| Literature DB >> 35004564 |
Siti Nur Ain Mohd1, Ayunee Anis Ishak1, Doris Padmini Selvaratnam1.
Abstract
This study investigates the impact of the ageing population on the economic growth for short- and long-run estimations in Malaysia, by using time series data from 1981 to 2019. This study adopts the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) method with the Bound test approach for the long-run estimation and the vector error correction model for the short-run estimation. Several econometric diagnostic tests were applied for validation and the appropriate model specification basis. The estimated result of this work indicates that the age dependency ratio proxy for the ageing population variable has a significant negative impact on economic growth in Malaysia. A 1% increase in old age dependency will decline gross domestic product's (GDP's) growth by an average of 6.6043% at the 5% level of significance. Hence, an increase in the ageing population will impede economic growth. Although controlled variables (e.g., physical capital, labour participation, and human capital) have a significant positive impact on economic growth in Malaysia, there is evidence of a long- and short-run relationship between economic growth and the ageing population variable, and also the control variable.Entities:
Keywords: ARDL; Malaysia; ageing population; economic growth; endogenous growth model
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 35004564 PMCID: PMC8740913 DOI: 10.3389/fpubh.2021.731554
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Front Public Health ISSN: 2296-2565
Figure 1GDP growth in Malaysia, 1961–2019. Source: DOSM (2).
The age dependency ratio, fertility rate, and government health expenditure (2000–2018).
|
|
|
|
|
|---|---|---|---|
| 2000 | 6.241 | 2.78 | 1.17 |
| 2002 | 6.527 | 2.54 | 1.37 |
| 2004 | 6.695 | 2.36 | 1.46 |
| 2006 | 6.967 | 2.25 | 1.67 |
| 2008 | 7.238 | 2.19 | 1.60 |
| 2010 | 7.359 | 2.15 | 1.68 |
| 2012 | 7.812 | 2.11 | 1.86 |
| 2014 | 8.373 | 2.07 | 2.03 |
| 2016 | 8.980 | 2.04 | 1.89 |
| 2018 | 9.623 | 2.00 | 1.92 |
Source: World Bank (.
Unit root test result.
|
|
|
| ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
|
|
| |
| GDPG | −5.0765 | −7.4727 | −5.0765 | −18.7528 |
| (0.0010) | (0.0000) | (0.0010) | (0.0000) | |
| LAD | −3.4359 | −3.8176 | −2.8401 | −7.9575 |
| (0.0643) | (0.0290) | (0.1929) | (0.0000) | |
| LK | −2.1443 | −5.5442 | −2.2664 | −5.5442 |
| (0.5056) | (0.0003) | (0.4412) | (0.0003) | |
| LL | −4.5395 | −5.1811 | −4.5708 | −17.6792 |
| (0.0044) | (0.0009) | (0.0041) | (0.0000) | |
| LHC | −2.1334 | −6.2945 | −2.1796 | −6.2945 |
| (0.5110) | (0.000) | (0.4864) | (0.0000) | |
denotes significant at 1 and 5% significance level, respectively. The figure in parenthesis (…) represents P-value or probability value for the significance level.
ARDL short run and diagnostic test results.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| D(GDPG(-1)) | 0.4582 | 3.7118 |
| D(LK) | 20.5699 | 10.7524 |
| D(LK(-1)) | 2.0003 | 0.6918 |
| D(LK(-2)) | 11.0066 | 3.8146 |
| D(LL) | 18.0272 | 3.4112 |
| D(LL(-1)) | −36.4204 | −5.3345 |
| D(LL(-2)) | −21.3657 | −3.2828 |
| D(LL(-3)) | −16.7536 | −3.0967 |
| D(LHC) | 173.9205 | 1.2979 |
| D(LHC (-1)) | 403.8911 | 2.4712 |
| D(LHC(-2)) | 307.5912 | 1.6750 |
| D(LHC(-3)) | −481.2427 | −3.4383 |
|
| −1.6550 | −9.3460 |
|
| ||
|
|
| |
| Normality | 0.7136 | |
| BG serial correlation LM | 0.4166 | |
| Heteroskedasticity | 0.4364 | |
| ARCH | 0.1768 | |
are denoted as significance levels at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.
Figure 2CUSUM and CUSUM square test results.
|
|
| |
|---|---|---|
|
|
| |
| LAD | −6.6034 | −2.6792 |
| LK | 3.9430 | 2.7213 |
| LL | 33.0956 | 3.2736 |
| LHC | 17.8709 | 3.4323 |
| C | −154.4565 | −3.8140 |
|
| ||
|---|---|---|
| 11.24934 | ||
| Narayan ( | I(0) | I(1) |
|
| ||
| 10% | 2.2 | 3.09 |
| 5% | 2.56 | 3.49 |
| 1% | 3.29 | 4.37 |
are denoted as significance levels at 1, 5, and 10%, respectively.