documentclass{article}
usepackage{tabularx}
usepackage{booktabs}
usepackage{multirow}
usepackage{ltxtable}
usepackage{ltablex}
usepackage(tabularx)
begin{document}

begin{ltablex}
small
  caption{Summary of Multipliers}label{Lit Summary table}
    begin{tabularx}{textwidth}{p{2cm}p{2cm}XX}
    hlinehline
    textbf{Study} & textbf{Geographical Location and Level} & textbf{Identification} & textbf{Multiplier Result} \ hline hline
    citeA{acconcia2014mafia} & Italy Local Level & Looked at a situation when local governments were dismissed and public funding was severely reduced in Italy is response to being infiltrated by the mafia.   & 1.5 on impact, growing to 1.9 when dynamic effects are included. \ hline
    citeA{auerbach} & US Federal Level & Extended SVAR approach & 0-0.5 in Expansion and 1.0-1.5 in Recession \ hline citeA{Barro} & US Federal Level & Spending multipliers are identified primarily from variations in defense spending, especially changes associated with buildups and aftermaths of wars. & 0.4-0.5 contemporaneously, 0.6-0.7 2 years later and if multiplier is permanent then this adds 0.1-0.2 to the multiplier  \ hline citeA{Clemens2012} & US State Level & Instrumented on the variation in the strictness states' balanced budget requirements to determine the level as a means of measuring the level of spending cuts during a recession & 0.4 however it may be higher if states receive windfall funding \ hline citeA{fazzari2015state} & US State Level & Bayesian model comparison and generalized impulse response analysis to test for nonlinearities in the responses of output to government spending & 0.8 for states with low slack and 1.6 for states with high slack \ hline citeA{fishback2015multiplier} & US State Level & Panel of annual Federal expenditure in each State during the 1930s & 0.96 when Federal transfer payments are excluded falling to 0.83 when they are included  \ hline citeA{Ilzetzki} & 44 countries around the world (20 high-income and 24 low income) & SVAR approach on a novel dataset & High income countries tend to have a statistically significant positive fiscal multiplier while the opposite is true of developing countries and Investment in infrastructure could lead to a higher multiplier \ hline citeA{michaillat2014theory} & US Federal Level & Simple search-and-matching model to highlight the key economic forces of the multiplier & The multiplier doubles when unemployment rises from 5% to 8% \ hline  citeA{nakamura2014fiscal} & US State Level & Instrumented on the fact that when national spending on the military rises by 1 percentage point of GDP in the US, different states, depending on their exposure to military spending, experience different levels of military build-up & 1.5 growing to 2.0 at zero lower bound \ hline     citeA{ramey2011identifying} & US Federal Level & Looked at the military build-up during significant wars throughout the 20textsuperscript{th} century in the US &  0.6-1.2 \ hline   citeA{Ramey2018} & US Federal Level & Analysed quarterly US data over a 120 year period using the local projection method developed by citeA{Jorda} & 0.3-1.5 depending on the methodology and robustness check they used.  \ hline citeA{shoag2010impact} & US State Level & Instrumented on the windfall gains that US states receive from investing public pension funds & Baseline multiplier over 2, rising to over 3 in times of economic slack \ hline citeA{suarez2016estimating} & US County Level & Instrumented on Federal transfers to local counties due to changes in population forecasts between Census and Non-census years & 1.7-2 rising in counties experiencing economic slack \ hline
    end{tabularx}
end{ltablex}

end(document)