SavedAdd your journal

Journals / TESAM Akademi Dergisi / 2026 / Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2

Corporate Investment and Leverage Decisions in Asean Economies: The Role of Geopolitical Risk

Asean Ekonomilerinde Kurumsal Yatırım ve Kaldıraç Kararları: Jeopolitik Riskin Rolü

Feyzullah Esad Şekkeli(KARABUK UNIVERSITY)0000-0002-6414-4463
Pages
779–804
Publication Date
2026-07-31
🏛️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)

Overall, the findings of this study are consistent with the Pecking Order Theory, which suggests that more profitable firms prefer internal finance to debt finance.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of geopolitical risk (GPR) on the investment and leverage policies of publicly traded firms in five major ASEAN economies, namely, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam, from 2000 to 2024.
📊
Key Findings & Data:In this context, the study employed a fixed effects model and revealed that, in general, GPR has a statistically significant negative effect on investment and leverage policies of firms.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Overall, the findings of this study are consistent with the Pecking Order Theory, which suggests that more profitable firms prefer internal finance to debt finance.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2000 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Jeopolitik Risk · Kurumsal Yatırım · ASEAN Ekonomileri

Abstract

The purpose of this study is to evaluate the impact of geopolitical risk (GPR) on the investment and leverage policies of publicly traded firms in five major ASEAN economies, namely, Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, and Vietnam, from 2000 to 2024. In this context, the study employed a fixed effects model and revealed that, in general, GPR has a statistically significant negative effect on investment and leverage policies of firms. In particular, the study revealed that GPR has a negative effect on investment in the Philippines and Vietnam, while GPR is positively related to investment in Thailand. In contrast, GPR is not related to investment in Indonesia and Malaysia. Overall, the findings of this study are consistent with the Pecking Order Theory, which suggests that more profitable firms prefer internal finance to debt finance.

Özet

Bu çalışmanın amacı, 2000'den 2024'e kadar beş büyük ASEAN ekonomisindeki (Endonezya, Tayland, Filipinler, Malezya ve Vietnam) halka açık şirketlerin yatırım ve kaldıraç politikaları üzerinde jeopolitik riskin (GPR) etkisini değerlendirmektir. Bu bağlamda çalışma, sabit etkiler modeli kullanmış ve genel olarak GPR'nin şirketlerin yatırım ve kaldıraç politikaları üzerinde istatistiksel olarak anlamlı ve negatif bir etkiye sahip olduğunu ortaya koymuştur. Özellikle çalışma; GPR'nin Filipinler ve Vietnam'da yatırım üzerinde negatif bir etkiye sahip olduğunu, Tayland'da ise yatırım ile pozitif ilişkili olduğunu saptamıştır. Buna karşılık, Endonezya ve Malezya'da GPR'nin yatırım ile bir ilişkisi bulunmamaktadır. Genel olarak bu çalışmanın bulguları, daha kârlı firmaların iç finansmanı borç finansmanına tercih ettiğini öne süren Finansman Hiyerarşisi Teorisi (Pecking Order Theory) ile uyumludur.

🔖

Cite This Article

Şekkeli, F. E. (2026). Corporate Investment and Leverage Decisions in Asean Economies: The Role of Geopolitical Risk. TESAM Akademi Dergisi, Cilt: 13 Sayı: 2, 779–804. https://doi.org/10.30626/tesamakademi.1902632

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (19)

  1. Blundell, R., & Bond, S. (1998). Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models. Journal of Econometrics, 87(1), 115–143. DOI: 10.1016/S0304-4076(98)00009-8 Bussy, A., & Zheng, H. (2023). Responses of FDI to geopolitical risks: The role of governance, information, and technology. International Business Review, 32(4), 102136. DOI: 10.1016/j.ibusrev.2023.102136
  2. Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225. DOI: 10.1257/aer.20191823
  3. Das, D., Dharmani, P., Dutta, A., & Basu, S. (2025). The role of security measures: Addressing geopolitical risk in Indian hospitality investments. Tourism Economics. DOI: 10.1177/13548166241312732
  4. Deesomsak, R., Paudyal, K., & Pescetto, G. (2004). The determinants of capital structure: Evidence from the Asia Pacific region. Journal of Multinational Financial Management, 14(4-5), 387–405. DOI: 10.1016/j.mulfin.2004.03.001
  5. Hsu, Y., & Fang, J. (2024). Effects of firm-level geopolitical risk on leverage. Applied Economics. Advance online publication. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2024.2425112
  6. Kim, M. (2011). Theorizing ASEAN integration. Asian Perspective, 35(3), 407–435. DOI: 10.1353/apr.2011.0005
  7. Kotcharin, S., & Maneenop, S. (2020). Geopolitical risk and shipping firms’ capital structure decisions in Belt and Road Initiative countries. International Journal of Logistics Research and Applications, 23(6), 544–560. DOI: 10.1080/13675567.2020.1766003
  8. Lai, F., Xiong, D., Zhu, S., Li, Y., & Tan, Y. (2023). Will geopolitical risks only inhibit corporate investment? Evidence from China. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 82, 102134. DOI: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.102134
  9. Lee, C., Zhang, J., Yu, C., & Fang, L. (2023). How does geopolitical risk affect corporate innovation? Evidence from China’s listed companies. Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, 59(7), 2217–2233. DOI: 10.1080/1540496X.2023.2170698
  10. Myers, S. C. (1977). Determinants of corporate borrowing. Journal of Financial Economics, 5(2), 147–175. DOI: 10.1016/0304-405X(77)90015-0
  11. Pathak, S. (2022). Enhancing risk governance and sustainability in times of COVID-19: Experiences and repercussions from Thailand. In R. Shaw & I. Pal (Eds.), Pandemic risk, response, and resilience (pp. 29–40). Elsevier. DOI: 10.1016/B978-0-323-99277-0.00033-4
  12. Rumokoy, L., Omura, A., & Roca, E. (2023). Geopolitical risk and corporate investment in the metals and mining industry: Evidence from Australia. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 79, 101991. DOI: 10.1016/j.pacfin.2023.101991
  13. Tahalele, M. P., Dhiaulhaq, A., Putra, R. A., Affandi, R. A., Arnakim, L. Y., & Mursitama, T. N. (2022). The trajectory and trend of international political economy in Southeast Asia. JAS (Journal of ASEAN Studies), 10(2), 227–248. DOI: 10.21512/jas.v10i2.9184
  14. Tan, O., Cavlak, H., Cebeci, Y., & Güneş, N. (2022). The impact of geopolitical risk on corporate investment: Evidence from Turkish firms. The Indonesian Capital Market Review, 14(1), 1–13. DOI: 10.21002/icmr.v14i1.1138
  15. Tekin, H. (2024). Investment policy, geopolitical risk and the role of institutions: International evidence. Journal of Central Banking Law and Institutions, 3(3), 523–546. DOI: 10.21098/jcli.v3i3.165
  16. Wang, J., Zhang, L., & Sun, Y. (2025). Geopolitical risk and corporate environmental investment. Applied Economics, 10951–10965. DOI: 10.1080/00036846.2025.2449620
  17. Wang, X., Wu, Y., & Xu, W. (2019). Geopolitical risk and investment. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 51(7), 1841–1866. DOI: 10.2139/ssrn.3305739
  18. Wen, Y., Tao, Y., & Tang, H. (2024). Geopolitical risk, digital transformation, and corporate outward foreign direct investment. Finance Research Letters, 68, 106171. DOI: 10.1016/j.frl.2024.106171
  19. Yaghoubi, M. (2024). Executive characteristics as moderators: Exploring the impact of geopolitical risk on capital structure decisions. International Review of Financial Analysis, 93, 103188. DOI: 10.1016/j.irfa.2024.103188