Search results

The purpose of this paper is to revise, update and extend the economic vulnerability and economic resilience indices, where economic vulnerability is associated with inherent exposure to external shocks and economic resilience with policies that enable a country to minimize or withstand the negative effects of such shocks. This study also proposes a revised vulnerability/resilience framework to assess the risk of a country being harmed by external economic shocks.

The methodology used in the study involves defining economic vulnerability in terms of inherent features of an economy and defining economic resilience in terms of policy-induced changes, and then devising measureable indices to measure such vulnerability and resilience across countries. The exercise required the examination of various global indices to assess their suitability, in terms of relevance and country coverage, for measuring the vulnerability index and the resilience index and the components of the two indices.

The main finding of the study is that a number highly vulnerable states, including economically successful small island economies, emerged with high resilience scores, suggesting that they adopt policies that enable them to withstand the harmful effects of external shocks. This possibly explains why these states register relatively high GDP per capita, in spite of their high exposure to shocks. On the other hand, a number of countries, mostly large and poor developing countries, that are not highly exposed to external shocks due to their limited dependence on external trade, emerged with a low degree of policy-induced economic resilience.

The study utilized global indicators which sometimes had missing data and these had to be filled in using approximations based on assumptions, and alternative assumption could have produced a different approximations. In addition the classification of countries in terms of the vulnerability and resilience nexus depended highly on many underpinning assumptions, including the definitions and the measurement of the components, the weighting schemes and the thresholds used. It is likely that alternative assumptions would yield alternative classifications.

An important practical implication of this study is that highly economically vulnerable states can reduce the harmful effects of external economic shocks if they adopt policies that lead to resilience building. On the other hand, countries that are not highly exposed to external shocks, can render themselves economically unstable due to their weak economic, social and environmental governance.

This study considers social development and cohesion as one of the pillars of resilience building. The implication of this approach is that social governance, leading to improvements in the education and health of the population could reduce the harm arising from a country’s exposure to external shocks. This is because social governance affects the extent to which relations within a society are properly developed, enabling an effective functioning of the economic apparatus without the hindrance of civil unrest.

This study has extended previous work on the vulnerability and resilience framework, to include almost all countries of the world, using updated data, and has revised the resilience index to include environmental governance. It has also redefined market flexibility to allow for the downsides of excessive financial riskiness. The revision of vulnerability and resilience indices in the light of new data and their interaction showed more convincingly that economies that are highly economically vulnerable could still register economic success as a result of resilience-conducive policies associated with good economic, political, social and environmental governance.

This study examines the asymmetric effect of government spending on economic growth in Nigeria over the period 1980–2017. Specifically, this study investigates whether the response of economic growth to government spending shocks differs according to the nature of shocks on them. In addition, the authors examine whether the stabilizing effects of fiscal policies are dependent on the state of the business cycle.

The study adopts the linear fiscal reaction function in addition to the nonlinear regression model of Hatemi-J (2011, 2012), Granger and Yoon (2002), which allows us to separate negative shocks from positive shocks to government spending. Similarly, the authors adopt the generalized method of moments (GMM) techniques of Hansen (1982) to account for simultaneity and endogeneity problems inherent in dynamic model.

The authors’ findings reveal that there is evidence of asymmetry in the government spending–economic growth nexus in Nigeria over the period of study. Specifically, the authors find that the response of economic growth to government spending shocks differs according to the nature of shocks on them. More specifically, the study established that the stabilizing effects of fiscal policies are dependent on the state of the business cycle.

Unlike the traditional method of modeling asymmetry, which adopts the simple inclusion of a squared government spending term or by the inclusion of a cubic government spending term, the model adopted in this study allows us to model shocks and show how the responses of economic growth to government expenditure differ according to the nature of shocks on them.

This study aims to empirically investigate how an industrial region has reacted to different shocks – competitive, market and environmental – through its economic subsystems – its firms, workers and institutions – in a longitudinal perspective for the period 1985–2021.

The authors used a mixed-method approach applied to a case study of the Brazilian T&C industrial region. The authors used two data sources and two stages for data collection. The first stage involved documentary research and the second in-depth interviews. The analysis of qualitative data took place in two stages. In the first, the authors applied content analysis, and in the second stage, the authors used the exploratory statistical technique of simple correspondence analysis and the categorical data.

The results provide evidence that different types of shock provoke different reactions. However, the shock–reaction relationship is invariable over time. The authors observed proportionality in the size of the shock and the regional actors involved in the regional response – firms, workers and institutions.

The authors went a step further, presenting empirical research on the shock–reaction relationship using the “type of shock” as a variable. This paper provides a holistic understanding of the factors behind regional resilience through insights into the role that resources, structures, institutions and actors play in the regional response to distinct types of shocks, reaching four main conclusions.

The purpose of this paper is to examine the impact of multilateral trade policy (MTP) liberalization on developing countries’ economic exposure to shocks.

The analysis is conducted on a panel data set comprising 120 countries over the period 1996–2013 and uses the within fixed effects estimator.

The empirical results suggest that over the entire sample as well as sub-samples of least developed countries (LDCs) and non-LDCs, multilateral trade liberalization have a negative and significant impact on economic exposure to shocks. Interestingly, LDCs appear to experience the highest magnitude of the reducing impact of multilateral trade liberalization on countries’ economic exposure to shocks.

These findings suggest that a greater cooperation among countries in the world, including among WTO members to further liberalize trade would surely contribute to reducing developing countries’ economic exposure to shocks.

The current study shows that the current backlash against trade and the consequent strong appeal for domestic trade protectionist measures would likely to undermine the likelihood of further multilateral trade liberalization. One implication of this could be a rise in countries’ economic exposure to shocks.

To the best of the author’s knowledge, this is first the study on this matter.

The present paper aims to evaluate the structural impact of exogenously induced fiscal shocks on the Moroccan economy. This entails an analysis of the effect on the GDP of COVID-19-induced fiscal shocks manifesting in terms of budgetary revenues and expenditures. A key aspect of this analysis addresses the size of the tax and fiscal multipliers.

The study examines the structural relationship between five variables during the period between Q1 2009 and Q2 2020 using an SVAR approach that allows for a dynamic interaction between ordinary expenditures and revenues on a quarterly basis.

Positive structural shocks on public spending are likely to negatively impact economic growth. Negative economic growth, in turn, will damage price levels and interest rates, mainly over the long term. However, public-revenue-multiplier-associated shocks exceed these price- and interest-rate multiplier-associated shocks. Indeed, a structural shock to ordinary revenues can have a positive but insignificant impact on the GDP stemming from the ensuing decrease in the government budget deficit that proceeds from the increase in government revenues.

This is one of the first studies in the Moroccan context to assess the impact of the current worldwide pandemic on public finances. In addition, this study highlights the importance of boosting economic recovery through public spending.

This chapter studies the dynamic responses of the conditional quantiles and their applications in macroeconomics and finance. The authors build a multi-equation autoregressive conditional quantile model and propose a new construction of quantile impulse response functions (QIRFs). The tool set of QIRFs provides detailed distributional evolution of an outcome variable to economic shocks. The authors show the left tail of economic activity is the most responsive to monetary policy and financial shocks. The impacts of the shocks on Growth-at-Risk (the 5% quantile of economic activity) during the Global Financial Crisis are assessed. The authors also examine how the economy responds to a hypothetical financial distress scenario.

In examining an economic fluctuation, researchers often refer to the theories of impaired access to capital which mostly explain, from the perspective of bank lending supplies, a shock in firm’s access to investment would decrease its capital expenditures and net debt issuance during crisis period. However, some studies show that this is not always the case. A demand shock theory can explain the decrease in firm’s capital expenditures and net debt issuance during crisis period, but there should be no causal link between the two. This is because firms naturally do not invest during crisis period because of a decrease in investment wealth during crisis period. This paper aims to examine these theories with respect to the Covid-19 crisis in Indonesia.

The change in firms’ capital expenditure and net debt issuance is analyzed using a non-parametric difference-in-difference and matching estimator across four firm-dimensions to see whether the implications of the supply shock theory apply to the current crisis or if that firms naturally do not invest during the crisis. In addition, this paper provides the result of panel regression to confirm the causal link between firms’ investment funds and capital expenditure, with an addition of consumer confidence index to accommodate the implications of the demand shock theory.

The results of this paper show that the implications of the supply shock theory cannot explain the economic fluctuation during the Covid-19 crisis. Rather, the results suggest that firms naturally do not want to invest during the crisis and that the demand shock can better explain the economic fluctuation during the Covid-19 crisis. This is confirmed by the result of panel regression which shows that only consumer confidence index has a significant positive relationship with firms’ capital expenditure.

This is the first study to examine the theory of impaired access to capital with respect to the Covid-19 crisis in Indonesia.

This paper aims to examine Nigeria’s dynamic output and output volatility connectedness with USA, China and India using quarterly data from 1981Q1 to 2019Q4.

The study adopted the network approach of Diebold and Yilmaz (2014) and used the normalized generalized forecast error variance decomposition from an underlying vector error correction model to build connectedness measures.

The findings show that the global financial crisis (GFC) increased the connectedness index far more than the 2016 Nigeria economic recession. The moderate effect of the 2016 Nigeria economic recession on the connectedness index underscores the fact that Nigeria is a small, open economy with minimal capacity to spread output shock. For both real output and its volatility, the total connectedness index rose smoothly and systematically through time, thereby leaving the economies more connected in the long run.

To the best of the authors’ knowledge, this paper is among the first to examine Nigeria’s dynamic output and output volatility connectedness with the USA, China and India using new empirical insights from the GFC versus 2016 Nigerian recession. The study, therefore, concludes that the Nigerian economy should be diversified immediately as a hedge against future real output shocks, while the USA, China and India should maintain and sustain their current policy frameworks to remain less vulnerable to real output shocks.

Much has been written about trade deal opportunities after Brexit (e.g. Minford et al., 2017; Singham and Tylecote, 2018) but much less about envisaged “supply side mechanisms” that would translate a Brexit shock into improved UK competitive performance. Indications as to the supply side mechanisms involved can be found in some pro-Brexit writings and speeches and revolve around cutting regulation and reducing taxation, to spur innovation entrepreneurship. The authors contend that these measures align to a broad set of policy measures associated with Economic Shock Therapy, the Laffer Curve and the associated “Washington Consensus” (Williamson, 2005). The authors are looking to stimulate a conversation around whether these measures are most likely to stimulate entrepreneurial innovation and growth. The authors open by contrasting these concepts to growth equilibrium dynamics drawn from Wicksell, Keynes and Schumpeter – and by implication dynamic Walrasian General Equilibrium – to pose the question, is entrepreneur-led growth best led via slashing regulations and taxes or by focussing on correcting existing market failures? The purpose of this paper is to promote controversy and debate as to which “supply side measures” are most effective in enabling entrepreneurial growth.

The authors briefly review the pro-Brexiteer economic framework and relate this to broader Economic Shock Therapy and Laffer Curve concepts; how these have been applied and how some argue they can become “supply side” enablers in a positive Brexit innovation and entrepreneurship transformation. By drawing upon fundamental economic relationships such as Wicksell’s (1898) “Natural Rate of Interest”, the authors highlight the importance of information asymmetry and regulatory distortion in financial markets, resulting in some entrepreneurs (and associated innovations) failing to receive the capital their project merit. The authors pose the question, whether Shock Therapy, Laffer Curve type tax cuts and any Brexit “bonfire of regulation” will raise entrepreneurial growth and success.

Both Shock Therapy and Laffer Curve inspired tax cuts have a patchy record of success, despite notable achievements in post-1991 Poland. The authors stress entrepreneurs drive innovation and growth, and a key support to them requires correcting “access to finance” market failures. It is questionable if Economic Shocks contribute anything to resolving this fundamental problem.

The authors open the supply side debate on anticipated “Brexit Transformation” in the context of long standing (some maybe long forgotten) theoretical understandings, thereby posing the question as to whether potential Brexit-related deregulation, tax cuts and “Economic Shock” therapy are likely to raise entrepreneurial competitive advantage and success rates. Market failure in financial market support for small firm growth and innovation needs are highlighted. Arguably, economic growth and innovation would be better sustained by addressing these failures, than introducing the “unknowns” and risks associated with a substantial Economic Shock.