Nexus between fiscal deficit and economic growth in India--an empirical investigation.

Kaur, Gurleen ; Ahmed, Neetu

[ILLUSTRATION OMITTED]

Introduction

Fiscal policy of a country is intimately linked with overall economic strategy and also feeds into economic trends and consequently influences the monetary policy. When the government's receipts are greater than its spending, it has a surplus. If the government spends more than it receives it runs a deficit. To meet the additional expenditures, it needs to borrow from domestic or foreign sources, draw upon its foreign exchange reserves or print an equivalent amount of money. This tends to influence other economic variables. Basic economic knowledge regards inflation as a by product of excessive printing of money. If the government borrows too much from abroad it leads to a debt crisis. If it draws down on its foreign exchange reserves, a balance of payments crisis may arise. Excessive domestic borrowing by the government may lead to higher real interest rates and the domestic private sector being unable to access funds resulting in the 'crowding out' of private investment. Sometimes a combination of these can occur. In any case, the impact of a large deficit on long run growth and economic well-being is negative. Therefore, there is broad agreement that it is not prudent for a government to run an unduly large deficit. However, in case of developing countries, where the need for infrastructure and social investments may be substantial, it is sometimes argued that running surpluses at the cost of long-term growth might also not be wise (Fischer and Easterly, 1990). The challenge then for most developing country governments is to meet infrastructure and social needs while managing the government's finances in a way that the deficit or the accumulating debt burden is not too great.

The Indian economy has tripled in size over the last decade. Its GDP growth, savings and investment rates have reached historic highs, and now far exceed the average rates for emerging markets. Yet, the general government's budget deficit ratio is close to levels of a decade ago, and far higher than that of similarly rated countries.

Indian union budget of 2012 came out with the most significant macroeconomic challenge with a fiscal deficit of 5.9 percent which is significantly higher than 4.6 percent fiscal deficit of 2011. A 1.3 percent increase in fiscal deficit is very high. In simple language it means, the amount of money the government is spending compared to what it is collecting has gone up to a gap of 5.9 percent of the total. This will put significant pressure on the Government of India, as it will have to borrow this amount in the markets, resulting in further worsening of the debt scenario.

High fiscal deficits typically cause three problems--a balance of payments crisis, high interest rates (because of crowding out) and high inflation (with currency depreciation being a key contributor). India suffered all three problems in 1991. The fiscal policy of 2012-13 has been calibrated with two fold objectives - first, to aid economy in growth revival; and second, to bring down the deficit from 2011-12 level so as to leave space for private sector credit as the investment cycle picks up.

Now, fiscal deficits of even 5 percent of GDP have bankrupted countries like Argentina. How does India survive, indeed thrive? In the light of the worrisome account of the Indian economy, stated above, the objective of this paper is to examine the long--term relationship between fiscal deficit and economic performance of the Indian economy during the period 1971-72 to 2010-11 .The impact of debt and fiscal deficit on growth that arises from their effect on saving and investment are critical in examination of sustainability of debt and deficit. (Rangarajan and Srivastava, 2004) The present paper therefore considers a Log Linear regression model with the natural logarithmic of real GDP (at factor cost) as the dependent variable, and the natural logarithms of the explanatory variables viz., Gross fiscal deficit (henceforth GFD), Gross domestic capital formation (henceforth GDCF) and Gross domestic savings (henceforth GDS).

This paper is organized in five sections: The first section is the introduction, while second section summarizes the theoretical debate on the relationship between fiscal deficit, investment and growth. The third section discusses the trends in the fiscal deficits and the variables taken in the Indian context while the empirical analysis of India's case is provided in the fourth section with an interpretation of the results. Finally, the fifth section contains the conclusion and recommendations.

Literature Review

At the outset, it is important to clarify certain basic concepts. There are various ways to represent and interpret a government's deficit. The simplest is the revenue deficit which is just the difference between revenue receipts and revenue expenditures.

Revenue Deficit = Revenue Expenditure--Revenue Receipts (that is Tax + Non-tax Revenue (i)

A more comprehensive indicator of the government's deficit is the fiscal deficit. This is the sum of revenue and capital expenditure less all revenue and capital receipts other than loans taken. This gives a more holistic view of the government's funding situation since it gives the difference between all receipts and expenditures other than loans taken to meet such expenditures.

Fiscal Deficit = Total Expenditure (that is Revenue Expenditure + Capital Expenditure)--(Revenue Receipts + Recoveries of Loans + Other Capital Receipts (that is all Revenue and Capital Receipts other than loans taken)). (ii)

"The gross fiscal deficit (GFD) of government is the excess of its total expenditure, current and capital, including loans net of recovery, over revenue receipts (including external grants) and non-debt capital receipts." The net fiscal deficit is the gross fiscal deficit reduced by net lending by government. The gross primary deficit is the GFD less interest payments while the primary revenue deficit is the revenue deficit less interest payments.

The governments of the world are tackling the fiscal deficit on a war footing. The review of literature puts forward the following contrasting viewpoints in understanding the relationship between fiscal deficit and macroeconomic variables.

* The Keynesian Theory

Through the resulting increase in the aggregate demand, budget deficit has a positive effect on macroeconomic activity, thereby stimulating savings and capital formation. Increase in government spending in an economy operating at less than full employment level, stimulates the domestic economic activity by a greater proportion (thought the multiplier process) and thereby crowds in private investment. Thus the Keynesians advocate complementary relationship between public spending and private investment only if the public sector investment is in infrastructure, education and health that involve large fixed costs and long gestation period. (Hussain et. Al., 2009)

* The Monetarist Theory

The neoclassical economists argue that financing of an extravagant fiscal deficit through public borrowing can cause the interest rates to increase and consequently Crowd out private investments. Thus, an increase in the size of public sector spending would be at the expense of the private sector and can adversely affect economic growth.(Chakraborty and Chakraborty, 2006).

* The Ricardian Equivalence Theory

In particular, this theory implies that collectively the tax cuts and spending increases financed by increasing government debt will not have an impact on the economy. The implication of the Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis states that interest rates and consumption will be unaffected by debt-financed government spending. Argued thus, fiscal deficits will not have much impact on aggregate demand if household spending decisions are based on the present value of their incomes that takes into account the present value of their future tax liabilities (Rangarajan and Srivastava, 2005)

* The 'Tax and Spend' Hypothesis

A fourth hypothesis formalised by supply side economists, is sometimes called the "tax and spend" hypothesis. According to which, raising taxes with a view to cutting down deficits would not work because it would only encourage the politicians to spend more. The result would be that while the deficit would remain the same, in the long run the size of the private sector would be cut down. Therefore, a tax cut, which puts pressure for contraction of government spending leaving deficits and national savings unchanged, and which leads to an increase in private consumption, should be considered more desirable.

While the above theoretical perspectives provide a valuable insight for understanding the said relationship, in order to arrive at meaningful conclusions it is important to demarcate these interrelationships especially in the context of India. In doing so, it becomes necessary to address the efficacy of fiscal activism in India so as to resolve macroeconomic challenges and pave way for real growth in the economy.

As far as Indian case is concerned, the issues pertaining to fiscal sustainability gathered momentum only during late 1980s which marked the beginning of the much talked about economic crisis of 1991 caused to a greater extent because of sharp fiscal deterioration. Thus, a large body of literature has emerged on the subject. Also, it is pertinent to note that apart from the contributions from the individual researchers, there has also been substantial research work contributed by the Reserve Bank of India on the subject.

For developing countries, empirical work on budget deficits and the macro economy has been confined largely to issues such as deficit measurement problems in the case of Tanzania, budget deficit adjustment problems in the case of Egypt, and the political consequences of deficits. One paper that deserves special mention is that of V. K. R. V. Rao. He demonstrates that the inflationary impact of government budget deficits in developing countries depends on a set of prevailing conditions in the economy. Important among these are the government policies toward public investment. For example, in his model, budget deficits resulting from greater spending on development projects will expand the economy from the supply side and will be less inflationary than deficits arising from increased expenditures on public consumption.

The link between fiscal deficit and growth, saving and investment rates, inflation and current account deficits have also been examined in many studies. The relationship between the fiscal deficit and interest rate and the existence of crowding out are important considerations in determining the advisability of deficit--financed expansionary fiscal policies. Authors like Sunderarajan and Thakur (1980) and Parker (1995) had earlier examined the issue of crowding out in the Indian context.

The Reserve Bank of India (RBI) has done significant research on the role of fiscal policy in reviving the Indian economy (RBI 2001). Research shows that an attempt to raise public consumption to revive aggregate demand will crowd out both private consumption and private investment with no long-run positive impact on output growth. More recently, Chakraborty (2002) finds that the fiscal deficit does not put upward pressure on the interest rate while Goyal (2004), using monthly data argues that there is a two-way causality between fiscal deficit and interest rates.

A number of studies have tested sustainability of public debt in India (Buiter and Patel, 1997; Joshi and Little, 1996) and there is overwhelming evidence that solvency of government debt cannot be taken for granted. Thus the goal should be to stabilize or reduce the debt to GDP ratio for which generating primary fiscal surplus would be crucial (Rangarajan and Srivastava, 2004). They observed an adverse impact of large structural primary deficits and interest payments on growth in recent years.

In the context of growth, fiscal adjustment needs to be tailored to reverse the declining trend in infrastructure investment and basic social services and to improve the productivity of the resource used in public sector. These measures will not only are beneficial for promoting growth in the long run but would also be critical in ensuring the fiscal health of the government.

Another remarkable study by Bhattacharya (2009) advocates that higher fiscal deficit need not necessarily lead to increase in interest rates. This happens per se since higher government expenditure leads to higher income and hence higher savings. Ultimately the supply of credit increases by exactly the same amount as its demand due to higher government expenditure and so there is no reason for the price of credit to increase.

Kumar and Soumya (2010) analysed post crisis relationship between the fiscal deficit and economic growth. They attempted to understand India's current fiscal situation, its likely future development, and its impact on the economy in the context of a weak global recovery from the current crisis. They assert that the impact of the global crisis has been transmitted to the Indian economy through three distinct channels, namely: the financial sector, exports, and exchange rates. The other significant channel of impact is the slump in business and consumer confidence leading to decrease in investment and consumption demand. The paper provides a long-term forecast of the fiscal deficit and public debt burden based on the past trends and suggest a set of policy measures to get the Indian economy back on the path of sustained rapid and inclusive growth.

Examining the relevant literature does not provide conclusive evidence for the relationship between growth rates, fiscal deficit and growth of savings and investment. Hence, the present study aims at investigating the nexus between these variables so as to explore the future policy implications of the same. Finally, a set of policy measures are discussed which can bring the economy back to the path of fiscal consolidation coupled with rapid and sustained economic growth.

Fiscal Deficit, Savings and Investment: Recent Trends in India

Before attempting to perform an empirical investigation, it is essential to sneak a look into the trends in these variables in the context of our economy.

The deficit of the centre has generally been on a downward trend since 1986-87, but with a stop-go pattern. It went down gradually from 9.4 per cent of GDP in 1986-87 to 7.8 per cent in 1989-90, before bouncing back to 8.3 per cent in the crisis year of 1990-91. The stabilisation and reform initiative launched by the central government in 1991 achieved a fair degree of success in reducing the deficit from 8.3 per cent of GDP to 5.9 per cent in 1991- 92 and further to 5.7 percent in 1992-93. But, thereafter, the fiscal consolidation of the central government has again been characterised by an irregular pattern. The deficit jumped back to 7.4 per cent in 1993-94, before declining in steps to 6.0 per cent, 5.4 per cent and 4.9 per cent in the three subsequent years.

The growth rate of fiscal deficit shows a declining trend since 1991 indicating the intention of the government to put a cap on the high fiscal deficit. However, exceptional domestic or global pressures sway away the government from its motive. This can be observed for the years 2008-09 and 2009-10 when government had to provide many incentives to the industry to help them cope up with the global recessionary scenario. Due to tight control over its expenses and implementation of FRBM Act, the Indian government was able to bring down fiscal deficit to as low as 2.55 percent in 2007-08 but then the global recession took its toll. It is clearly observed that during years of low fiscal deficit, the economy was able to achieve a growth rate of GDP as high as 9.34 percent in 2007-08 before declining sharply to 6.76 percent in 2008-09. The direction of change in the real GDP and other macroeconomic variables under consideration (in absolute terms), during the period under review can be seen from the following table.

Further analysis shows that the trend is not without exceptions. The fiscal deficit fell sharply from 7.84 per cent in 1990-91 to 5.55 per cent in 1991-92. However, this does not correspond with an increase in GDP. Rather, the GDP growth rate fell sharply from 5.29 per cent in 1990-91 to 1.43 per cent in 1991-92. This corresponds with the time when Indian economy faced its perhaps toughest test till date and the decision to liberalise the economy was taken. A similar exceptional scenario is observed during 2001-02 and 2002-03 when in spite of fiscal deficit falling from 6.1 9 per cent to 5.91 per cent, GDP growth rate fell from 5.84 per cent to 3.84 per cent. With the exception of the year 2008-9 when the growth rate was 6.8 percent, the growth in real GDP in 2011-12 has been the lowest in nine years.

It may also be observed from Table I that the economy registered high growth in gross capital formation during 2005-06 to 2007-08. As a result, there was rapid increase in investment rate in the economy I from 32.8 per cent in 2004-5 to 38.1 percent in 2007-08. The level of investment declined in absolute terms in 2008-09 (Refer Table I) following the slowdown in the global economy. Though it did recover quickly in 2009-10 and 2010-11, the growth in gross (capital formation, particularly fixed capital formation, has been substantially lower than the growth that had been achieved in 2005-06 to 2007-08.

Methodology and Empirical Analysis

To probe the relationship between fiscal deficit, savings and investment with the GDP, this paper analyses the Indian economy data from 1971-72 to 2010-11. The data pertaining to GDP at factor cost (Base 2004-05 prices), fiscal deficit, Gross domestic Capital formation (Base 2004-05 prices), and Gross domestic savings (Base 2004-05) prices are extracted from the Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy 2010-11(RBI) for the period of analysis.

A Log-lin regression model (log-log in this case) having the natural log of GDP at factor cost as the dependent variable (regressand), and natural logarithms of the variables of the explanatory variables viz; Gross fiscal deficit (henceforth GFD), Gross domestic capital formation (henceforth GDCF) and Gross domestic savings (henceforth GDS) is considered for the present study.

Ln [GDP.sub.t] = f (Ln Comb.[GFD.sub.t], Ln [GDCF.sup.t], Ln [GDS.sub.t],)

Where:

Ln Comb.GFD= Logarithm of combined gross fiscal deficit of the central and state government at current market prices for period t

Ln GDS= Logarithm of gross domestic savings at current market prices for period t

Ln GDCF= Logarithm of gross domestic capital formation current market prices for period t

This relation can be expressed as the following:

Ln [GDP.sub.t], = Ln [[beta].sub.0] + [[beta].sub.1] Ln Comb.[GFD.sub.t] + [[beta].sub.2] Ln [GDCF.sub.t] + [[beta].sub.3] Ln [GDS.sub.t] + [[mu].sub.t] (iii)

In the double log model where the regressand is logarithmic and the regressor X is time, if an independent variable change by 1 percent, on average, the GDP changes by the magnitude of the slope coefficient of the independent variable. The econometric time series analysis of the said variables is done using E-views 7 as the aide. For this analysis the study employs recent time-series econometric methods like- The ADF unit root test for stationarity. In addition, since time-series data is vulnerable to the problem of auto-correlation, hence, Durbin Watson test has been undertaken for the same. Finally, the causality between two or more time series variables is explored using the standard Granger- causality tests.

The Durbin Watson test for autocorrelation indicates the evidence of positive autocorrelation at 5 percent level of significance. Also the series are non-stationary, hence ADF test has been undertaken and it is observed that the model exhibits stationarity after taking 1 st difference with an intercept and trend in case of Unit root testing.

The results of the regression post model correction (Table II) show that at the 5percent level of significance, the coefficients of the intercept, LnGDCF and LnGDS are statistically significant and there is an absence of serial correlation. Table II further shows that fiscal deficits had a negative, though insignificant impact on the growth of the real GDP. This is contrary to Keynesian theory, but in conformity with Monetarist theory, which holds that fiscal deficits lead to a fall in the Gross Domestic Product. However, given the statistical insignificance of this relationship, fiscal deficits of the central government in India exhibit Ricardian equivalence. A Granger-causality analysis has been carried out (see Table III) in order to assess whether there is any potential predictability power of Gross fiscal deficit & GDP for each other. The conclusion that can be drawn is that there exists no causality between these variables hence both of them are independent.

Also, contrary to the expectation, GDCF exerted a negative but significant influence on the growth of the real GDP. This suggests that repatriation of profits made within the Indian economy back to the home countries of the investors may have created significant leakages from the economy.

Conclusion and Recommendations

Although fiscal deficits have been recurrent in the Indian economy ever since 1970s, there have been relatively insignificant improvements in the growth of the economy. The study observes that recurrent fiscal deficits led to an accumulation of debt, which at maturity, drained from the economy the financial resources that were required for development. Fiscal deficits were shown empirically to be inversely related to the growth of the real GDP. However, the study concludes that the demonstrated statistical insignificance show that the fiscal deficits in the Indian economy correspond to the Ricardian Equivalence Theory. Thus, as such, fiscal deficits have little influence on the level of economic activity.

Therefore, it can be said that the present anxiety in India about the rising fiscal deficit is justified. Given that high deficits have an adverse impact on India's growth, it is imperative that the government chalks out a clear roadmap to reduce fiscal deficits if it wants the economy to return to 9 per cent growth path. What needs to be done is restructuring of public expenditure. Merely meeting targets stipulated in the FRBM Act through clever accounting practices such as the transfer of massive subsidies to oil marketing and fertiliser companies as off budget items will not do. Neither will measures like divestment to finance the fiscal deficit.

The study, therefore, recommends that where fiscal deficits are necessary for correcting short-term fluctuations in the economy, the resources so acquired should be invested in self-liquidating and profitable ventures. Of important note in this regard are investments in infrastructure such as power and roads, the provision of which by private firms constitute a large proportion of their production costs. Furthermore, curbing corruption will help to reduce fiscal deficits and improve the performance of government budgets, as budgets are inflated by corrupt officials for private gains.

This conclusion brings us to the hotly debated subject of corruption and Governance reforms. Hence, what India needs now is not the crisis oriented reforms of 1991 sort, but development driven reforms that will not only put the economy to a high growth trajectory but also take care of the "Inclusive Growth" which was the vision of the XI five year plan that concluded in March 2012; it indeed continues to be the vision of the XII five year plan as well.

References

Acharya, S. (2002). Macroeconomic management in the 1990s. Economic and Political Weekly, 37(16), 15151538.

Bhattacharya, J. (2009). Fiscal deficit and interest rate. Economic and Political Weekly, 44(22), 20-22.

Buiter, W.H., & U.R. Patel. (1992). Debt, deficits and inflation: An application to the public finances of India. Journal of Public Economics, 47, 172- 305.

Chakraborty, P., & L. S. Chakraborty. (2006). Is fiscal policy contracyclical in India: An empirical analysis. Munich Personal RePEc Archive- MPRA Paper No. 7604.

Chakraborty, L. (2006). Fiscal deficit, Capital formation and Crowding Out: Evidence from India, NIPFP Working Paper 06/43.

Economic Survey, (2011-2012). Ministry of finance, Government of India. Also available at http://www.indiabudget.nic.in/survey.asp

Fischer, S., & William, Easterly. (1990). The economics of the government budget constraint. The World Bank Research Observer, 5(2), 127-42.

Gadong, D. T. (2010). Fiscal deficit and the growth of domestic output in Nigeria. JOS Journal of Economics, 4(1), 154-175.

Hussain, A. Mohd. et al. (2009). Effectiveness of government expenditure Crowding-in or Crowding- out: An empirical evidence in case of Pakistan. European Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Sciences, 16, 141-147.

Joshi, V., & I.M.D. Little. (1994). India: Macroeconomics and Political Economy: 1964-91, World Bank Comparative Economic Studies, World Bank Publications, Washington, DC.

Kumar, R., & D. Soumya, A. (2010). Fiscal Policy Issues for India after the Global Financial Crisis (2008-10). ADBI Working Paper, 249.

Mehra, Y, & Kaur, K. (2012). Economic growth and the challenges of fiscal deficit. Journal of Business Thought, 3, 84-94.

Mohan, R. (2000). Fiscal correction for economic growth: Data analysis and suggestions. Economic and Political Weekly, 35(24), 2027-36.

Raju, S., & J. Mukherjee. (2010). Fiscal Deficit, crowding out and the sustainability of economic growth: The case of Indian economy. IFRI, Europe.

Rangarajan.C., & D.K. Srivasta. (2004). Fiscal Deficits and Government Debt in India: Implications for Growth and Stabilisation, NIPFP Working paper 05/35, New Delhi, India.

Reserve Bank of India (2001). The Role of Fiscal Policy in Reinvigorating Growth. Report on Currency and Finance 2000-2001. Mumbai, India.

Reserve Bank of India (2011). Handbook of Statistics of the Indian Economy, 2010-11, RBI, Mumbai.

Gurleen Kaur

Assistant Professor

Sri Gru Gobind Singh College of

Commerce,

University of Delhi, New Delhi.

Neetu Ahmed

Assistant Professor,

J K Business School, Gurgaon.

Table-I
GDP, GFD, GDS and GDCF of Government of India
during 1971-72 to 2010-11

Year       GDP *      GFD        GDS        GDCF

1971-72    595726     1727       7666       126468
1972-73    593828     2179       8200       125952
1973-74    620855     1733       11489      149597
1974-75    628063     2302       12949      134188
1975-76    684616     3029       14947      139028
1976-77    693173     3802       18236      157740
1977-78    744953     3680       21053      174056
1978-79    785945     5710       24849      210456
1979-80    745064     6392       25494      190094
1980-81    798486     8299       28303      200766
1981-82    843405     8666       32530      193348
1982-83    868069     10627      35574      193029
1983-84    936245     13030      40106      202803
1984-85    973332     17416      47857      218923
1985-86    1013839    21858      56213      240004
1986-87    1057585    26342      61106      241318
1987-88    1094964    27044      76087      275168
1988-89    1206212    30923      91777      313399
1989-90    1280195    35632      111704     334830
1990-91    1347855    44632      136888     391012
1991-92    1367136    36325      148553     329987
1992-93    1440467    40173      168129     361562
1993-94    1522305    60257      199980     383898
1994-95    1619652    57703      260553     468320
1995-96    1737696    60243      306396     504017
1996-97    1876271    66733      329629     501493
1997-98    1956982    88937      382735     562331
1998-99    2087774    113349     410365     563011
1999-00    2222258    104716     509873     678807
2000-01    2319004    118816     525432     655227
2001-02    2453725    140955     563180     636174
2002-03    2547863    145072     680722     742901
2003-04    2764889    123273     864099     873370
2004-05    2971464    125794     1050703    1064041
2005-06    3254216    146435     1235288    1237137
2006-07    3566011    142573     1486044    1402637
2007-08    3898958    126912     1837498    1658001
2008-09    4162509    336992     1798347    1565007
2009-10    4493743    418482     2207423    1858659
2010-11    4877482    373591     2481931    1974172

* GDP (at factor cost, constant prices) with base year 2004-2005

Note: All figures are in crores of rupees and GFD is the Gross
fiscal deficit for the central government.

Source: Handbook of Statistics on Indian Economy 201 0-11, RBI.

TABLE-II
Estimated Results

Dependent Variable: LNGDP
Method: Least Squares
Included observations: 39 after adjustments

Variable             Coefficient        Std. Error

LNGFD                 -0.013012          0.022893
LNGDCF                -0.875809          0.371385
LNGDS                 0.856171           0.362259
C                     0.049852           0.005927

R-squared             0.151673      Mean dependent var
Adjusted R-squared    0.078959      S.D. dependent var
S.E. of regression    0.028962     Akaike info criterion
Sum squared resid     0.029357       Schwarz criterion
Log likelihood        84.90119     Hannan-Quinn criter.
F-statistic           2.085885      Durbin-Watson stat
Prob(F-statistic)     0.119802

Variable             t-Statistic     Prob.

LNGFD                 -0.568366      0.5734
LNGDCF                -2.358227      0.0241
LNGDS                 2.363418       0.0238
C                     8.410860       0.0000

R-squared                           0.052069
Adjusted R-squared                  0.030177
S.E. of regression                 -4.148779
Sum squared resid                  -3.9781 57
Log likelihood                     -4.087561
F-statistic                         2.290761
Prob(F-statistic)

TABLE-III
Pair wise Granger Causality Tests

Lags: 2

Null Hypothesis:       Observations   F-Statistic   Prob.

LNGFD does not              37          1.19544     0.3157
Granger Cause LNGDP

LNGDP does not                          0.09608     0.9087
Granger Cause LNGFD