SavedAdd your journal

Journals / Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi / 2026 / Volume: 27 Issue: 3

FRAGILITY MEASURES AND ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL FRAGILITY IN FRAGILE FIVE COUNTRIES

Salih Barışık(TOKAT GAZIOSMANPASA UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-3029-2206
Engin Dursun(SİVAS CUMHURİYET ÜNİVERSİTESİ, İKTİSADİ VE İDARİ BİLİMLER FAKÜLTESİ, ULUSLARARASI TİCARET VE LOJİSTİK BÖLÜMÜ)0000-0002-4340-2275
Pages
—
Publication Date
2026-09-22
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

The findings reveal significant heterogeneity across countries and indicators.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the causal relationships between five external fragility indicators and economic growth in the Fragile Five economies — Brazil, Indonesia, India, Türkiye, and South Africa — over the period 1994–2024 using panel causality analysis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:The findings reveal significant heterogeneity across countries and indicators.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Furthermore, the results contain important policy implications that highlight reserve adequacy management, the quality of current account financing, and exchange rate flexibility as the most effective tools for reducing external fragility in emerging market economies.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2024 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Panel Data Models · Fragile Five Countries · External Fragility

Abstract

This study investigates the causal relationships between five external fragility indicators and economic growth in the Fragile Five economies — Brazil, Indonesia, India, Türkiye, and South Africa — over the period 1994–2024 using panel causality analysis. The indicators examined are the current account balance-to-GDP ratio, international reserves-to-short-term external debt ratio, international reserves-to-GDP ratio, total external debt-to-GDP ratio, and total external debt-to-total exports ratio. The findings reveal significant heterogeneity across countries and indicators. Unidirectional causality running from the current account deficit to growth is established for Brazil and Türkiye, and across the panel, while South Africa exhibits the reverse pattern, consistent with the absorption approach. The reserves-to-short-term debt ratio demonstrates the strongest causal influence on growth, particularly for Indonesia and at the panel level, corroborating the Guidotti-Greenspan framework. There is a causal relationship between growth and the reserves-to-short-term-debt ratio in both Brazil and Türkiye. While there is a causal relationship from the reserves-to-GDP ratio to growth only in Indonesia, the opposite direction—from growth to the reserves-to-GDP ratio—shows a causal relationship in both Indonesia and South Africa. The results indicate that external fragility in the Fragile Five countries stems from liquidity problems rather than debt stocks. Furthermore, the results contain important policy implications that highlight reserve adequacy management, the quality of current account financing, and exchange rate flexibility as the most effective tools for reducing external fragility in emerging market economies.

🔖

Cite This Article

Barışık, S., Dursun, E. (2026). FRAGILITY MEASURES AND ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF EXTERNAL FRAGILITY IN FRAGILE FIVE COUNTRIES. Anadolu Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi, Volume: 27 Issue: 3. https://doi.org/10.53443/anadoluibfd.1846735

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (48)

  1. Aizenman, J., & Lee, J. (2007). International reserves: Precautionary versus mercantilist views, theory and evidence. Open Economies Review, 18(2), 191–214. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-007-9030-z
  2. Akbaş, Y. E., Şentürk, M., & Sancar, C. (2013). Testing for causality between the foreign direct investment, current account deficit, GDP and total credit: Evidence from G7. Panoeconomicus, 60(6), 791–812. https://doi.org/10.2298/PAN1306791A
  3. Akyüz, M. D., & Fisunoğlu, H. M. (2020). Dünyada yaşanan 1980–2008 yılı krizlerinde para politikası uygulaması, finansal riskler ve uluslararası rezervlerin durumu. Ekonomi-tek, 9(3), 129–159. https://izlik.org/JA87GM73JF
  4. Alexander, S. S. (1952). Effects of a devaluation on a trade balance. IMF Staff Papers, 2(2), 263–278. https://doi.org/10.2307/3866218
  5. Büyükakın, F., & Aydın, S. (2018). Öncü göstergelerle finansal kırılganlık endeksi: Türkiye örneği (1990–2017). Kocaeli Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi(36), 113–125. https://izlik.org/JA82YM76PZ
  6. Baylan, M. (2020). Makroekonomik kırılganlık ve ekonomik büyüme arasında nedensellik ilişkisi: Çin örneği. İzmir İktisat Dergisi, 35(4), 697–712. https://doi.org/10.24988/ije.202035403
  7. Bayraktar, Y., & Elüstü, S. (2016). Makroekonomik kırılganlığın ölçülmesi: yükselen piyasalar ve Türkiye için karşılaştırmalı bir analiz. Hak İş Uluslararası Emek ve Toplum Dergisi, 5(12), 8–29. https://izlik.org/JA76ZZ84LP
  8. Breuer, J. B., McNown, R., & Wallace, M. (2002). Series-specific unit root tests with panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 64(5), 527–546. https://doi.org/10.1111/1468-0084.00276
  9. Breusch, T. S., & Pagan, A. R. (1980). The lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. The Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), 239–253. https://doi.org/10.2307/2297111
  10. Calvo, G. A. (1998). Capital flows and capital-market crises: The simple economics of sudden stops. Journal of Applied Economics, 1(1), 35–54. https://doi.org/10.1080/15140326.1998.12040516
  11. Chadwick, M. G. (2019). Dependence of the fragile five and “troubled ten” emerging market financial systems on US monetary policy and monetary policy uncertainty. Research in International Business and Finance, 49, 251–268. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2019.04.002
  12. Chang, Y. (2004). Bootstrap unit root tests in panels with cross-sectional dependency. Journal of Econometrics, 120(2), 263–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00214-8
  13. Chauvet, M., & Dong, F. (2004). Leading indicators of country risk and currency crises: The Asian experience. Economic Review-Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta, 89(1), 25–37.
  14. Coutinho, L., Turrini, A., & Zeugner, S. (2018). Methodologies for the assessment of current account benchmarks (European Commission Discussion Papers No. 86). European Commission. https://economy-finance.ec.europa.eu/document/download/8304f7c8-c0db-46aa-bd52-ffdd780d31b0_en?filename=dp086_en.pdf
  15. Çan, H., & Okur Dinçsoy, M. (2016). Kırılganlık göstergeleri ve kırılgan beşli ülkeleri üzerine bir inceleme. Akademik Sosyal Araştırmalar Dergisi(22), 199–217.
  16. Dimitrova, A., & Triki, D. (2018). Does state fragility matter for foreign direct investment? Evidence from southern and eastern Mediterranean countries. Management Decision, 56(8), 1787–1803. https://doi.org/10.1108/MD-03-2017-0252
  17. Doğru, B. (2014). Euro bölgesinde işsizlik histerezisinin ikinci nesil panel birim kök testleri ile analizi. Anadolu Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Dergisi, 14(3), 77–86. https://doi.org/10.18037/ausbd.86450
  18. Eğilmez, M. (2020, Mayıs 12). Rubikon. Kendime Yazılar. Retrieved February 3, 2024, from https://www.mahfiegilmez.com/2020/05/rubikon.html
  19. Emirmahmutoğlu, F., & Köse, N. (2011). Testing for granger causality in heterogeneous mixed panels. Economic Modelling, 28(3), 870–876. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2010.10.018
  20. Essers, D. (2015). Essays on developing country vulnerabilitiy to external shocks in light of the great recession. University of Antwerp Faculty of Applied Economics. https://repository.uantwerpen.be/docman/irua/89e45f/127586.pdf
  21. Hacıgökmen, F. (2019). Ekonomik kırılganlıklar; G-20 ülkeleri üzerinde bir inceleme. Politik Ekonomik Kuram, 3(2), 192–213. https://doi.org/10.30586/pek.615073
  22. Kamacı, A. (2019). Yeni kırılgan beşli ülkelerinde gelir eşitsizliğinin ekonomik büyümeye etkileri. Fiscaoeconomia, 3(3), 58–71. https://doi.org/10.25295/fsecon.2019.03.004
  23. Kaminsky, G. L., Lyons, R. K., & Schmukler, S. (2000). Economic fragility, liquidity, and risk: The behavior of mutual funds during crises (Unpublished Workpaper). Worldbank.
  24. Kaminsky, G., Lizondo, S., & Reinhart, C. M. (1998). Leading indicators of currency crises. IMF Econ Rev, 45, 1–48. https://doi.org/10.2307/3867328
  25. Karakurt, B., Şentürk, S. H., & Ela, M. (2015). Makroekonomik kırılganlık: Türkiye ve Şangay beşlisi karşılaştırması. Yönetim ve Ekonomi Araştırmaları Dergisi, 13(1), 283–307. https://doi.org/10.11611/JMER563
  26. Koçbulut, Ö., & Altıntaş, H. (2016). İkiz açıklar ve Feldstein-Horioka hipotezi: OECD ülkeleri üzerine yatay kesit bağımlılığı altında yapısal kırılmalı panel eşbütünleşme analizi. Erciyes Üniversitesi İktisadi ve İdari Bilimler Fakültesi Dergisi(48), 145–174. https://izlik.org/JA58CF46NE
  27. Koh, W. C., Kose, M. A., Nagle, P. S., Ohnsorge, F. L., & Sugawara, N. (2020). Debt and financial crises (World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 9116). The World Bank.
  28. Lin, M. Y. (2011). Foreign reserves and economic growth: Granger causality analysis with panel data. Economics Bulletin, 31(2), 1563–1575.
  29. Minsky, H. P. (1977). A theory of systemic fragility. Hyman P. Minsky archive. Retrieved February 10, 2024, from https://digitalcommons.bard.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1230&context=hm_archive
  30. Morgan Stanley. (2013). Global outlook: FX Pulse Preparing for volatility. https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/15343097/fx-pulse/1
  31. Nazlıoğlu, Ş. (2010). Makro iktisat politikalarının tarım sektörü üzerindeki etkisi: gelişmiş ve gelişmekte olan ülkeler için bir karşılaştırma [Unpublished doctoral dissertation]. Erciyes Üniversitesi.
  32. Özyıldız, H. (2014, Şubat 13). Kırılganlık göstergeleri. Hakan Özyıldız blog. Retrieved February 7, 2024, from http://www.hakanozyildiz.com/2014/02/krlganlk-gostergeleri.html
  33. Pesaran, M. H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels (CESifo Working Paper No. 1229), 1–40.
  34. Pesaran, M. H. (2006). A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross section dependency (Cambridge Working Papers in Economics No. 0346). https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.951
  35. Pesaran, M. H., & Yamagata, T. (2008). Testing slope homogeneity in large panels. Journal of Econometrics, 142(1), 50–93. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeconom.2007.05.010
  36. Pesaran, M. H., Ullah, A., & Yamagata, T. (2008). A bias‐adjusted lm test of error cross‐section independence. The Econometrics Journal, 11(1), 105–127. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1368-423X.2007.00227.x
  37. Polterovich, V., & Popov, V. (2003). Accumulation of Foreign Exchange Reserves and Long Term Growth (NES Working Paper). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1751866
  38. Reinhart, C. M., Rogoff, K. S., & Savastano, M. A. (2003). Debt intolerance. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 2003(1), 1–74. https://doi.org/10.3386/w10015
  39. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2009). This time is different: Eight centuries of financial folly. Princeton University Press.
  40. Reinhart, C. M., & Rogoff, K. S. (2010). Growth in a time of debt. American Economic Review, 100(2), 573–578. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.100.2.573
  41. Sachs, J. D., Cooper, R. N., & Fischer, S. (1981). The current account and macroeconomic adjustment in the 1970s. Brookings Papers on Economic Activity, 1981(1), 201–282. https://doi.org/10.2307/2534399
  42. Supriyadi, A. (2014, September). External vulnerability indicators: The case of Indonesia. In Seventh Irving Fisher Committee Conference (IFC) on Central Bank Statistics Biennial Conference (pp. 4–5).
  43. Swamy, P. A. (1970). Efficient inference in a random coefficient regression model. Econometrica, 38(2), 311–323. https://doi.org/10.2307/1913012
  44. Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709–748. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0084.2007.00477.x
  45. Wijnholds, J. O. D. B., & Kapteyn, A. (2001). Reserve adequacy in emerging market economies (IMF Working Paper No. 01/143). International Monetary Fund.
  46. Yıldız, F., & Bayraktar, Y. (2021). Kırılgan beşli ülkeleri orta-gelir tuzağında mı?: gelir yakınsaması ve panel veri analizine dayalı ampirik bir inceleme. Öneri Dergisi, 16(56), 451–477. https://doi.org/10.14783/maruoneri.927490
  47. Yiğiter, Ş. Y., & Sarı, S. S. (2022). Türkiye özelinde finansal kırılganlık ve temel ekonomik göstergeler. Muhasebe Enstitüsü Dergisi, 67, 1–13. https://doi.org/10.26650/MED.1121035
  48. Yücel, F., & Kalyoncu, H. (2010). Finansal krizlerin öncü göstergeleri ve ülke ekonomilerini etkileme kanalları: Türkiye örneği. Maliye Dergisi, 159, 53–69.