‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻹﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ :‬ﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭ ﻤﺼﺭ‬
‫ﺩ‪ .‬ﺇﺒﺭﺍﻫﻴﻡ ﻤﻨﺼﻭﺭﻱ‬
‫‪1‬‬
‫ﻤﻠﺨﺹ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻫﺘﻡ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﻭﻥ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎ ﻜﺒﻴﺭﺍ ﺒﺈﺸﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺭﺠﻊ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺴﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺴﻠﺴل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺎﻤﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻷﺒﺤﺎﺙ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﺒﻴﻨﺕ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻔﺎﻭﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻋﺒﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﻤﺭﺩﻩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﻭﺍﻤل ﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺴﻴﺭ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﻤﺤﺎﻭﻟﺔ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﻤﻔﻌﻭل‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺩﻟﻙ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺙ ﻟﻠﺴﻼﺴل ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺒﻌﺩ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺭﺍﺽ ﺃﻫﻡ ﺍﻷﺩﺒﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ ،‬ﺒﻨﻴﻨﺎ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺠﺎ ﻗﻴﺎﺴﻴﺎ ﻴﺭﻤﻲ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻩ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﺤﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻭﻗﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻹﻴﺠﺎﺒﻲ ﻟﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻭﻗﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل‪ ،‬ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺘﻐﻴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻪ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺘﺸﺠﻴﻌﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ‬
‫ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻻ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺒﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺼﺭ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﺇﻻ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻴﻼﺤﻅ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭﻩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺒﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺠﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻴﻜﻤل ﻋﻭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺯﻴﺢ ﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻨﻪ ﻴﻁﺎﺒﻕ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﻋﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺩﻭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﺘﻤﻭﻴﻠﻪ ﻻ ﺘﻌﺭﻗل ﺃﻨﺸﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺒﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻓﻴﻬﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺜﻤﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻭﺍﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﻓﻴﻤﺎ ﻴﺨﺹ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻓﻴﻼﺤﻅ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﺴﻠﺒﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻤﻊ ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﺭﺠﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻲ ﻨﺎﺠﻤﺎ ﻋﻥ ﻁﻐﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻭﺍﻤل ﻤﺜل‬
‫ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﺤﻼل ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺘﻀﺨﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻔﻭﺍﺘﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺘﺴﻴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺸﻭﺓ ﻭﻫﺭﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺭﺴﺎﻤﻴل ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻟﻁﻠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺩﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺠﻡ ﻋﻥ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫‪ 1‬ﻤﺩﻴﺭ ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﻭﺙ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻜﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻭﻕ‪ ،‬ﺠﺎﻤﻌﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﺎﻀﻲ ﻋﻴﺎﺽ‪ ،‬ﻤﺭﺍﻜﺵ‪ ،‬ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ‪.‬‬
‫‪88‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﻨﺴﺘﺨﻠﺹ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺼﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻻ ﻴﺠﺏ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﻴﻌﺘﻤﺩﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ ﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻘﻭﻴﻡ ﻤﻭﺍﺯﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺒﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻭﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻨﺒﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺫﻴﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺒﻤﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺴﻁ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻤﻥ ﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﺭﻗل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺘﺭﻜﺯ ﺠﻬﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻜﻤل ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﻭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺯﻴﺤﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻭﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻋﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩ ﺃﺴﺎﺴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺼﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ ﺒﺈﺘﺒﺎﻋﻬﻡ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻨﺎﺠﻌﺔ ﺴﻴﻌﺭﻗﻠﻭﻥ ﻻ ﻤﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻤﺴﻠﺴل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻨﻬﻡ‪.‬‬
‫ﻤﻘﺩﻤﺔ ﻋﺎﻤﺔ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻫﺘﻡ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﻭﻥ ﺍﻫﺘﻤﺎﻤﺎ ﻜﺒﻴﺭﺍ ﺒﺈﺸﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺭﺠﻊ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻼﺴﻴﻜﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺴﻠﺴل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻋﺎﻤﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺒﺯﻭﻍ ﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﺄ ) ‪endogenous‬‬
‫‪ (growth theory‬ﺩﻓﻊ ﺒﺎﻻﺨﺘﺼﺎﺼﻴﻴﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺴﺎﺅل ﺤﻭل ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ ﻋﻭﺍﻤل ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭ ﻅﺎﻫﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ ,‬ﻭﺒﺼﻔﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻔﺴﺭ ﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺩﺨل ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻤﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻘﺩﻤﺔ ﻜﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻠﻙ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ)ﺃﻨﻅﺭ ﻤﺜﻼ ‪Barro, 1990 ; Barro and Sala-‬‬
‫‪.(i-Martin, 1995 ; Aschauer and Lächler ; 1998‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﺴﻌﻰ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﺴﺘﻜﺸﺎﻑ ﺃﺜﺭ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ‬
‫ﻭﻤﺼﺭ ﺒﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺃﺜﺭ ﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻫﺎﺠﺱ ﺘﻭﻓﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ‪ ،‬ﺘﻡ ﺍﺨﺘﻴﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻻﻨﺨﺭﺍﻁﻬﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺒﺭﺍﻤﺞ ﻭﺍﺴﻌﺔ ﻟﻠﺘﻜﻴﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻤﻤﺎ ﻨﺠﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻨﺨﻔﺎﺽ ﺤﺎﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻜﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻴﻨﻌﺵ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﺈﻥ ﺘﻜﻴﻔﺎ ﻤﺎﻟﻴﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻨﺤﺭﻓﺎ ﻀﺩ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺴﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻻ ﻤﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺃﺜﺭ ﻤﻜﻠﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﻋﻴﺵ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﻁﻨﻴﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺘﻨﺤﺼﺭ ﺃﻏﻠﺏ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻓﻲ ﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺃﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﺈﻥ‬
‫ﻭﺭﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺘﺤﺎﻭل ﺘﻤﺩﻴﺩ ﻤﺠﺎل ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ ﺒﺘﻔﻜﻴﻙ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺇﻟﻰ ﻗﺴﻤﻴﻪ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺇﺩﻤﺎﺝ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﻗﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻜﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻔﺴﺭ ﺠﺯﺌﻴﺎ ﺘﻘﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﻨﻘﺴﻡ ﺍﻟﻭﺭﻗﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﺃﻗﺴﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﻴﻘﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻡ ﺍﻷﻭل ﻋﺭﻀﺎ ﻨﻘﺩﻴﺎ ﻟﻸﺩﺒﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻨﻲ ﻓﻴﺘﻨﺎﻭل ﺍﻹﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻲ ﻟﺒﺤﺜﻨﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﻘﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻡ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﻟﺙ‬
‫ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻴﻘﻭﻡ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺍﺒﻊ ﺒﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻤﻘﺘﺭﺤﺎﺕ ﻟﻠﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﺒﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻴﺨﺘﻡ ﻤﻭﻀﻭﻉ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ‪.‬‬
‫‪89‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫‪ .1‬ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺭﺍﺽ ﻨﻘﺩﻱ ﻟﻸﺩﺒﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺤﻭل ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﺒﺎﻹﻀﺎﻓﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﻤﺨﺯﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻓﺈﻥ ﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﹲﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺸﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺅﺜﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﻓﺭﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ )ﺃﻨﻅﺭ ﻤﺜﻼ ‪ .(Gupta et al, 2002‬ﻭﺭﻏﻡ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅﺔ ﺍﻟﻬﺎﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻏﻠﺏ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺘﻤﻴل ﻓﻲ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺍﻷﺤﻴﺎﻥ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺭﻜﻴﺯ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺜﺭ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ )ﺃﻨﻅﺭ ﻤﺜﻼ ‪ (Boussetta, 1995 ; Rodrigùez, 1994‬ﺃﻭ ﺭﺼﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺯﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻌﺘﺒﺭ‬
‫ﺒﻨﻔﺴﻪ ﻗﻴﺎﺴﺎ ﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻤﺠﻤﻌﺔ )ﺃﻨﻅﺭ‪.( Boussetta, 1995 ; Eken et al, 1997‬‬
‫ﺘﺭﻯ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻭﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺨﺘﻠﻔﺔ ﻟﻺﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻴﺱ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﺘﺭﻜﺯ ﻏﺎﻟﺒﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺃﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻤﻐﻔﻠﺔ ﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﻤﻜﻭﻨﺎﺕ ﺃﺨﺭﻯ ﻟﻺﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ) ‪Blejer and‬‬
‫‪Khan, 1984 ; Khan and Reinhart, 1990 ; Greene and Wellanueva, 1991 ; Haque‬‬
‫‪ .(and Montiel, 1994 ; Islam and Wetzel, 1994 ; Aschauer and Lächler, 1998‬ﻴﺭﻯ‬
‫)‪ Khan and Reinhart (1990‬ﺃﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺘﻬﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺤﻭل ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﻁﺭﻴﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺒﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺒﺎﻜﺴﺘﺎﻥ‪ ،‬ﺒﻴﻥ )‪ Haque and Montiel (1994‬ﺃﻥ ﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻬﺎ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺘﺸﺠﻴﻌﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﺴﻴﻙ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺒﻴﻥ ‪Aschauer and Lächler‬‬
‫)‪ (1998‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻪ ﺘﺄﺜﻴﺭ ﺴﻠﺒﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺘﻬﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺤﻭل ﻤﺠﻤﻭﻋﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻤﻴﺔ ﻴﺭﻯ )‪ Dessus and Herrera (1996‬ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ‬
‫ﻫﻭ ﺒﻤﺜﺎﺒﺔ ﻗﺎﻁﺭﺓ ﻟﻠﺘﻨﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻟﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺫﺍ ﺃﻫﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻗﺼﻭﻯ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﺜﺭ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻜﻲ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭ ﺤﺠﻡ ﺘﺒﺫﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﺭﺩ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫ﻴﺴﺘﺩﻋﻲ ﺘﻤﺤﻴﺼﺎ ﺨﺎﺼﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﺍﻨﻁﻼﻗﺎ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻼﺤﻅﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﻭﺭﻗﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺜﻴﺔ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺘﺭﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﺴﻠﻴﻁ ﻤﺯﻴﺩ‬
‫ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﻭﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﻫﻡ ﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺘﻨﺎ ﺘﺘﻤﺜل ﻓﻲ ﻜﻭﻨﻬﺎ ﺘﺤﺎﻭل ﺃﻥ ﺘﺭﻯ ﻜﻴﻑ ﺘﺅﺜﺭ ﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻌﻤﻭﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﻭﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻴﺸﻜﻼﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻟﻬﻤﺎ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﻁﻠﺏ )‪ (demand effect‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ‬
‫ﺃﻥ ﺃﺜﺭﻫﻤﺎ ﻴﺒﻘﻰ ﻏﺎﻤﻀﺎ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻟﻤﺎ ﻴﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫ـ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻟﻼﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺴﺭﻉ ﻋﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻥ ﻤﻔﻌﻭﻟﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻁﻠﺒﻲ ﻴﺭﻓﻊ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺤﻴﻁ ﻴﺘﺴﻡ ﺒﺎﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‪ ،‬ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺒﺎﻟﻐﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻔﻭﺘﺭﺓ‬
‫)‪ (over-invoicing‬ﻭﺍﻻﺭﺘﺸﺎﺀ ﻭﻫﺭﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺭﺴﺎﻤﻴل ﻭﺘﻘﻠﺹ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻨﺠﻡ ﻋﻥ‬
‫‪90‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺍﺴﺘﻔﺤﺎل ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻤﻥ ﺸﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺅﺩﻱ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﺩﻫﻭﺭ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ )ﺃﻨﻅﺭ ‪Mansouri,‬‬
‫‪.(2004a, 2004b, Mansouri et al, 2005‬‬
‫ـ ﻤﻨﺫ ﻜﻴﻨﺯ )‪ ،(Keynes, 1936‬ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻟﻺﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺘﺸﺠﻴﻌﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻴﺴﺭﻉ ﻭﺜﻴﺭﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻵﺜﺎﺭﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻀﺎﻋﻔﺔ‬
‫)‪ .(multiplier effects‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺼﻴﺎﻏﺔ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺎﺕ ﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﺘﻘﻭﺩﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻜﻴﻙ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﺍﻹﻴﺠﺎﺒﻲ‬
‫ﻟﻼﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪:‬‬
‫• ﺇﻥ ﻓﺭﻀﻴﺔ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﺍﻹﻴﺠﺎﺒﻲ ﻟﻼﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺘﺴﺘﻭﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‬
‫ﺒﺩﻴﻠﻴﻥ ﻜﺎﻤﻠﻴﻥ )‪ .(perfect substitutes‬ﺇﺫﺍ ﺍﺴﺘﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺸﺭﻁ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺴﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﻤﻊ ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻤﺘﺜل ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻟﺸﺭﻭﻁ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺩﻭﺩﻴﺔ ) ‪efficiency and‬‬
‫‪ (profitability‬ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‪.‬‬
‫• ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﻫﻭ ﻴﺩﺨل ﻏﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺘﻭﻗﻊ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻟﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺒﺎﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﻤﻊ ﻁﺭﻕ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻭﻴل‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺎﻟﻔﻌل ﻓﺈﻥ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻴﺘﻭﻗﻑ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﺔ ﻟﺘﻤﻭﻴﻠﻪ‪ .‬ﻓﺈﺫﺍ ﺘﻡ ﺘﻤﻭﻴل ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ‬
‫ﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ ﻤﺭﺘﻔﻌﺔ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺼﺎﻓﻲ ﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺭﺒﻤﺎ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻀﻌﻴﻔﺎ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻷﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﺘﺸﻭﻫﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺠﻤﺔ ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩ ﺒﺼﻔﺔ ﻋﺎﻤﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺇﺫﺍ ﺘﻡ ﺘﻤﻭﻴل ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻋﻥ ﻁﺭﻴﻕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺩﻴﻥ ﻓﺈﻥ ﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ ﺍﻟﻴﻭﻡ ﺴﻴﺘﻡ ﺘﺄﺠﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﺠل ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﻤﻰ‪ .‬ﻭﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻨﺕ ﺠﺒﺎﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺒل‬
‫ﻤﺘﻭﻗﻌﺔ ﻤﻥ ﻁﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻬﻠﻜﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻭﺍﺹ ﻓﻤﻥ ﺸﺄﻨﻬﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺘﻌﺭﻗل ﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻠﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ ﻤﺘﻭﻗﻌﺔ‪ ،‬ﻴﺤﺘﻤل ﺃﻥ ﻴﺘﺠﻪ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺜﻤﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻭﺍﺹ‬
‫ﺇﻟﻰ ﻨﺸﺎﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺫﺍﺕ ﻤﺭﺩﻭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﻀﻌﻴﻔﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﺠﻨﺏ ﺃﺩﺍﺀ ﺍﻟﻀﺭﺍﺌﺏ‪.1‬‬
‫•‬
‫ﻴﺠﺏ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺒﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻌﺩل ﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻌﺩل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ‬
‫ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻓﺒﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﻴﻜﻤل ﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺩﻭﺭ‬
‫ﺃﻱ ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻯ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻻ ﻴﻨﺤﺼﺭ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺠﻠﺏ ﺍﻟﻤﺯﻴﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺴﺎﻤﻴل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺼﺔ‬
‫ﻭﺒﺎﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﺇﺴﺭﺍﻉ ﻭﺜﻴﺭﺓ ﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺒل ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺠﻌل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻨﺸﺎﻁﺎ‬
‫‪ - 1‬ﺣﺴﺐ ﺕﻘﺪﻳﺮات )‪ ، Devarajen, Squire and Suthiwart-Narueput (1995‬ﻓﺈن اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ‬
‫اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﺠﺒﺎﻳﺎت اﻟﺘﺸﻮهﻴﺔ )‪ (distortionary taxation‬ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻠﺪان اﻟﺼﻨﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺕﺼﻞ إﻟﻰ ﻡﺎ ﺏﻴﻦ ‪ 32‬و ‪47‬‬
‫ﺏﺎﻟﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﻮﻻﻳﺎت اﻟﻤﺘﺤﺪة اﻷﻡﺮﻳﻜﻴﺔ و ‪ 120‬ﺏﺎﻟﻤﺎﺋﺔ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺴﻮﻳﺪ‪ .‬أﻡﺎ )‪Aschauer and Lächler (1998‬‬
‫ﻓﻘﺪرا أن ﺕﻜﻮن اﻟﺘﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﺤﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻮارد اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ أآﺜﺮ ارﺕﻔﺎﻋﺎ ﻓﻲ اﻟﺒﻠﺪان اﻟﻨﺎﻡﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻓﻔﻲ ﺣﺎﻟﺔ اﻟﻤﻜﺴﻴﻚ ﻡﺜﻼ‪،‬‬
‫ﻳﺮى )‪ Aschauer and Lächler(1998‬أن اﻟﺨﺴﺎرة اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺘﺤﻤﻠﻬﺎ اﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎد ﺕﻔﻮق ‪ 0.50‬وﺣﺪة ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ ﻟﻜﻞ‬
‫ارﺕﻔﺎع ﻓﻲ اﻟﻀﺮاﺋﺐ ﺏﻮﺣﺪة ﻧﻘﺪﻳﺔ‪.‬‬
‫‪91‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﺍﻹﻴﺠﺎﺒﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﺘﻤل ﺃﻥ ﻴﻐﻴﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺒﻴﺌﺔ ﺘﺘﺴﻡ ﺒﻭﺠﻭﺩ ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺘﻌﺎﺭﻀﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻻ ﺘﻜﺎﻤﻠﻴﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‪ .2‬ﻓﺎﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻘﻠﺹ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺠﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺇﺫﺍ ﻜﺎﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻴﺘﻡ ﺩﻭﻥ ﺍﻻﻤﺘﺜﺎل ﻟﻘﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﺭﺸﺎﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﺌﺩﺓ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻟﻠﺘﻭﻀﻴﺢ ﺃﻜﺜﺭ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻴﺔ ﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﻨﻘﺩﻴﺔ ﺇﻀﺎﻓﻴﺔ ﻴﺘﻡ ﺇﻨﻔﺎﻗﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ ﻁﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻟﻥ ﻴﺴﻌﻬﺎ ﺍﻗﺘﻨﺎﺀ‬
‫ﻨﻔﺱ ﻜﻤﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻊ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻭﺒﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﺠﻭﺩﺓ ﺒﺎﻟﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﻤﻊ ﻨﻔﺱ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﺓ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﺘﻡ ﺇﻨﻔﺎﻗﻬﺎ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﻁﺭﻑ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻟﻐﻤﻭﺽ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻜﻭﻨﺎﺕ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺍﻹﺸﻜﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ‬
‫ﺒﻤﺤﺩﺩﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻻ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻬﺎ ﺇﻻ ﺒﺎﺘﺒﺎﻉ ﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﺘﺠﺭﻴﺒﻴﺔ ﻗﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻫﺫﺍ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻭﻀﺤﻪ ﺍﻟﻘﺴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﺤﺙ‪.‬‬
‫‪ .2‬ﺍﻹﻁﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﻔﺎﻫﻴﻤﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻲ‬
‫ﻴﺒﺩﺃ ﺘﺤﻠﻴﻠﻨﺎ ﻟﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻤﻥ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﺭﺍﺽ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ‬
‫ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﺘﻬﺎ ﻫﻜﺫﺍ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(1‬‬
‫)‪Yt = f(Kt, Lt‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻴﻤﺜل ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ‪ Y‬ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻭ ‪ K‬ﻤﺨﺯﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻭ ‪ L‬ﺤﺠﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻭ ‪ t‬ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻥ‪.‬‬
‫ﻁﺒﻘﺎ ﻟﻠﻨﻅﺭﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻴﺩﺓ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺸﺄ‪ ،‬ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﺇﺩﻤﺎﺝ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ )‪ (G‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ‬
‫)‪ (1‬ﻜﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﻤﻔﺴﺭ ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻨﺤﺼل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(2‬‬
‫)‪Yt = g(Kt, Lt, Gt‬‬
‫ﺒﻤﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ )‪ (Ig‬ﻴﻨﺘﻤﻲ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺠﻤﻊ )‪ (G‬ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﻜﻠﻲ‬
‫)‪ ،(I‬ﻓﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺭﻭﻉ ﻁﺭﺡ ‪ Ig‬ﻤﻥ ‪ G‬ﻓﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺌﻴﺴﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻘﻲ ﻤﻥ ‪ G‬ﻫﻭ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ‬
‫‪ -2‬ﻳﻌﺘﻘﺪ )‪ Easterly (1994‬أن ﺣﺼﺔ اﻟﺮأﺱﻤﺎل اﻟﺨﺎص ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﺥﻞ ﺕﻨﺨﻔﺾ آﻠﻤﺎ ارﺕﻔﻊ ﻟﺮأﺱﻤﺎل اﻟﻌﺎم‬
‫إذا آﺎﻧﺖ ﻡﺮوﻧﺔ اﻹﺣﻼل )‪ (elasticity of substitution‬ﺏﻴﻦ ﻡﻜﻮﻧﻲ اﻟﺮأﺱﻤﺎل ﺕﻔﻮق ‪ .1‬إن أي ﺕﻘﻠﺺ‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺣﺼﺔ اﻟﺮأﺱﻤﺎل اﻟﻌﺎم ﺱﻴﺆدي إﻟﻰ اﻧﺨﻔﺎض ﻓﻲ ﺣﺼﺔ اﻟﺮأﺱﻤﺎل اﻟﺨﺎص ﻓﻲ اﻟﺪﺥﻞ اﻟﻘﻮﻡﻲ ﻟﻜﻞ ﻡﻌﺪل‬
‫ﻡﺤﺪد ﻟﻤﺮدودﻳﺔ اﻻﺱﺘﺜﻤﺎر‪ .‬ﻓﻤﻌﺪل ﻡﺮدودﻳﺔ اﻻﺱﺘﺜﻤﺎر اﻟﺨﺎص ﻳﺘﻘﻠﺺ آﻠﻤﺎ ارﺕﻔﻌﺖ ﻗﻴﻤﺔ أﻧﻮاع ﻡﻦ‬
‫اﻟﺮأﺱﻤﺎل اﻟﻌﺎم ﺕﺸﻜﻞ ﺏﺪاﺋﻞ آﺎﻡﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﺮأﺱﻤﺎل اﻟﺨﺎص‪ .‬آﻤﺎ ﺕﺠﺐ اﻹﺵﺎرة إﻟﻰ أن اﻟﺮأﺱﻤﺎل اﻟﻌﺎم ﻳﻤﻜﻦ أن‬
‫ﻳﺆﺙﺮ ﺱﻠﺒﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻻﺱﺘﺜﻤﺎر اﻟﺨﺎص آﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﻟﻤﻔﻌﻮل اﻹزاﺣﺔ )‪ (crowding-out effect‬اﻟﺬي ﻳﻤﺮ ﻋﺒﺮ‬
‫اﻟﺴﻮق اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ وﺥﺎﺹﺔ إذا آﺎن ﻡﻌﺪل اﻟﻔﺎﺋﺪة ﻻ ﻳﻌﺒﺮ ﺏﻤﺎ ﻓﻴﻪ اﻟﻜﻔﺎﻳﺔ ﻋﻦ ﺕﻜﻠﻔﺔ اﻟﻤﻮارد )ﺏﺴﺒﺐ اﻟﻘﻤﻊ اﻟﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫)‪(financial repression‬أو ﻧﻈﺎم ﺕﻮزﻳﻊ ﺣﺼﺺ اﻟﻘﺮوض ﻡﺜﻼ (‪.‬‬
‫‪92‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ )‪ .(Cg‬ﻭﻁﺒﻘﺎ ﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل‪ ،‬ﺘﺘﻤﺜل ﺍﻟﻤﻬﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺍﻟﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ‪ Ig‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺸﻜل ﻤﺨﺯﻭﻥ )‪(in stock‬‬
‫ﺜﻡ ﻁﺭﺤﻪ ﻤﻥ ‪ K‬ﻟﻨﺤﺼل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻬﺎﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﻜﻭﻨﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ )‪ (Kg‬ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ )‪ (Kp‬ﻟﻤﺨﺯﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل‬
‫)‪ .(K‬ﻭﺒﺫﻟﻙ ﻨﺤﺼل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻴﺔ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(3‬‬
‫)‪Yt = g(Kgt, Kpt, Lt, Gt‬‬
‫ﺒﻤﺎ ﺃﻨﻨﺎ ﻻ ﻨﺘﻭﻓﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻌﻁﻴﺎﺕ ﺩﻗﻴﻘﺔ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺨﺯﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻓﻲ ﺃﻏﻠﺏ ﺍﻟﺩﻭل ﺍﻟﻨﺎﻤﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﻗﻤﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺒﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭ ﻤﺨﺯﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻋﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺒﻨﺴﺒﺘﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ )‪ ig‬ﻭ‬
‫‪ (ip‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﻭﻗﺩ ﺍﺴﺘﻌﻤﻠﺕ ﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻜﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻱ ﻟﻤﺨﺯﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﻤﻥ ﻁﺭﻑ ﺩﺭﺍﺴﺎﺕ ﻋﺩﻴﺩﺓ )ﺃﻨﻅﺭ ﻤﺜﻼ ‪Balasubramanyam et al,‬‬
‫‪.(1996 ; Barro, 1999 ; Kahpaiboon, 2004‬‬
‫ﻭﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺍﻷﺨﺫ ﺒﻌﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﻋﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﻟﺨﺼﻭﺼﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺎﺕ ﻗﻴﺩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺱ‪ ،‬ﺍﻓﺘﺭﻀﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﻔﺎﻑ )‪ (drought cycles‬ﺘﺅﺜﺭ ﺃﻴﻀﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺘﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺤﺩ ﻤﺎ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺘﻡ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﺒﺎﺴﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻤﻘﻠﻭﺏ ﻤﺭﺩﻭﺩﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻭﺏ ﻟﻠﻬﻜﺘﺎﺭ ﻜﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻱ ﻟﻠﺠﻔﺎﻑ‬
‫)‪ .(DR‬ﻭﺘﺒﺩﻭ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﻬﺠﻴﺔ ﻨﺎﺠﻌﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻨﻅﺭﺍ ﻷﻥ ﺇﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻭﺏ ﻨﺸﺎﻁ ﻓﻼﺤﻲ ﺭﺌﻴﺴﻲ ﻭﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻋﺎﺩﺓ‬
‫ﻤﺘﺭﻜﺯﺍ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﻁﻕ ﺍﻟﺒﻭﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻤﺎ ﻴﺠﻌﻠﻪ ﻫﺸﺎ ﺃﻤﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﺒﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻨﺎﺨﻴﺔ ﺨﺎﺼﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺇﻟﻰ ﺤﺩ ﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺘﻭﻨﺱ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﺒﺎﺴﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺙ ﻟﻠﺴﻼﺴل ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﺴﻴﺠﺭﻱ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻩ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﻜل ﺒﻠﺩ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﺘﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺸﻜل ﺍﻟﺘﺎﻟﻲ‪:‬‬
‫)‪(4‬‬
‫‪Log(Yt) = a0 + a1.igt + a2.ipt + a3.Log(Lt) + a4.cgt + a5.Log(DRt) + η t‬‬
‫)? (‬
‫)‪(+‬‬
‫)‪(+‬‬
‫)? (‬
‫)‪(-‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﺭﻤﺯ ‪ cg‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ )‪ (4‬ﺇﻟﻰ ﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﺩﺍﺨﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻭﻴﻤﺜل ‪η‬‬
‫ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍ ﻋﺸﻭﺍﺌﻲ ﺫﻱ ﻤﺘﻭﺴﻁ ﻤﻌﺩﻡ ﻭﺘﺒﺎﻴﻥ ﺘﺎﻡ ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ ﻓﻬﻲ ﻤﻁﺎﺒﻘﺔ ﻟﻤﺎ ﺤﺩﺩﻨﺎﻩ ﺴﺎﺒﻘﺎ‪.‬‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ )‪ ،(4‬ﺘﻡ ﻗﻴﺎﺱ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ‪ Y‬ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺒﺎﻷﺴﻌﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺜﺎﺒﺘﺔ ﺃﻱ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺒﺎﻷﺴﻌﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﻤﻘﺴﻭﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺨﻔﺽ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﻡ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ‪ L‬ﻓﻘﺩ ﺠﺭﻯ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﻩ‬
‫ﺒﺤﺠﻡ ﻗﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻗﺩ ﺘﻡ ﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﺴل ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﻜل ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺒﺎﻟﺭﺠﻭﻉ ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ ﺨﺎﻤﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻨﻙ ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻲ )‪ (World Development Indicators, CD-ROM, 2002‬ﻭﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ‬
‫ﺼﻨﺩﻭﻕ ﺍﻟﻨﻘﺩ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺒﻲ )ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺭﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺭﺒﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻭﺤﺩ‪ .(2004 ،‬ﻫﺫﺍ ﻭﻗﺩ ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺒﺎﺴﺘﻌﻤﺎل ﻨﻔﺱ ﻤﺼﺎﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻴﺎﻨﺎﺕ‬
‫‪93‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺤﺘﻰ ﻨﺘﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺼﻭل ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻌﻁﻴﺎﺕ ﻗﺎﺒﻠﺔ ﻟﻠﻤﻘﺎﺭﻨﺔ ﻋﺒﺭ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻐﻁﻲ ﺍﻟﺴﻼﺴل ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺒﻨﻴﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﺍﻟﻔﺘﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻤﺘﺩﺓ ﻤﻥ ‪ 1970‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 2002‬ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﻤﻥ ‪ 1972‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 2002‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻨﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﻥ ‪ 1975‬ﺇﻟﻰ ‪ 2002‬ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻤﺼﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﻭﺍﻻﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺃﺠﺭﻴﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩﺕ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﻠﻴل ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺙ ﻟﻠﺴﻼﺴل ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻴﺔ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﻭﻱ )‪ (unit root tests‬ﻭﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )‪(cointegration tests‬‬
‫ﻭﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ )‪ (error correction models‬ﻭﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺒﻴﺔ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل )‪ .(short and long run causality tests‬ﻭﻴﺭﺠﻊ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺏ ﻤﻥ ﻭﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﺴﺘﺨﺩﺍﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻜﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺩﻴﺜﺔ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻜﺭﻭﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﺘﻜﻭﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻏﻠﺏ ﺍﻷﺤﻴﺎﻥ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ )‪(nonstationary‬‬
‫ﻭﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻨﻴﺎﺕ ﺘﻤﻜﻥ ﻤﻥ ﻋﺯل ﺍﻵﺜﺎﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻋﻥ ﻤﺜﻴﻼﺘﻬﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل )ﺃﻨﻅﺭ‬
‫; ‪Granger and Newbold, 1974 ; Dickey and Fuller, 1981 ; Johansen, 1988, 1991‬‬
‫‪.(Johansen and Jusilius, 1990 ; Engle and Granger, 1991 ; Gonzalo, 1994‬‬
‫‪ .3‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﻼﻗﺔ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪:‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺒﺎﺩﺉ ﺫﻱ ﺒﺩﺀ‪ ،‬ﻨﻘﻭﻡ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺎ ﻴﻠﻲ ﺒﺈﺠﺭﺍﺀ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﻭﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ )‪.(4‬‬
‫ﻭﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺍﻭل )‪ (1‬ﻭ)‪ (2‬ﻭ)‪ (3‬ﻤﺎ ﻴﻠﻲ‪:‬‬
‫•‬
‫ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺒﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ‪ cg‬ﻭ ‪ ip‬ﻭ ‪ ig‬ﻭ )‪ Log(Y‬ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻴﺎﺘﻬﺎ‬
‫)‪ (nonstationary in levels‬ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﻥ )‪ Log(L‬ﻭ )‪ Log(DR‬ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﻴﻥ ﻨﺴﺒﻴﺎ‪.‬‬
‫• ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ ،‬ﺘﺒﺩﻭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ‪ ip‬ﻭ‪ ig‬ﻭ )‪ Log(DR‬ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﻨﺴﺒﻴﺎ ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺘﺒﻘﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﺃﻱ ﻤﺩﻤﺠﺔ ﺒﺘﺭﺘﻴﺏ ‪.(integrated of order 1) 1‬‬
‫• ﺃﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻤﺼﺭ ﻓﺎﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ‪ ig‬ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﻫﻭ ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺍ ﻨﺴﺒﻴﺎ ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ‪.‬‬
‫‪94‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ ‪ :1‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺒﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫‪Variable‬‬
‫)‪Log(Y‬‬
‫‪ig‬‬
‫‪ip‬‬
‫)‪Log(L‬‬
‫‪cg‬‬
‫)‪Log(DR‬‬
‫ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺨﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫‪Number of lags‬‬
‫ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺔ ‪t‬‬
‫‪t-statistic‬‬
‫)*(‪1‬‬
‫)**(‪1‬‬
‫)**(‪1‬‬
‫)*(‪1‬‬
‫)*(‪1‬‬
‫)**(‪0‬‬
‫‪-2.98‬‬
‫‪-3.17‬‬
‫‪-2.56‬‬
‫‪-4.96‬‬
‫‪-2.28‬‬
‫‪-6.13‬‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻤﺎﻜﻴﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(%1‬‬
‫‪MacKinnon Critical value‬‬
‫)‪(1%‬‬
‫‪-4.32‬‬
‫‪-4.28‬‬
‫‪-4.28‬‬
‫‪-4.35‬‬
‫‪-3.64‬‬
‫‪-3.68‬‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺎﻜﻴﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(%5‬‬
‫‪-3.58‬‬
‫‪-3.56‬‬
‫‪-3.56‬‬
‫‪-3.59‬‬
‫‪-2.95‬‬
‫‪-2.97‬‬
‫ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻹﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ )**( ﻭ )*( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﻟﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻲ )‪ (linear trend‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ‬
‫)‪ (constant‬ﻤﻌﺒﺭﺍﻥ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﻤﻌﺒﺭ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ Dickey-Fuller‬ﺍﻟﻤﺯﻴﺩﺓ‬
‫)‪.(Augmented Dickey Fuller‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ ‪ :2‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫‪Variable‬‬
‫)‪Log(Y‬‬
‫‪ig‬‬
‫‪ip‬‬
‫)‪Log(L‬‬
‫‪cg‬‬
‫)‪Log(DR‬‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻤﺎﻜﻴﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺔ ‪ t‬ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻤﺎﻜﻴﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(%1‬‬
‫ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺨﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫‪ MacKinnon Critical value (1%) t-statistic Number of lags‬ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(%5‬‬
‫‪-2.96‬‬
‫‪-3.66‬‬
‫‪-2.10‬‬
‫)*(‪1‬‬
‫‪-3.57‬‬
‫‪-4.30‬‬
‫‪-3.70‬‬
‫)**(‪1‬‬
‫‪-2.97‬‬
‫‪-3.68‬‬
‫‪-4.54‬‬
‫)*( ‪2‬‬
‫)*(‪1‬‬
‫‪-2.96‬‬
‫‪-3.65‬‬
‫‪-2.31‬‬
‫)*(‪0‬‬
‫‪-2.96‬‬
‫‪-3.66‬‬
‫‪-2.37‬‬
‫)**(‪0‬‬
‫‪-3.58‬‬
‫‪-4.32‬‬
‫‪-4.47‬‬
‫ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻹﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ )**( ﻭ )*( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﻟﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻲ )‪ (linear trend‬ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ‬
‫)‪ (constant‬ﻤﻌﺒﺭﺍﻥ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﻤﻌﺒﺭ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ Dickey-Fuller‬ﺍﻟﻤﺯﻴﺩﺓ‬
‫)‪.(Augmented Dickey Fuller‬‬
‫‪95‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ ‪ :3‬ﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﻭﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺼﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ‬
‫‪Variable‬‬
‫ﻋﺩﺩ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺨﺭﺍﺕ‬
‫‪Number of lags‬‬
‫)‪Log(Y‬‬
‫‪ig‬‬
‫‪ip‬‬
‫)‪Log(DR‬‬
‫)‪Log(L‬‬
‫‪cg‬‬
‫)***(‪2‬‬
‫)***(‪0‬‬
‫)**( ‪0‬‬
‫)**(‪1‬‬
‫)***(‪0‬‬
‫)***(‪2‬‬
‫ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺔ ‪ t‬ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻤﺎﻜﻴﻨﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(%1‬‬
‫‪MacKinnon Critical value (1%) t-statistic‬‬
‫‪-4.32‬‬
‫‪-4.34‬‬
‫‪-3.69‬‬
‫‪-3.68‬‬
‫‪-4.32‬‬
‫‪-4.35‬‬
‫‪-3.40‬‬
‫‪-4.20‬‬
‫‪-2.54‬‬
‫‪1.72‬‬
‫‪-2.85‬‬
‫‪-2.40‬‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ﻤﺎﻜﻴﻨﻭﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(%5‬‬
‫‪-3.58‬‬
‫‪-3.59‬‬
‫‪-2.97‬‬
‫‪-2.97‬‬
‫‪-3.58‬‬
‫‪-3.59‬‬
‫ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻹﺸﺎﺭﺍﺕ )***(‪ (**)،‬ﻭ )*( ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﻟﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻲ )‪(linear trend‬‬
‫ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ )‪ (constant‬ﻤﻌﺒﺭﺍﻥ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ ﻭﺤﺩﻩ ﻤﻌﺒﺭ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻭﺃﻥ ﺍﻻﺘﺠﺎﻩ ﺍﻟﺯﻤﻨﻲ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ‬
‫ﻤﻴﺴﺎ ﻤﻌﺒﺭﻴﻥ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ‪ Dickey-Fuller‬ﺍﻟﻤﺯﻴﺩﺓ )‪.(Augmented Dickey Fuller‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ ‪ :4‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(5%‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(1%‬‬
‫ﺘﺭﺍﺒﻁ ﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ Eigen‬ﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﺤﺘﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪Likelihood Ratio‬‬
‫‪0.65‬‬
‫‪65.70‬‬
‫‪53.12‬‬
‫‪60.16‬‬
‫ﻨﻌﻡ‬
‫‪0.44‬‬
‫‪33.08‬‬
‫‪34.91‬‬
‫‪41.07‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫‪0.25‬‬
‫‪15.15‬‬
‫‪19.96‬‬
‫‪24.60‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫‪0.18‬‬
‫‪6.33‬‬
‫‪9.24‬‬
‫‪12.97‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫) ؟(‬
‫ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺃﺩﻤﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ )‪ (constant‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )‪(cointegration equation‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﺼل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺘﻲ ) ‪.(vector auto-regressive (VAR) model‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ ‪ :5‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ(‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ Eigen‬ﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﺤﺘﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪Likelihood Ratio‬‬
‫‪34.30‬‬
‫‪0.44‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(5%‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(1%‬‬
‫ﺘﺭﺍﺒﻁ ﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ ) ؟(‬
‫‪32.90‬‬
‫‪41.07‬‬
‫ﻨﻌﻡ‬
‫‪0.24‬‬
‫‪14.60‬‬
‫‪19.96‬‬
‫‪24.60‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫‪0.18‬‬
‫‪6.28‬‬
‫‪9.24‬‬
‫‪12.97‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺃﺩﻤﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ )‪ (constant‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )‪(cointegration equation‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﺼل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺘﻲ ) ‪.(vector auto-regressive (VAR) model‬‬
‫‪96‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﺠﺩﻭل ﺭﻗﻡ ‪ :6‬ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻤﺼﺭ(‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪(5%‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻤﺔ ﺍﻟﺤﺭﺠﺔ )‪ (1%‬ﺘﺭﺍﺒﻁ ﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ ) ؟(‬
‫ﻗﻴﻤﺔ ‪ Eigen‬ﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﺍﻻﺤﺘﻤﺎﻟﻴﺔ‬
‫‪Likelihood Ratio‬‬
‫‪90.07‬‬
‫‪0.79‬‬
‫‪68.52‬‬
‫‪76.07‬‬
‫ﻨﻌﻡ‬
‫‪0.54‬‬
‫‪49.79‬‬
‫‪47.21‬‬
‫‪54.46‬‬
‫ﻨﻌﻡ‬
‫‪0.38‬‬
‫‪29.34‬‬
‫‪29.68‬‬
‫‪35.65‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫‪0.35‬‬
‫‪14.78‬‬
‫‪15.41‬‬
‫‪20.04‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫‪0.19‬‬
‫‪3.42‬‬
‫‪3.76‬‬
‫‪6.65‬‬
‫ﻻ‬
‫ﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ‪ :‬ﺃﺩﻤﺞ ﺍﻟﺴﺎﻜﻥ )‪ (constant‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﻌﺎﺩﻟﺔ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )‪(cointegration equation‬‬
‫ﻭﻓﺼل ﻋﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭﺫﺝ ﺍﻻﻨﺤﺩﺍﺭﻱ ﺍﻟﺫﺍﺘﻲ ) ‪.(vector auto-regressive (VAR) model‬‬
‫ﺒﻨﺎﺀ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺤﺩﻭﻱ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﻀﻤﻨﺎﻫﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺍﻭل )‪ (1‬ﻭ)‪ (2‬ﻭ)‪ ،(3‬ﻗﻤﻨﺎ ﺒﺈﺠﺭﺍﺀ‬
‫ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﺩﻭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻘﺩﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺩﺍﻭل )‪ (4‬ﻭ)‪ (5‬ﻭ)‪(6‬‬
‫ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺠﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﺩﻭ‬
‫ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﺘﺘﻤﻴﺯ ﻓﻲ ﻜل ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻻﺕ ﺒﺎﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁﻬﺎ ﺍﻟﻤﺸﺘﺭﻙ )‪ .(cointegration‬ﻭﻟﻬﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﺴﺒﺏ‪ ،‬ﺃﺠﺭﻴﻨﺎ‬
‫ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ )‪ (error correction models‬ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻘﻭﻡ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺄﺨﺭﺓ )‪ (lagged values‬ﻟﻠﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﺩ ﺘﻔﺴﻴﺭﻩ ﻤﻘﺎﻡ ﻋﻨﺼﺭ ﺘﻐﻴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ) ‪error‬‬
‫‪ .(correction term‬ﻭﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ‪ ،‬ﺘﻡ ﺇﺩﻤﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﺒﺩﻭ ﻏﻴﺭ ﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺸﻜل ﻓﺭﻭﻕ‬
‫ﺃﻭﻟﻰ )‪ (first differences‬ﻭﻗﻴﻡ ﻤﺘﺄﺨﺭﺓ )‪ (lagged values‬ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﺃﺩﻤﺠﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﻘﺭﺓ ﻨﺴﺒﻴﺎ‬
‫‪97‬‬
2005 ‫ ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ‬15 ‫ و‬14 ‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬
:‫• ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ‬
∆Log(Yt) = 0.76 + 0.77∆igt + 0.78igt-1 + 0.44ipt-1 + 0.90Log(Lt)
(2.26) (3.94)
(6.07)
(2.88)
(8.71)
(5)
- 0.84∆cgt – 0.32cgt-2 – 0.10Log(DR) – 0.62Log(Yt-1)
(-2.90)
(-1.77)
(-9.94)
(-8.63)
R2 = 0.92 ; adjusted R2 = 0.87 ; F-statistic = 31.28 (prob. = 0.0000) ; DurbinWatson Statistic = 2.27 ; White Heteroskedasticity Test : F-statistic = 0.60
(prob. = 0.83), number of obs. X R2 = 11.57 ( prob. = 0.71) ; Residual
Normality Test : Jarque-Bera = 1.04 (prob. = 0.60) ; Chow Forecast Test
(for 2002) : F-statistic = 1.03 (prob. = 0.33), Log Likelihood Ratio = 1.47 (
prob. = 0.23). The t-statsitics are between parentheses.
‫ ﻴﻤﻜﻥ ﻜﺘﺎﺒﺔ‬،‫ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻷﺴﺎﺱ‬.(current values) ‫( ﻭﺒﻘﻴﻤﻬﺎ ﺍﻵﻨﻴﺔ‬in levels) ‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺸﻜل ﻤﺴﺘﻭﻴﺎﺕ‬
:3‫( ﺍﻵﺘﻴﺔ‬7) ‫( ﻭ‬6) ‫( ﻭ‬5) ‫ﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ ﺒﺎﻟﻨﺴﺒﺔ ﻟﻠﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻜﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ‬
:‫• ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ‬
∆Log(Yt) = 0.82 + 1.15igt + 0.24ipt + 1.42Log(Lt-1)
(2.97) (2.68)
(1.96) (4.06)
(6)
- 3.04∆cgt – 2.11cgt-1 – 0.68Log(Yt-1) – 0.27Log(Yt-2)
(-4.72)
(-3.55)
(-3.71)
(-1.63)
R2 = 0.74 ; adjusted R2 = 0.65 ; F-statistic = 8.96 (prob. = 0.0000) ; DurbinWatson Statistic = 1.84 ; White Heteroskedasticity Test : F-statistic = 1.55
(prob. = 0.20), number of obs. X R2 = 15.76 ( prob. = 0.21) ; Residual
Normality Test : Jarque-Bera = 1.51 (prob. = 0.47) ; Chow Forecast Test
(for 2002) : F-statistic = 0.42 (prob. = 0.53), Log Likelihood Ratio = 0.59 (
prob. = 0.45). The t-statsitics are between parentheses.
‫ ﺕﻢ إﺱﻘﺎط آﻞ اﻟﻤﺘﻐﻴﺮات اﻟﺘﻲ ﻳﺒﺪو أن ﺕﺄﺙﻴﺮهﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ اﻟﻨﺎﺕﺞ اﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ اﻹﺝﻤﺎﻟﻲ اﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﻟﻴﺲ ﻡﻌﺒﺮا‬-3
.‫إﺣﺼﺎﺋﻴﺎ‬
98
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫• ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻤﺼﺭ‪:‬‬
‫)‪∆Log(Yt) = 0.56igt + 0.14∆ipt + 0.10ipt-1 + 0.15Log(Lt-1‬‬
‫)‪(2.58‬‬
‫)‪(1.76‬‬
‫)‪(1.80‬‬
‫)‪(2.58‬‬
‫)‪(7‬‬
‫)‪- 0.46∆cgt – 0.27Log(Yt-2) + 0.17Log(Yt-3‬‬
‫)‪(-2.25‬‬
‫)‪(-2.03‬‬
‫)‪(1.70‬‬
‫; )‪R2 = 0.78 ; adjusted R2 = 0.72 ; F-statistic = 12.08 (prob. = 0.00001‬‬
‫‪Durbin-Watson Statistic = 1.90 ; White Heteroskedasticity Test : F-statistic‬‬
‫‪= 5.96 (prob. = 0.13), number of obs. X R2 = 24.57 ( prob. = 0.16) ; Residual‬‬
‫‪Normality Test : Jarque-Bera = 1.40 (prob. = 0.50) ; Chow Forecast Test‬‬
‫( ‪(for 2002) : F-statistic = 0.08 (prob. = 0.77), Log Likelihood Ratio = 0.12‬‬
‫‪prob. = 0.73). The t-statsitics are between parentheses.‬‬
‫ﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﺒﺎﻻﻋﺘﻤﺎﺩ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻨﻤﺎﺫﺝ ﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ )ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ ‪5‬‬
‫ﻭ ‪ 6‬ﻭ ‪ (7‬ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺤﺠﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻴﺅﺜﺭﺍﻥ ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺒﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻭﺫﻟﻙ ﻁﺒﻘﺎ ﻟﻤﺎ‬
‫ﺘﺘﻭﻗﻌﻪ ﺩﺍﻟﺔ ﺍﻹﻨﺘﺎﺝ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻠﻴﺩﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﻭﻀﺢ ﺍﺨﺘﺒﺎﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﻤﺼﺭ ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻴﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﻤﻌﺒﺭ ﺇﺤﺼﺎﺌﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل‬
‫ﻓﻘﻁ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﺎﻟﺘﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺒﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﺘﻭﻨﺴﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﻼﺤﻅ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﺒﻨﻘﻁﺔ ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﺇﻟﻰ ﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺏ ‪%1‬‬
‫)ﺃﻭ )‪ %0.14‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ( ﻓﻲ ﻤﺼﺭ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ‪ % 0.71‬ﻭ ‪ %0.24‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺘﻭﺍﻟﻲ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﺤﺠﻡ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﻜل ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺸﻴﺭ‬
‫ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺠﻡ ﻗﻭﺓ ﺍﻟﻌﻤل ﺏ ‪ %1‬ﻴﻨﺠﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺏ ‪ %0.90‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ‪ %1.5‬ﻓﻲ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﺘﺘﻤﺜل ﺃﻫﻡ ﻨﺘﺎﺌﺠﻨﺎ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻱ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺒﻴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﻓﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻌﺎﺩﻻﺕ )‪ (5‬ﻭ )‪ (6‬ﻭ )‪ (7‬ﺃﻥ ﺃﻱ ﺘﺤﺴﻥ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺒﻨﻘﻁﺔ ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻨﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ‬
‫ﻴﻨﺠﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺍﻟﺤﻘﻴﻘﻲ ﺒﺤﻭﺍﻟﻲ ‪ %1.26‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ )ﺃﻭ‬
‫‪ %0.77‬ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ( ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ‪ %1.15‬ﻓﻲ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭ ‪ %0.56‬ﻓﻲ ﻤﺼﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺒﻴﻥ ﻫﺩﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﺎﺌﺞ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻴﻜﻤل ﻋﻭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﻴﺯﻴﺢ ﺘﺭﺍﻜﻡ ﺍﻟﺭﺃﺴﻤﺎل ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺍﻨﻪ ﻴﻁﺎﺒﻕ ﻗﻭﺍﻋﺩ ﺍﻟﻨﺠﺎﻋﺔ ﻭﺍﻟﻤﺭﺩﻭﺩﻴﺔ‬
‫‪99‬‬
‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ ‪ 14‬و ‪ 15‬ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ ‪2005‬‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺘﺒﻌﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺃﻥ ﻭﺴﺎﺌل ﺘﻤﻭﻴﻠﻪ ﻻ ﺘﻌﺭﻗل ﺃﻨﺸﻁﺔ ﺍﻟﻔﺎﻋﻠﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺒﻤﻥ ﻓﻴﻬﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺴﺘﺜﻤﺭﻭﻥ ﺍﻟﺨﻭﺍﺹ‪.‬‬
‫ﺃﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺎ ﻴﺨﺹ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﻓﺘﺸﻴﺭ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻨﻪ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ ﺴﻠﺒﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻴﻴﻥ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻭﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﻓﻘﻁ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺼﺭ‪ .‬ﻭﻋﻠﻴﻪ ﻓﺈﻥ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﻓﻲ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻹﻨﻔﺎﻕ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺒﻨﻘﻁﺔ ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻘﺼﻴﺭ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺘﺩﻫﻭﺭ ﻤﻌﺩل ﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺏ ‪ 0.84‬ﻨﻘﻁﺔ ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻤﻘﺎﺒل ‪ 3‬ﻨﻘﻁﺔ‬
‫ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭ ‪ 0.46‬ﻨﻘﻁﺔ ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ ﻓﻲ ﻤﺼﺭ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻟﻁﻭﻴل ﻓﺘﺸﻴﺭ ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﺇﻟﻰ ﺃﻥ ﺃﻱ‬
‫ﺘﺯﺍﻴﺩ ﻟﻼﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ ﺒﻨﻘﻁﺔ ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻴﻨﺠﻡ ﻋﻨﻪ ﺍﻨﺨﻔﺎﺽ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺘﺞ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﺤﻠﻲ ﺍﻹﺠﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﺏ ‪ %0.52‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭ ‪ %2.22‬ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ‪ .‬ﻭﻴﺭﺠﺢ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻜﻭﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻷﺜﺭ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﺒﻲ‬
‫ﻨﺎﺠﻤﺎ ﻋﻥ ﻁﻐﻴﺎﻥ ﻋﻭﺍﻤل ﻤﺜل ﻋﻼﻗﺔ ﺍﻹﺤﻼل ﺒﻴﻥ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻭﺘﻀﺨﻴﻡ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻔﻭﺍﺘﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻤﺘﻌﻠﻘﺔ ﺒﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺘﺴﻴﻴﺭ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻭﺍﻟﺭﺸﻭﺓ ﻭﻫﺭﻭﺏ ﺍﻟﺭﺴﺎﻤﻴل ﺇﻟﻰ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺭﺝ ﻋﻠﻰ ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺍﻟﻁﻠﺏ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﺴﻠﻊ ﻭﺍﻟﺨﺩﻤﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻨﺎﺠﻡ ﻋﻥ ﺍﺭﺘﻔﺎﻉ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺠﺎﺭﻱ‪.‬‬
‫ﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﻤﻥ ﺨﻼل ﺘﻘﺩﻴﺭﺍﺘﻨﺎ ﺃﻥ ﺩﻭﺭﺍﺕ ﺍﻟﺠﻔﺎﻑ ﻻ ﺘﺅﺜﺭ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺇﻻ ﻓﻲ ﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ‬
‫ﺍﻟﺫﻱ ﻴﺅﺩﻱ ﻓﻴﻪ ﺍﻨﺨﻔﺎﺽ ﻤﺭﺩﻭﺩ ﺍﻟﺤﺒﻭﺏ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻬﻜﺘﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻭﺍﺤﺩ ﺏ ‪) %50‬ﻜﻤﺎ ﺤﺩﺙ ﺴﻨﺔ ‪ 1997‬ﻤﺜﻼ( ﺇﻟﻰ‬
‫ﺘﺩﻫﻭﺭ ﻤﻌﺩل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﺒﺤﻭﺍﻟﻲ ‪ 5‬ﻨﻘﻁ ﻤﺌﻭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﻭﺘﺅﻜﺩ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﺘﻴﺠﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻤﺩﻯ ﺍﻻﺭﺘﺒﺎﻁ ﺍﻟﻘﻭﻱ‬
‫ﻟﻠﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﺒﺎﻟﺘﺴﺎﻗﻁﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﻤﻁﺭﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺃﻤﺎ ﻓﻲ ﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ ﻓﻴﺒﺩﻭ ﺃﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻤل ﻻ ﻴﺅﺜﺭ‬
‫ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﻟﺫﻟﻙ ﻓﻘﺩ ﺃﺴﻘﻁﻨﺎﻩ ﻤﻥ ﻨﻤﻭﺫﺠﻲ ﺘﺼﺤﻴﺢ ﺍﻟﺨﻁﺄ )‪ (6‬ﻭ )‪.(7‬‬
‫‪ .4‬ﻤﻘﺘﺭﺤﺎﺕ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﻤﻼﺤﻅﺎﺕ ﺨﺘﺎﻤﻴﺔ‬
‫ﻨﺴﺘﺨﻠﺹ ﻤﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺩﺭﺍﺴﺔ ﺃﻥ ﺼﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻻ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ‬
‫ﻴﻌﺘﻤﺩﻭﺍ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ ﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻤﻥ ﺃﺠل ﺘﻘﻭﻴﻡ ﻤﻭﺍﺯﻨﺔ ﺍﻟﻘﻁﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﻟﻬﺎ‬
‫ﻤﻔﻌﻭل ﺇﻴﺠﺎﺒﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻭﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻴﺠﺏ ﺃﻥ ﻴﻨﺒﻨﻲ ﻋﻠﻰ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﺒﺫﻴﺭﻴﺔ‬
‫ﺒﻤﺎ ﻓﻴﻬﺎ ﻗﺴﻁ ﻫﺎﻡ ﻤﻥ ﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﻬﻼﻙ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻌﺭﻗل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ‪.‬‬
‫ﻭﻴﻨﺒﻐﻲ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺘﺭﻜﺯ ﺠﻬﻭﺩ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﻌﺎﻡ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻨﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﺤﺘﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﺩﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﻻﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ ﺍﻟﺘﻲ ﺘﻜﻤل‬
‫ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭ ﺍﻟﺨﺎﺹ ﻋﻭﺽ ﺃﻥ ﺘﺯﻴﺤﻪ‪ .‬ﺇﻻ ﺃﻥ ﺍﻟﺘﻘﻭﻴﻡ ﺍﻟﻤﺎﻟﻲ ﻓﻲ ﺍﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻥ ﺍﻟﺜﻼﺜﺔ ﻋﺎﻤﺔ ﺍﻋﺘﻤﺩ ﺃﺴﺎﺴﺎ ﻋﻠﻰ‬
‫ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺍﻻﺴﺘﺜﻤﺎﺭﻴﺔ ﺭﺒﻤﺎ ﻷﻥ ﻫﺫﺍ ﺍﻟﻨﻭﻉ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﻴﺴﻬل ﺍﻟﻨﻴل ﻤﻨﻪ ﺒﻴﻨﻤﺎ ﻴﺒﻘﻰ ﺘﻘﻠﻴﺹ ﺍﻷﻨﻭﺍﻉ‬
‫ﺍﻷﺨﺭﻯ ﻤﻥ ﺍﻟﻨﻔﻘﺎﺕ ﺼﻌﺒﺎ ﻷﺴﺒﺎﺏ ﺴﻴﺎﺴﻴﺔ ﻭﺍﺠﺘﻤﺎﻋﻴﺔ‪ .‬ﺇﻥ ﺼﻨﺎﻉ ﺍﻟﻘﺭﺍﺭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻭﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﻲ ﻓﻲ‬
‫‪100‬‬
2005 ‫ ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ‬15 ‫ و‬14 ‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬
‫ﺍﻟﻤﻐﺭﺏ ﻭﺘﻭﻨﺱ ﻭﻤﺼﺭ ﺒﺈﺘﺒﺎﻋﻬﻡ ﻟﻬﺫﻩ ﺍﻟﺴﻴﺎﺴﺔ ﺍﻟﻼﻨﺎﺠﻌﺔ ﻹﺭﻀﺎﺀ ﻤﺅﺴﺴﺎﺕ ﺍﻟﺘﻤﻭﻴل ﺍﻟﺩﻭﻟﻴﺔ ﺴﻴﻌﺭﻗﻠﻭﻥ‬
.‫ﻻ ﻤﺤﺎﻟﺔ ﻤﺴﻠﺴل ﺍﻟﻨﻤﻭ ﺍﻻﻗﺘﺼﺎﺩﻱ ﻟﺒﻠﺩﺍﻨﻬﻡ‬
‫• ﺍﻟﻤﺭﺍﺠﻊ‬
• Aschauer, David et Lächler, Ulrich. (1998). "Public Investment and Economic
Growth in Mexico”, Policy Research Working Paper N° 1964, Banque Mondiale,
août.
• Balasubramanyam, V.N., M.A. Salisu, and D. Sapsford. (1996). “Foreign Direct
Investment and Growth in EP and IS Countries”, Economic Journal, 106 (434).
• Barro, Robert J. (1990). "Government Spending in a Simple Model of
Endogenous Growth”, Journal of Political Economy, Vol.98.
• Barro, R.J. (1999). Determinants of Economic Growth: A Cross-Country Empirical
Study, MIT Press, Cambridge.
• Barro, Robert J. et Sala-i-Martin. (1995). Economic Growth, McGraw Hill, New
York.
• Blejer, Mario I. et Khan Mohsin S. 1984. “Government Policy and Private
Investment in Developing Countries”, IMF Staff papers, N°35, Fonds Monétaire
International, mars.
• Boussetta, Mohamed. (1992). “Financement Public et Soldes Budgétaires : Cas
du Maroc”, Thèse de Doctorat, Université Mohamed V, Faculté de Droit, Rabat.
• Boussetta, Mohamed. (1995). “Efficacité de la Politique Budgétaire au Maroc”,
Annales Marocaines d’Economie, 12.
• CODESRIA. (199). Econométrie des Données de Panel, Publication du
CODESRIA, Dakar, Sénégal.
• Dessus, Sébstian et Herrera, Rémy. (1996). “Le Rôle du Capital Public dans la
Croissance Economique des Pays en Développement au cours des Années 80”,
Séries Documents Techniques, Programme de Recherche « Politiques
Economiques et Croissance », OCDE.
• Dickey, D.A. et Fuller W.A. (1981). "Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive
Time Series with a Unit Root”, Econometrica, 49.
101
2005 ‫ ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ‬15 ‫ و‬14 ‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬
• Dormont, Brigitte. (1989). Introduction à l’Econométrie des Données de Panel :
Théories et Applications à des Echantillons d’Entreprises, Editions du Centre de
la Recherche Scientifique, Paris.
• Eken, Sean; Helbling, Thomas et Mazarei, Adnan. (1997). “Fiscal Policy and
Growth in the Middle-east and North Africa”, IMF Working Paper N° WP/97/101,
Fonds Monétaire International.
• Granger, C.W.J. et Newbold P. (1974). “Spurious Regression in Econometrics”,
Journal of Econometrics, N°2.
• Greene, Joshua et Wellanueva, Delano. (1991). “Private Investment in
Developing Countries”, IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 38, N°1, mars.
• Gupta, Sanjeev; Clements, Benedict J.; Baldacci, Emanuele et Mulas-Granados
Carlos. (2002). “Expenditure Composition, Fiscal Adjustment and Growth in LowIncome Countries”, IMF Working Paper 02/77, Fonds Monétaire Inrenational,
Fiscal Affairs Department, Washington, D.C, avril.
• Haque, Nadeem Ul et Montiel, Peter J. (1994). «Pakistan : Fiscal Sustainability
and Macroeconomic Policy », in Eastely, Williams, Carlos Alfredo Rodrigùez et
Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel (eds.), Public Sector Deficits and Macroeconomic
Performance, Oxford University Press.
• Islam, Roumeen et Deborah, Wetzl. (1994). « Ghana : Adjustment, Reform and
Growth », in Eastely, Williams, Carlos Alfredo Rodrigùez et Klaus Schmidt-Hebbel
(eds.), Public Sector Deficits and Macroeconomic Performance, Oxford University
Press.
• Johansen, S. (1988). “Statistical Analysis of Cointegration Vectors”, Jouranl of
Economics, Dynamics and Control, 12.
• Johansen, S. (1991). “Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Cointegration Vectors
in Gaussian Vector Autoregressive Models”, Econometrica, 59.
• Johansen, S. et and Juselius K. (1990). “Maximum Mikelihood Estimation and
Interferecne on Cointegration with Application to the Demand of Money”, Oxford
Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, Vol.52.
• Keynes, John Meynard. (1936). Théorie Générale de la Monnaie, de l’Intérêt et de
l’Emploi, traduction de J. Largentaye, Petite Bibliothèque Payot, Paris, France.
102
2005 ‫ ﻧﻮﻓﻤﺒﺮ‬15 ‫ و‬14 ‫اﻟﻤﻠﺘﻘﻰ اﻟﻌﻠﻤﻲ اﻟﺪوﻟﻲ اﻟﺜﺎﻧﻲ‬
• Khan, Mohsin et Reinhart, C.M. (1990). “Private Investment and Economic
Growth in Developing Countries”, World Development, Vol. 18, N°3.
• Kohpaiboon, Archanun. (2004). “Foreign Trade Regime and FDI-Growth Nexus: A
Case Study of Thailand”, Working paper, Australian National University.
•
Mansouri, Brahim. (2004a). “Déséquilibres Financiers Publics, Investissement
Privé et Croissance Economique au Maroc: Quels Enseignements pour la Lutte
contre la Pauvreté?”; Conférence du Réseau de Chercheurs 'Analyse
Economique et Développement', Marrakesch, Maroc, mars 2004, Agence
Universitaire de la Francophonie (AUF): www.auf.org
• Mansouri, Brahim. (2004b). " Mansouri, Brahim. (2004). “Politique Budgétaire,
Gouvernance et Groupes d’Intérêts au Maroc”, in Abdelmajid Elcohen (éd.), Du
Gouvernement à la Gouvernance: L’Expérience Marocaine, La REMALD, Rabat,
Morocco.
• Mansouri, Brahim. (2004c). “Impact of Drought and Fiscal Policy on Private
Consumption, Private Investment in Morocco: An Empirical Analysis”, papier
présenté au colloque international sur le thème “Prospects of Arab Cooperation to
Boost Savings and Investment”; Alexandrie (Egypte); 22-24 Juin 2004. Islamic
Development Bank, and the Islamic Research and Training Institute (www.irti.org).
• Mansouri, Brahim (dir.). (2005). "Understanding Reforms: A Case Study of
Morocco", GDN Research Project on 'Understanding Reforms', Third Draft,
Global Development Developmlent (GDN): www.gdnet.org
• Rodrigùez, Carlos Alfredo. (1994). « Argentina : Fiscal Disequilibria Leading to
Hyperinflation », in Eastely, Williams, Carlos Alfredo Rodrigùez et Klaus SchmidtHebbel (eds.), Public Sector Deficits and Macroeconomic Performance, Oxford
University Press.
103