5 provides information as to the composition of the "core" regression sample per decade and development stage. Developing countries account for over half of the total number of observations, and the 1980s are the decade most heavily represented in the data. The precise definition of saving that we use also deserves comment. As in Loayza, Lopez, Schmidt-Hebbel and Servén (1998b), for the nation as a whole our basic income measure is gross national disposable income (GNDIJ), equal to GNP plus all net unrequited transfers from abroad.” Gross national saving is then defined as GNDI minus consumption expenditure, with both measured at current prices.

In turn, for the private sector we implement four alternative measures of disposable income and gross saving. These follow from the definition chosen for the public sector (i.e., consolidated central government or broad public sector) and from whether the private , and public income and saving figures are adjusted or not for capital gains and losses due to inflation. We respectively label the four alternatives that result as CU (unadjusted data corresponding to the central government definition), CA (same as CU but after adjusting for inflationary capital gains and losses), PU (unadjusted data corresponding to the public sector definition of the government), and PA (inflation-adjusted PU data). Notice that by construction the CA and CU configurations lump local governments and public enterprises together with the private sector. In turn, the PA and PU definitions of the public sector correspond to either the general government or, when available, the consolidated nonfinancial public sector, inclusive of public enterprises. Hence, of these four alternatives, the analytically preferable one is clearly PA. This is the private saving definition on which we base our "core" regression and most of our experiments. In contrast, most empirical studies use the more-readily available, but analytically problematic, CU measure.

In each case, gross private saving is computed as the difference between gross national saving and the relevant definition of gross public saving. Gross private disposable income (henceforth GPDD is likewise measured as the difference between GNDI and gross public disposable income, itself equal to the sum of public saving and public consumption.

Table 2 presents descriptive statistics and pairwise correlations for the five saving ratios (national and the four alternative definitions of private saving). We report the fullsample correlations as well as their cross-section counterparts. As expected, the correlations are quite high in all cases (between 82 % and 97 %), with the correlations between the national saving ratio and the private saving ratios being the lowest ones. The five saving ratios also look very similar in their descriptive statistics (with a mean of about 20%, and standard deviations of 8 %). The table also highlights the wide dispersion of private saving ratios, which range from a minimum of —25 percent (Zambia 1985) to a maximum in excess of 46 percent (Singapore 1984).

# 3.2 Empirical specification

We adopt an encompassing approach based on reduced-form linear equations. This allows us to include a broad range of saving determinants. As dependent variables we use both private and national saving ratios (to gross private and gross national disposable income, respectively), although we concentrate on the former. We focus our attention on a