0.5963

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause P

 0.41563

0.6646

 PLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.46068

0.6363

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 0.30830

0.7376

 RESID does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 28

 6.19965

0.0070

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause RESID

 2.41997

0.1112

 T does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.60055

0.5565

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause T

 0.11676

0.8903

 TLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.04909

0.9522

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.18243

0.8344

 TR does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 28

 1.16776

0.3288

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause TR

 1.74283

0.1974

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 28

 2.66274

0.0912

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 5.46554

0.0114

 CILOG does not Granger Cause ISLOG

 29

 0.86769

0.4327

 ISLOG does not Granger Cause CILOG

 0.32058

0.7288

 PLOG does not Granger Cause P

 29

 3.04112

0.0665

 P does not Granger Cause PLOG

 2.71634

0.0864

 RESID does not Granger Cause P

 28

 0.52066

0.6010

 P does not Granger Cause RESID

 0.68904

0.5121

 T does not Granger Cause P

 30

 7.44420

0.0029

 P does not Granger Cause T

 3.86764

0.0344

 TLOG does not Granger Cause P

 29

 2.73550

0.0851

 P does not Granger Cause TLOG

 1.89965

0.1714

 TR does not Granger Cause P

 29

 5.94239

0.0080

 P does not Granger Cause TR

 2.64791

0.0914

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause P

 28

 0.15187

0.8600

 P does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 1.49338

0.2456

 CILOG does not Granger Cause P

 29

 0.16923

0.8453

 P does not Granger Cause CILOG

 0.13130

0.8776

 RESID does not Granger Cause PLOG

 28

 0.36030

0.7013

 PLOG does not Granger Cause RESID

 0.61029

0.5518

 T does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 6.13260

0.0071

 PLOG does not Granger Cause T

 0.88574

0.4255

 TLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 4.03015

0.0310

 PLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.84314

0.4427

 TR does not Granger Cause PLOG

 28

 4.43491

0.0235

 PLOG does not Granger Cause TR

 2.79282

0.0821

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 28

 0.01161

0.9885

 PLOG does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 0.75780

0.4800

 CILOG does not Granger Cause PLOG

 29

 0.21559

0.8076

 PLOG does not Granger Cause CILOG

 11.8751

0.0003

 T does not Granger Cause RESID

 28

 0.04728

0.9539

 RESID does not Granger Cause T

 0.16245

0.8510

 TLOG does not Granger Cause RESID

 28

 1.54528

0.2346

 RESID does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.07628

0.9268

 TR does not Granger Cause RESID

 28

 0.03551

0.9652

 RESID does not Granger Cause TR

 0.76415

0.4772

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause RESID

 28

 4.15283

0.0289

 RESID does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 2.26143

0.1269

 CILOG does not Granger Cause RESID

 28

 1.98825

0.1598

 RESID does not Granger Cause CILOG

 1.29607

0.2928

 TLOG does not Granger Cause T

 29

 0.18940

0.8287

 T does not Granger Cause TLOG

 0.15335

0.8587

 TR does not Granger Cause T

 29

 3.54149

0.0449

 T does not Granger Cause TR

 6.46301

0.0057

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause T

 28

 0.57279

0.5718

 T does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 0.73855

0.4888

 CILOG does not Granger Cause T

 29

 0.31137

0.7354

 T does not Granger Cause CILOG

 3.58037

0.0436

 TR does not Granger Cause TLOG

 28

 0.82071

0.4526

 TLOG does not Granger Cause TR

 3.17958

0.0604

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 28

 0.14647

0.8645

 TLOG does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 1.56554

0.2304

 CILOG does not Granger Cause TLOG

 29

 0.16660

0.8475

 TLOG does not Granger Cause CILOG

 0.73869

0.4883

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause TR

 28

 0.26705

0.7680

 TR does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 0.18050

0.8360

 CILOG does not Granger Cause TR

 28

 0.07842

0.9248

 TR does not Granger Cause CILOG

 12.9130

0.0002

 CILOG does not Granger Cause TRLOG

 28

 0.04833

0.9529

 TRLOG does not Granger Cause CILOG

 1.31834

0.2871

This DATA shows that the in Indian economy use of Imf loan is not significant because Use of Loan does not granger cause the independent variable simultaneously.

Dependent Variable:

Method: Least Squares

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:22

Sample (adjusted): 1981 2010

Included observations: 30 after adjustments

Variable

Coefficient

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.  

G

16567953

7338160.

2.257780

0.0383

GD

3.45E+08

1.95E+08

1.766717

0.0963

GDLOG

-6.35E+09

3.31E+09

-1.915524

0.0735

GLOG

-6.47E+09

4.88E+09

-1.324694

0.2039

IS

-9.22E+08

5.70E+08

-1.616846

0.1255

ISLOG

2.26E+09

1.93E+10

0.116874

0.9084

P

-21079924

2.64E+08

-0.079721

0.9374

PLOG

-2.02E+09

1.46E+10

-0.138679

0.8914

T

-3.01E+08

1.47E+08

-2.048221

0.0573

TLOG

3.75E+09

3.46E+09

1.083413

0.2947

TR

-11611.55

13464.49

-0.862383

0.4012

TRLOG

3.32E+09

3.79E+09

0.876954

0.3935

CILOG

5.41E+08

2.74E+08

1.972157

0.0661

C

3.55E+10

3.20E+10

1.111581

0.2827

R-squared

0.778221

    Mean dependent var

2.62E+09

Adjusted R-squared

0.598026

    S.D. dependent var

1.82E+09

S.E. of regression

1.15E+09

    Akaike info criterion

44.87355

Sum squared resid

2.13E+19

    Schwarz criterion

45.52744

Log likelihood

-659.1032

    Hannan-Quinn criter.

45.08273

F-statistic

4.318771

    Durbin-Watson stat

1.227464

Prob(F-statistic)

0.003514

The Regression Line shows a little significance in Indian model because the R-squared value is near from 1.

And it shows the goodness of fit.

Group unit root test: Summary 

Series: CI, G, GD, GDLOG, GLOG, IS, ISLOG, P, PLOG, RESID, T, TLOG,

        TR, TRLOG, CILOG

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:26

Sample: 1980 2011

Exogenous variables: None

Automatic selection of maximum lags

Automatic selection of lags based on SIC: 0 to 4

Newey-West bandwidth selection using Bartlett kernel

Cross-

Method

Statistic

Prob.**

sections

Obs

Null: Unit root (assumes common unit root process) 

Levin, Lin & Chu t*

 1.30953

 0.9048

 15

 445

Null: Unit root (assumes individual unit root process) 

ADF - Fisher Chi-square

 166.244

 0.0000

 15

 445

PP - Fisher Chi-square

 185.145

 0.0000

 15

 454

** Probabilities for Fisher tests are computed using an asymptotic Chi

        -square distribution. All other tests assume asymptotic normality.

intercept

Group unit root test: Summary 

Series: CI, G, GD, GDLOG, GLOG, IS, ISLOG, P, PLOG, RESID, T, TLOG,

        TR, TRLOG, CILOG

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:27

Sample: 1980 2011

Exogenous variables: Individual effects

Automatic selection of maximum lags

Automatic selection of lags based on SIC: 0 to 4

Newey-West bandwidth selection using Bartlett kernel

Cross-

Method

Statistic

Prob.**

sections

Obs

Null: Unit root (assumes common unit root process) 

Levin, Lin & Chu t*

 2.03812

 0.9792

 15

 443

Null: Unit root (assumes individual unit root process) 

Im, Pesaran and Shin W-stat 

-6.18120

 0.0000

 15

 443

ADF - Fisher Chi-square

 155.561

 0.0000

 15

 443

PP - Fisher Chi-square

 155.286

 0.0000

 15

 454

** Probabilities for Fisher tests are computed using an asymptotic Chi

        -square distribution. All other tests assume asymptotic normality.

1st diff

Group unit root test: Summary 

Series: CI, G, GD, GDLOG, GLOG, IS, ISLOG, P, PLOG, RESID, T, TLOG,

        TR, TRLOG, CILOG

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:27

Sample: 1980 2011

Exogenous variables: Individual effects

Automatic selection of maximum lags

Automatic selection of lags based on SIC: 0 to 5

Newey-West bandwidth selection using Bartlett kernel

Cross-

Method

Statistic

Prob.**

sections

Obs

Null: Unit root (assumes common unit root process) 

Levin, Lin & Chu t*

-12.1756

 0.0000

 15

 424

Null: Unit root (assumes individual unit root process) 

Im, Pesaran and Shin W-stat 

-19.7691

 0.0000

 15

 424

ADF - Fisher Chi-square

 298.378

 0.0000

 15

 424

PP - Fisher Chi-square

 309.579

 0.0000

 15

 439

** Probabilities for Fisher tests are computed using an asymptotic Chi

        -square distribution. All other tests assume asymptotic normality.

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:28

Sample: 1980 2011

Included observations: 32

Correlations are asymptotically consistent approximations

CI,G(-i)

CI,G(+i)

i 

 lag

 Lead

       . |** . |

       . |** . |

0

0.2175

0.2175

       . |** . |

       . | . |

1

0.1798

0.0413

       . |** . |

       . **| . |

2

0.1674

-0.1551

       . |** . |

       ****| . |

3

0.1645

-0.4026

       . |** . |

       ****| . |

4

0.1727

-0.4025

       . |* . |

       ****| . |

5

0.1512

-0.4152

       . |* . |

       ****| . |

6

0.1261

-0.4359

       . |* . |

      *****| . |

7

0.0960

-0.4562

       . |* . |

      *****| . |

8

0.0832

-0.4688

       . |* . |

      *****| . |

9

0.0745

-0.4576

       . |* . |

       ****| . |

10

0.0635

-0.4183

       . |* . |

       ****| . |

11

0.0693

-0.3524

       . |* . |

       .***| . |

12

0.0882

-0.2719

       . |* . |

       . **| . |

13

0.1209

-0.1831

       . |* . |

       . *| . |

14

0.1491

-0.0545

       . |** . |

       . |* . |

15

0.1609

0.0661

       . |* . |

       . |** . |

16

0.1470

0.1670

This shows that the data is stationary at first difference,

Pakistan

Dependent Variable: CR

Method: Least Squares

Date: 02/03/13 Time: 23:36

Sample (adjusted): 1981 2010

Included observations: 30 after adjustments

Variable

Coefficient

Std. Error

t-Statistic

Prob.  

A

50721.65

29489.87

1.719969

0.1047

ALOG

4.17E+09

3.27E+09

1.273480

0.2210<