Araştırma Makalesi

Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility

Sayı: 37 29 Aralık 2022
PDF İndir
EN

Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility

Öz

This paper investigates the impact of global uncertainty on Turkey's exchange rate volatility via quantile regression approach. Using quantile regression approach, estimated uncertainty coefficients are allowed to differ over quantiles of the exchange rate volatility. The EGARCH model is the best fit for measuring exchange rate volatility due to the fact that exchange rate series exhibit “asymmetric volatility”. In this study we employed global economic policy uncertainty index- GEPU constructed by Baker et al. (2013) as a proxy of global uncertainty. Empirical results suggest that higher volatility of exchange rate is associated with a greater positive shock of GEPU. However, estimated parameters are statistically significant at lower exchange rate volatility since the CBRT intervenes the foreign exchange markets and restricts the excessive fluctuations in exchange rates to achieve financial stability.

Anahtar Kelimeler

Kaynakça

  1. Abid, A., & Rault, C. (2021). On The Exchange Rates Volatility and Economic Policy Uncertainty Nexus: A Panel Var Approach For Emerging Markets. Journal of Quantitative Economics, 19, 403–425.
  2. Aghion, P., P., Bacchett, R. R., & Rogoff, K. (2009). Exchange Rate Volatility and Productivity Growth: The Role of Financial Development. Journal of Monetary Economics, 56(4), 494–513.
  3. Al-Abri, A. (2013). Real Exchange Rate Volatility, Terms-Of-Trade Shocks, and Financial Integration in Primary-Commodity Exporting Economies. Economics Letters, 120(1), 126-129.
  4. Alam, M.R. (2015). Economic Policy Uncertainty in the US: Does It Matter for Canada? Economics Bulletin, 35(4), 2725-2732.
  5. Alam, M.R., & Istiak, K. (2020). Impact of US Policy Uncertainty on Mexico: Evidence from Linear and Nonlinear Tests. Quarterly Review of Economics & Finance, 77, 355-366.
  6. Alexius, A. (2005). Productivity Shocks and Real Exchange Rates. Journal of Monetary Economics, 52(3), 555-566.
  7. Bahmani‐Oskooee, M., & Hajilee, M. (2013). Exchange Rate Volatility and Its Impact on Domestic Investment. Research in Economics, 67(1), 1–12.
  8. Baker, S., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. (2013). Measuring Economic Policy Uncertainty. Chicago Booth Paper No: 13-02

Ayrıntılar

Birincil Dil

İngilizce

Konular

-

Bölüm

Araştırma Makalesi

Yayımlanma Tarihi

29 Aralık 2022

Gönderilme Tarihi

7 Mayıs 2022

Kabul Tarihi

20 Temmuz 2022

Yayımlandığı Sayı

Yıl 2022 Sayı: 37

Kaynak Göster

APA
Tümtürk, O. (2022). Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, 37, 69-84. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1112795
AMA
1.Tümtürk O. Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 2022;(37):69-84. doi:10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1112795
Chicago
Tümtürk, Oğuz. 2022. “Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility”. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, sy 37: 69-84. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1112795.
EndNote
Tümtürk O (01 Aralık 2022) Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics 37 69–84.
IEEE
[1]O. Tümtürk, “Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility”, EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, sy 37, ss. 69–84, Ara. 2022, doi: 10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1112795.
ISNAD
Tümtürk, Oğuz. “Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility”. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 37 (01 Aralık 2022): 69-84. https://doi.org/10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1112795.
JAMA
1.Tümtürk O. Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 2022;:69–84.
MLA
Tümtürk, Oğuz. “Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility”. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics, sy 37, Aralık 2022, ss. 69-84, doi:10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1112795.
Vancouver
1.Oğuz Tümtürk. Global Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility. EKOIST Journal of Econometrics and Statistics. 01 Aralık 2022;(37):69-84. doi:10.26650/ekoist.2022.37.1112795