SavedAdd your journal

Journals / İktisat ve Sosyal Bilimlerde Güncel Araştırmalar / 2018 / Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2

Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Level of Capital Mobility in EU Members

Küresel Finansal Krizin AB Üyelerinde Sermaye Hareketliliğine Olan Etkisi

Natalya KETENCİ
Pages
255–280
Publication Date
2018-12-02
DOI
—
🏛️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 application of the GMM framework provides results that do not support the validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle in most of the estimated countries in the EU.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:This study investigates the level of capital mobility in European Union members and the impact of the global financial crisis.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study employs the standard generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation technique, developed by Hansen (1982).
💡
Conclusion & Impact:The application of the GMM framework provides results that do not support the validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle in most of the estimated countries in the EU.
🔬Design:Modeling & Simulation
📍Scope:2013 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Sermaye hareketliliği · Feldstein-Horioka problemi · tasarruf-yatırım ilişkisi

Abstract

This study investigates the level of capital mobility in European Union members and the impact of the global financial crisis. This study employs the standard generalized method of moments (GMM) estimation technique, developed by Hansen (1982). The GMM was first introduced for time series data and is generally used to correct for bias caused by endogenous explanatory variables. The GMM weighting matrix accounts for serial correlation of unknown form and for heteroskedasticity. The validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle is investigated in this study in the presence of the global financial crisis. This study estimates quarterly data for 27 European countries for the period of 1995-2013. High capital mobility is supported by results; however, consideration of the global financial crisis in the model revealed decline in capital mobility. The application of the GMM framework provides results that do not support the validity of the Feldstein-Horioka puzzle in most of the estimated countries in the EU.

Özet

Bu çalışma Avrupa Birliği üyeleri arasında sermaye hareketliliği ile küresel finansal krizin sermaye hareketliliğine olan etkisini incelemektedir. Çalışmada Hansen (1982)’de geliştirilen Genelleştirilmiş Momentler Metodu (GMM) kullanılmıştır. GMM zaman serileri için geliştirilmiş, sonrasında dışsal açıklayıcı değişkenlerdeki sapmanın düzeltilmesi için kullanılmıştır. GMM ağırlık matrisi, bilinmeyen değişken varyansın yarattığı seri korelasyonun değerlendirilmesinde kullanılır. Bu çalışmada, finansal kriz dönemlerinde Feldstein-Horioka probleminin geçerliliği sınanmıştır. Çalışmada 27 Avrupa ülkesinin 1995-2013 dönemi üçer aylık veri seti kullanılmıştır. Sonuçlar araştırmaya konu olan 27 AB üyesi ülke arasında yüksek sermaye hareketliliği olduğunu destekler niteliktedir, ancak, küresel finansal kriz döneminde model sermaye hareketliliğinde bir azalma tespit etmiştir. GMM modeli, tahminlerin yürütüldüğü 27 AB üyesi için Feldstein-Horioka probleminin geçerliğini destekler nitelikte sonuçlar üretmemiştir.

🔖

Cite This Article

KETENCİ, N. (2018). Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on the Level of Capital Mobility in EU Members. İktisat ve Sosyal Bilimlerde Güncel Araştırmalar, Cilt: 2 - Sayı: 2, 255–280. https://ajindex.com/articles/833623

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (12)

  1. Abbott, A. J., & Vita, G. D. (2003). Another Piece in the Feldstein — Horioka Puzzle. Scottish Journal of Political Economy, 50(1), 69–89. https://doi.org/10.1111/1467-9485.00255
  2. Adedeji, O., & Thornton, J. (2008). International capital mobility: Evidence from panel cointegration tests. Economics Letters, 99(2), 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econlet.2007.08.001 Argimón, I., & Roldán, J. (1994). Saving, investment and international capital mobility in EC countries. European Economic Review, 38(1), 59–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/0014-2921(94)90005-1
  3. Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2005). Openness, size, and the saving–investment relationship. Economic Systems, 29(3), 283–293. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2005.06.001
  4. Baxter, M., & Crucini, M. J. (1993). Explaining Saving--Investment Correlations. The American Economic Review, 83(3), 416–436.
  5. Bodman, P. P. M. (1995). National Savings and Domestic Investment in the Long Term: Some Time Series Evidence from the Oecd. International Economic Journal, 9(2), 37–60. https://doi.org/10.1080/10168739500000011
  6. Caporale, G. M., Panopoulou, E., & Pittis, N. (2005). The Feldstein–Horioka puzzle revisited: A Monte Carlo study. Journal of International Money and Finance, 24(7), 1143–1149. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jimonfin.2005.08.003
  7. Chakrabarti, A. (2006). The saving–investment relationship revisited: New evidence from multivariate heterogeneous panel cointegration analyses. Journal of Comparative Economics, 34(2), 402–419. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jce.2006.02.001
  8. Chen, S.-W., & Shen, C.-H. (2015). Revisiting the Feldstein–Horioka puzzle with regime switching: New evidence from European countries. Economic Modelling, 49, 260–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2015.03.020
  9. Chortareas, G., George, K., & Uctum, M. (2004). An Investigation of Current Account Solvency in Latin America Using Non Linear Nonstationarity Tests. Studies in Nonlinear Dynamics & Econometrics, 8(1), 1–19.
  10. Christopoulos, D. K. (2007). A reassessment of the Feldstein-Horioka hypothesis of perfect capital mobility: evidence from historical data. Empirica, 34(3), 273–280. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-007-9044-1
  11. Coakley, J., Kulasi, F., & Smith, R. (1996). Current account solvency and the Feldstein–Horioka puzzle. Economic Journal 106(May), 620–627.
  12. Corbin, A. (2001). Country specific effect in the Feldstein–Horioka paradox: a panel data analysis. Economics Letters, 72(3), 297–302. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0165-1765(01)00447-5 Di Iori