DIŞ BORÇLARIN SÜRDÜRÜLEBİLİRLİĞİ: KIRILGAN BEŞLİ ÜLKELERİ PANEL EŞBÜTÜNLEŞME ANALİZİ

Year 2022, Volume: 9 Issue: 3, 1605 - 1629, 29.11.2022

Tuğba Akın , Sevcan Güneş

https://doi.org/10.30798/makuiibf.913340

Abstract

Küresel kriz ve Covid-19 pandemi etkisiyle yaşanan ekonomik daralma sonrası uygulanan genişletici para ve maliye politikaları sebebiyle borç sürdürebilirliği kavramı tüm ulusal ekonomilerin öncelikli sorunu haline gelmiştir. Bu bağlamda ödemeler dengesindeki ekonomik kırılganlıkları sebebiyle konunun özellikle Hindistan, Brezilya, Meksika, Güney Afrika ve Türkiye için analiz edilmesinin önemi artmıştır. Bu çalışmada özellikle makroekonomik değişkenlerdeki sorunlarının benzerlik göstermesi nedeniyle kırılgan beşli olarak da adlandırılan bu ülkelerin, borçlarının sürdürebilirliği Hakkio ve Rush (1991), Sawada (1994) ve Önel ve Utkulu (2006) metodolojisi kullanılarak 2001-2019 dönemi için analiz edilmiştir. Modelde; dış ticaret dengesi, merkez bankası döviz rezervlerindeki değişim, net cari transferler ve toplam borçlar üzerindeki faiz maliyeti (Libor ve CDS) verileri kullanılarak dış borç yaratan ve azaltan değişkenler arasındaki eşbütünleşme ilişkisi Panel ECM testi (Westerlund, 2007) ile incelenmiştir. Elde edilen panel eşbütünleşme katsayı tahmin sonuçlarına göre analiz edilen ülkeler için zayıf dış borç sürdürebilirliği bulunmuştur. Ülke bazında yapılan analiz sonuçları ise, sadece Meksika’nın dış borçlarının güçlü bir şekilde sürdürebilir olduğunu, CDS primi diğer ülkelere göre yüksek olan Türkiye’nin ise en zayıf dış borç sürdürebilir ülke olduğunu göstermiştir.

Keywords

Dış Borç, Sürdürebilirlik, Panel Eşbütünleşme.

SUSTAINABILITY OF EXTERNAL DEBT: PANEL COINTEGRATION ANALYSIS OF THE FRAGILE FIVE

Abstract

Expansionary monetary and fiscal policies implemented after the economic contraction brought on by the covid-19 pandemic and the ensuing global crisis caused the debt sustainability problem to become the primary concern of all national economies. Consequently, analyzing India, Brazil, Mexico, South Africa and Turkey has become more important as these countries have structural weaknesses in their balance of payments. In this study, the debt sustainability of these countries, which are also known as the fragile five due to their similar problems in macroeconomic variables, was analyzed for the period of 2001-2019. The paper adopts the methodology developed by Hakkio and Rush (1991), Sawada (1994), and Önel and Utkulu (2006). In this context, the cointegration relationship between the variables that cause and decrease external debt was examined using the Panel ECM test (Westerlund, 2007). This paper utilzies countries’ trade balance, change in central bank currency reserves, net public transfers and interest rate (Libor and CDS) on total debt as variables. Results of the panel cointegration test show that the countries’ sustainability of external debt is weak. The country-level analyses show that only Mexico has strong external debt sustainability and Turkey, having the highest CDS premium among the five, has the weakest external debt sustainability

Keywords

External Debt, Sustainability, Panel Co-integration

References

• Baharumshah, A. Z., Lau, E., and Fountas, S. (2003). On teh sustainability of current account deficits: evidence from four ASEAN countries. Journal of Asian economics, 14(3), 465-487.
• Bahmani-Oskooee, M., and Domac, I. (1995). Teh Long-Run Relation between Imports and Exports in an LDC: Evidence from Turkey. METU Studies in Development, 22, 177–189.
• Bai, J., and Serena Ng. (2004).A Panic Attack on Unit Roots and Cointegration. Econometrica,72(4), pp. 1127-1177.
• Bean, C.R., (1991) Teh external constraint in teh U.K., in: G. Algoskoufis, L. Papademos and R. Portes, eds., External constraints on macroeconomic policy: Teh European experience, 193-215,Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Eberhardt, M., and Bond, S. (2009). Cross-section dependencein nonstationary panel models: A novel esitimator. MPRA, Paper no:17692, 07.10.2009.
• Eberhardt, M., and Teal, F. (2010). Productivity analysis in global manufacturing production. University of Oxford, Department of Economics Discussion Paper Series, Number 515, November, 2010.
• Breusch, T. S., and Pagan A.R. (1980). Teh Lagrange multiplier test and its applications to model specification in econometrics. Teh Review of Economic Studies, 47(1), pp. 239-253.
• Chudik, A., Pesaran M. H., and Tosetti, E. (2011). Weak and strong cross‐section dependence and estimation of large panels. Teh Econometrics Journal,14(1), pp. 45-90.
• Çukurçayır, S.(2014). Türkiye ekonomisinde dış borçların sürdürülebilirliği: Eşbütünleşme Analizi, Sosyoekonomi, Cilt 22,Sayı 22,9-32.
• Dolado, J.J., and Vinals,J. (1991). Macroeconomic policy, external targets and constraints: Teh case of Spain, in: G. Algoskoufis, L. Papademos and R. Portes, eds., External constraints on macroeconomic policy: Teh European experience, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
• Fincke,B., and Greiner, A.(2010). Do governments in developing countries pursue sustainable debt policies? Empirical evidence for selected countries in Africa and Latin America, Journal of Development Studies,Vol. 46, No. 4, 745–770.
• Hakkio, C.S., and Rush, M. (1991). Is teh budget deficit too large?”. Economic Inquiry, 29,429–445.
• Garcia, M., and Rigabon, R., (2004). A risk management approach to Emerging Market's sovereign debt sustainability with an application to Brazilian data, NBER, Working Paper No: 10336.
• Gapen, M.T., Gray, D.F., Lim, C.H., and Xiao, Y., (2008). Measuring and analyzing sovereign risk with contingent claims, IMF Working Paper, Vol. 55, No. 1,1-40.
• Göktaş, H., and Hepsag,A. (2015) Teh analysis of external debt sustainability by periodic unit root test with structural break: teh case of Turkey, Research in Applied Economics, ISSN 1948-5433, Vol. 7, No. 4.
• Global Financial Stability Report (2020). World economic and financial surveys, International Monetary Fund, 2002, 0258-7440.
• Hamilton, J.D., and Flavin, M.A. (1986). On teh limitations of government borrowing: A framework for emprical testing, American Economic Review,76, 809-819.
• Hostland, D., and Karam, P., (2005). Assessing debt sustainability in Emerging Market Economies using stochastic simulation methods, (No.2005-2226), World Bank Publications.
• Mohammadi, H., Cak, M., and Cak, D. (2007). Capital mobility and foreign debt sustainability: some evidence from Turkey. Applied Economics, 39, 2441–2449.http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00036840600707274.
• Önel, G., and Utkulu, U. (2006). Modeling teh long-run sustainability of Turkish external debt with structural changes. Economic Modelling, 23, 669–682. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2006.03.006.
• Kıran, B. (2012). Teh sustainability of Turkish external debt: evidence from fractionally ıntegrated approach under structural breaks. Ekonomska istraživanja, 25, 21–33.
• Kremer, M.(1993). Teh 0-ring theory of economic development, Teh Quarterly Journal of Economics, 108(3):551-575
• Pesaran, M.H. (2004). General diagnostic tests for cross section dependence in panels. CESifo Working Papers, No.1233, pp. 255–60.
• Pesaran M.H., Ullah A., and Yamagata T. (2008). A bias-adjusted LM test of error cross-section independence. Teh Econometrics Journal, 11(1), pp.105–127.
• Roubini, N. (2001). Debt sustainability: How to assess whether a country is insolvent?, Stern School of Business, New York University, New York, USA.
• Benassy-Quere, A. Coeure, B.,Jacquet, P., and Pisani-Ferry,J. (2010). Economic Policy Theory and Practice, Oxford University Press Inc.,1-724, Newyork, USA.
• Sawada, Y. (1994). Are teh heavily indebted countries solvent?: Tests of intertemporal borrowing constraints. Journal of Development Economic, 45, 325–337.
• Swamy, R. N. (1971). Dynamic Poisson's ratio of portland cement paste, mortar and concrete. Cement and Concrete Research, 1(5), 559-583.
• Trehan B., and Walsh, C.E. (1988). Common trends, teh government's budget constraint, and revenue smoothing, Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12,425-444.
• Trehan, B., and Walsh, C.E. (1991). Testing intertemporal budget constraints: Theory and applications to U.S. federal budget and current account deficits. Journal of Money,Credit, and Banking, 23, 206–223. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/1992777
• Tiftik, M.E. (2006). Assessing domestic debt sustainability of Turkey with a risk management approach, ODTÜ Yüksek Lisans Tezi, Tez No. 205014. 1-134.Eişim adresi: https://tez.yok.gov.tr/UlusalTezMerkezi/tezDetay.jsp?id=CBD-0t5Qf_-KaXqOVmCtUQ&no=5dnjXi6m2w_3ow5MkF4SFg
• TÜİK (2020). https://data.tuik.gov.tr/Kategori/GetKategori?p=ulusal-hesaplar-113&dil=1
• Utkulu, U. (1994). Cointegration analysis: introductory survey withvapplications to Turkey, M. Güneş, Ş. Üçdoruk ve M.V. Pazarlıoğlu (ed.), I. Ulusal Ekonometri ve İstatistik Sempozyumu ve Bildirileri içerisinde, (11-12 Kasım 1993), 303-24, İzmir.
• Utkulu, U. (1998). Are Turkish external deficits sustainable? evidence from teh cointegrating relationship between exports and imports. D.E.U. İ.İ.B.F. Journal, 13,119–132.
• Utkulu, U. (1999). Is teh Turkish external debt sustainable? evidence from unit root testing. Yapı Kredi Economic Review, 10, 55–65.
• UNCTAD (2019). Handbook of Statistics,1-104, https://unctad.org/system/files/official-document/tdstat44_en.pdf.
• Yılancı, V., and Özcan, B. (2008). External debt sustainability of Turkey: A nonlinear approach. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 20, 91–98.
• Westerlund, J. (2007). Testing for error correction in panel data. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 69(6), 709-748.
• Westerlund, J., and Larsson, R. (2009).A note on teh pooling of individual PANIC unit root tests. Econometric Theory, 25(6), 1851-1868.
• World Economic Outlook (2020), World Economic Outlook, October 2020: A Long and Difficult Ascent, IMF World Economic Outlook Reports, https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WEO/Issues/2020/09/30/world-economic-outlook-october-2020
• Wilcox, D.W., (1989) Teh Sustainability of Government Decits: Implications of teh Present-Value Borrowing Constraint, Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, Vol.21, No:3 (August), Page 291-306.