i
OGBONNA CHUKWUMA BIG-BEN
PG/Ph.D/11/60227
INVESTIGATING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FISCAL DEFICITS AND CURRENT ACCOUNT IMBALANCE: EVIDENCE FROM NIGERIA AND SOUTH
AFRICA ,
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE
Paul Okeke
Digitally Signed by: Content manager’s Name
DN : CN = Webmaster’s name
O= University of Nigeria, Nsukka
OU = Innovation Centre
ii
INVESTIGATING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FISCAL DEFICITS AND CURRENT ACCOUNT IMBALANCE:
EVIDENCE FROM NIGERIA AND SOUTH AFRICA,
1960 – 2011
BY
OGBONNA CHUKWUMA BIG-BEN
PG/Ph.D/11/60227
DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND FINANCE,
FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,
UNIVERSITY OF NIGERIA, ENUGU CAMPUS
OCTOBER, 2014
iii
INVESTIGATING THE CAUSAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN FISCAL DEFICITS AND CURRENT ACCOUNT IMBALANCE:
EVIDENCE FROM NIGERIA AND SOUTH AFRICA,
1960 – 2011
BY
OGBONNA CHUKWUMA BIG-BEN
PG/Ph.D/11/60227
A Ph.D. THESIS SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT OF BANKING AND
FINANCE, FACULTY OF BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION, UNIVERSITY OF
NIGERIA, ENUGU CAMPUS.
SUPERVISOR: Prof. U. C. UCHE
OCTOBER, 2014
iv
DECLARATION
I, OGBONNA, CHUKWUMA BIG-BEN, a postgraduate student in the Department of
Banking and Finance with Number PG/Ph.D./11/60227 declare that the work
incorporated I this thesis is original and has not been submitted either in part or
in full for any other Degree or Diploma of this University or any or any other
Institution of higher learning.
………………………………………… …………………
OGBONNA, CHUKWUMA BIG-BEN DATE
PG/Ph.D./11/60227
v
APPROVAL
This is to certify that this thesis by Ogbonna Chukwuma BigBen with registration
number PG/Ph.D/11/60227 presented to the department of Banking and Finance,
University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus was supervised and approved to have met
the conditions necessary for the award of a Doctorate Degree (Ph.D) in Banking
and Finance of the University.
…………………… ……………………
PROF. U. C UCHE DATE
(SUPERVISOR)
……………………… ……………………
Dr. CHUKE NWUDE DATE
HEAD OF DEPARTMENT
vi
DEDICATION
This study is dedicated to my ever loving wife and children.
vii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I would like to thank a number of persons who have lent their kind support and
made useful suggestions throughout the research process. First and foremost, my
immense gratitude goes to my supervisors, Prof. C. U. Uche of the Department of
Banking and Finance, University of Nigeria, Enugu Campus, for his pro-active
supervision, brilliant observations and suggestions, professional advice, selfless
and persistent efforts in seeing to successful and timely conclusion of this study.
The contributions of all the academic staff of Banking and Finance Department,
University of Nigeria Enugu Campus (through their respective roles in the peer
review mechanism adopted for this study) are highly appreciated by the author. I
must have been leaving a wide lacuna, if I should fail to immensely thank Engr.
Gabriel Emerike, the Project Coordinator, Ebonyi State Community Based Urban
viii
Development Project (World Bank Assisted) for his tolerance, and patience with
me and allowing me access to the internet facilities throughout the period of this
study. In the same vein I say a big “thank you” to all the members of Project
Implementation Unit (PIU) for their co-operation. Above all, I graciously thank the
Almighty God for giving me the grace and fitness to conduct and conclude this
study.
OGBONNA, CHUKWUMA BIG-BEN
PG/Ph.D./11/60277
ABSTRACT
This study examines the empirical relationship between fiscal deficit and current
account imbalance employing data for Nigeria and South Africa for the period of
1960 to 2011. We employ co-integration analysis and, VEC and VAR granger non
causality process to investigate the existence of long-run and short term
causalities for the economies under consideration. The results indicate no
evidence of twin deficits hypothesis for both Nigeria and South Africa in the short-
run. For Nigeria, evidence of twin deficits hypothesis is identified in the long-run.
The absence of evidence of the twin deficits phenomenon for both Nigeria and
South Africa in the short-run time frame, suggests that the Ricardian equivalence
proposition (REP) holds for the economies under consideration within such time
horizon. This concept is of the view that since people are rational, they know that
ix
the reduction in taxes, resulting from the government expansionary fiscal policy
of tax cut or increase in public debt, is temporal and will save the extra disposable
income to pay for the future higher taxes. This suggests that the national savings
position will be sustained because the decrease in government savings
represented by increased fiscal deepening will be equitably compensated by the
additional precautionary private savings for expected future increase in taxes.
This designates fiscal balance variable as exogenous to current account balance
model and indicates lack of responsiveness of private consumption to fiscal
impulse. This casts doubts on the efficacy of the use of fiscal policy in the
management of external balance. This in effect suggests that fiscal policy should
not be intended for improvement in current account balance or in the least
should not be used in isolation to supervise developments in current account
stance in the short-run for both Nigeria and South Africa. The identification of
twin deficits hypothesis for Nigeria in the long-run suggests that use of fiscal
policy in the management of external balance may be advisable, which in effect
implies that fiscal policy may be intended for improvement in current account
balance in the long-run. The hallmark contribution to knowledge by this study is
the revelation from the results that intensity of Ricardian equivalence in any
economy may further be dependent on the poverty level of its citizens and the
level of per capita income in the economy.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pages
Cover Page i
Title Page ii
Declaration iii
Approval iv
Dedication v
Acknowledgement vi
Abstract vii
x
Table of Contents viii
List of Tables xi
List of Figures xii
CHAPTER ONE: INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study 1
1.2 Statement of the Problem
8
1.3 Objective of the Study 12
1.4 The Research Questions 13
1.5 The Research Hypothesis 14
1.6 Scope of the Study 15
1.7 Significance of the Study 15
1.8 The Operational Definition of Terms 17
References 20
CHAPTER TWO: REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURES
2.1 Theoretical Review 24
2.2 Empirical Review 34
2.3 Summary of Empirical Review 65
References 68
CHAPTER THREE: RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
xi
3.1 Research Design 75
3.2 Model Specification 77
3.3 Data Discussion 86
3.4 Data Source 88
3.5 Econometric Procedure 88
References 101
CHAPTER FOUR: PRESENTATION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
4.1 Summary Statistic of Variables used: Nigeria & South Africa 103
4.2 Unit Root Test 106
4.3 Test of Research Hypothesis 110
4.3.1 Hypothesis One 110
4.3.1.1 Using Nigeria Data 111
4.3.1.2 Using South Africa Data 113
4.3.2 Hypothesis Two 114
4.3.2.1 Using Nigeria Data Set 115
4.3.2.2 Using South Africa Data Set 119
4.3.3 Hypothesis Three 121
4.3.3.1 Using Nigeria Data Set 122
4.3.3.2 Using South Africa Data Set 126
xii
4.3.4 Hypothesis Four 128
4.3.4.1 Using Nigeria Data Set 129
4.3.4.2 Using South Africa Data Set 131
4.3.5 Hypothesis Five 132
4.4 Complementary Results 133
4.4.1 Impulse Response Function for Nigeria and South Africa 133
4.4.2 Forecast Error Variation Decomposition Test 136
4.5 Stability Test 138
4.6 Discussion of Results 139
4.7 Comparative Analysis and Justification of Results 145
References 148
CHAPTER FIVE: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION
&RECOMMENDATIONS.
5.1 Summary of Findings 150
5.2 Major Contributions to Knowledge 154
5.3 Conclusions 155
5.4 Recommendations 156
5.5 Suggestions for Further Research 156
Bibliography 158
Appendix 169
xiii
List of Tables
Table 1: Summary Statistic of Variables Used for Nigeria 104
Table 2: Summary Statistic of Variables Used for South Africa 104
Table 3: Unit Root Test of Data for Nigeria 108
Table 4: Unit Root Test of Data for South Africa 109
Table 5: Test for Co integration for Nigeria 112
Table 6: Estimates of Long-Run Co-integrating Vectors (Linearised) 113
Table 7: Co integration Test for South Africa 114
Table 8: Causality Test for Twin Deficits Hypothesis for South Africa 118
Table 9: Causality Test for Current Account Targeting for Nigeria 119
Table 10: Causality Test for Current Account Targeting for South Africa 121
Table 11: Granger Non Causality Test Results for Nigeria 124
Table 12: Granger Non Causality Test Results for South Africa 126
Table 13: Vector Autoregressive Estimates (Equation 12) 128
Table 14: Current Account Balance Variance Decomposition
for Nigeria 171
Table 15: Current Account Balance Variance Decomposition
for South Africa 171
xiv
List of Figure Figure 1:
Impulse Response Functions Graphs for South Africa 169
Figure 2: Cusum Test for Equation Stability for South Africa 172
Figure 3: Impulse Response Functions Multiple Graphs for Nigeria 170
Figure 4: Cusum Test for Equation Stability for Nigeria 172
xv
1
CHAPTER ONE INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background to the Study
The association between fiscal policy dynamics and the current account
innovations started to draw the attention among academics, economists and policy
makers alike by the 80’s when record budget deficit (BDEF) and current account
deficit (CADEF) emerged in many countries, including the United States. For
example, the possible link between fiscal deficits and current account deficits has
spurred many studies analyzing the “twin deficit” hypothesis, particularly for the
case of the United States. For many countries where current account imbalances
are particularly huge, a relevant question has been to what extent fiscal adjustment
can contribute in resolving external imbalances.
Twin deficits hypothesis asserts that an increase in budget deficit will cause a
similar increase in current account deficit. But the results of testing this hypothesis
turned out different for different countries, and moreover, the results differ in the
case of using different econometric techniques and model specifications for the
same country data (Mukhtar, Zakaria and Ahmed, 2007). The close correlation
observed between these two deficits does not imply any causal relation between
2
the two. This suggests that, identifying the causal relation between these deficits is
essential and would have different policy implications. Theoretically, there are five
possible scenarios about the causal relationship between budget and trade deficits:
The first one is called the Twin Deficit Hypothesis which posits positive and
significant causal relation between budget deficit and current account deficit with
budget causing current account. The second, which is referred to as current account
targeting, just like the Twin Deficit Hypothesis posits positive and significant
causal relation between budget deficit and current account imbalance, but this time,
with current account balance causing government budget deficit. The third, is the
twin divergence hypothesis which proposes negative causal relationship between
the twin anomalies; the fourth, is the scenario of bi-directional causal
correspondence between fiscal deficit and current account imbalance, and finally,
the Ricardian Equivalent proposition which predicts that the two deficits share no
significant causal relationship and therefore are independent.
Studies in favour of the twin deficits hypothesis include those undertaken by Abell
(1990); Islam (1998); Zietiz & Pemberton (1990); Bachman (1992); Kasak
(1994); Vamvoukas (1999); Aqeel & Nishat (2000); Piersanti (2000); Leachman
& Francis (2002); Cavallo (2005); and Erceg, Guerrieri., & Gust (2005). Results
of these studies supported the conventional view that the twin deficits share
3
positive association and that causality runs from budget deficit to current account
deficit.
Furthermore, Laney (1984); Miller & Rusek (1989); Dewold & Ulan (1990);
Enders & Lee (1990); Boucher (1991); Evans (1993); Winner (1993); Kim
(1995); Bartlett (1999); Papaioannou, Kei – Mu Yi (2001); and Kaufmann et al.,
(2002) support the view of Ricardian Equivalent as they failed to identify any
stable Long-run relationship between the two deficits.
In the same vein, while Darret (1988); Kearney & Monadjemi (1990); and
Normandin (1999) have reported evidence in support of bi-directional causality
between the twin deficits (suggesting mutual dependence of the bi-variate model),
some other studies as Anoruo & Ramchander (1998); Khalid & Teo (1999); and
Alkswani (2000) support the reverse causuality running from current account to
budget deficit, which in Summers terminology is refered to as current account
targeting (Summers, 1988). There is also a fifth scenario that portrays the
possibility of a negative relationship between the deficits where, for example,
output shocks give rise to endogenous movements of the budget deficit and current
account deficit that are divergent (Holmes, 2004).
4
Questions concerning the relations between fiscal policy, the current account, and
the exchange rate are of great analytical and empirical interest. From the
theoretical point of view, numerous models suggest that a fiscal expansion should
lead to a worsening of the current account and an appreciation of the real exchange
rate. The prime empirical example of such a relation is usually argued to be the
experience of the United States with “twin deficits” in the first half of the 1980s
(Soyoung & Nouriel, 2007). The standard Mundell-Fleming analysis argues that a
deficit financed expansionary fiscal policy will lead to an increased trade deficit
through either stimulated income growth in a fixed exchange rate scenario or
exchange rate appreciation in a flexible exchange rate regime. This gives rise to
twin deficits based on a positive co-movement and thus suggests the possibility of
using the budget deficit as a means of influencing the current account deficit.
But in contrast, a Ricardian equivalence scenario suggests that there is no positive
co-movement for the fact that domestic residents may anticipate that government
will raise taxes in the future to close the fiscal gap in order to pay back the
accumulated debt. This thinking was evidenced in the works of Evans, 1988,
Miller & Russek, (1989); Dewald & Ulan (1990); Enders & Lee (1990) and Kim
(1995). There is also a third scenario that portrays the possibility of a negative
relationship between the deficits where, for example, output shocks give rise to
5
endogenous movements of the budget deficit and current account deficit that are
divergent (Holmes, 2004).
This suggests that problem of twin deficits has been one of the most disputed
issues in economics as different schools of thoughts have different ideas about the
relationship between budget deficits and current account deficits in both developed
and developing countries. Twin deficits are observed as a long-run (positive)
relationship between the current account and the budget deficit, including some
other factors (McCaskey & Kao, 1999). According by Stockman (2000), study of
twin deficit phenomena got serious attention from researchers due to the reason
that in most of the situation, twin deficits may leads to economic harms and hurt
economic growth. However, sometimes current account deficit is due to the
investment opportunities created by technical transformation, while in some other
times it results from reduction in saving rate, which may be due to the change in
consumer expenditures, changes in tax rate or changes in fiscal balance.
How does each policy lead from a budget deficit to deterioration in the current
account balance? First, consider the policy based on an increase in government
spending. When the budget deficit increases, domestic residents anticipate that the
government will raise taxes in the future to close the fiscal gap and pay back the
6
accumulated debt. To pay for the expected future increases in taxes, people will
want to save and accumulate wealth. This they can do in two ways—by spending
less and by boosting their income by increasing the number of hours they work.
To the extent that people choose the second route and increase the hours they
work, they make the capital stock more productive, which fosters more private
investment. The increase in investment partially offsets the increase in private
saving, so that, overall, the current account balance deteriorates in response to the
deterioration of the government fiscal balance. Next, consider the policy based on
a persistent reduction in capital and labor tax rates. After the tax rate cuts, people
choose to work harder and increase the number of hours worked to take advantage
of the increase in their after-tax labor income. Given the higher supply of hours
worked, both output and the productivity of capital increase. The increase in output
mitigates the initial decline in tax receipts and in the government’s budget
situation. But this is more than offset by a strong expansion in domestic investment
that is driven by two things: first, as in the previous policy, the higher number of
hours worked increases the productivity (Michele, 2005).
Trade and fiscal deficits relationship have important policy implications for a
number of reasons; first, persistent large deficits cause indebtedness by borrowing
7
internally and externally, second, it imposes burden on future generations. Thus,
rising trade deficits is indeed escalating government budget deficits. This suggests
that current account balance cannot be remedied unless policies that address
government deficits are put in place (Anoruo & Ramchander 1998). In the same
vein, if such a view concerning the causal role of the budget deficit is incorrect,
then reductions in the federal budget deficits may not resolve the trade deficit
dilemma and more over, scarce economic resources will be diverted from relevant
and urgently needed policy options (Belongia & Stone 1985).
The current account deficit in South Africa stems largely from strong domestic
demand. With terms of trade unchanged, the current account imbalance reflects the
volume of growth in imports outpacing exports and current accounts transfers such
as dividend payment to foreigners. The deficit on the trade balance averaged 2.2
per cent of GDP in the first half of 2007, while the net income receipts deficit
stood at 2.5 per cent of GDP in the same period. This strong increase in imports
has coincided with a strong domestic expenditure as lower interest rates in
previous years and broader participation in the economy boosted strong consumer
spending. Mineral products, in particular oil, put the most pressure on imports.
Crude and refined oil accounted for 16.1 per cent of total imports in 2006. Crude
oil grew by about 28.0 per cent between 2005 and 2006 and accelerated to 35 per
8
cent in the first half of 2007 (Tonia, 2007). According to Edward, one of the
reasons for the high current account deficits in developed countries is that global
investors have confidence in countries such as the United States. They can safely
seek the highest possible return for their funds in these countries. This has led to a
substantial increase in the international demand for United States assets. Some of
the factors that lie behind such confidence are political stability; a legal system that
effectively protects property rights and enforces commercial contracts; economic
policies that promote and strengthen the role of markets; a financial system that
efficiently channels resources to their most productive uses; an educational system
that produces highly skilled workers; and supports rapid technological
development (Edwards, 2005a). He however stress that even though the United
States is able to attract large investments, at some point the current account deficit
will have to go through a significant adjustment or reversal. The recent dollar
depreciation of 20 per cent since 2002 could be part of the adjustment process.
1.2. Statement of the Problem
In recent years, the twin-deficit hypothesis, the argument that fiscal deficits fuel
current account deficits, has returned to the forefront of the policy debate (Bartolini
& Labiri, 2006). This follows the rising federal government budget deficit and
current account deficits in the United States and elsewhere which have sparked
9
heightened interest in the impact of domestic and foreign deficits on the growth
potentials of the domestic economy (Nozar & Loretta, 2006). Recently, there has
been a growing concern of the ballooning current account deficit which warrants
some discussion on its causes and sustainability to avoid any current account
reversal. A sustainable current account is the one that generates no effect on
domestic variables (savings and investment) or does not lead to significant
international portfolio adjustments that make substantial changes in interest rates
(Mariam, Josep & Cecilio,2010). In distinguishing between solvency and
sustainability, an economy is said to be solvent if the present value of expected
future trade surpluses equals the current indebtedness, that is, if the economy
performs its external intertemporal budget constraint, while sustainability means
whether the economy is able to meet its budget constraint without a drastic change
in the private sector behavior or without the implementation of economic policy
measures (Milesi-Ferretti & Razin, 1996).
Currently, these twin anomalies have remained apparent in the economies of both
developed and developing countries, South Africa and Nigeria inclusive.
Investigating the trends of the twin deficits for Nigeria, revealed that the current
account deficits as a percentage of GDP increased from 2.4% in 1993 to 9.2% in
1995, 11.3% in 1998 and averaging 14% in surplus by 2008 (IMF-IFS on-line,
10
2011). For South Africa, we observed that the current account deficit deteriorated
from 0.1 percent of GDP in 2000 to 6.4 percent in 2006 and averaging 6.7 percent
in the first of half of 2007. The current account situation in South Africa does not
seem to be a major concern because it is more than financed by capital inflows at
the back of strong macroeconomic fundamentals. However, there is the need to
underscore the fact that it is important to remain conscious of its magnitude and to
monitor the risks associated with running a current account deficit of this nature
(Tonia, 2007)
Nigeria, like most developing countries, adopted stabilization and adjustment
policies in the early 1980s. These programmes of reforms were attempts to move
the country away from regulated market to a more friendly market oriented
economy. This is because of the perception of policy-makers that the adoption of
the neo-classical economic doctrine is capable of propelling the economy to the
path of sustained growth and development, and therefore addresses the adverse
changes in current account balances. In line with this conceptualization of reform,
Nigeria has adopted various forms of policies and institutional reforms since
independence (Udah, 2011). These range from protectionism and excessive
government control of economic activity to movement towards free market
economy. All these were tended towards sustained economic growth and
11
development and a healthy internal and external balance in the medium term.
Internal balance means the level of economic activity consistent with the
satisfactory control of inflation (Williamson, 1982), while external balance means
balance of payments equilibrium or sustainable current account deficit financed on
a lasting basis by expected capital inflow (Komolafe, 1996). Conventional wisdom
is that a large budget deficit is a source of economic instability and in the same
vein, a significant current account deficit increases the rate of interest, reduces
aggregate demand, leading to a reduction in investment and subsequent increase in
unemployment, which in all, will hurt the long-term economic growth. Other ills
associated with the twin anomalies in the event of persistent large deficits include,
increase in national indebtedness by borrowing internally and externally and
imposing burden on future generations.
On the above notes, this study intends to investigate the causal relationship
between budget deficit and current account imbalance for the period of 1960 -
2011. The model will be supported with other critical macroeconomic variables
that may influence the internal and external balances such as, real GDP
innovations, real exchange rate, real lending interest rate and trade openness.
12
1.3. Objectives of the Study
This study intends to investigate the relationship between budget and current
account balances and most importantly to identify which one to target in order to
effect adjustment in the other. The inclusion of a trading partner is not just for the
purpose of comparison and references, but for the fact that the current account
balance of each country depends not only on its own budget deficit, but also on the
budget deficits of its trading partners (Douglas, 1988). The specific objectives of
the study include:
1. To determine the extent to which long-run steady state relationship exists
between budget and current account balances of the economies under
consideration.
2. To estimate the extent to which fiscal balance dynamics cause current
account imbalance in Nigeria and South Africa.
3. To explore the extent to which developments in current account deficits
cause variations in fiscal deficit of the countries under review.
4. To establish to what extent fiscal expansions influence developments in
private consumption in Nigeria and South Africa.
5. To investigate the degree of bi-directional causal relationship existing
between the twin anomalies.
13
1.4. The Research Questions
Abstracting from the competing scenarios underlying twin deficits association, we
derive the following questions, whose answers would provide solutions to the
research problem, using data on the two largest open economies in African (by
GDP standard), South Africa and Nigeria.
1. To what extent does stable long-run relationship exist between current
account balance and budget balance?
2. To what extent do budget balance variations cause developments in current
account innovations in Nigeria and South Africa?
3. To what extent do current account deficit innovations cause developments in
fiscal balance of the economies under consideration?
4. To what extent do fiscal expansions influence developments in private
consumption in Nigeria and South Africa?
5. What degree of bi-directional causality exists between the twin anomalies in
Nigeria and South Africa?
14
1.5. The Research Hypotheses
This section provides the tentative answer to the research questions subject to
proof or otherwise by the evidence from the study. Hence the working hypotheses
of the study are stated in null form as follows:
1. There is no stable long-run relationship existing between Fiscal balance
innovations and developments in current account balance of Nigeria and South
Africa.
2. Developments in budget deficit do not significantly cause developments in
current account imbalance in the economies under consideration.
3. Developments in current account imbalance do not significantly cause
innovations in fiscal deficit in Nigeria and South Africa.
4. Fiscal expansions do not exact significant influence on private consumption in
Nigeria and South Africa.
5. There exists no significant bi-directional causality between the twin anomalies
in Nigeria and South Africa
15
1.6 Scope of the Study
The scope of the study defines the general outline of what the study did cover,
specifying the parameters to be employed with due regards to variables, geography
and timing. In the light of the above, this study surveyed the subsisting relationship
between government budget deficits and current account imbalance. The model
was supported with such other control variables as Gross Domestic Product
innovations, exchange rate dynamics, trade openness and market lending interest
rate for the period 1960-2011, using data on Nigeria and South Africa.
1.6. Significance of the Study
In recent years the twin deficits has been a subject of investigation. The decade of
1980s when deficits in budget and trade in case of the US economy behaved more
like twins rather than distant cousins, the interest in this topic increased further.
Although a number of authors have acknowledged this observed sequence (e.g.,
Fajana, 1993; Egwaikhide, 1989), specific investigations into the effects of
government deficit on the current account balance in developing economies,
Nigeria and South Africa inclusive, are still sketchy and the few existing results
appear to be inconsistent. Trade and fiscal deficits relationship has important
policy implications for a number of reasons; first, persistent large deficits cause
16
indebtedness by borrowing internally and externally, second, it imposes burden on
future generations. Thus, rising trade deficits is indeed escalating government
budget deficits, and the current account balance cannot be remedied unless policies
that address government deficits are put into place. Further, if such a view
concerning the causal role of the budget deficit is incorrect, then reductions in the
federal budget deficits may not resolve the trade deficit dilemma and more over,
scarce economic resources will be diverted from relevant and urgently needed
policy options. Thus, the need for this study is for the purpose of establishing
concrete evidence on the causality of the two important macroeconomic variables
to ensure appropriate targeting and informed policy decisions for correction of
internal and external disequilibrium.
The fact that the magnitude of government has increased with amazing rapidity
since the early 1980s further serves as motivation for this study. The results of this
study, in specific terms, will be of benefits:
(a) To the policy makers, the study will provide guide to the most appropriate
informed policy decisions that will strike both internal and external balance and
hence propel the economies of interest on the path of growth.
17
(b) To the consumers as economic agents, they will be exposed to the concept of
Ricardian Equivalence which will make them forward-looking and rational
individuals that can respond promptly and appropriately to developments in such
macroeconomic variables as public debt and government size.
(c) To the academic, the importance of the study is based on the fact that it
employed the econometric methods that have gained considerable currency in
recent times, using unit root tests, and co integration analysis, error correction
model (ECM), granger causality and variance decomposition methods. Finally, the
findings of this study would add to the econometric literature of the selected
countries
1.8 The Operational Definition of Terms
Twin Deficits: The traditional view of twin deficits, also refer to as the Keynesian
absorption theory, implies that when an economy is operating at or near full
employment capacity, all things being equal, an increase in domestic budget deficit
will cause a similar increase or reduction in the current account deficits (CAD) or
current account surplus (CAS) respectively. The causality transmission channel is
as follows: A tax cut, increases budget deficits. This drives government into
borrowing to meet its obligations and commitments, thus competing with the
18
private sector for the available credit in the financial market. This drives up the
demand in the FM, leading to increase in interest rate. Increase in interest rate
causes increase (appreciation) in exchange rate to make exports of domestic goods
and services dearer and less competitive in the global market while leaving imports
cheaper and more attractive. This tortuous process ends up with increase in imports
and decrease in export to impact current account balance negatively. In effect, twin
deficits identifies a scenario where internal balance (budget balance) and external
balance (current account balance) trend together in the same direction.
Ricardian Equivalence: The traditional view of Ricardian equivalence suggests
that there is no direct significant link between budget balance and current account
balance. The “equivalency concept” states that consumers expect that a tax cut
today which results in fiscal deficits will lead to future increases in taxes to pay up
the public debt. Therefore, the increase in the disposable income of individuals as a
result of the tax cut will be saved or capitalized to provide for the expected future
tax increase rather than expending such additional income on consumption of
goods and services. In effect, the decrease in public savings represented by the
increase in fiscal deficits resulting from tax cut, will be equitably compensated by
the increase in private savings occasioned by the provision of safety for expected
future tax increase, so that national saving, remain unchanged. This leaves interest
rate unchanged, exchange rate unaltered, leaves foreign trade (imports and exports)
19
unaffected and thus, current account balance stable. Thus, fiscal measures designed
to influence aggregate demand may prove futile as individuals reduce consumption
in anticipation of future tax liabilities.
Twin Divergence: Twin divergence identity is completely divorced from concepts
of twin deficits and Ricardian equivalence presented above. Twin divergence is
rather of the traditional view that fiscal consolidation (reduction in public budget
deficit) will deteriorate the current account balance and verse versa. This in effect
means that government budget deficits and current account deficits will trend apart
(move in opposite directions) in response to fiscal measures aimed at internal and
external balance adjustments. This concept literally proposes that there is a
negative correlation between the public budget surplus and the current account
imbalance.
Current Account Targeting: This refers to one of the possible twin deficits
scenarios, which suggests that innovations in the current account stance will
significantly cause developments in government budget balance. This concept is
the reverse of the twin deficits proposition.
Fiscal Deepening: This refers to the increase in the ratio of public expenditure to
the gross domestic product of an economy.
20
References Abell, J. D. (1990). Twin Deficits During 1980s: An Emperical Investigation. Journal of Macroeconomics, 12, 81 – 96. Alkswani, M.A. (2000, October). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon in Petroleum Economy:
Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference, Economic Research Forum (ERF), Amman, Jordan.
Anoruo, E., Ramchander, S. (1998). Current Account and Fiscal Deficits: Evidence from Five Developing Economics of Asia. Journal of Asian Economics, 9 (3), 487-501. Aqeel, A & Nishat, M. (2000). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon: Evidence from Pakistan.
The Pakistan Development Review, 39 (4), 535–550 Bachman, B. (1992). Current Account Deficit Unrelated to Budget Surplus. National Centre
for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/barlett.html. Bartlett, B. (1999). Are Budget Surpluses Equivalent to Tax Cuts? Idea House. National Center
for Policy Analysis, 1-3. Bartolini, L., & Lahiri, A. (2006). Twin deficits, twenty years later. Current Issues in Economics and Finance 12, 1-7. Bellongia, M. T., & courtney C.S. (1985). Would lower federal deficits increase US farm exports? Federal Reserve Bank of St. louis, review No: 5-19. Boucher, J. L. (1991). The U.S. Current Account: A Long and Short Run Empirical Perspective. Cavallo, M. (2005). Understanding the Twin Deficits: New Approaches, New Results. FRBSF
Economic Letter, Number 2005-16. Darrat, A. F. (1988). Have Large Budget Deficits Caused Rising Trade Deficits? Southern Economic Journal, 879-87. Dewald, W. G., & Michael, U. (1990). The Twin-Deficit Illusion. Cato Journal, 9 (3), 689–707. Douglas, B. B. (1988). Budget Deficits and The Balance Of Trade. The National Bureau of Economic Research, 2, 1 - 33 Edwards, S. (2005a). The End of Large Current Account Deficits, 1970- 2002: are there Lessons for the United States? National Bureau of Economic Research Workin Paper Number 11669. Enders, W., & Lee, B. (1990). Current Account and Budget Deficits: Twin or Distant Cousins.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, 374-382.
21
Erceg, C. J., Guerrieri, L., & Gust, C. (2005), Expansionary Fiscal Shocks and the Trade
Deficit,” International Finance Discussion Paper No. 2005 (825), Federal Reserve Board.
Evans, P. (1988). Are Consumers Ricardian? Evidence for the United States. Journal of Political
Economy, 96, 983-1004. Evans, P. (1993). Consumers Are Not Ricardian: Evidence from Nineteen Countries. Economic
Inquiry, 31: 534-548. Fajana, F.O. (1993). Nigeria's Debt Crisis. UNECA Development Research Paper Series, No.5. Holmes, M. J. (2004). The budget and current account balance: a case of twin deficits, twin divergence or Ricardian equivalence? Applied Economics Research Bulletin 1- 14. Islam, M. F. (1998). Brazil's twin deficits: An empirical examination. Atlantic Economic Journal,
26 (2), 121 – 128. Kasa, K. (1994). Finite Horizons and the Twin Deficits. Economic Review, Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston, 3, 19-28. Kearney, C., & Monadjemi, M. (1990). Fiscal Policy and Current Account Performance:
International Evidence on the Twin Deficits. Journal of Macroeconomics, 197- 218.
Khalid, A. M., & Teo, W. G. (1999). Causality Test of Budget and Current Account Deficits:
Cross-Country Comparisons. Empirical Economics, 24, 389 – 402. Kim, K.H. (1995). On the Long-Run Determinants of the U.S. Trade Balance: A Comment.
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 17, 447-55. Laney, L.O. (1984). The Strong Dollar, the Current Account and Federal Deficits: Cause and
Effects. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Review, 1-14. Leachman, L. L., & Francis, B. (2002). Twin Deficits: Apparition or Reality? Applied
Economics, 34, 1121 – 1132. Mariam, C., Josep, L. C., & Cecilio, T. (2010). External Imbalances in A Monetary Union: Does the Lawson Doctrine to Europe? Retrived from www.researchgate.net/...Lawson_doctrine.../9fcfd5099876220373.p McCoskey, S., & Chihwa, K.(1999). Comparing Panel Data Cointegration Tests with an Application to the Twin Deficits Problem. Syracuse University. Mimeo.
22
Michele, C. (2005). Understanding the Twin Deficits: New Approaches, New Results. Frbsf Economic Letter Number 2005-16, Milessi-Ferreti, G. M. and A. Razin (1996). Sustainability of persistent current account deficits. NBER working paper 5467. Miller, S. M., & Russek, F. S. (1989). Are The Twin Deficits Really Related? Contemporary
Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, 7(4), 91-115. Miller, S. M., & Russek, F. S. (1989). Are the Twin Deficits Really Related? Contemporary
Policy Issues, 7 Mukhtar T, M. Z., & Ahmed, M. (2007). An Empirical Investigation for Twin Deficits Hypothesis in Pakistan. Journal of Economic Corporation, 28 (4), 63 – 80. Normadin, M. (1994). Budget Deficit Persistence and the Twin Deficits Hypothesis. Center for
Research on Economic Fluctuations and Employment. Universite du Quebec, Montrel. Working Paper No. 31.
Nozar, H., & Loretta, W. (2006). The Dynamics of Current Account and Budget Deficits in
Selected Countries of the Middle East and North Africa. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 5, 111 – 129.
Papaioannou, S., & Yi, K. (2001). The Effects of a Booming Economy on the U.S. Trade Deficit.
Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 7, 2.
Piersanti, G. (2000). Current Account Dynamics and Expected Future Budget Deficits: Some
International Evidence. Journal of International Money, 19, 255 – 271. Southern Economic Journal, 58 (1), 93-111. Soyoung, K., & Nouriel, R. (2007). Twin Deficit or Twin Divergence? Fiscal Policy, Current Account, and Real Exchange Rate in the USA. www.crei.cat/people/canova/teaching%20pdf/Twin%20def.pdf Summers L. H. (1988). Tax Policy and the International Competitiveness. In J. Frankel (Ed), International Aspects of Fiscal Policy, 349 – 375. Tonia, K. (2007). Current Account Situation in South Africa: Issues to Consider. Economic Research Working Paper No 90. Udah, E. B. (2011). Adjustment Policies and Current Account Behaviour: Empirical Evidence
from Nigeria. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6 (1), 217 – 231.
23
Vamvoukas, G. (1999). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon: Evidence from Greece. Applied Economics, 31, 1093-1100.
Williamson, J. (1982). The Exchange Rate System. Washington D. C. Institute for International Economics Winner, L. E. (1993). The Relationship of the Current Account Balance and the Budget Balance.
The American Economist, 37 (2) 78 – 84. Zietz, J., & Pemperton, D.K. (1990). The U.S. Budget and Trade Deficits: A Simultaneous
Equation Model. Southern Economic Journal, 23-35.
24
CHAPTER TWO
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE
Every piece of ongoing research needs to be connected with the work already
done, to attain an overall relevance and purpose (Kumar, 2009). In effect, review
of literature provides a link between the study in session and the studies already
done in related field. Literature review is intended to expose the reader to the facets
of the current work that have already been established or accomplished by other
authors, bestows the reader a chance to value the evidence that has already been
collected by previous studies and consequently direct current research work in the
proper perspective. On the above note, this chapter will survey some of what has
already been written about our topic of study, to enable us determine the
contribution of each source to the topic, understand the relationship between the
various contributions, identify and resolve contradictions where feasible to provide
justification for the study. Literature review is structured into two subsections: the
theoretical review, to ex-ray the conceptual foundation of the study and empirical
review, to evaluate relevant empirical works of similar nature.
2.1 Theoretical Review
The question of the relationship between budget deficit and current account
imbalance has three basic theoretical possibilities: the first is the twin deficits
25
hypothesis proposed by Keynes, second is the Ricardian equivalent proposition
(REP) and the third is the twin divergence theory.
Twin Deficits Hypothesis
The Feldstein chain’s argument, that an increase in the government deficit pushes
the interest rates up, which in turn attracts foreign capital and strengthens the
domestic currency driving the current account balance into deficits, appears to
have been the most important explanation for the controversial twin deficits
phenomenon (Feldstein, 1986). There are two approaches to the transmission
mechanism behind the twin deficits hypothesis as could simply be explained
through the Keynesian income-expenditure approach and the Mundell- Fleming
(FM) model founded on open economy and high capital mobility. From the
perspective of the income-expenditure approach, an increase in budget deficits will
increase domestic absorption (C + I + G) and, therefore the domestic income. The
increase in income will induce imports and eventually will reduce the surplus or
increase the deficit in the trade balance which is a component of current account
and thus makes the public sector and external sector deficits act as twins rather
than distant cousins. In Keynesian open economy models with high capital
mobility, an additional linkage can explain the deterioration in the trade balance
due to higher budget deficits. An increase in the budget deficit will cause an
26
increase in the aggregate demand and domestic real interest rates. The high interest
rates will cause net capital inflow from abroad and result in appreciation of the
domestic currency. The strong currency will make imports cheap and domestic
exportable less competitive in the global market and adversely affect net exports to
deteriorate the current account. Though these mechanisms may differ slightly, this
conclusion is valid both under fixed and flexible exchange rate regimes (Elif and
Gul, 2002). While admitting the harmful economic and social consequences of
huge budget deficits, critics of the FM approach are strongly doubtful of the
illustrated sequence of causation implied by these models. This has led some
researchers to cite the Ricardian equivalence hypothesis to argue that whether
fiscal deficit is financed through public debt or with increase in tax , the impact on
real interest rates, aggregate demand, private spending, the exchange rate or the
external accounts will remain neutral. Proponents of this view point out that while
tax cuts have the effect of reducing public saving and enlarging the budget deficit,
they increase private saving by an amount equal to the expected increase in the tax
burden in the future years (Nozar and Loretta, 2006).
Giancarlo and Müller (2006) in presenting the traditional debate on fiscal
transmission and twin deficits, stress two distinct transmission mechanisms: One
stresses relative price movements, the other intertemporal (borrowing and lending)
27
decisions. The first transmission mechanism is central to the Mundell- Fleming
model. Here, an expansionary fiscal shock raises disposable income and internal
demand. Part of the higher consumption demand ‘leaks abroad’ in the form of
higher import demand, deteriorating the trade balance. Moreover, with flexible
exchange rates a stronger domestic demand also appreciates the exchange rate,
crowding out foreign demand. Because of differences in the multiplier, the impact
is stronger for spending hikes than for tax cuts. The increase in the external deficit
is somewhat mitigated to the extent that the upsurge in domestic demand raises the
domestic interest rate, and thus crowds out domestic investment. Overall, however,
the emphasis is on the static transmission mechanism, linking fiscal deficits to
excess demand and relative price movements.
Some other studies support the twin anomalies hypothesis, that higher budget
deficit lead to higher current account deficits. For instance, based on his
assessment of the data from the United States, Normandin (1994) deduced that a
tax increase would directly decrease the budget deficit and would indirectly
decrease the external deficit, due to reduced imports induced by the decline of
private after-tax incomes. Kasa (1994) reports a significant connection between
trade deficits and budget deficits for the post war era for the United States, Japan
and Germany after controlling for the effects of fiscal expenditures on Gross
28
National Product (GNP).Similar results reported by Zietiz and Pemberton (1990),
Vamvoukas (1999), Miller and Russek (1989) and Islam (1990) are all in favour of
twin deficit hypothesis.
Despite the plethora of studies in favour of the conventional twin deficits
hypothesis, results of some other studies revealed reversed causation running from
current account balance to budget balance, what Poterba & Summers (1988) would
refer to as current account targeting. These include studies by Anorua and
Ramchander (1998), Ahmed & Teo (1999) and Alkswani (2000). Policy
implications of research findings dealing with the subject remain basically
ambiguous, time and space dependent and hence appear to be impracticable.
This inconclusiveness could come as a surprise when one considers the twin-deficit
hypothesis which suggests that when a government increases its fiscal deficit, for
instance by cutting taxes or increasing expenditure, domestic residents use some of
the additional income to boost consumption, causing national savings to decline.
The decline in national saving requires the country to either borrow from abroad or
reduce its foreign lending, unless domestic investment decreases enough to offset
the saving shortfall. Thus, a wider fiscal deficit typically should be accompanied
by a wider current account deficit. However; the twin-deficit hypothesis rests on
the assumption that the relationship between fiscal deficits and private
29
consumption is a positive one as suggested by the Keynesian model. This is not
necessarily true. In theoretical models the relationship between fiscal policy and
private consumption depends largely on whether Ricardian equivalence is
assumed. This equivalence theorem states that for a given path of government
expenditures, the timing of taxes should not affect the consumption decision made
by individuals paying the taxes (Christiane and Isabel, 2008). In concurrence,
Barro (1974) asserts that the simple idea behind the theorem is that rational
economic agents realize that substituting taxes today for taxes plus interest
tomorrow via government debt financing is the same. Therefore, the financing of
government spending via debt or taxes should not affect the current account either.
However, Keynesian economic models assume that a shift from tax to debt
financing increases private consumption. In many Keynesian models private
consumption depends on disposable income (income minus taxes). Therefore,
fiscal deficits (and lower taxes) increase private consumption and the current
account deficit.
The Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis
On the other hand, proponents of the Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis (REH)
deny any correspondence between the budget deficit and the current account
imbalance. This concept is of the view that since people are rational, they know
30
that the reduction in taxes, resulting from the government expansionary fiscal
policy of tax cut, is temporal and so they will save the extra disposable income to
pay for the future higher taxes. This suggests that the national savings will not be
affected because the decrease in government savings represented by increased
fiscal deepening will be equitably compensated by the additional precautionary
private savings for expected future increase in taxes.
According to Elif and Gul (2001) this hypothesis suggests that the equilibrium
levels of current account, interest rates, investment and consumption will not be
affected by the changes in the level of budget deficit. This assertion can be
regarded as an extension of the Permanent Income Life-Cycle Hypothesis
including government expenditure, taxes and debt, which indicates that a change in
the level of budget deficit will not change the lifetime budget constraint and real
wealth of the consumer. As a consequence of intertemporal consumption behavior,
according to the Ricardian equivalence proposition, temporary changes in the level
of government expenditures and marginal tax rates are much more important than
the ways of financing it. REH proposes that to explain the balance of payments
deficit, interest rate, productivity differentials, and temporary increases in the
public sector spending could be considered as alternative explanatory variables
besides budget deficits. Furthermore, the “equivalence theory” as articulated by the
31
classical economist, David Ricardo in 1817, suggests that government budget
deficits should not alter capital formation and economic growth or the level of
aggregate demand including demand for imports due to the fact that far-sighted
individuals fully capitalize the implied future taxes associated with budget deficits.
Otherwise s tated, the theory implies that there is no apparent correlation between
the two deficits. Though controversial, Ricardo’s neutrality hypothesis suggests
that the private sector views budget deficits as public investment and treats public
and private investment as perfect substitutes. Thus, fiscal measures designed to
influence aggregate demand will prove fruitless as individuals reduce consumption
in anticipation of future tax liabilities.
The REP further concludes that a tax cut has no effect on consumption since
rational individual, being aware of the intertemporal government budget constraint,
base their consumption decision on permanent income and will hence anticipate
increase in future tax liability by saving amount equivalent to the tax cut. The
theory is based on relatively strongly assumptions such as rational and forward-
looking individuals, Lump-Sum taxes, perfect capital market and infinite lives of
consumers all of which may render the REP’s practical relevance, at least in its
perfect form, questionable (Gerhard and Jesus, 2004).
32
In the same vein, the Ricardian equivalent hypothesis further states that if
government expenditure remains constant and there is a tax cut, individuals will
anticipate a tax increase some times in the future. Therefore, for this reason,
individuals will allocate the increase in disposable income dollar for dollar to
savings. The interest earned on this money will cover the interest element of
government debt liability, so that there will be no change in the present value of
real tax liability. To this effect, national savings will remain constant, because
dollar for dollar, the increase in private savings equals the decrease in government
savings. Therefore there will be no change in wealth unless government spending
changes and, the interest rate and current account balance should remain
unperturbed so long as change in private savings equal to the change in
government saving (Winner, 1993).
Others results that are in favour of Ricardian equivalence proposition include that
evidenced in Laney (1984) which found no “statistically significant linkages for
the postwar period between the actual U. S. and most of the larger industrial
countries’ budget balance and the current account balance. Other studies on the
relationship between twin deficits comprise those carried out by Kearney and
Monadjemi (1990), Godley and Cripps (1983), Enders and Lee (1990) and Evans
(1993). These authors do not detect a stable long-run association between the two
33
deficits using variety of samples. Other proponents of Ricardian equivalent include
Evans (1988), Miller and Russek (1989), Dewald and Ulan (1990), Kasa (1994),
Kim (1995) and Barlett (1999), Bhattacharya (1977), Boucher (1991) and
Papaioannou and Kei-Mu Yi (2001) who are unable to detect a plausible causal
relationship between the two deficits in their investigations and thus subscribed to
the Ricardian equivalence.
The Twin Divergence Theory
Although theory indicates that the budget deficit and the current account deficit
should move together, there is evidence equally that they could follow quite a
divergent path. One possible explanation for this divergence is related to the
impact of output fluctuations on budget and current account deficits. Let us
presume, for instance, that the economy enjoys a pour in productivity that results in
a growth in economic activity. To reap the opportunities of the high productivity,
private investment increases. As investment expenditure in general reacts more
strongly to the business cycle than private saving does, the current account balance
deteriorates. At the same time, the output expansion generates both an increase in
tax receipts and a decline in government expenditure, due, for example, to a
decline in unemployment benefits. Therefore, the budget balance improves
(Economic Letter 2005 – 16). This twin divergence hypothesis suggests that there
34
is negative correlation between the government budget balance and the current
account balance (Cardosoa and Doménech, 2008). This empirical evidence is very
interesting, since it seems to contradict well-known economic theory of twin
deficits. In fact, the recent experience of the Spanish economy seems to
corroborate the empirical findings by Kim and Roubini (2008) about what they call
ˇtwin divergence, that is, the usual empirical fact in the United States such that
when the public budget worsens the current account improves and vice versa.
Corsetti and Müller (2007) and Cavallo (2005 & 2007) obtained similar evidence
in support of the twin divergence theory.
2.2. Empirical Review
The empirical test for the role of the budget deficits in causing the trade deficits
has been a subject of controversy. Do the budget deficits affect the trade deficits?
If so, to what extent and through which channels do budget deficits affect the trade
deficits? The issues involved have important policy implications. Suppose that the
basic reason for rising trade deficits is indeed the escalating budget deficits. In this
case, policy makers may focus on curtailing the budget deficits in order to resolve
the trade deficit problem. This policy adversely affects several sectors such as
manufacturing industries and agriculture. However, if such a view concerning the
“causal” role of the budget deficits is incorrect, then reductions in the budget
35
deficits may not resolve the trade deficits dilemma and, moreover, attention will be
diverted from more relevant and urgently needed policy options.
There is surfeit of literature on the factors that may determine current account
behavior. For instance, Baharumshah et al., (2000) examine the twin deficit
hypothesis in Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines and Thailand and found a long
run relationship between budget deficit and current account. Their results also
showed a unidirectional causality without feedback effect, which runs from budget
deficit to current account deficit for Thailand. In Indonesia, current account
targeting was detected, whereas in Malaysia and Philippines, the causality was
bidirectional. Just as Udah in (2011) employs three methodologies of Granger
Causality test, the Co-integration test, the Variance decomposition and impulse
response function with the variance decomposition and impulse response function
following the Cholesky ordering. Evidence from the results suggests that causality
is bidirectional between current account balance and budget deficit. The Granger
Causality test also revealed the existence of a unidirectional causality of current
account balance with exchange rate and that exchange rate, monetary policy
credibility and budget deficit are important macroeconomic variables that influence
current account movement. However, the study found no causal link between
measures of financial indicator variables and current account balance. The study in
36
conclusion argues that to address the adverse changes in current account
movement, policy should tackle the problem from the demand and supply sides.
Thirlwall's Law believes that growth can be constrained by the balance-of-
payments when the current account is in permanent deficit. This Law centers on
external imbalances as impediments to growth without considering the case where
internal imbalances (budget deficits or public debt) can also constrain growth. The
recent European public debt crisis shows that when internal imbalances are out of
control, they can constrain growth and domestic demand in a severe way. It is in an
attempt to fill this gap that Elias et al., (2012) developed a growth model in line
with Thirlwall's Law that takes into account both internal and external imbalances.
The model is tested for Portugal which recently fell into a public debt crisis with
serious negative consequences on growth. The empirical results show that the
growth rate in Portugal is in fact balance-of-payments constrained and the main
drawback is the high import elasticity of the components of demand and in
particular that of exports.
Furthermore, Ozman (2004) empirically investigated the effects of institutional and
macroeconomic policy stance variables on current account deficits. The results
strongly suggest that better governance increases the ability of a country to control
37
adverse changes in current account behavior. In addition, the findings of the paper
indicated that a flexible exchange rate and openness imposes a discipline on
current account behavior. The net impacts of the financial deepening and monetary
credibility on current account balance were found to be insignificant.
Christiane and Isabel (2008) use a dynamic panel threshold model to shed light on
the relationship between the fiscal balance and the current account of the balance
of payments and to investigate the role of Ricardian equivalence for 22 industrial
countries during the period 1981-2005. In this model, the relationship between the
government balance and the current account is allowed to alter according to the
government debt level. At the same time we control for other factors influencing
the current account. Our calculations find three thresholds for the government debt
to GDP ratio: In low debt and medium debt countries (up to a debt level of 44% of
GDP) the relationship is positive, i.e. an increase in the fiscal deficit leads to a
higher current account deficit. In medium-to-high debt countries with debt ratios
between 44% and 90% of GDP the relationship is still positive but much less so. In
the very high debt countries with debt ratios of above 90% of GDP the relationship
is negative and insignificant, suggesting that a rise in the fiscal deficit does not
result in a rise in the current account deficit. Implicitly this result suggests that
private consumers have become Ricardian (i.e. they have offset the increase in the
38
fiscal deficit by a fall in private consumption). The results are similar when
estimating the same model for the 11 euro area countries included in the larger
panel. Here, two thresholds for the government debt to GDP ratio are found: at
56% and 80%. In this case, the relationship between current account and the
government budget balance is positive when the government debt to GDP ratio
remains below 80%. Thereafter the relationship is negative and insignificant.
Darrat (1988) has reported evidence supportive of bi-directional causality between
the twin deficits. Using quarterly data for the period 1960: I – 1984: IV, he
concludes that in the case of the United States, there is evidence of “budget-to-
trade deficit causality, but also stronger evidence of trade-to budget deficit
causality.” Darrat argues that studies that have assumed the budget deficit to be the
exogenous variable “could be biased and inconsistent. Moreover, as Cuddington
and Vinals (1986) have demonstrated the linkages between the two deficits is
influenced by the extent of unemployment and the stage of the business cycles.
These authors have shown that when the economy faces classical unemployment in
the short run, “an expected future increase in government spending will improve
the current account today.”
39
In response to the question of whether one can find any statistical evidence in
support of the hypothesis that fiscal innovations systematically move the budget
deficit and the trade deficit in the same direction, Giancarlo and Müller (2006)
reconsider the international transmission mechanism in a standard two-country
two-good business cycle model, and find that fiscal expansions have no effect on
the trade balance and thus on the current account (i) if the economy is not very
open to trade and (ii) if fiscal shocks are not too persistent. Under these conditions,
the crowding out effect of fiscal shocks on private investment is stronger than
conventionally believed. They take this insight to the data and investigate the
transmission of fiscal shocks in a VAR model estimated for Australia, Canada, the
UK and the US. For the US and Australia, which are less open to trade than
Canada and the UK, they find that the external impact of shocks to either
government spending or budget deficits is limited, while private investment
responds significantly – in line with our theoretical prediction. The reverse is true
for Canada and the UK. These results suggest that a fiscal retrenchment in the US
may have a limited impact on its current external deficit. However, the results do
not negate the case for fiscal consolidation: by crowding in investment, a fiscal
correction will strengthen the ability of the US to generate resources required to
service future external liabilities.
40
Within this literature, a few studies have focused on the effects of fiscal policy on
foreign trade, including Clarida and Prendergast (1999) who analyze the effects of
budget deficits on the real exchange rate, and Giuliodori and Beetsma (2004) who
use European data to investigate the effects of government spending on imports,
and especially Kim and Roubini (2003) who is the first to address the twin deficit
issue explicitly within a VAR framework using US data and find that a negative
innovation to the budget balance increases the current account. This suggests that
they find ‘twin divergence’ instead of twin deficits. The same finding was recorded
by Müller et al., (2004).
For the purpose of contributing further on the twin deficits debate in a developing
economy, Ahmad and Evan (2007) employed data for Thailand over three decades
and used as a case study. The major findings are: first, a stable, long-run
equilibrium relationship between fiscal deficit, interest rate, exchange rate, and
current account was found. Second, the causal relationship between the two
deficits runs from fiscal deficit to current account deficit. This evidence is
supportive of the twin deficits hypothesis. Further econometric analysis reveals
that the two financial variables (interest rate and exchange rate) act as
intermediating variables – that is, an increase in fiscal deficit causes interest rate to
rise, and this in turn puts pressure on the exchange rate. The appreciation of the
41
domestic currency causes a current account deficit. The paper is of value by
showing both direct and indirect channels to uncover the twin deficits phenomena.
Based on a persistent profile response, it was found that the adjustment process
may take as long as a year to complete.
Evan and Ahmad (2006) using a Panel Data Analysis investigate Twin Deficits
Hypothesis in SEACEN Countries. The twin deficits hypothesis was examined
using the panel data of nine SEACEN countries. Empirical results provide
evidence to support the view that Asian budget deficit causes current account
deficit directly as well as indirectly. From policy perspectives, the statistical
analysis suggests that managing budget deficit offers scope for improvement in the
current account deficit. However, this finding does not support the policy of
manipulating the intermediate variables to reduce the twin deficits to a sustainable
level since these variables appear to be endogenous in the system.
In what appears to be in response to the recent global financial crisis which has led
to graver imbalances in both the external and the internal deficits of several
countries including India, Suchismita and Sudipta (2011) commissioned this
empirical inquiry with a view to examining the causal linkages between the
government budget deficit and the current account deficit for India, within a multi-
dimensional system with the exchange and interest rates acting as the interlinking
42
variables. According to them, the causal chain of such linkages is important as
different results lead to very different policy recommendations regarding the target
variable for controlling the twin deficits. The conventional hypothesis of causation
running from the fiscal deficit to interest rates to exchange rates and then to the
external deficit is only partially borne out by the results, while evidence in favour
of reverse causation is very strong. Bringing in oil prices helps complete the chain
of reverse causation in the twin deficit hypothesis for India, as the direction of
causation is unambiguously seen to run from oil prices to the external deficit to the
fiscal deficit.
Since the mid 1980s, an extensive empirical literature has examined the
relationship between U.S. Fiscal deficits, exchange rates, and trade balances.
Jeffrey and Ellis (1993) investigate two questions that continue to spark debate: do
increased government deficits cause dollar appreciation, and do fiscal deficits lead
to higher trade deficits (the popular ‘twin deficit’ notion)? These issues are
investigated fusing a five-variable VAR system, generating posterior probability
bounds to assess significance. Results provide some evidence that growing
government deficits appreciate the dollar, and support the “twin deficit” notion that
government deficits contribute to trade deficits.
43
Recent developments in the Bulgarian economy bring into question the validity of
the twin deficit hypothesis. To this effect, Ganchev (2010) analyses the theoretical
foundations of an alternative explanations for this hypothesis and uses different
econometric approaches to test its validity on a sample of the Bulgarian data. A
Granger causality test suggests the existence of dual causality between the fiscal
and current account deficits. A vector autoregressive and a vector error correction
model both reject the twin deficit hypothesis in the short run, but indicate that it
might be valid in the long run.
In the same vein, Onafowora and Owoye (2006) used cointegration and vector
error-correction techniques, Granger-causality tests and, generalized impulse
response analysis to examine the "twin deficits" phenomenon in Nigeria - a small
open but oil dependent economy in Africa. Evidence of positive relationship
between trade and budget deficits in both the short- and long-run was found. This
finding supports the conventional Keynesian twin deficits proposition and refutes
the Ricardian Equivalence Hypothesis. Contrary to the conventional proposition
that budget deficits cause trade deficits, results indicate unidirectional causality
from trade deficits to budget deficits for Nigeria. An implicit policy implication of
our findings is that attempts to reduce budget deficits in Nigeria must begin with
44
reductions in trade deficits which could be achieved through indirect monetary
channels.
Halil and Sami (2011) investigate the twin deficit problem for the Turkish
economy using bounds testing approach known as ARDL (autoregressive
distributed lag) to cointegration analysis and Toda and Yamamoto Granger
causality test. The study covers the annual data from 1974 to 2010. The
cointegration test results suggest that the variables are moving together in the long
run. The positive value on the budget deficit coefficient implies that Turkey has a
twin deficit problem. The presence of twin deficit has also been supported by the
Toda-Yamamoto causality test results. As expected, the negative and less than 1
investment coefficient indicates Feldstein-Horioka hypothesis holds. Further, it
indicates that Turkey could not well-integrated into the international capital
markets with the model revealing that one fifth of the investments are financed
through foreign savings.
Sofia and Suzanna-Maria (2011) re-examine the issue of the twin deficits
hypothesis since recent theoretical and empirical analysis suggests that this
hypothesis is subject to structural shifts, the identification of which is very
important for policymakers in order to take the correct decisions to overcome
45
situations of economic turmoil. They used a different empirical approach and
extending the data sets. Furthermore, the employed a multivariate Vector Error
Correction framework including the endogenous determination of structural
breaks, to determine the causal relation between the budget deficit and the current
account deficit for Greece. The two deficits are found to be positively linked
through the Current Account Targeting Hypothesis.
Walter & Bong-Soo (1990) developed a two-country micro-theoretic model
consistent with the Ricardian equivalence hypothesis (REP). Specifically, tax
increases used to retire government debt will not affect private spending or the
current account balance. However, increases in government spending, regardless of
the means of finance, can be expected to induce a current account deficit. An
unconstrained vector autoregression shows some patterns in the recent U.S. data
which appear to be inconsistent with the REP. However, Rigorous testing of the
model, the results failed to reject the independence of the record federal
government budget and current account deficits.
Using panel structural VAR analysis and quarterly data from four industrialized
countries, Morten et al., (2007), investigate the proposition that an increase in
government purchases leads to an expansion in output and private consumption, a
46
deterioration in the trade balance, and a depreciation of the real exchange rate (i.e.,
a decrease in the domestic CPI relative to the exchange-rate adjusted foreign CPI).
They proposed an explanation for these observed effects based on the deep habit
mechanism and estimated the key parameters of the deep-habit model employing a
limited information approach. The predictions of the estimated deep-habit model
fit well the observed responses of output, consumption, the trade balance, and the
real exchange rate to an unanticipated government spending shock. In addition, the
deep-habit model predicts that in response to an anticipated increase in government
spending consumption and wages fail to increase on impact, which is consistent
with the empirical evidence stemming from the narrative identification approach.
In this way, the deep-habit model reconciles the findings of the SVAR and
narrative literatures on the effects of government spending shocks.
Philip & Roberto (1998) investigate the short-run impact of movements in different
components of fiscal policy on the trade balance, exports and imports, for a panel
of OECD countries over 1960–1995. The results indicate that the composition of a
shift in fiscal policy and the exchange rate regime is material for its transmission to
the external account. The strongest result indicates that an expansion in wage
government consumption causes a contraction in exports and a deterioration of the
trade balance, especially under flexible exchange rates.
47
Neda and Mohammad (2011) using panel data, theoretically studied the two
visions (Keynesian theory and Ricardian equivalence) of twin deficits using macro
economic variables for 70 countries for the period of 1985 – 2006. This review
first classifies the mentioned countries based on World Development Indicators
into different income groups of high, middle and low income countries. Then the
review of required variables based on the evaluation of budget deficit effect on
private consumption, economic growth and current account deficit on all income
groups are assessed and estimated by comparative method. A summary of the
acquired results would not affirm the relationship between the budget deficit and
current account deficit, consumption and economic growth in the period of study in
high-income countries. This relationship remains in force in middle and low
income countries, in other words Ricardian equivalence is rejected in these
countries
Ali Abbas et al., (2010) examine the relationship between fiscal policy and the
current account, drawing on a larger country sample than in previous studies and
using panel regressions, vector auto regressions, and an analysis of large fiscal and
external adjustments. On average, the results suggest that a strengthening in the
fiscal balance by 1 percentage point of GDP is associated with a current account
improvement of 0.2–0.3 percentage point of GDP. This association is as strong in
48
emerging and low-income countries as it is in advanced economies; and
significantly higher when output is above potential.
Romer and Romer (2007) investigate the impact of exogenous changes in the level
of taxation on gross domestic product (GDP) in the U.S. They use the narrative
record, presidential speeches, executive branch documents, and Congressional
reports to identify the size, timing, and principal motivation for all major postwar
tax policy actions. This narrative analysis allows them to distinguish tax policy
changes resulting from exogenous legislative initiative (aimed, for example, at
reducing an inherited budget deficit, or promoting long-run growth) from changes
driven by prospective economic conditions, countercyclical actions, and
government spending. Their estimates indicate that exogenous tax increases are
highly contractionary, mainly through a powerful negative effect on investment.
Insofar as investment spending is an important current account determinant, the
results point to a strong association between fiscal contraction and current account
improvements. Further, using Romer-Romer data, Feyrer and Shambaugh (2009)
estimate that one dollar of unexpected tax cuts in the U.S. worsens the U.S. current
account deficit by 47 cents.
Eugene et al., (2004) re-examined the causality between the twin deficits by testing
for Granger non-causality between Budget Deficits and Current Account Deficits.
49
Using international data from a sample of twenty developed and developing
countries, results provide evidence of causality (unidirectional or bi-directional)
between the twin deficits for some developing countries. However, the results for
developed countries are less persuasive. The empirical findings of this study are
robust to alternative and independent causality testing procedures.
In spite of the apparent importance of the effect of budget deficit on
macroeconomic variables, not much empirical work has been carried on the
ASEAN economies. Hence, Evan and Chan (2003) in this study intend to establish
the causal relationship between the twin deficits. An insight on the particular story
of twin deficits nexus in Malaysia and Thailand is presented in this paper. The role
of exchange rate and interest rate which acts as a source transmission mechanism
are proven to be important in the innovation of twin deficits debate and a version
of a ‘vicious circle’ is detected in Malaysia. First, we found causality run from
budget deficit to current account deficit (Keynesian paradigm) for Thailand and bi-
directional causality for Malaysia. Second, on the whole, budget deficit is the
driving force for interest rate, exchange rate and current account where the
transmission mechanism channel operates through exchange rate and interest rate
between the two deficits, supporting a version of Abell’s causal chain (or
Keynesian view). Third the exchange rate was found to “Granger” cause current
account deficit and not vice versa.
50
Ahmed and Teo (1999) in this study attempt to determine the causal relationship
between budget and current account deficits as well as the direction of such
causality. A selected sample of some developed and developing countries with
annual time series data is used and co integration techniques are applied to bring
evidence regarding this important issue. Results do not support any long-run
relationship between the two deficits for developed countries while the data for
developing countries do not reject such a relationship. However, results suggest a
causal relationship between the two deficits for most of the sample countries.
Bemheim (1988) employs econometric methodology to identify historical
relationships between fiscal policy and the current account for the United States
and five of its major trading partners. He attempts to provide some measures of the
extent to which variations in budget deficits explain variations in current account
balances, both across time and across countries. The evidence from the estimations
corroborates the view that fiscal deficits significantly contribute to a deterioration
of the current account. Indeed, the results subscribe to the fact that U.S. budget
deficits may have been responsible for roughly one-third of the U.S. trade deficit in
recent years.
51
Islam (1998), in his paper: “Brazil's twin deficits” examines empirically the causal
relationship between budget deficits and trade deficits for Brazil from 1973:1Q
through 1991:4Q. This relationship is investigated in the context of Granger's test
of causality. The final prediction error criterion, is applied in determining the
appropriate lag length of the two variables. Empirical results suggest the presence
of bilateral causality between trade deficits and budget deficits.
For the United States, Alberto (2005) assesses the effectiveness of some policy
measures aimed at reducing the size of the US “twin deficits”. The effects of these
policy changes are evaluated on a medium-run simulation horizon ranging from
2005 to 2015 using a world macro econometric model. Two scenarios are
evaluated: a fiscal consolidation carried out through an increase in direct tax rates,
and a devaluation of the USD. The results point out that a politically viable fiscal
consolidation or a plausible amount of exchange rate devaluation cannot prevent
the US external debt/GDP ratio to grow further in the next years. The stabilization
of the US net external liabilities requires a structural change in either the trade
flows or the saving and investment ratios in the US. US fiscal and external
imbalance sustainability has recently attracted a growing attention in the applied
macroeconomics literatures that focus explicitly on the “transpacific” dimension of
the US external imbalances and analyze scenarios where the adjustment comes
52
mainly from the Asian economies via private investment, fiscal deficit, or
exchange rate, among others. Their study is in a sense complementary to that of
Alberto (2005) which instead focuses mainly on the actions that could be taken by
the US. However, their model does not consider the EMU as a separate entity and
embodies it in the “Rest of the OECD” sector. Therefore, the impacts on the
EUR/USD exchange rate, or the EMU interest and growth rates, are not easy to
extricate from the results. Moreover, their claim that an interest rate increase could
help the US external deficit to shrink via reduction in US imports is acceptable
only in a model in which the net investment incomes from abroad are exogenous.
Results further suggest that a more realistic assessment of external imbalances
sustainability should take into account the debt/interest spiral.
John and Daniel (2011) investigate the effect of fiscal consolidation on the current
account. They examined contemporaneous policy documents, including Budget
Speeches, Budgets, and IMF and OECD reports, to identify changes in fiscal
policy motivated primarily by the desire to reduce the budget deficit, and not by a
response to the short-term economic outlook or the current account. Estimation
results based on this measure of fiscal policy changes suggest that a 1 percent of
GDP fiscal consolidation raises the current account balance-to-GDP ratio by about
0.6 percentage point, supporting the twin deficits hypothesis. This effect is
53
substantially larger than that obtained using standard measures of the fiscal policy
stance, such as the change in the cyclically adjusted primary balance.
In Nigeria, Egwaikhide (1997) considering the fact that the magnitude of
government has increased with amazing rapidity since the early 1980s, examines
the effect of budget deficit on the current account balance in Nigeria, covering the
period from 1973 to 1993. A macro econometric model that captures the salient
interrelationships between government budgetary developments, credit creation
and the current account balance is constructed. Evidence from the results suggests
that budget policy affects the current account balance in Nigeria. In particular,
simulation experiments show that budget deficit, engendered by increased
expenditure, leads to a deterioration of the current account, whether it is financed
through bank credit or external borrowing. This suggests that budget discipline is
necessary for the achievement of external balance in Nigeria.
Furthermore, Ali (2002) revisits the relationship between government budget
deficits and interest rates in Greece. Contrary to the results of Vamvoukas (1997)
the evidence deduce from system estimations of error-correction models
consistently denies any causal impact of the deficits on interest rates. Indeed, the
high correlation observed between the two variables appears to the outcome of
54
interest rates causing purposeful changes in the stance of fiscal policy. These
findings stand up to numerous sensitivity tests and provide further support to the
overwhelming evidence against the crowding-out hypothesis.
Also for Nigeria, Olopoenia (1986) adopted Morgan's analytical framework to
evaluate the implications of fiscal operations in Nigeria's balance of payments
developments. On the basis of the theoretical relationships established, the
argument was advanced that because the source of financing the domestic budget
balance comes mainly from the foreign budget balance, increased aggregate
demand enhanced through the monetization of foreign exchange earnings would
propagate inflation and create a balance of payments problem. In effect, this
evidence suggests that adequate care must be taken in financing budget deficit
through credit creation in order to achieve the macroeconomic objective of price
stability with external balance.
Oladipo and Akinbobola (2011) investigate the nature and direction of causality
between budget deficit and inflation with a view to providing empirical evidence
on budget deficit operation in stimulating economic growth through inflation in
Nigeria. Secondary data were used in this study. Data on inflation rate, exchange
rate, Gross Domestic Product (GDP) and budget deficit were collected from
55
statistical Bulletin and Annual Report and Statement of Account published by the
Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) and the International Financial Statistics (IFS)
published by International Monetary Fund (IMF). Granger Causality pairwise test
was conducted to determine the causal relationship among the variables. The
results indicate that there was no causal relationship from inflation to budget
deficit (F = 0.9, P > 0.05), while the causal relationship from budget deficit to
inflation was significant (F = 3.6, P < 0.05). This implies that a uni-directional
causality from budget deficit to inflation exist in Nigeria. Furthermore, the result
showed that budget deficit affects inflation directly and indirectly through
fluctuations in exchange rate in the Nigerian economy.
Javid et al., (2011) empirically investigates the effects of fiscal policy or
government budget deficit shocks on the current account and the other
macroeconomic variable: real output, real interest rate and exchange rate for
Pakistan over the period 1960-2009. The structural Vector Autoregressive model is
employed; the exogenous fiscal policy shocks are identified after controlling the
business cycle effects on fiscal balances. The results suggest that an expansionary
fiscal policy shock improves the current account and depreciates the exchange rate.
The rise in private saving and the fall in investment contribute to the current
account improvement while the exchange rate depreciates. The twin divergence of
fiscal deficit and current account deficit is also explained by the output shock
56
which seems to drive the current account movements and its co-movements with
the fiscal balance.
In the same manner, Christiane and Isabel (2008) analyze the empirical
relationship between fiscal policy and the current account of the balance of
payments and consider how Ricardian equivalence changes this relationship. To do
so, they estimate a dynamic panel threshold model for 22 industrialized countries
in which the relationship between the current account and the government balance
is allowed to alter according to the government debt to GDP ratio. The results
show that for countries with debt to GDP ratios up to 90% the relationship between
the government budget balance and the current account is positive, i.e. an increase
in the fiscal deficit leads to a higher current account deficit. For very high debt
countries this relationship however turns negative but insignificant, suggesting that
a rise in the fiscal deficit does not result in a rise in the current account deficit.
Implicitly this result suggests that households in very high debt countries tend to
become Ricardian. Estimating the same model for the 11 largest euro area
countries shows that the relationship between the government balance and the
current account turns statistically insignificant when the debt to GDP ratio exceeds
80%.
57
Since, the early days of independence Nigeria’s fiscal operation and current
account position has been characterised by deficits and imbalances. It is on this
note, that Olanikpekun (2012) investigates the relationship between budget deficit
and current account balance in Nigeria from 1960-2008. Ordinary least square was
first explored to determine the effect of budget deficit on current account balance
in Nigeria. Various diagnostic tests preceded cointegration analysis. In order to
capture the short-run disequilibrium situation among the variables, namely current
account balance, budget balance, investment and private savings, an error
correction model was estimated as a follow up to cointegration analysis.
Estimation of long-run elasticities was done from the computed autoregressive
distributed lag. Thereafter Granger causality test was conducted to determine the
causal relationship among the variables. Ordinary least square result show that a
unit increases in budget deficit will cause 0.71 unit increase in current account
balance. Bound cointegration test established a long run relationship among the
variables. Evidence from the error correction model shows that 1% change in
budget deficit will cause 0.67% change in current account balance. The empirical
findings further indicate that there is a bi-directional relationship between budget
deficit and current account balance as revealed by the Granger causality test. The
findings support the twin deficits hypothesis for Nigeria.
58
Furthermore, Somia et al., (2011) examine the empirical relationship between
budget deficit and current account deficit in case of Pakistan over the period of
1971 to 2008, using autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) approach in order to
test the validity of the Keynesian stance, which, states that there is positive and
significant relationship between the said variables. The results show that in case of
Pakistan, the long run Coefficients of control variables (GDP, ER and INT)
appeared to be significant and the most significant variable is budget deficit.
Hence, the Keynesian stance is valid in case of Pakistan. The feedback coefficient
is negative and significant suggesting that about 35% disequilibrium in the
previous period is corrected in current year. They find a stable long run
relationship between budget deficit and trade deficit as indicated by the CUSUM
and CUSUMq stability test.
Kumhof et al., (2012) investigate the empirical and theoretical link between
increases in income inequality and increases in current account deficits. Cross-
sectional econometric evidence shows that higher top income shares, and also
financial liberalization, which is a common policy response to increases in income
inequality, are associated with substantially larger external deficits. To study this
mechanism they developed a DSGE model that features workers whose income
share declines at the expense of investors. Loans to workers from domestic and
59
foreign investors support aggregate demand and result in current account deficits.
Financial liberalization helps workers smooth consumption, but at the cost of
higher household debt and larger current account deficits. In emerging markets,
workers cannot borrow from investors, who instead deploy their surplus funds
abroad, leading to current account surpluses instead of deficits.
Eberechukwu & Maxwell (2012) examine the determinants of current accounts
balance in Nigeria with emphasis on oil-related variables, using the Johansen-
Julius VAR co-integration estimation, the impulse response function and the
variance decomposition analysis. The results show that oil price, oil balance and
oil revenue are positively related with the current account, with only oil wealth
having a significant negative impact in the long-run. They find that the impact of
oil price on the current account balance is only significant in the short-run. The
variance decomposition analysis indicates that the variance in the current account
is better explained by own shocks followed by shocks to oil price, oil wealth
balance and fiscal balance
Recent theoretical and empirical analyses of the relation between the current
account and the government budget balance suggest that the “twin deficits”
relation is subject to structural changes. Most previous empirical analyses impose
the change point without resorting to econometric testing.
60
To this effect, Alberto (2006) uses time series data to evaluate the impact of
structural breaks on the long- and short-run relation between current account,
government balance and investment in 22 OECD countries. Results show that
when allowing for the possible existence of structural breaks of unknown date, the
data reveal more clearly the long-run relation between the current account and its
determinants. Moreover, the empirical results show that the degree of financial
integration is generally increasing in most OECD countries, including the leading
non-EU economies. This contrasts some recent evidence on the persistence of the
so-called Feldstein–Horioka puzzle.
Over the last three decades, many developing countries have experienced severe
currency crises. Levan and Akinori (2011) commissioned a study of how the
importance of twin deficits (budget and current account deficits) has changed in
predicting sudden stops from the 1970s to the mid-2000s using data from 42
developing countries. Results show that the explanatory power of twin deficits has
declined over the decades but that deficits of these kinds remain important factors
for predicting sudden stops. Our results imply that a large current account deficit is
an issue even when it is not accompanied by a budget deficit. This finding
contradicts Lawson’s Doctrine.
61
Oladipo et al., (2012) examine the effects of twins’ deficits in Nigeria for the
period 1970-2008 using Secondary time-series data and econometric techniques.
The results show a bidirectional causal relationship between budget deficits and
trade deficits in Nigeria. The study concludes that an appropriate policy measures
to reduce budget deficits could play an important role in reducing trade deficit and
complement this with budget-cut policies via a coherent package that focus on
policies for export promotion, productivity improvement and exchange rate,
amongst others.
Sophocles et al., (2012) commissioned this study with the aim of studying the main
macroeconomic, financial and structural factors that shaped current account
developments in Greece over the period from 1960 to 2007 and discuss these
developments in relation to the issue of external sustainability. Concerns over
Greece’s external sustainability have emerged since 1999 when the current account
deficit widened substantially and exhibited high persistence. The empirical model
used, which theoretically rests on the intertemporal approach, treats the current
account as the gap between domestic saving and investment. They examined the
behaviour of the current account in the long run and the short run using co-
integration analysis and a variety of econometric tests to account for the effect of
62
significant structural changes in the period under review. Results suggest that a
stable equilibrium current account model can be derived if the ratio of private
sector financing to GDP, as a proxy for financial liberalisation, is included in the
specification. Policy options to restore the country’s external sustainability are
explored based on the estimated equilibrium model.
Riccardo (2011) investigates the links between international global imbalances and
the recent international financial crisis. It also focuses on the asymmetries of the
dollar standard exchange rate regime. Global imbalances preceded the crisis but
were one of the ingredients that led to the financial crash of 2007-2008. The paper
rejects the ‘saving glut' explanation of the US trade deficit and shows that the key
role of the dollar in the international monetary system allows the USA to exert
seignorage in the international economy and created a circuit where Asian and oil-
producing countries financed the US deficit. The inflow of foreign capitals
increased the US domestic credit supply contributing to the development of the
sub-prime bubble. The paper concludes that only the creation of a supranational
monetary authority can eliminate the dangers of the asymmetric dollar standard
regime.
63
Joseph (2011) finds statistically robust and economically important effects of fiscal
policy, external financial policy, net foreign assets, and oil prices on current
account balances. The statistical model builds upon and improves previous
explanations of current account balances in the academic literature. A key advance
is that the model captures the effect of external financial policies, including
exchange rate policies, through data on net official financial flows. Based on
current and expected future policies, current account imbalances in major G-20
economies are likely to widen much more in the next five years than projected by
the International Monetary Fund (IMF). This paper concludes with a discussion of
appropriate policies to prevent widening imbalances.
Nozar and Ernie (n.d), employed structural vector auto regression (VAR) to test
the hypothesis that innovations in government budget deficit are positively
transmitted to trade deficit for middle Eastern and Northern African Economies of
Bahrain, Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Morocco, Oman, Nigeria, Syria, Tunisia,
Turkey and Yemen in the Middle East subcontinent. The empirical findings
suggest that the incidence of twin deficits appears to be country specific.
The observed cross-country variations with regard to the effects of fiscal deficits
on current account deficits tend to confirm that the dynamic relationship between
64
the two deficits is subject to change depending on the underlying tax system, trade
patterns and barriers, monetary regimes, the exchange rate and a complex host of
internal and international forces that shape a country’s economic status in the
global economy. Their findings further indicate no significant relationship between
changes in budget deficits and changes in the current account for Egypt, Iran,
Morocco, Syria, Nigeria, Tunisia, and Bahrain. By contrast, a reversed causality is
observed running from ∆CABt to ∆GBBt for Egypt, Jordan, Oman, Syria and
Yemen. In the case of Yemen, changes in budget deficits in response to changes in
the current account are delayed for at least one period since ∆GBBt-2 is statistically
significant while ∆GBBt-1 is not. In Egypt and Syria, changes in budget deficits in
response to changes in trade deficits are delayed for at least one period because
∆CABt-2 is statistically significant while CABt-1 is not.
Most applications of structural VARs and cointegration to the study of the short-
and long-run relationships among macroeconomic variables, in an open economy
context, do not include budget deficits as one of the key variables. Salifu and
Francis (1996), in an attempt to rectify this omission, incorporated budget deficits
into the analysis of the co movements in macroeconomic variables (budget deficits,
money interest rates, exchange rates and the current account balance) in the short
and long runs using a VAR approach. Empirical results suggest that a larger
65
proportion of variations in the interest rate differential between financial centres as
well as of variations in current account balances of countries is accounted for by
monetary innovations rather than by fiscal innovations. However, fluctuations in
real exchange rates are better explained by fiscal innovations.
2.3 Summary of Empirical Review
The entire gamut of empirical tests reviewed for the role of the budget deficits in
causing the trade deficits has been a subject of controversy as to: do the budget
deficits affect the trade deficits? If so, to what extent and through which channels
do budget deficits affect the trade deficits? Two competing views of Mundell-
Fleming [(Mundell (1968), and Fleming (1967)] and Ricardian equivalence (Barro,
(1974, 1989) explaining such variations in the deficits were identified.
According to Mundell-Fleming model, budget deficits cause current account
deficits. Studies in favour of the twin deficits hypothesis include those undertaken
by Abell (1990); Islam (1998); Zietiz & Pemberton (1990); Bachman (1992);
Kasak (1994); Vamvoukas (1999); Aqeel & Nishat (2000); Piersanti (2000);
Leachman & Francis (2002); Cavallo (2005); and Erceg, Guerrieri., & Gust
(2005) etc. Results of these studies supported the conventional view that the twin
66
deficits share positive association and that causality runs from budget deficit to
current account deficit.
Furthermore, Laney (1984); Miller & Rusek (1989); Dewold & Ulan (1990);
Enders & Lee (1990); Boucher (1991); Evans (1993); Winner (1993); Kim
(1995); Bartlett (1999); Papaioannou, Kei – Mu Yi (2001); and Kaufmann et al.,
(2002) amongst others support the view of Ricardian Equivalent as they failed to
identify any stable Long-run relationship between the two deficits.
The plethora of empirical literature reviewed above, each has investigated the
possible causal correspondence between budget deficit and current account deficit
using the five possible scenarios as theoretical foundation. All have employed co
integration analysis and granger causality tests for the parameter estimation. Most
of the studies specified bi-variate VAR model, while some others augmented the
two variable VAR model with some other critical variables as control to avoid the
problem of misspecification. Such variables include: real interest rate, real
exchange rate, real output and real money supply.
In all of the survey, the author is yet unaware of any of the studies that have
included trade openness in the model for investigating the causal relationship
67
between government budget balance and the current account imbalance. Bearing in
mind the likely influence of this variable on the stance of both budget and current
balances, which may be of great consequence, this study, in a bid to remedy this
lacuna, incorporated trade openness into the analysis of the co movements in
macroeconomic variables of budget deficits, money market interest rates, exchange
rates and the current account balance in the short and long runs using co
integration approach. Furthermore, this model used real GDP annual innovations
(growths) rather than the absolute/aggregate value as identified in most of the
reviewed empirical literature and, finally, we employed real market lending
interest rate which drives developments in private investment, in place of using
prime lending rate/bank discount rate as observed in most of the reviewed studies
that employed this variable. These have provided enough justification for the
study.
68
References
Abell, J. D. (1990). Twin Deficits During 1980s: An emperical investigation. Journal of Macroeconomics, 12, 81 – 96.
Ahmad, Z. B., & Evan, L. (2007). Dynamics of fiscal and current account deficits in Thailand: an empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Studies, 34 (6), 454 – 475. Ahmed, M. K., & Teo, W. G. (1999). Causality tests of budget and current account deficits: Cross-country comparisons. Empirical Economics, 24 (3), 389 – 402. Alberto, B. (2005). The US twin deficits in perspective: an econometric assessment. LLEE
Working Document No.24, 1 – 30.
Alberto, B. (2006). Structural breaks and the twin deficits hypothesis. International Economics and Economic Policy, 3 (2), 137 – 155. Ali Abbas, S. M., Jacques, Bouhga-Hagbe., Antonio J. F., Paolo, M., & Ricardo C. V. (2010).
Fiscal policy and the current account. International Monetary Fund WP/10/121, 1 – 23.
Ali, F. D. (2002). On budget deficits and interest rates: Another look at the evidence. International Economic Journal, 16 (2), 19 – 29. Alkswani, M.A. (2000, October). The twin deficits phenomenon in petroleum economy:
Evidence from saudi arabia. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference, Economic Research Forum (ERF), Amman, Jordan.
Aqeel, A & Nishat, M. (2000). The twin deficits phenomenon: Evidence from pakistan.
The Pakistan Development Review, 39 (4), 535–550 Anoruo, E., Ramchander, S. (1998). Current account and fiscal deficits: Evidence from five developing economies of Asia. Journal of Asian Economics, 9 (3), 487-501. Bachman, B. (1992). Current account deficit unrelated to budget surplus. National Centre
for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/barlett.html. Barro, R. J. (1974). Are government bonds net wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 82,
1095-1117. Bartlett, B. (1999). Are budget surpluses equivalent to tax cuts? Idea House. National Center
for Policy Analysis, 1-3. Bemheim, B. D. (1988). Budget deficits and the balance of trade. MIT Press Tax Policy and the Economy, 2: 1 – 32.
69
Bhattacharya, R. (1997). The trade balance and the real exchange rate: evidence from a VAR for the United States. The Journal of Economics, XXIII, I.
Boucher, J. L. (1991). The U.S. current account: a long and short run empirical perspective. Cardoso, M., & Doménech, R. (2008). On Ricardian equivalence and twin divergence: the
spanish experience in the 2009 crisis. BBVA Economic Research Department University of Valencia, Spain.
Cavallo, M. (2005). Understanding the twin deficits: new approaches, new results. FRBSF
Economic Letter, Number 2005-16. Cavallo, M. (2007). Government consumption expenditures and the current account. Journal
of Public Finance and Management, 7. Christiane, N., & Isabel, V. (2008). Fiscal policies, the current account and ricardian
equivalence. European Central Bank Working Paper Series No 935. Clarida, R., & Prendergast, J. (1999). Fiscal stance and the real exchange: some empirical evidence Corsetti, G., & Müller, G. (2007). Twin deficits, openness and the business cycle. Working
Paper 2007/20, EUI. Cuddington, J. T. and Vinals,J. M. (1986). Budget deficits and the current account: An
intertemporal disequilibrium approach. Journal of International Economics, 21 Darrat, A. F. (1988). Have large budget deficits caused rising trade deficits? Southern Economic Journal, 879-87. Dewald, W. G., & Michael, U. (1990). The twin-deficit illusion. Cato Journal, 9 (3), 689–707. Eberechukwu, U., & Maxwell, E. (2012). Re-examining the determinants of current account balance in an oil-rich exporting country: a case of Nigeria. Centre for the Study of Economies of Africa, CSEA Working Paper WPS/12/01, 1 – 33. Egwaikhide, F. O. (1997). Effects of budget deficits on the current account balance in Nigeria: A
simulation exercise. African Economic Research Consortium, 70, 1 – 32. Elias, S., Pedro, A. C., & Micaela A. (2012). Modelling economic growth with internal and
external imbalances: Empirical evidence from Portugal. Economic Modelling, 29 (2), 478-486.
Elif, A., & Gül, I. T. (2001). Turkish twin effects: An error correction model of trade
balance. Economic Research Center Working Papers No: 0106.
70
Enders, W., & Lee, B. (1990). Current account and budget deficits: twin or distant cousins. Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, 374-382.
Erceg, C. J., Guerrieri, L., & Gust, C. (2005), Expansionary fiscal shocks and the trade deficit.
International Finance Discussion Paper No. 2005 (825), Federal Reserve Board.
Eugene, K., Mbodja, M., & Kern, O. K. (2004). Causality tests of the relationship between the twin deficits. Empirical Economics, 29 (3), 503 – 525.
Evan, L., & Ahmad, Z. B. (2006). Twin deficits hypothesis in SEACEN countries: A panel
data analysis of relationships between public budget and current account deficits. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 6 (2): 1 – 14.
Evans, P. (1988). Are consumers Ricardian? Evidence for the United States. Journal of Political
Economy, 96, 983-1004. Evans, P. (1993). Consumers are not Ricardian: Evidence from nineteen countries. Economic
Inquiry, 31: 534-548. Evidence from the Middle East and North Africa. Research in Business and Economics Journal, 1 – 17. Feldstein, M. S. (1986). The budget deficit and the dollar. NBER NBER Working Paper No.
1898, Macroeconomics Annual.
Feyrer, J., & Shambaugh, J. C. (2009). Global savings and global investment: the transmission of identified fiscal shocks. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 15113. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15113 Gagnon, J. E. (2011). Current account imbalances coming back. Peterson Institute for
International Economics Working Paper No. 11-1, 1 – 35.
Ganchev, G. T. (2010). The twin deficit hypothesis: the case of Bulgaria. Financial Theory and
Practice 34 (4), 357-377. Giancarlo, C., & Müller, G. J. (2006). Twin deficits: Squaring theory, evidence and common
sense. European University Institute, University of Rome III and CEPR and Goethe University Frankfurt.
Godley, W., & Cripps, F. (1983). Macroeconomics. Oxford University Press. Halil, A., & Sami, T. (2011). Twin deficit problem and feldstein-horioka hypothesis in turkey:
ARDL bound testing approach and investigation of causality. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 74, 30 – 44.
71
Islam, M. F. (1998). Brazil's twin deficits: An empirical examination. Atlantic Economic Journal, 26 (2), 121 – 128.
Javid, Y.; Javid, M., & Arif, U. (2011). Fiscal policy and current account dynamics in case of
pakistan, The Pakistan Development Review , 49 (4). Kasa, K. (1994). Finite horizons and the twin deficits. Economic Review, Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston, 3, 19-28. Kayfmann, S., Scharler, T., & Winckler, G. (2002). The Austrain current account deficit: driven
by twin deficits or by international expenditure allocation? Emperical Economics, 27, 529 – 542.
Kearney, C., & Monadjemi, M. (1990). Fiscal policy and current account performance:
International evidence on the twin deficits. Journal of Macroeconomics, 197- 218.
Kim, K.H. (1995). On the Long-Run determinants of the U.S. trade balance: A comment.
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 17, 447-55. Kim, S. & Roubini, N. (2003). Twin deficits or Twin Divergence? Fiscal Policy, Current Account, and Real Exchange Rate in the US. Unpublished paper, New York University,. Kim, S., & Roubini, N. (2008). Twin deficit or twin divergence? Fiscal policy, current account,
and real exchange rate in the U.S. Journal of International Economics 74, 362- 383.
Kumar, V. (2009). The importance of review of related literature in a research paper. retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1591883-review-of-literature- literature-research-college-research-planning-reserch-research-planning Kumhof, M., Lebarz, C. R., Romain, R. A., & Throckmorton, N. A. (2012). Income inequality
and current account imbalances. IMF Working Paper No. 12/8. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1997721.
Laney, L.O. (1984). The strong dollar, the current account and federal deficits: cause and effects.
Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Review, 1-14. Leachman, L. L., & Francis, B. (2002). Twin deficits: Apparition or reality? Applied
Economics, 34, 1121 – 1132.
Levan, E., & Akinori T. (2011). Have the implications of twin deficits changed? Sudden stops over decades. International Advances in Economic Research, 17 (1), 66 – 76.
72
Miller, S. M., & Russek, F. S. (1989). Are the twin deficits really related? Contemporary Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, 7(4), 91-115.
Miller, S. M., & Russek, F. S. (1989). Are the twin deficits really related? Contemporary Policy
Issues, 7
Morten, O. R., Stephanie Schmitt-Grohé., & Martín, U. (2007). Explaining the effects of government spending shocks on consumption and the real exchange rate. NBER Working Paper No. 13328, 1 – 36.
Müller, G. J., Bussière, M., & Fratzscher, M. (2004). Current account dynamics in OECD and
EU acceding countries - An intertemporal approach. ECB Working Paper No. 311: 1 – 40.
Neda, F., & Mohammad, P. (2011). The relationship between budget deficits and current account deficits. Journal of American Science, 7(10), 267-275. Normadin, M. (1999). Budget Deficit persistence and the twin deficits hypothesis. Journal of International Economics, 49, 171 – 193. Nozar, H., & Ernie, W. (n.d). The dynamics of internal and external debts: further evidence.
NBER Working Paper No. 7077. Nozar, H., & Loretta, W. (2006). The dynamics of current account and budget deficits in
selected countries of the Middle East and North Africa. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 5, 111 – 129.
Oladipo, S. O., & Akinbobola, T. O. (2011). Budget deficit and inflation in Nigeria: A causal relationship. Journal of emerging trends in economics and management sciences, 2 (1), 1-8 Oladipo, S. O., Oseni, I. O., Onakoya, A. B. (2012). Empirical analysis of twins’ deficits in Nigeria. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 2 (3), Olanipekun , D. B. (2012). A bound testing analysis of budget deficits and current account balance in Nigeria (1960-2008). International Business Management, 6, 408-416. Olopoenia, R. A. (1986). Some observations on the macroeconomic implications of the budget in an oil exporting developing economy. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 3, 285—296. Ozmen, E. (2004). Current account deficits, macroeconomic policy stance and governance:
an empirical investigation. ERC Economics Working Paper No. 04/14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.606641.
73
Papaioannou, S., & Yi, K. (2001). The effects of a booming economy on the u.s. trade deficit. Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 7, 2.
Philip, R. L., & Roberto, P. (1998). The trade balance and fiscal policy in the OECD. European
Economic Review, 42 (3–5), 887–895. Piersanti, G. (2000). Current account dynamics and expected future budget deficits: Some
international evidence. Journal of International Money, 19, 255 – 271. Riccardo, F. (2011). global imbalances, the international crisis and the role of the dollar.
Università di Verona, Dipartimento di Scienze economiche Working Papers 18/2011.
Romer, C. D., & Romer, D. H (2007). The macroeconomic effects of tax changes: estimates based on a new measure of fiscal shocks. University of California,Berkeley, 1– 44. Retrieved from http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
Salifu, B. I., & Francis, Y. K. (1996). Co-movements in budget deficits, money, interest rates, exchange rates and the current account balance: some empirical evidence. Applied Economics, 28 (1), 117-130.
Sofia, K., & Suzanna-Maria, P. (2011). The twin deficits hypothesis: Revisiting an EMU
country. Journal of Policy Modeling, In Press. Somia, I., Shahid, M. P. A., Mahpara, S., & Fazli, R. (2011). Old Wine in New Bottles: Testing
the Keynesian preposition of twin deficit in case of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science (Special Issue), 2(5), 209 – 213.
Sophocles, N. B., George, H., Christos,P., Nicholas, T. T., & Melina, A. V. (2012). Current account determinants and external sustainability in periods of structural change. Economic Change and Restructuring, 45 (1-2), 71-95.
Southern Economic Journal, 58 (1), 93-111. Suchismita, B., & Sudipta, J. (2011). India’s twin deficits: Some fresh empirical evidence. I.
C. R. A. Bulletin, Money and Finance, 84 – 104. Udah, E. B. (2011). Adjustment policies and current account behaviour: Empirical evidence
from Nigeria. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6 (1), 217 – 231.
Vamvoukas, G. (1999). The twin deficits phenomenon: Evidence from Greece. Applied
Economics, 31, 1093-1100. Vamvoukas, G. A. (1997). Have large budget deficits caused an increasing trade deficit?
Evidence from developing country. Atlantic Economic Journal, 25 (1), 80 – 90.
74
Walter, E., & Bong-Soo, L. (1990). current account and budget deficits: twins or distant
cousins? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(3), 373-381. Winner, L. E. (1993). The relationship of the current account balance and the budget balance.
The American Economist, 37 (2) 78 – 84. Zietz, J., & Pemperton, D.K. (1990). The U.S. budget and trade deficits: A simultaneous
equation model. Southern Economic Journal, 23-35.
75
CHAPTER THREE RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
3.1 Research Design
Research design refers to the overall strategy that a researcher chooses to integrate
the different components of a study in a coherent and logical way, thereby,
ensuring the researcher effectively addresses the research problem. In effect, it
constitutes the blueprint for the collection, measurement, and analysis of data and
it is the research question that determines the type of design to adopt and not the
other way around. This is quite different from research Methodology which refers
to the methods, techniques, and procedures that are employed in implementing a
research plan (design). For this study, Causal Comparative or Ex Post Facto
Research Design is adopted. This is because the study attempts to explore cause
and affect relationships where causes already exist and cannot be manipulated.
Ex-post facto research is systematic empirical inquiry in which the scientist does
not have direct control of independent variables because their manifestations have
already occurred or because they are inherently not manipulated. Inferences about
relations among variables are made, without direct intervention, from co
commitment variation of independent and dependent variables. This kind of
research is based on a scientific and analytical examination of dependent and
76
independent variables. Independent variables are studied in retrospect for seeking
possible and plausible relations and the likely effects that the changes in
independent variables produce on a single or a set of dependent variables.
The study used what already exist and look backwards to explain why. In this
study, we seek to establish the association between current account balance and
fiscal deficit for Nigeria and South Africa. The study goes further to establish the
direction of the flows. To achieve these fits, we opted to deploy the relevant
variables as follows: current account deficit (CAB) as the explained variable, and
budget deficit (GBB), real exchange rate (RER), real gross domestic product
(RGDP), real interest rate (RIR) and real trade openness (OPNESS)) as
explanatory variables. Real GDP means the gross domestic product as adjusted for
inflation and is included in the model to control for business cycle.
Annual data were sourced from the IMF-International financial statistic (IFS),
direction of trade (DOT) on-line and Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN) statistical
bulletin for the periods 1960 to 2011. Different variables and latest analytical
econometric application package software such as E-View 7.0 was used frequently
during the study. For the purpose of diagnosing the employed variables for fitness
and suitability for purposes intended, E-view 7.0 econometric application package
(software) was used to check whether the data are stationary or otherwise,
77
employing the Augmented Dickey-Fuller and Phillip Peron (PP) tests procedures.
Whether long run and short run relationship exist or otherwise, among the choice
variables was gauged through co-integration and ECM estimations. Furthermore,
the study ran granger causality and variance decomposition tests, with impulse
response function to establish the direction of flows and the degree of influence of
each explanatory variable on the explained variable respectively.
3.2 Model Specification
Twin deficit hypothesis mainly states that government budget deficits will cause
trade deficits. However, this is not the only theoretically possible relationship
between the budget and the trade deficits. The other extreme of Ricardian
equivalence hypothesis, holds that it is also possible that the two deficits are not
related at all. In the light of the above, this study investigated these hypotheses of
twin deficits and twin divergence or Ricardian equivalent for South Africa and
Nigeria for the periods 1960 – 2011 using bi-variate and multi-variate (VAR)
models based on co–integration analysis and the error correction model (ECM)
strategy. This enabled us examine the relationship between internal and external
deficits in both long and short-run frameworks.
78
Higgins & Klitgaard (1998), Nozar & Loretta (2006) amongst others, define gross
national product (GNP) as the sum of income derived from producing goods and
services for private consumption (C), private investment (I), government purchases
of goods and services (G), and exports (X). Consistent with the standard GNP
identity, we treat imports (M) as a negative item to avoid double counting of
consumption or investment goods purchased at home but produced abroad. To this
effect, GNP is represented by:
GNP = C + I + G + X – M, (1)
Where X - M signifies net exports plus net factor income. A second basic equation
in the national income accounts is established on the theory that income received
by individuals has four possible uses of being consumed “C”, saved “S” (private
saving), paid in taxes “T”, or transferred abroad “Trf”. Because GNP is simply the
sum of the income received by all individuals in the economy, we have:
GNP = C + S + T + Trf, (2)
79
By equating the two expressions for GNP developed above, canceling out
consumption (C) common to both expressions, and rearranging terms, we derive
the external and internal balance equation as:
X - M - Trf = (S - I) + (T - G), (3)
Where, (X - M – Trf) = current account balance (CAB) and [(S - I) + (T - G)] =
government budget balance (GBB). In other words, the current account balance is
equal to the difference between private saving and investment, and the gap
between government tax receipts and government expenditures on goods and
services.
At this point, we considered it plausible to follow the framework adopted by Aqeel
and Nishat (2000) to define the relationship between budget deficit and current
account deficit as:
CAB = [(S - I) + (T - G)] (4)
80
Where CAB is the current account balance, (S - I) represents private savings less
private investments and (T – G) indicates total government tax receipts minus total
government expenditures on goods and services.
In other words, the current account balance is equal to the difference between
private saving and investment, and the gap between government tax receipts and
government expenditures on goods and services (government budget balance,
GBB). Thus, equation 4 expressed in a more clear term would appear as:
CAB = GBB (5)
We suppose that current account balance (CAB) and government budget balance
(GBB) are jointly determined by a two variable VAR with constant as the only
exogenous variable. With two lagged values of the endogenous variables, the VAR
(2) is expressed as:
CABt = a11CABt-1 + a12CABt-2 + β 11GBBt-1 + β 12GBBt-2 + c1 + e1t (6) GBBt = a21CABt-1 + a 22CABt-2 + β 21GBBt-1 + β 22GBBt-2 + c2 + e2t (7) Then for the purpose of investigating the extent to which long-run causal linkage
exist from budget deficits to current account deficits and vice versa, equations 6
and 7 are augmented with their respective error correction terms lagged one period
81
denoted by δ. This transform the above VAR (2) models to vector error correction
models (VECM).
Where a, β, c are parameter to be estimated and e, stochastic error term. While equation (5) shows that current account balance is associated with the gap
between domestic saving and investment, it does not provide a theory of how the
current account balance is determined. In effect, this phase of the investigation is
bereaved of any attempt to incorporate the complex theoretical linkages between
exchanges rates, domestic interest rates and other contributing factors that could
influence the magnitude of savings, investment, export and import flows. Though,
since both current account and government budget data are reported in the same
frequency, equation (5) may still offer a satisfactory basis for empirical research
and trade policy debate, the absence of the critical macroeconomic fundamentals
constitutes a significant gap that may impair the results of this study and thus needs
to be filled. This suggests the need for multivariate formulation by augmenting
equation 5 with real GDP, bank lending rate, exchange rate and trade openness as
follows:
CAB = f (GBB, RER, LENDRATE, RGDP, OPNESS) (8)
The role of exchange rate and interest rate which acts as a source transmission
mechanism, are proven to be important in the innovation of twin deficits debate
82
(Evan & Chan, 2003). For the purpose of estimation, the above functional notation
is expressed in multivariate linear model with intercept as follows:
CAB = a0 + a1GBB + a2RER + a3LENDRATE + a4RGDP + a5OPNESS + µ (9) For more accurate prediction of the relationship between the explained and the
explanatory variables and other usual statistical reasons, equation (9) is further
transformed to log-linear model excepting for the real GDP innovations with
mixtures of positive and negative values in the time series variables.
LCAB = a0 + a1LGBB + a2LRER + a3LLENDRATE + a4RGDP + a5LOPNESS + µ (10) Where CAB is the current accounts balance, GBB = government budget balance,
RER = real exchange rate of the naira to a USD, LENDRATE proxied real
domestic lending interest rate, RGDP means real GDP innovations and OPNESS
represents ratio of total trade to GDP, a0 is a constant, a1;…;a5 indicate the
explanatory power of the variable or correlation coefficients, and µ is the stochastic
error term, while L is the logarithm. One motivation for using the log-linear model
for estimations is the ease of output interpretation, because under a log-linear
model the rates change at a constant percent per year, when comparing trends
across divergent group variables or data where the rates are very different, the
advantage of a log-linear model is that the annual percentage change (APC) is a
metric which makes sense to compare across widely different scales and again is
that log-linear models are flexible. (www.google.com.ng/#q). The above equations
83
(8-10) were intended just to predict the linear function of the employed variables,
but for the purpose of investigating the short and long run causal links between
fiscal deficits and current account imbalance, VAR (6, 2) models are specified and
evaluated as indicated from equations (11-16).
CABt = a1 + a11CABt-1 + a12CABt-2 + b11GBBt-1 + b12GBBt-2 + C11RERt-1 + c11RERt-z + d11Lendratet-1 + e11RGDPt-1 + e12RGDPt-2 + f11Opnesst-1 + f12Opnesst-2 + ε1t (11) GBBt = a2 + a21CABt-1 + a22CABt-2 + b21GBBt-1 + b22GBBt-2 + C21RERt-1 + C22RERt2 + d21Lendratet-1 + d22Lendratet-2 +e21RGDPt-1 + e22RGDPt-2 + f21Opnesst-1 + f22Opnesst-2 + ε2t (12) RERt = a3 + a31CABt-1 + a32CABt-2 + b31GBBt1 + b32GBBt2 + c31RERt-1 + c32RERt-2 + d31Lendratet-1 + d32Lendratet-2 + e31RGDt-1 + e32RGDPt-2 + f31Opnesst-1 + f32Opnesst-2 + ε3t (13) Lendratet = a4 + a41CABt-1 + a42CABt-2 + b41GBBt-1 + b41GBBt-1 + b42GBBt-2 + c41RERt-1 + c42RERt-2 + f41Opnesst-1 + f42Opnesst-2 + ε4t (14) RGDPt = a5 + a51CABt-1 + a52CABt-2 + b51GBBt-1 + b52GBBt-2 + c51RERt-1 + c52RERt-2 + d51Lendratet-1 + d52Lendratet-2 + e51RGDPt-1 + e52RGDPt-2 + f51Opnesst-1 + f52Opnesst-2 + ε5t (15) Opnesst = a6 + a61CABt-1 + a62CABt-2 + b61GBBt-1 + b62GBBt-2 + c61RERt-1 + c6RERt-2 + d61Lendratet-1 + d62Lendratet-2 + e61RGDPt-1 + e62RGDPt-2 + f61Opnesst-1 + f62Opnesst-2 + ε6t (16)
The motivation for using multi-variate VAR models stem from the fact that
Vamvoukas (1997), in his investigation of twin deficits for Greece, estimated bi-
variate model and found no existence of co-integration between the two deficits,
but when he augmented the model with GDP as the third variable, he found strong
and stable co-integration between the two deficits. Furthermore, in testing for
causality between budget and trade deficits, it is most appropriate to employ a
multivariate rather than a bivariate framework in order to avoid distorting the
causality inferences due to the omission of relevant variables, and research into
84
the twin deficits story requires explicit examination of the entire gamut of variables
that may relate meaningfully to trade and government deficits behavior (Tallman
and Rosensweig, 1991). Akaike’s information criterion (AIC) was employed in the
selection of the VAR lag length being guided by the lag length which yields the
smallest value for our information criterion.
Decision Rules: Abstracting from Koop (2005), the following conditions govern the findings of this
study:
(1) If equation 11 is evaluated and b11 = b12 = 0, it suggests that budget balance
position does not significantly cause current account balance, which
suggests that twin deficit hypothesis is violated.
(2) For equation 12, if a21 = a22 = 0, it indicates that current account deficits do
not significantly cause Budget deficits, which will mean that current account
targeting scenario is equally violated.
(3) And if b11 = b12 = 0 and a21 = a22 = 0, provides evidence of no bi-directional
relationship between current account balance and government budget
balance in Nigeria.
85
(4) If any cointegrating equation is identified among the variables, which
suggests evidence of long-run steady state equilibrium relationship among
the variables, then the models are best specified in VECM (Engle-Granger,
1987). In this instance, equations 11 – 15 are retained but each is augmented
with an additional regressor of its error term lagged one period designate by
e1t-1,…,e6t-1, with their coefficients of λ1,…,λ6, for equations 11 – 15
respectively. This transforms the VAR (2) models to VEC (2) models to
enable us test for the existence of long run causal link between fiscal deficit
and current account imbalance.
(5) Equations 11 and 12 as adjusted with inclusion of λ1e1t-1 and λ2e2t-1
respectively are evaluated for flow of long run causality from budget deficits to
current account deficits and vice – versa. If equation 11 as adjusted is evaluated
and b11 = b12 = λ1 = 0 indicates no long-run causal link from budget deficits to
current account deficits and if for equation 15 as adjusted a21 = a22 = λ2 = 0
suggests no significant long run causal association from current account balance to
budget deficit.
86
3. 3 Data Discussion
The six variables employed in this study are discussed below.
The Current Account Balance (CAB): By current account balance we mean net
trade in goods and services, plus net earnings from rents, interests, profits,
dividends and net transfer payments (such as pension funds and salaries). Trade
balance, analogous to current account balance (CAB), in most instances is stated as
the value of net exports (X – M). In this study we measure current account balance
as the ratio of the values of total credits in current accounts to the total debits in the
current accounts. The x/m ratio has been employed in many empirical analyses to
determine trade balance exchange rate relationship (Rincon, 1998; Bahmani-
Oskooee and Brooks, 1999 and, Gupta-Kapoor and Ramakrishnan, 1999). One
reason adduced for its use according to Bahmani-Oskooee, (1991) is that this ratio
is not sensitive to the unit of measurement and can be interpreted as nominal or
real trade balance. Furthermore, this ratio in a logarithmic model yields the exact
point elasticity rather than approximation (Boyd et al, 2001).
Government Budget Balance (GBB): In the same vein, government budget balance,
for the same reasons adduced above, is proxied as the ratio of total revenue
accruing to federal government to total expenditure of the federal government on
goods and services. Further motivation for preferring this unit of measurement is
87
that it saves us the quagmire of taking negative values to logarithm in the process
of generating log-linear model. Such transformation is required for more robust
estimation results.
Real exchange rate (RER): A real exchange rate between two currencies is
calculated as the product of the nominal exchange rate and relative price levels in
each country. To this effect, the real exchange rate variable will be derived by
multiplying the world price (Pw) by the nominal exchange rate and dividing the
product by the domestic price index (NER*Pw/DCPI) to transform the data into
index form.
Real Bank Lending Rate (LENDRATE): This refers to nominal interest rate as
adjusted for inflation. The relationship between the inflation rate and the nominal
and real interest rates is given by the expression: (1+r) = (1+n)/ (1+i). However for
low levels of inflation we can use the much simpler Fisher Equation to calculate
the real interest rate as: r = n – i. where r, n and i represent real interest rate,
nominal interest rate and inflation rate respectively.
Real Gross Domestic Product Growth: RGDP will be proxied by the nominal
gross domestic product deflected with the GDP deflector to control for inflationary
88
trend. Then the annual innovations in the real GDP provide approximation for real
GDP growth.
Openness (OPNESS): Openness refers to the degree of exposure of the domestic
economy to the external economic environment and can be proxied by the ratio of
total trade (exports + imports) to the gross domestic product (GDP).
3.4 Data Sources
The analysis covers time series data spanning across 1961-2011, and sourced
primarily from the IMF International Financial Statistics on-line, the Central Bank
of Nigeria (CBN) statistical bulletin (2010), the IMF International Financial
Statistics CD Rom (2011), The IMF Direction of Trade (DOT) and Government
Financial Data (GFD) on-line.
3.5 Econometric Procedure
Economic theory provides ample explanations of the possible interrelationships
between current account and budget balances. However, their validity appears to
be an empirical issue. Abstracting from recent literature we investigate the twin
deficits hypothesis by employing cointegration analysis.
89
Unit Root Test
The first step in a cointegration analysis is to examine the stationary status of each
of the univariate series to avoid the problem of spurious regression. The
Augmented Dickey-Fuller (ADF) and Phillip-Perron (PP) unit root tests are
employed to test this integration level and the possible co-integration among the
variables, (Dickey and Fuller, 1981; Phillips and Perron, (1988). A test of
stationary that has become widely popular over the past several years is the unit
root test. The Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) and Phillip Peron (PP) tests are
among the famous unit root tests to check the stationarity of economic variables
and these will be employed in this study. Many economic time series may be non-
stationary and therefore may need to be differenced (d) times till stationarity is no
more violated. To perform a formal test of stationarity, the Augmented Dickey
Filler (ADF) test will be utilized, employing and estimating the following standard
regression equation:
∆Y t = α0 + α1t + α2Yt-1 + ∑ αj∆Y t-j+1 + Ɛt (17)
where Yt is a macroeconomic variable at time t, εt is the disturbance term that is
generated from a white noise process and is assumed to be independently and
identically distributed with zero other words, the first difference of Yt is regressed
against a constant, a time trend (t = 1, 2 , ..., T), the first lag of Yt, and, if necessary,
q
j=2
90
lags of ΔYt. Sufficient lags of ΔYt must be included to ensure no autocorrelation in
the error term. Hence, the Schwarz Information Criterion (SIC) test would be
utilized to confirm that autocorrelation is not present. If a unit root exists, then α2
would not be statistically different from zero. The test for a unit root is based on
the t-statistics on the coefficient of the lagged dependent variable Yt-1; α2. This has
to be compared with specific calculated critical values. If at level the calculated
value is greater than the critical value in absolute term, then the null hypothesis of
a unit root is rejected, and the variable is taken to be stationary. If the data set
indicates integration property of the order 1(1) for the employed variables, then we
proceed to test for cointegration among the variables employing Johansen (1991),
Johansen and Juselius (1994) test techniques.
Cointegration Test
An informal method could be used; by looking at a time plot of the variable and
checking if there is any obvious trend in the data. Co-integration means that
despite being individually non-stationary, a linear combination of two or more time
series can be stationary. There are three main approaches to testing for co-
integration: The Engle-Granger two-step method, the Johansen procedure, and the
Phillips-Ouliaris Co-integration approach. According to Alkswani (2000), the
Maximum Likelihood procedure suggested by Johansen (1988 and 1991) and
91
Johansen and Juselius (1990), is favored when the number of variables in the study
exceeds two variables due to the possibility of existence of multiple co-integrating
vectors. Gonzalo (1994), in the same vein is still of the view that the advantage of
Johansen’s test is not only limited to multivariate case, but it is preferable than
Engle-Granger approach even with a two-variable model. Two statistic tests are
employed in determining the number of co-integrating vectors; the Trace test and
the Maximal eigenvalue test. The first one tests the null hypothesis that the number
of co-integrating vectors equals or less than (r). This test is calculated as follows:
Trace = -T ∑ In (1 - λt) (18b)
Where λt +1 ,…, λp are the (p – r) smallest estimated eigenvalues. The second test
(λmax), examines the null hypothesis that there is (r) of co-integrating vectors
against the alternative that (r + 1) co-integrating vectors. This will be estimated
from the equation:
λmax (r, r + 1) = -T In (1 - λt +1) (18b)
If co-integration is accepted, it suggests that the model is best specified in the first
difference of its variables with one period lag of the residual [ECM (-1)] as an
additional regressor. To this effect we will run the regressions in their first
differences. However by taking the first differences, we lose the long-run
relationship stored in the data which suggests that we have to use the variables at
q
j=2
92
both their levels and first differences. The advantage of using error correction
models (ECM) is that it incorporate the variables at both their levels and first
differences and by so doing, ECM captures the short-run disequilibrium situations
as well as the long-run equilibrium adjustments between variables (Mukhtar et al.,
2007).
Let us consider variables GBBt and CABt, where GBBt is the actual budget deficit
in real terms, CABt, is the current account balance in real terms, and t stands for
time. If GBB and CAB are considered to be stochastic trends and if they follow a
common long-run equilibrium relationship, then GBB and CAB should be
cointegrated. Cointegration is a test for equilibrium between non-stationary
variables integrated of same order. According to Engle and Granger (1987),
cointegrated variables must have an ECM representation. The main reason for the
popularity of cointegration analysis is that it provides a formal background for
testing and estimating short and long-run relationships among economic variables.
Furthermore, the ECM strategy provides an answer to the problem of spurious
correlations. If GBB and CAB variables are co integrated, the corresponding error
correction representations must be included in the system so that by so doing, one
can avoid misspecification and omission of the important constraints, but on the
other hand, if the variables are not integrated of the same order or are not
93
cointegrated, the VECM cannot be applied either (Granger, 1988). The ECM
representation could have the following form:
where 1 denotes the identity operator, which does not have any effect, L is the lag
operator and Ct–1 and Et–1 are error corrections term. The error correction term Ct–1
in Equation 19 is the lagged value of residuals from the co integrating regression of
GBBt on CABt and the term Et–1 in Equation 20 corresponds to the lagged value of
residuals from the cointegrating regression of CABt on GBBt. In Equations 19 and
20, ΔGBBt–i, ΔCABt–i, ut and et, are stationary, implying that their right hand side
must also be stationary.
1
It is obvious that Equations 19 and 20 compose a bi-variate vector auto-regression
(VAR) in first difference augmented by the error-correction terms C t–1 an d E t–1
1
94
indicating that ECM and co-integration are equivalent representations. According
to Granger (1988), in a co-integrated system of two series expressed by an ECM
representation, causality must run in at least one direction. In estimating the
models, we will therefore rely on the developments in the co-integration theory
otherwise referred to as the “error correction mechanism” (ECM). This was
developed to overcome the problems of spurious regression often associated with
the non-stationary times series and to generate valuable long-run relationship
simultaneously (Engle and Granger 1987; Hendry, 1986). The decision rules
within the ECM representation of Equations 12 and 13 are that: CABt does not
Granger cause GBB if all a3i = 0 and a1 = 0 and equivalently, GBBt, does not
Granger cause CABt if all b2i = 0 and b1 = 0.
It is also possible that the causality between GBBt and CABt estimated from the
ECM formulation could have been caused by a third variable. Such a possibility
may be explored within a multivariate framework by including other important
variables, for example, real output innovation, real exchange rate, real interest rate
and trade openness, which represent considerable determinants of government
budget and current account deficits. Thus, the causal relationship between GBBt
and CABt can be examined within the following ECM representation:
95
Where Xt could be a third variable such as GDP innovation, real exchange rate,
real interest rate and trade openness. In ECM Equations 21 and 22, Ct–1 and Et–1 are
the lagged values of the residuals from the co-integrating equations. Regarding
GDP innovations, real exchange rate, real interest rate and trade openness as
control variables, the system captures the response of GBBt and CABt to changes in
these variables creating an additional channel of causality between GBBt and CABt.
Thus, GBBt Granger cause CABt not only if the parameters b2i and b1 are jointly
significant, but also if the parameter b4i is statistically significant. Finally, we will
run the granger causality, forecast error variance decomposition (FEVD) and
impulse response function tests, to establish the direction of flows and the degree
of influence of the explanatory variables on the explained variable respectively.
96
But in event of identifying no co-integrating equation between the variables, the
equation (5) is estimated using the following VAR specifications employing two
lags for each of the endogenous variable, constants β10 & β20 to capture the effects
of exogenous variables including the spread between domestic savings and gross
private domestic investment. The choice of the lag length in the VAR models is
guided by the Akaike Information Criteria (AIC) and sample size.
Var1: ∆CABt = β10 + β11∆CABt-1 + β11∆GBBt-1 + α12∆CABt-2 + α12∆GBBt-2 + µ1t (23)
Var2: ∆GBBt = β20 + β21∆CABt-1 + β21∆GBBt-1 + β22∆CABt-2 + α22∆GBBt-2 + µ2t (24)
Where, ∆CAB represents first difference in current account balance, ∆GBB is the
change in government budget balance, β10 and β20 are the constants and µ1t and µ2t
are innovations for the ∆CAB and ∆GBB respectively. The innovations were
purged of any shared component before estimation by first differencing of the data.
Before estimating the VAR models, the endogenous variables will be subjected to
Granger Causality tests under the null hypothesis that there exists no Granger
causality. For the hypothesis to hold means that β11 = α12 = 0 & β21 = β22 = 0) and
the standard F- test static should be insignificant. Likewise, the twin deficit
hypothesis proposition is empirically validated if at least any of the estimated
coefficients of the lagged endogenous variables are positive and statistically
different from zero.
97
Granger Causality Test
Abstracting from Mukhtar et al., (2007), if a pair of data series is co-integrated,
and then there must be Granger Causality in at least one direction, which reflects
the direction of influence between the series. Theoretically, If the current and
lagged term of a time series variable, say Xt, determine another time series
variable, say Yt, , then there exist granger causality relationship between Xt and Yt ,
in which Yt is granger caused by Xt. From the above analysis, the model is
specified as follows:
∆Yt = β11∆Yt-1 +… + β1n∆Yt-n + β21∆Yt-1 + …+ β1n∆Yt-n - γ (Yt-1 - αX t-1 – δ) + ε1t (25)
∆Xt = β31∆Yt-1 + … + β3n∆Yt-n + β41∆Yt-1 + …+ β4n∆Yt-n - γ (Yt-1 - αX t-1 – δ) + ε1t (26)
The above two equations are used to test the null hypothesis that causality runs
neither from X to Y nor from Y to X.
Impulse Response Function
This practice involves measuring unforeseen innovations in one variable X,
referred as impulse, in time (t) and predicting its effect on the other variable Y in
subsequent times t, t+1, t+2, etc, referred to as responses. IRF, in a VAR model
identifies the response of the dependent variable to shocks in error term. In
economics, and especially in contemporary macroeconomic modeling, impulse
response functions describe how the economy reacts over time to exogenous
98
impulses, which economists usually call 'shocks', and are often modeled in the
context of a vector auto-regression. Impulses that are often treated as exogenous
from a macroeconomic point of view include changes in government spending, tax
rates, and other fiscal policy parameters; changes in the monetary base or other
monetary policy parameters; changes in productivity or other technological
parameters; and changes in preferences, such as the degree of impatience. Impulse
response functions describe the reaction of endogenous macroeconomic variables
such as output, consumption, investment, and employment at the time of the shock
and over subsequent points in time. The general form for impulse response
function for multivariate VAR would be:
yt = α + εt + Ѳ1εt-1 + Ѳ2εt-2 + ;…; + Ѳi εt-I (27)
where, y is the vector of the considered dependent variables, α is the vector of the
constant, ε is the vector of innovations for all the variables included in the VAR
model and Ѳ is the vector of parameters that measure the reaction of the dependent
variable to innovations in all variables included in the VAR model.
However, as in this study we intend to use both bi-variate and multi-variate VAR
models in investigating the twin deficit paradigm. It would be plausible that the
99
structure of impulse response function equations in the case of two variables, say
Y t and Xt are defined as well:
Y t = α1 + εy,t + ή1εy,t-1 + ή2εy,t-2 + … ήiεy,t-I (28)
X t = α2 + εx,t + ǿ1εx,t-1 + ǿ2εx,t-2 + … ǿiεx,t-I (29)
The above equations articulate how the dependent variable, Yt or Xt, responds to
previous innovations that happened to the endogenous variables included in the
VAR model (εX’s and εY’s). However, the coefficients (φ’s and η’s) represent the
degree of responses.
Forecast Error Variance Decomposition
The structural VAR FEVDs are computed from conditional within-sample
forecasts for each of the variables in the system over one to ten period forecast
horizons. The FEVD explains the relative proportion of the movements in a
sequence due to its own shocks versus shocks to other variables. If own shocks
explain all of the forecast error variance (FEV) of a variable, the time series in
question may be considered exogenous to the other variables within the system.
However, if a large proportion of the FEV associated with the sequence of a
particular variable is explained by shocks to one or more of the other variables,
then the time series in question would be considered endogenous to the system
(Andrew et al., 2009) The approach also allows one to draw inferences as to the
100
relative importance in terms of the magnitude and sequence of influence among the
system’s variables, and hence determine the final specification of models useful for
forecasting. Finally, VAR and multivariate AR models will be used to estimate one
to ten period out-of sample forecasts for each of the target forecast variables.
Yit = ci + Ti + ∑ [bi(k)] Yit – k + ∑ alDl + εit (30)
Where Yit represents each of the i =1 through the employed 5 variables and K is
the optimal lag order or length identified with the SBIC.
11
l=1
K
k=1
101
References Alkswani, M.A. (2000, October). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon in Petroleum Economy:
Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference, Economic Research Forum (ERF), Amman, Jordan.
Andrew M. M., Harold L. G. Jr., & Rita I. C.(2009). Alternative model selection using forecast error variance decompositions in wholesale chicken markets. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1), 227–240. Aqeel, A & Nishat, M. (2000). The twin deficits phenomenon: evidence from pakistan.
The Pakistan Development Review, 39 (4), 535–550 Bahmani – Oskooee. M., & Brook, T. (1999). Bilateral J-curve between U. S and her trading
partners. Weltwirt schaftliches Archive 135 (1), 156-165. Boyd, D., Caporale, G.M., & Smith, R. (2001). Real exchange rate affects the balance of trade:
cointegration and marshall-lerner condition. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 6, 187 – 200.
Dickey, D., & Fuller, W.A. (1981). Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with unit root. Econometrica 49, 1057 -72.
Engle, R. F., & Granger, C.W. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 50, 987 – 276.
Gonzalo, J. (1994). Five alternative methods of estimating long-run equilibrium relationships. Journal of Econometrics, 60, 203 – 2033.
Granger, C. W. J. (1988). Some recent developments in a concept of causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39 (1/2), 199-211. Gupta-Kapoor, A., & Ramakrishnan, U. (1999). Is there a J-Curve? A new estimation for Japan.
International Economic Journal, 13(4), 71-79. Hendry, D. F. (1986). Economic Modeling with Coitegrated Variables. Special Issue, 48 (3), 1-
27. Higgins, M., & Klitgaard, T. (1998). Viewing the current account deficit as a capital inflow. Current Issues Economics and Finance, 4 (13), 1 – 5.
Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegrating vectors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 213-54.
102
Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of gaussian vector autoregression models. Econometrics 59. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1994). Identification of long-run and short-run structure: An application of IS-LM model. Journal of Econometrics, 63, 7 – 36
Johansen, S.; & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration-with application to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169-210.
Mukhtar T, M. Z., & Ahmed, M. (2007). An empirical investigation for twin deficits hypothesis in Pakistan. Journal of Economic Corporation, 28 (4), 63 – 80. Nozar, H., & Loretta, W. (2006). The dynamics of current account and budget deficits in
selected countries of the Middle East and North Africa. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 5, 111 – 129.
Phillips, P.C.B., Perron, P., (1988).Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75, 335–346. Rincon, H. C. (1998). Testing the short-and-long-run exchange rate effect on trade balance: The
case of Colombia. Dissertation Paper (Ph.D), University of Illinois, Urbana-Campaign.
Tallman, E. W., & Jeffrey, A. R. (1991). Investigating U.S. government and trade deficits.
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review,1, 1-11.
103
CHAPTER FOUR
PRESENTAION AND ANALYSIS OF DATA
Data analysis and interpretation is intended to transform the data collected into
credible evidence about the development of the intervention. Data analysis
involves working to uncover patterns and trends in data sets while interpretation
involves explaining those patterns and trends. Data analysis is considered an
important step and heart of the research in any research work. When data has been
collected with the assistance of relevant tools and methods, the next logical step, is
to analyze and interpret the data with a view to arriving at empirical solution to the
problem. For this study, we employ descriptive statistical techniques like mean,
standard deviation and coefficient of variation, and co-integration analysis.
4.1 Summary Statistic of Variables used for Nigeria & South Africa
This is intended to provide the preliminary test on the observed economic variables
to enable us express opinion on the nature of innovations in each of the employed
data series. The data on LCAB, LGBB, LRER, LLENDRATE RGDP and
LOPNESS for the period of 1960– 2011 for Nigeria and South Africa are presented
in tables 1 & 2 as their means, standard deviations (SD) and coefficient of
variations (CV).
104
Table 1: Summary Statistics of Variables Used for Nigeria
Variables Details Mean SD CV Lcab Current Account Balance 1.157 0.403 0.348 Lgbb GovernmentBudget Balance 1.062 0.643 0.605 Lrer Real Exchange Rate 99.634 50.043 0.502
Llendrate Real Lending Rate 13.565 6.913 0.510 Rgdp Real Gross Domestic Product 0.213 0.820 3.850
Lopness Opness 0.472 0.153 0.324 Source: Author’s calculation based on data from IMF-IFS, and CBN Statistical Bulletin, 2011. Table 2: Summary Statistics of Variables Used for South Africa Variables Details Mean SD CV
Lcab Current Account Balance 0.740 0.121 0.164 Lgbb Government Budget Balance 0.868 0.071 0.082 Lrer Real Exchange Rate 5.644 1.674 0.292
Llendrate Real Lending Rate 13.164 4.810 0.365 Rgdp Real Gross Domestic Product 0.046 0.038 0.826
Lopness Opness 0.542 0.072 0.133 Source: Author’s calculation based on data from IMF-IFS, and CBN Statistical Bulletin,2011.
Coefficient of Variation (CV) is the percentage variation in mean, standard
deviation being considered as the total variation in the mean. Coefficient of
Variation can be used to compare the unpredictability of two or more series. The
series of data for which the coefficient of variation is large indicates that the group
is more erratic and thus less stable or less uniform and vice versa. To this effect,
we analyze the coefficient of variations of the both economies; Nigeria and South
Africa as presented in tables 1 & 2 above with a view to establishing the degree of
variability or stability of their macroeconomic variables.
105
From table1, it is observed that while for Nigeria, the percentage variation in mean
of current account balance, government budget balance, real exchange rate, lending
rate, real GDP innovations and trade openness (all in their logarithms excepting
for RGDP innovations because of some identified negative values in the series),
show 34.8%, 60.5%, 50.2%, 51%, 385% and 32.4% respectively, those of South
Africa, table 2, for the same observed variables indicate 16.4%, 8.2%, 29.2%,
36.5%, 82.6% and13.3% in that order. Variables of particular interest are the (CV)
of RGDP innovations of Nigeria of 385% as against 82.6% for South Africa. This
indicates that South Africa has experienced more stable and sustainable growth in
her real gross domestic product within the period under review as against Nigeria’s
erratic (meaning they can vary significantly from one year to another) and
unsustainable RGDP growth scenario indicated by the very high coefficient of
Variation. In the same vein, the low percentages of 16.4% and 8.2% as against
Nigeria’s 34.8% and 60.5% for current account and government budget balances
suggests that within the period under review, South Africa was running sustainable
internal and external balances in contrast to Nigeria’ s experience during the same
period. This must have accounted for the unpredictability of Nigeria’s economic
trends, resulting in several policy somersaults and reversals as being witnessed to
date.
106
4.2 Unit Root Test
An implicit assumptions that underlie regression analysis involving time series
data is that such a data series is stationary (Gujarati, 1995). In this context, testing
for stationary or otherwise of the employed data sets becomes of essence in this
analysis. Hatemi-J, (2001) states that a stochastic process generating data is said to
be stationary or 1(0), ie integrated of the order zero, when the following
assumptions are not violated:
(1) E(yt) = μ, the mean value of yt is constant and independent of time trend, (2)
Var (yt) = σ2, the variance of yt is constant across time trend and (3) Cov (yt, yt-s) =
Ƿ s, the covariance is dependent only on the distance between the observation and
independent of time t. Hence, on the above note, Stationary means that the
marginal distribution of the process does not change with time. Otherwise stated,
implies that the mean and the variance of the time series data, stay the same over
time. So anything that violates it will be deemed non-stationary. It is common for
time series variables to demonstrate signs of non-stationary. This typically suggests
that both the conditional means and variances of macroeconomic variables trend
upwards over time (Rose, 1990). On this note we explicitly test for presence of
non-stationary, both as a first step in exploring the characteristics of the employed
data, and for the fact that the manifestation of such non-stationarity often has
significant econometric implications. A test of stationarity that has become widely
107
popular over the past several years is the unit root test. According to Ebrahim,
Alawin & Bashayreh (2012), Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) test is one of the
famous unit root tests to check the stationarity of economic variables. Many
economic time series may be non-stationary and need to be differenced (d) times
until reaching stationary. Then, a time series (like X) is said to be integrated of
order (d), denoted by X~I (d). To carry out a prescribed test for stationary, the
Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) test is employed by estimating the following
regression equation.
∆X t = α0 + α1t + α2X t-1 + ∑ αj ∆X t-j+1 + Ɛt (31)
where Xt is a macroeconomic variable at time t, εt is the stochastic error term that
is generated from a white noise process and understood to be independently and
identically distributed with zero mean and constant variance. In other words, the
first difference of Xt is regressed against a constant, a time trend (t = 1, 2 , ..., T),
the first lag of Xt, and, if necessary, lags of ΔXt. Sufficient lags of ΔXt must be
included to ensure no autocorrelation in the error term. If a unit root (non-
stationarity) exists, then α2 would not be statistically different from zero.The test
for a unit root is based on the t-statistics on the coefficient of the lagged dependent
variable. This has to be compared with specific calculated critical values and in
q
j-2
108
event of the calculated value being greater than the critical value, then the null
hypothesis of a unit root is rejected, and the variable is taken to be stationary. The
Augmented Dickey-Fuller test though frequently and widely used because of its
ability to take into consideration the autocorrelation adjustments, it has the lapses
of arbitrary choice of the proper order of autocorrelation. It is in recognition of this
that we further employ the Phillip-Peron (1988) method which is robust to any
form of autocorrelation (Song, 1997). One advantage of the PP tests over the ADF
tests is that the PP tests are robust to general forms of heteroskedasticity in the
error term ut. Another advantage is that the user does not have to specify a lag
length for the test regression. The results of ADF and PP as presented in tables 3 &
4 below for Nigeria and South Africa respectively show that in all cases, all the
employed variables become stationary at least in their first difference.
Table3: Unit Root Test Results for Nigeria ADF PP Conclusion Variables Level/First
Diff. Intercept Trend/Intercept Intercept Trend/Intercept
LCAB
Level First Diff.
-4.523 -7.214
-4.773 -7.158
-4.439 -21.747
-4.619 -24.890
1(0) 1(0)
LGBB
Level First Diff.
-2.724 -4.190
-2.322 -4.443
-2.009 -8.347
-2.911 -8.258
1(1) 1(0)
LRER
Level First Diff.
-2.209 -5.854
-3.093 -5.790
-2.209 -5.774
-2.479 -5.703
1(1) 1(0)
LLendrate
Level First Diff.
-1.434 -7.880
-2.153 -7.805
-1.384 -7.891
-0.258 -7.818
1(1) 1(0)
RGDP
Level First Diff.
-2.892 -5.590
-0.1228 -6.580
-3.329 -5.579
-0.255 -6.564
1(1) 1(0)
LOPNESS
Level First Diff.
-1.623 -11.077
-4.463 -10.957
-2.247 -20.876
-4.374 -20.616
1(0) 1(0)
Notes: (i) Unit root tests performed using Eview 6.0 (ii) 95% critical value ADF/PP statistic (with intecept) = -2.923 (iii) 95% critical value ADF/PP statistic (with trend & intercept) =3.504
109
The results of ADF and PP as presented in tables 3 above show that at 95% level
of significance, only LCAB and LOPNESS are found to be stationary at level,
while the rest of the employed variables in the study assume stationarity in their
first difference. This suggests that all the employed variables for estimation of the
equations are quiet suitable for purposes intended after at least one period lag.
Table4: Unit Root Test Results for South Africa
ADF PP Conclusion Variables Level/First
Diff. Intercept Trend/Intercept Intercept Trend/Intercept
LCAB
Level First Diff.
-2.603 -80661
-2.904 -8.721
-2.127 -8.673
-3.262 -8.905
1(1) 1(0)
LGBB
Level First Diff.
-30367 -7.793
-3.802 -7.707
-3.367 -9.428
-3.802 -9.261
1(0) 1(0)
LRER
Level First Diff.
-2.916 -6.648
-3.733 -6.576
-2.862 -10.645
-3.641 -10.418
1(0) 1(0)
LLendrate
Level First Diff.
-2.330 -6.407
-1.566 -6.082
-1.856 -5.695
-1.391 -9.013
1(1) 1(0)
RGDP
Level First Diff.
-2.449 -4.877
-0.782 -5.221
-2.029 -4.854
-0.489 -5.215
1(1) 1(0)
LOPNESS Level First Diff.
-2.376 -6.672
-2.452 -6.615
-2.391 -7.785
-2.430 -8.427
1(1) 1(0)
Notes: (i) Unit root tests performed using Eview 6.0 (ii) 95% critical value ADF/PP statistic (with trend) = -2.923 (iii) 95% critical value ADF/PP statistic (with trend & intercept) =3.504 The results of ADF and PP as presented in tables 4 above shows that at 95% level
of significance, only LGBB and LRER are found to be stationary at level, while
the rest of the employed variables in the study assume stationarity in their first
difference. This suggests that all the employed variables for estimation of the
equations are quiet suitable for purposes intended after at least one period lag.
110
4.3 Test of Research Hypotheses
Hypothesis testing is the use of statistics to determine the probability that a given
hypothesis is true. The usual process of hypothesis testing consists of four steps as
follows: (i) Formulate the null hypothesis (commonly, that the observations are
the result of pure chance) and the alternative hypothesis (commonly, that the
observations show a real effect combined with a component of chance variation).
(ii) Identify a test statistic that can be used to assess the truth of the null hypothesis.
(iii) Compute the P-value, which is the probability that a test statistic at least as
significant as the one observed would be obtained assuming that the null
hypothesis were true. The smaller the P-value, the stronger the evidence against the
null hypothesis. (iv) Compare the P-value to an acceptable significance level
value, α (sometimes called an alpha value). If P ≤ α, then the observed effect is
statistically significant, the null hypothesis is ruled out, and the alternative
hypothesis is valid.
4.3.1 Hypothesis One:
There is no stable long-run relationship existing between Fiscal balance
innovations and developments in current account balance of Nigeria and South
Africa. We employ Johansen and Juselius Trace test for co-integrating vectors
between the explained and the explanatory variables in equation 8 with a view to
determining the number of co-integrating equations. The concept of co-integration
111
was first instigated by Granger (1981) and modified by Engle and Granger (1987),
Johansen (1988) and Johansen and Juselius (1990), amongst others. For this study,
we employ the Johansen and Juselius (1990) Trace test procedure. Therefore, with
the manifestation of unit root 1(1) by variables of interest, which is a precondition
for the existence of a stable linear steady-state relationship, we employ the trace
test, which is based on the comparison of Ho (r = o) against the alternative H1 (r ≠
o), where r indicates the number of co integrating vectors. The co integration test
provides an analytical statistical framework for ascertaining the long run
relationship between economic variables and the result of the trace test depends on
the lag length of the vector error correction model (Maylene and Agbola, n.d.)
4.3.1.1. Using Nigeria Data
i. Ho: For Nigeria, there exists no cointegrating equation
H1: There exists cointegrating equation for Nigeria
ii. The significance level is set at 5 percent benchmark.
If P-value < 0.05, we reject the Ho and accept H1
But, if P-value > 0.05, we reject the H1 and accept Ho
112
iii. The Trace Test for number of cointegrating vectors as shown in table 5
indicates trace statistic, critical value and P-value of 71.32, 69.81 and 0.037
respectively for the Null hypothesis of “At most 2 cointegrating equations”.
iv. With the P-value of 0.037 < 0.05 leads us to the rejection of the Null hypothesis
(Ho) of non existence of cointegrating equations and hence not to reject the
Alternate hypothesis (H1) which postulates the existence of cointegrating vectors.
This suggests that for Nigeria there exist 2 cointegrating equations, meaning that
there exists long run equilibrium relationship between developments in fiscal
deficits and variations in current account balance in Nigeria.
Equation 10 is evaluated for co integration employing Nigerian data using trace
test estimation methodology for co integration. The results of the co integration test
are as scheduled in table 5 below:
Table 5: Test for Cointegration for Nigeria Hypothesized No. of CE(s)
Eigenvalue Trace Statistic 0.05 Critical value
Prob**
None* 0.4708 101.873 95.753 0.017 At most 1* 0.4454 71.3247 69.818 0.037 At most 2 0.3209 43.0262 47.856 0.131 At most 3 0.2377 24.444 29.797 0.182 At most 4 0.1594 11.411 15.494 0.187 At most 5 0.0620 3.075 3.841 0.079 Notes: (i) Cointegration tests performed using Eview 6.0 (ii) Trace test indicates 2 cointegrating equations at the 0.05 level (iii) * denotes rejection of the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level
113
Results of Trace test for co integration to investigate the extent to which long-run
equilibrium relationship exists between budget and current account balances in
Nigeria are as scheduled in table 5 above. Starting with the null hypothesis of no
cointegration (r = 0) among the six variables of LCAB, LGBB, LRER,
LLENDRATE, RGDP and LOPNESS, the trace test indicates 2 co-integrating
vectors (r = 2). This suggests that the existence of long run equilibrium relationship
between the explained and explanatory variables cannot be rejected for Nigeria.
Table 6: Estimates of Long-Run Co-integrating Vectors (Linearised)
LCAB LGBB LRER LLENDRATE RGDP LOPNESS 1.000000 0.3702 -0.0099 -0.4694 0.1100 -3.3863 (0.1601) (0.0026 (0.1400) (0.0293) (0.9063) Note: 1. Figures in parentheses indicate standard errors. 4.3.1.2 Using South Africa Data
i. Ho: For South Africa, there exists no cointegrating equation
H1: There exists cointegrating equation for South Africa
ii. The significance level is set at 5 percent benchmark.
If P-value < 0.05, we reject the Ho and accept H1
But, if P-value > 0.05, we reject the H1 and accept Ho
iii. The Trace Test for number of cointegrating vectors as shown in table 7
indicates trace statistic, critical value and P-value of 92.19.32, 95.75 and 0.085
respectively for the Null hypothesis of “No cointegrating equation”.
114
iv. With the P-value of 0.085 > 0.05 leads us not to reject the Null hypothesis (Ho)
of non existence of cointegrating equation and hence to reject the Alternate
hypothesis (H1) which postulates the existence of cointegrating vectors. This
suggests that for South Africa, there are no cointegrating equations identified in the
model under consideration, meaning that there exists no long run equilibrium
relationship between developments in fiscal deficits and variations in current
account balance in South Africa.
Equation 10 is evaluated for co integration employing data for South Africa using
trace test estimation methodology for co integration. The results of the co
integration test are as scheduled in table 7 below:
Table 7: Cointegration Test for South Africa Hypothesized No. of CE(s)
Eigenvalue Trace Statistic 0.05 Critical value
Prob**
None 0.4974 92.191 95.753 0.085 At most 1 0.4441 58.475 69.818 0.285 At most 2 0.2675 29.699 47.856 0.734 At most 3 0.1315 14.440 29.797 0.815 At most 4 0.0898 7.527 15.494 0.517 At most 5 0.0577 2.913 3.841 0.087 Notes: (i) Cointegration tests performed using Eview 6.0 (ii) Trace test indicates no cointegrating equations at the 0.05 level (iii) * denotes rejection of the null hypothesis at the 0.05 level
4.3.2 Hypothesis Two: Developments in budget deficit do not significantly cause developments in current
account imbalance in the economies under consideration. The main object of this
study is to investigate the causal relationship between budget deficits and the
115
current account balance for Nigeria and South Africa for the period of 1960 to
2011. Theoretically, we investigate four possible scenarios about the causal
relationship between budget and trade deficits: The first one is called the Twin
Deficit Hypothesis which posits positive and significant causal relation between
budget deficit and current account deficit with budget deficits causing current
account deficits. The second, which is referred to as current account targeting, just
like the Twin Deficit Hypothesis posits positive and significant causal relation
between budget deficit and current account imbalance, but this time, with current
account balance causing government budget deficit. The third is the scenario of bi-
directional causal correspondence between fiscal deficit and current account
imbalance, and finally, the Ricardian Equivalent proposition (REP) which predicts
that the two deficits share no significant causal relationship and therefore are
independent. Granger causality is a statistical concept of causality that is based on
prediction. According to Granger causality, if a signal X1 "Granger-causes" (or "G-
causes") a signal X2, then past values of X1 should contain information that helps
predict X2 above and beyond the information contained in past values of X2 alone
(Anil, 2007).
4.3.2.1 Using Nigeria Data Set Estimation of VEC Error Correction Model With the identification of a co integrating relation for Nigeria, error correction
models (VECM) estimates presents the best option for predicting the dynamic
116
behavior of current account balance in response to fiscal balance adjustments. In
the same vein, the error correction model presents us with the veritable platform
for testing for long run granger causality between current account balance and
fiscal deficits to confirm the existence or otherwise of twin deficit hypothesis
which is the cardinal objective (focus) of this study. In this direction, we evaluate
the VAR (2) models specified in equations 11 – 16 augmenting each with its error
correction term (error term lagged one period) λet-1. This transforms each of the
VAR to VEC model of two period lags. For the purpose and the scope of this
study, models of interest are restricted to equations 11 & 12 as augmented.
In tables 8 & 9 below, equations 11 and 12 as adjusted with inclusion of λ1et-1 and
λ2et-1 respectively are evaluated for flow of long run causality from budget deficits
to current account deficits and vice – versa.
Test of Hypothesis 2
i. Ho: Developments in budget deficits do not significantly cause developments in
current account imbalance in Nigeria.
H1: Developments in budget deficits do significantly cause developments in
current account imbalance in Nigeria.
ii. The significance level is set at 5 percent benchmark.
If the P-values of the coefficients of LGBB (-1), LGBB (-2), and E (-1) are equal
and all equal to zero (PVs >0.05), b11 = b12 = λ1 = 0, we accept Ho and conclude
117
that there is no long run causal relationship running from budget deficits to current
account imbalance.
But if the P-values of the coefficients of b11 = b12 = λ1 ≠ 0 (ie at least 1 < 0.05), we
reject Ho, and conclude that there is long run causal relationship running from
budget deficits to current account balance in Nigeria.
If equation 11 as adjusted (VEC version) is evaluated and b11 = b12 = λ1 = 0,
indicates no long-run causal link running from budget deficits to current account
deficits, meaning that we cannot reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho) else reject Ho and
accept H1.
But, if equation 11(VAR version) is evaluated and b11 = b12 = 0 indicates no short
run causal link running from budget deficits to current account deficits, meaning
that we cannot reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho) else reject Ho and accept H1. We
therefore evaluate equation 11 for both long-run and short-run granger causalities
to test the above hypothesis.
iii. The results of equation 11 as adjusted (VEC version) estimation as shown in
table 8 below show the values of the parameter estimates (coefficients) of b11, b12
and λ1 as 0.220 (0.420), 0.087 (0.659) and -0.599 (0.005) respectively with the
figures in brackets indicating their respective P-Values.
118
iv. These results indicate that the value of the coefficient of λ1 of -0.599 is
statistically different from zero judging from the fact that it’s P-value, 0.005 <
0.05. This suggests that the null hypothesis that, b11 = b12 = λ1 = 0 is violated,
meaning that b11 = b12 = λ1 ≠ 0 sustained. These results indicate the existence of a
significant causal link running from government budget deficits to current account
imbalance, in the long run. In effect, evidence of the twin deficits hypothesis is
identified in the long run in Nigeria.
Table 8: Granger Test for Twin Deficits Hypothesis for Nigeria. VECM Estimation (Equation 11 Augmented with λ1e(t-1))
Regressor Parameter Estimate T-Ratio P-Values Intercept 0.0177 0.2769 0.782 LCAB-1 0.091 0.436 0.663 LCAB-2 0.001 0.010 0.992 LGBB -1 0.220 0.807 0.420 LGBB -2 0.087 0.441 0.659 LRER-1 -0.004 -1.666 0.097 LRER-2 -0.004 -1.609 0.109 RGDP-1 -0.144 -2.096 0.037 RGDP-2 -0.090 -1.424 0.155 LLendrate -1 0.032 1.104 0.270 LLendrate -2 -0.000 -0.017 0.9859 Lopness-1 -0.386 -0.493 0.622 Lopness-2 -0.731 -1.072 0.782 λ1e(t-1) -0.599 -2.800 0.005 R2 = 0.37, D.W Statistic 2.39 The results of equation 11 (VAR version) estimation as shown in table 9 below
show the values of the parameter estimates (coefficients) of b11, and b12 as -0.130
(0.463) and -0.151 (0.388) respectively with the figures in brackets indicating their
respective P-Values. These results indicate that the value of the coefficient of b11
119
and b12 of -0.130 and -0.151 are both not statistically different from zero judging
from the magnitude of their respective P-values: 0.463 > 0.05 and 0.388 > 0.05
respectively. This suggests that the null hypothesis that, b11 = b12 = 0 is sustained
meaning that b11 = b12 = λ1 ≠ 0 is violated.
These results indicate non existence of a significant causal link running from
government budget deficits to current account imbalance, in the short run. In
effect, evidence of the twin deficits hypothesis is not identified in the short run in
Nigeria.
Table 9: Causality Test for Current Account Targeting Scenario for Nigeria. Vector Autoregressive Estimates (Equation 11)
Regressors Parameter Estimate T-Ratio P-Values Intercept 1.270 3.710 0.000 LCAB-1 0.344 2.122 0.034 LCAB-2 -0.137 -0.780 0.435 LGBB -1 -0.130 -0.734 0.463 LGBB -2 -0.151 -0.864 0.388 LRER-1 -0.000 -0.223 0.823 LRER-2 0.002 0.968 0.333 RGDP-1 -0.081 -1.142 0.254 RGDP-2 -0.037 -0.523 0.601 LLendrate -1 -0.022 -0.807 0.420 LLendrate -2 0.001 0.054 0.956 Lopness-1 0.778 1.229 0.220 Lopness-2 -0.565 -0.882 0.378 Notes: R2 = 0.33, DW. Statistic = 2.12 4.3.2.2 Using South Africa Data
Test of Hypothesis
i. Ho: Developments in budget deficits do not significantly cause developments in
current account imbalance in the short-run in Nigeria.
120
H1: Developments in budget deficits do significantly cause developments in
current account imbalance in the short run in Nigeria.
ii. The significance level is set at 5 percent benchmark.
if equation 11(VAR version) is evaluated and b11 = b12 = 0 indicates no short run
causal link running from budget deficits to current account deficits, meaning that
we cannot reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho) else reject Ho and accept H1. We
therefore evaluate equation 11(VAR version) for short-run granger causalities to
test the above hypothesis.
iii. With South Africa data, we evaluate equation 11(VAR version) to test the
above hypothesis for only short-run granger causalities since the results of the co-
integration test on South African data identified no co integrating vectors between
the explained and explanatory variables. The results of the VAR estimation to
investigate the extent to which fiscal deficits cause current account deficits in the
short run as presented in table 10 below, show the values of the parameter
estimates (coefficients) of b11, and b12 as 0.011 (0.319) and 0.005 (0.655)
respectively with the figures in brackets indicating their respective P-Values.
iv. These results indicate that the value of the coefficient of b11 and b12 of 0.011
and 0.005 are both not statistically different from zero judging from the magnitude
of their respective P-Values: 0.319 > 0.05 and 0.655 > 0.05 respectively. This
121
suggests that the null hypothesis that, b11 = b12 = 0 cannot be rejected for South
Africa in the short run. These results suggest non existence of a significant causal
link running from government budget deficits to current account imbalance in the
short run in South Africa, meaning that twin deficits hypothesis is violated for
South Africa economy in the short run.
Table 10: Causality Test for Current Account Targeting for South Africa. Vector Autoregressive Estimates (Equation 11)
Regressors Parameter Estimate T-Ratio P-Values Intercept 0.066 0.349 0.727 LCAB-1 0.068 0.276 0.782 LCAB-2 0.028 0.107 0.914 LGBB -1 0.011 0.998 0.319 LGBB -2 0.005 0.446 0.655 LRER-1 0.000 0.142 0.886 LRER-2 -0.000 -0.024 0.980 RGDP-1 1.004 1.888 0.060 RGDP-2 -0.269 -0630 0.529 LLendrate -1 -0.832 -2.310 0.021 LLendrate -2 0.705 2.046 0.041 Lopness-1 0.641 4.171 0.000 Lopness-2 0.063 0.429 0.667 Notes: R2 = 0.67, DW. Statistic = 1.93
4.3.3 Hypothesis Three
Developments in current account imbalance do not significantly cause innovations
in fiscal deficit in Nigeria and South Africa. Here we test the second scenario
which is referred to as current account targeting. This, just like the Twin Deficit
Hypothesis, posits positive and significant causal relation between budget deficit
and current account imbalance, but this time, with innovations in current account
balance causing developments in government budget deficit.
122
4.3.3.1Using Nigeria Data Set
With co-integration found among Nigeria data set, we evaluate equation 12 for
both long-run and short-run granger causalities to test the above hypothesis using
VEC and VAR versions of the model as presented in tables 11 and 12 below.
Test of Hypothesis 3 for Long run Causality
i. Ho: Developments in current account deficits do not significantly cause
developments in budget imbalance in Nigeria.
H1: Developments in current account deficits do significantly cause variations in
fiscal imbalance in Nigeria.
ii. The significance level is set at 5 percent benchmark.
If the P-values of the coefficients of LCAB (-1), LCAB (-2), and E (-1) are equal
and all equal is to zero (PVs >0.05), a21 = a22 = λ2 = 0, we accept Ho and conclude
that there is no long run causal relationship running from current account deficit to
fiscal imbalance.
But if the P-values of the coefficients of a21 = a22 = λ2 ≠ 0 (ie at least 1 < 0.05), we
reject Ho, and conclude that there is long run causal relationship running from
current account deficits to budget deficit in Nigeria.
If equation 12 as adjusted (VEC version) is evaluated and a21 = a22 = λ2 = 0,
indicates no long-run causal link running from current account deficit to budget
123
deficits, meaning that we cannot reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho), else reject Ho
and accept H1.
But, if equation 12(VAR version) is evaluated and a21 = a22 = 0 indicates no short
run causal link running from current account deficit to fiscal deficit, meaning that
we cannot reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho), else reject Ho and accept H1.
We therefore evaluate equation 12 for both long-run and short-run current account
targeting to test the above hypotheses.
iii. The results of equation 12 as adjusted (VEC version) estimation as shown in
table 10 below show the values of the parameter estimates (coefficients) of a21, a22
and λ2 as 0.046 (0.762), -0.040 (0.769) and -0.243 (0.122) respectively with the
figures in brackets indicating their respective P-Values.
iv. These results indicate that the P-values of the coefficient a21, a22 and λ2 are all
greater than the 5 percent significant level (0.762 > 0.05, 0.769 > 0.05 and 0.122 >
0.05). This suggests that the Null hypothesis of a21 = a22 = λ2 = 0, cannot be
rejected. This suggests that the null hypothesis that, a21 = a22 = λ2 = 0 is sustained,
meaning that a21 = a22 = λ2 ≠ 0 is violated. These results indicate the non existence
of a significant causal link running from current account deficits to fiscal
imbalance, in the long run. In effect, evidence of current targeting hypothesis is not
identified in the long run, in Nigeria.
124
Table 11: Granger Non Causality Test Results for Nigeria.
VECM Estimation (Equation 12 Augmented with λ2e(t-1)) Regressor Parameter Estimate T-Ratio P-Values Intercept -0.042 -0.916 0.360 LCAB -1 0.046 0.302 0.762 LCAB -2 -0.040 -0.293 0.769 LGBB-1 -0.148 -0.743 0.457 LGBB-2 0.162 1.122 0.263 LRER-1 -0.001 -0.474 0.635 LRER-2 -0.002 -0.795 0.427 RGDP-1 -0.078 1.542 0.124 RGDP-2 -0.044 -0.964 0.335 LLendrate -1 -0.007 -0.330 0.741 LLendrate -2 0.006 0.291 0.771 Lopness-1 -0.309 -0.538 0.590 Lopness-2 -0.128 -0.257 0.797 λ2e(t-1) -0.243 -1.552 0.122 R2 = 0.27, D.W Statistic = 2.04 Test of Hypothesis 3 for Short run Causality
i. Ho: Developments in current account deficits do not significantly cause
developments in fiscal imbalance in the short-run in Nigeria.
H1: Developments in current account deficits do significantly cause variations in
fiscal imbalance in the short run in Nigeria.
ii. The significance level is set at 5 percent benchmark.
if equation 12(VAR version) is evaluated and a21 = a22 = 0 indicates no short run
causal link running from current account deficits to budget deficits, meaning that
we cannot reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho), else reject Ho and accept H1. We
therefore evaluate equation 12(VAR version) for short-run granger causalities to
test the above hypothesis.
125
iii. With Nigeria data, we evaluate equation 12(VAR version) to test the above
hypothesis for short-run granger causalities. The results of the VAR estimation to
investigate the extent to which current account deficits cause fiscal deficits in the
short run as presented in table 12 below, show the values of the parameter
estimates (coefficients) of a21, and a22 as -0.187(0.124) and 0.026(0.840)
respectively with the figures in brackets indicating their respective P-Values.
iv. These results indicate that the value of the coefficient of a21 and a22 of -0.187
and 0.026 are both not statistically different from zero judging from the magnitude
of their respective P-Values: 0.187 > 0.05 and 0.840 > 0.05 respectively. This
suggests that the null hypothesis that, a21 = a22 = 0 cannot be rejected for Nigeria in
the short run. These results suggest non existence of a significant causal link
running from current account deficits to fiscal imbalance in the short run in
Nigeria, meaning that current accounting hypothesis is violated for Nigeria
economy in the short run.
126
Table 12: Granger Non Causality Test Results for Nigeria. Vector Autoregressive Estimates (Equation 12)
Regressors Parameter Estimates T-Ratio P-Values Intercept 0.438 1.714 0.087 LCAB -1 -0.187 -1.544 0.124 LCAB -2 -0.026 -0.201 0.840 LGBB-1 0.695 5.250 0.000 LGBB-2 0.071 0.547 0.584 LRER-1 0.001 0.545 0.584 LRER-2 0.000 0.116 0.586 RGDP-1 -0.049 -0.934 0.351 RGDP-2 0.005 0.102 0.918 LLendrate -1 -0.029 -1.451 0.148 LLendrate -2 0.023 1.369 0.172 Lopness-1 -0.169 -0.357 0.720 Lopness-2 0.195 0.408 0.683 Notes: R2 = 0.83, DW. Statistic = 2.28 4.3.3.2Using South Africa Data Set
Test of Hypothesis 3 for Short run Causality
i. Ho: Developments in current account balance do not significantly cause
developments in fiscal imbalance in the short-run in South Africa.
H1: Developments in current account balance do significantly cause
developments in fiscal imbalance in the short run in South Africa.
ii. The significance level is set at 5 percent benchmark.
if equation 12(VAR version) is evaluated and a21 = a22 = 0 indicates no short run
causal link running from current account deficits to fiscal deficits, meaning that we
cannot reject the Null Hypothesis (Ho) else reject Ho and accept H1. We therefore
evaluate equation 12(VAR version) for short-run granger causalities to test the
above hypothesis.
127
iii. With South Africa data, we evaluate equation 12(VAR version) to test the
above hypothesis for only short-run granger causalities since the results of the co-
integration test on South African data identified no co integrating vectors between
the explained and explanatory variables. The results of the VAR estimation to
investigate the extent to which current account deficits cause fiscal deficits in the
short run as presented in table 13 below, show the values of the parameter
estimates (coefficients) of a21, and a22 as 0.663 (0.000) and -0.196(0.316)
respectively with the figures in brackets indicating their respective P-Values.
iv. These results indicate that the value of the coefficient of a21 of 0.663 is
statistically different from zero judging from the extremely low P-value of 0.000 <
0.05. The results further indicate that the value of the coefficient of a22 of -0.196 is
not statistically different from zero judging from the high P-value of 0.316 > 0.05.
These suggest that a21 = a22 ≠ 0. This leads us to the rejection of the null hypothesis
that, a21 = a22 = 0 for South Africa in the short run.
These results indicate the existence of a significant causal link running from
current account deficits to fiscal imbalance in the short run in South Africa,
meaning that current account targeting proposition is identified for South Africa
economy in the short run.
128
Table 13: Vector Autoregressive Estimates (Equation 12) Regressors Parameter Estimates T-Ratio P-Values Intercept 0.331 2.387 0.082 LCAB -1 0.663 3.618 0.000 LCAB -2 -0.196 -1.004 0.316 LGBB-1 0.012 1.479 0.140 LGBB-2 -0.003 -0.452 0.651 LRER-1 -.0.002 -0.672 0.501 LRER-2 0.002 0.405 0.682 RGDP-1 0.243 0.620 0.535 RGDP-2 -0.252 -0.726 0.468 LLendrate -1 -0.199 -0.752 0.452 LLendrate -2 0.0267 1.052 0.293 Lopness-1 -0.051 -0.455 0.649 Lopness-2 0.117 1.080 0.281 Notes: R2 = 0.50, DW. Statistic = 2.13 4.3.4 Hypothesis Four:
Fiscal expansions do not exact significant influence on private consumption in
Nigeria and South Africa. This concept is of the view that since people are rational,
they know that the reduction in taxes, resulting from the government expansionary
fiscal policy of tax cut, is temporal and so they will save the extra disposable
income to pay for the future higher taxes. This suggests that the national savings
will not be affected because the decrease in government savings represented by
increased fiscal deepening will be equitably compensated by the additional
precautionary private savings for expected future increase in taxes.
129
4.3.4.1. Using Nigeria Data Set.
Test of Hypothesis 4 for Ricardian Equivalent (Long-run)
i. Ho: Fiscal expansions do not exact significant influence on private consumption
in the long run in Nigeria.
H1: Fiscal expansions do exact significant influence on private consumption in
the long run in Nigeria.
ii. The significant level is set at 5 percent benchmark
If the calculated probability value (P-value) of the estimation coefficient is lower
than the significant level benchmark of 5 percent, reject the Null Hypothesis, Ho,
but where the calculated P-value is higher than the 5 percent significant
benchmark, do not reject the Null Hypothesis.
iii. Results of equation 11 as adjusted (VECM version) as shown in table 8, show
that the values of the parameter estimates (coefficients) of b11, b12 and λ1 are 0.220
(0.420), 0.087 (0.659) and -0.599 (0.005) respectively with the figures in brackets
indicating their respective P-Values.
iv. These results indicate that the value of the coefficient of λ1 of -0.599 is
statistically different from zero judging from the magnitude of it’s P-value of 0.005
< 0.05. This suggests that the null hypothesis that, b11 = b12 = λ1 = 0 is violated and
the alternate Hypothesis that b11 = b12 = λ1 ≠ 0 sustained.
130
The results suggest that, there exists a significant causal link from government
budget deficits to current account imbalance, in the long run, meaning that
Ricardian equivalence proposition is not characterized in Nigeria economy in the
long run.
Test of Hypothesis 4 for Ricardian Equivalent (Short-run)
i. Ho: Fiscal expansions do not exact significant influence on private consumption
in the short run in Nigeria.
H1: Fiscal expansions do exact significant influence on private consumption in
the short run in Nigeria.
ii. The significant level is set at 5 percent benchmark
If the calculated probability value (P-value) of the estimation coefficient is lower
than the significant level benchmark of 5 percent, reject the Null Hypothesis, Ho,
but where the calculated P-value is higher than the 5 percent significant level
benchmark, do not reject the Null Hypothesis.
iii. The Results of equation 11 (VAR version) estimation for short-run causality to
test for twin deficits as shown in tables 9, show that the values of the parameter
estimates (coefficients) of b11, and b12 are -0.130 (0.463) and -0.151 (0.388)
respectively with the figures in brackets indicating their respective P-Values. These
results indicate that the value of the coefficient of b11 and b12 of -0.130 and -0.151
131
are both not statistically different from zero as 0.463 > 0.05 and 0.388 > 0.05
respectively.
iv. These results suggest non existence of a significant causal link from
government budget deficits to current account imbalance in the short run for
Nigeria.
Abstracting from the above results, it is established that in the long-run, that twin
deficits hypothesis is confirmed for Nigeria. In effect, Ricardian equivalence
proposition (REP) is violated for Nigeria on the long-run. Furthermore, evidence
from the results of estimating equations 11 (VAR) for short-run causality as shown
above suggest that twin deficits hypothesis is not identified for Nigeria in the short-
run. These by implication suggest that Ricardian equivalent hypothesis which
denies any significant causal link from budget deficits to current account deficits
cannot be rejected for Nigeria in the short-run.
4.3.4.2 South Africa.
For equation 11 (VAR), the Results of the estimation to test for short-run causality
using South African data as shown in table 10, indicate that b11 = b12 = 0. The
values of the parameter estimates (coefficients) of b11, and b12 are 0.011 (0.319)
and 0.005 (0.655) respectively with the figures in brackets indicating their
respective P-Values. These results indicate that the value of the coefficient of b11
132
and b12 of 0.011 and 0.005 are both not statistically different from zero even at
10% level of significance judging from their respective P-Values. These results
suggest non existence of a significant causal link from government budget deficits
to current account imbalance in the short run, which indicate that twin deficits
hypothesis is violated for South Africa in the short run. In effect, the null
hypothesis that, b11 = b12 = 0 cannot be rejected for South Africa in the short run.
These by implication suggest that Ricardian equivalent hypothesis which denies
any significant causal link from budget deficits to current account deficits cannot
equally be rejected in the short-run for South Africa.
4.3.5 Hypothesis Five:
There exists no significant bi-directional causality between the twin anomalies.
With the confirmation of: (i). Ricardian equivalence hypothesis (REH) for both
Nigeria and South Africa in the short-run, (ii). identification of twin deficits
proposition for Nigeria in the long-run only, (iii). current account targeting for
South Africa in the short-run, any evidence of bi-directional significant causal
relationship is completely ruled out. In effect the null hypothesis of no significant
bi-directional link amid the twin deficits cannot be rejected.
133
4.4 Complementary Results 4.4.1 Impulse Response Function for Nigeria and South Africa
The results of the granger non causality tests are complimented with Impulse
response functions. This describes the reaction of endogenous macroeconomic
variables such as output, consumption, investment, and employment at the time of
the shock and over subsequent points in time (Lutkepohl, 2008, Hamilton, 1994).
In a VAR (1) model of the form: Yt = A1Y t-1 + ut
The impulse response functions can be used to trace the time path of the dependent
variables in a VAR, to shocks from all the explanatory variables. If the system of
equations is stable, any shock should decline to zero while an unstable system
would produce an explosive time path. This technique involves measuring
unexpected changes in one variable X (the impulse) in time t and predicting its
effect on the other variable Y in time t, t+1, t+2, etc. (the responses). The impulse
response function (IRF) defines the response of the dependent variable in the VAR
model to shocks in the error terms. In other words, the IRF detects the impact of a
onetime shock in one of the innovations on current and future values of the
endogenous variables (Ebrahim, Mohammad & Ala (2012).
Figures 1 and 3 display the impulse response functions of a multivariate model
comprising of six macroeconomic variables on Nigeria and South Africa. The
variables of interest include: Current Account Balance (LCAB), Government
134
Budget Balance (LGBB), Real Exchange Rate (LRER), Lending Rate
(LLENDRATE), Real Gross Domestic Product Growth (RGDP) and Trade
Openness (LOPNESS). We discuss results for the Impulse Response Functions
(IRFs) separately for Nigeria and South Africa.
Nigeria
For Nigeria, figure 1 in the appendix, the impulse responses support literally, the
conventional view of many macroeconomic dynamics. A LCAB shock shows a
significant positive effect of over 38% and about 13% on it’s own self for the first
and second periods respectively, after which, such effect kept a downward trend
tending towards zero and slipping into marginal negativity to a maximum of -3.3
percentage points by period four. From this point, it picked up towards the origin
and tends to equilibrium (near zero effect) in period seven and remained persistent
over the response period under consideration. A positive government budget
balance (LGBB) shock leads to a persistent negative innovation in the current
account balance (LCAB) all through the time horizon under consideration, after
one period lag delayed effect. Such negative effect remained inconsequential all
through the time band of interest. Furthermore positive shocks to LRER,
LLENDRATE and RGDP exhibited similar scenarios of one period delayed effect,
initial negative response of LCAB, followed by some periods of positive effect on
135
the current account balance over time. Positive LOPNESS shock shows 1 year
delayed effect lag, followed by positive effect in the second year of about 6
percentage points on LCAB, beyond which negative impact on LCAB featured for
the duration of the specified time horizon or range. Worthy of note is the fact that
the innovations in current account balances (LCAB) sequel to a positive shock on
trade openness (LOPNESS), whether positive or negative are not significantly
different from zero and therefore inconsequential.
South Africa
For South Africa, we interpret the results in the upper row of figure 2 in the
appendix, representing our area of interest in this study. A positive LCAB shock
shows a positive non significant effect of about 8% and 5% on it’s own balance for
the first and second periods respectively, after which, such non inconsequential
effect maintain a downward positive trend tending towards zero and tinning down
to 0.4% at the end of period. A positive government budget balance (LGBB)
shock leads to persistent positive innovations in the current account balance
(LCAB) all through the time horizon under consideration, though such effects are
found not to be significantly different from zero. The same scenario is observed for
the response of current account balance to a one standard deviation (S.D)
innovation in real gross domestic product. The results further indicate that
136
introduction of a positive shock to the trade openness variable would affect current
account balance negatively, though insignificantly, within the time frame under
consideration. In the same vein, a positive shock to LRER, impacts CAB positively
throughout the periods under consideration excepting for period 2 that the effect is
negatively signed though such effects are of no consequence. And on the final
note, a positive shock on the LLENDRATE triggered mixtures of positive and
negative non significant responses from the current account balance for the periods
of interest.
4.4.2 Forecast Error Variance Decomposition Test
To further compliment the granger causality test, we employ another way of
characterizing the dynamic behavior of a VAR system, the Forecast Error Variance
Decomposition (FEVD). FEVD separates the variation in an endogenous variable
into the component shocks to the VAR. It simply apportions the variance of
forecast errors in a given variable to its own shocks and those of the other variables
in the VAR (Olusegun, 2008). In effect, a variance decomposition or forecast error
variance decomposition is used to aid in the interpretation of a vector auto-
regression (VAR) model once it has been fitted. The variance decomposition
indicates the amount of information each variable contributes to the other variables
in the auto-regression. It determines how much of the forecast error variance of
each of the variables can be explained by exogenous shocks to the other variables.
137
The results of the variance decomposition analysis are presented in tables 14 & 15
in the appendix for Nigeria and South Africa respectively.
Nigeria
In Table 11, the current account balance variance decomposition analysis reveals
that the variance in current account balance is significantly explained by the own
variance, which accounts for approximately 93% in the 2nd year period and
decreased to about 83% in the 5th period and further to about 81% in the 10th
period. However, the largest share of shock, to current account balance (LCAB)
innovation, apart from its own shock, is government budget balance (LGBB),
which after two years of delayed effect, accounted for about 3% in the 3rd year
period. This remained increasingly persistent to about 8% at the end of period 10,
though such effects are not significantly different from zero. These results lend
further credence or support to the exposition of the pairwise granger non causality
test for Nigeria. Next is the real output contribution, which amounts to about 3% in
the 3rd year period, the percentage point which was sustained all through the period
of interest. The results further show that the explanatory contributions to the
innovations in LCAB by lending interest rate (LLENDRATE) and trade openness
(LOPNESS), though insignificant, maintained about 3% and 2% effects
respectively and was constant over the entire time horizon under consideration.
138
Meanwhile, the results further revealed that real exchange rate (LRER) contribute
the least shock to the innovation in the current account balance of between .6% and
about 2% after 1st year period lag.
South Africa
Looking at the variance decomposition of current account balance for South Africa
in table 12, reveals increasing trends of the contributions of government budget
balance, real gross domestic output and trade openness to the current account
balance innovation, with RGDP exerting the largest influence. Meanwhile, the
contribution of real exchange rate and lending rate shocks to LCAB variation
remain inconsequential, while that of lending interest rate (LLENDRATE)
represents an infinitesimal portion of about 0.57% in the 10th year period under
estimation. However, the innovation in current account balance is significantly
explained by the own shock, which accounts for approximately 89%in the 2nd year
period and keeps a declining profile to about 73% in the 5th period and 62% in the
final year period under consideration.
4.5 Stability Test
To test for structural stability of the estimated coefficients and functional
misspecification, we also plot the cumulative sum (CUSUM) and cumulative sum
squares (CUSUMSQ) using the information contained in the estimated residuals.
139
According to the CUSUM (fig.3) and CUSUM OF SQUARE (fig. 4) test results in
the appendix, the recursive residuals wander within the critical 5% significant
lines, which indicate the absence of structural change or misspecification in the
estimated model. These suggest that the stability of the parameter estimates is
verified.
4.6 Discussion of Results
In table 5, the trace test indicates 2 co-integrating vectors (r-2). This suggests the
existence of long-run equilibrium relation between the explained and the
explanatory variables. That LCAB and LGBB are co-integrated by implication
means that the two variables cannot wander off in opposite directions for very long
period without reversion to a mean distance (equilibrium) eventually. The
coefficient of error correction term lagged one period in a VEC model provides the
speed of this adjustment which for this study stands at about 60 percent per year
for Nigeria. Table 7 clearly indicates no evidence of co-integration was identified
among South African data set. This implies that though the data sets for South
Africa may be trending together (correlated), equilibrium relationships among
them are not identified. This is clearly evident in the lack of significant causality
from fiscal deficit to current account stance in the short-run as observed for both
Nigeria and South Africa.
140
In table 8, the PV of the coefficient of e (t-1), λ of 0.05%, for the null hypothesis that
LGBB does not significantly granger cause LCAB (b11 = b12 = λ1 = 0) indicates
that the null hypothesis is rejected as the coefficient of -0.599 is statistically
different from zero judging from its P-Value as stated above. This suggests that
b11 = b12 = λ1 ≠ 0 which indicates that twin deficits hypothesis is confirmed for
Nigeria on the long-run. In effect, this means that in Nigeria, fiscal deficits fuel
current account deficits in the long-run time frame. The results further support
Keynesian absorption theory which postulates that budget deficits and the current
account imbalance significantly trend together in the same direction at least in the
long run. The implication of this finding is that for Nigeria to cut down on the level
of current account deficit, economic policies aimed at fiscal consolidation in
addition to strict budget discipline should be pursued. The Results of the estimation
of equation 12 (VEC) as shown in table 13 above indicate the P-Values of the
parameter estimates (coefficients) of LCAB-1, LCAB-2 and e(t-1) as 0.762, 0.38 and
0.122 respectively. This suggests that none of the coefficients of the parameter
estimates is statistically different from zero even at 10% level of significance. With
the null hypothesis that, a11 = a12 = λ2 = 0 therefore not violated, means that the
existence of a significant long-run causal link from current account imbalance to
government budget deficits is not confirmed for Nigeria. This by implication
141
suggests that for Nigeria, the current account balance may not provide a veritable
policy instrument for predicting fiscal balance position in the long-run.
Furthermore, results of estimations of equations 11 and 12 (VARs) to test for
short-run granger non causalities from fiscal deficits to current account imbalance
and vice versa suggest that no significant causal relationship is detected between
LCAB and LGBB in either way. These results indicate that Ricardian equivalence
is verified for Nigeria in the short-run, which by implication suggests that fiscal
balance may not be a good predictor of current account position for Nigeria. On the
other hands the results further suggest current account targeting is not identified for
Nigeria in the short-run, which by implication indicates that current account
balance cannot significantly predict fiscal imbalance in Nigeria even in the short
term.
In the same vein, the results of short-run VAR granger non causality test for South
Africa as scheduled in table 10 above show the Probability Values (PVs) of about
32% and 66% for the coefficients of LGBB-1 and LGBB-2 respectively. This
supports the null hypothesis of b11 = b12 = 0. These results indicate non existence of
a significant causality from LGBB to LCAB in the short term. This means that
twin deficits proposition is not supported for South African economy in the short
142
term. In effect, government budget balance is not a reliable instrument for the
prediction of current account position for South Africa in the short-run. However,
this result contradicts the findings of Sadullah and Pinar (n.d) who with panel data
analysis identifies the presence of twin deficits hypothesis for six emerging
economies of Czech Republic, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia, Republic of South
Africa and Turkey.
Furthermore, for South Africa, the Results of the estimation as shown in table 13
above indicate the P-Values of the parameter estimates (coefficients) of LCAB-1
and LCAB-2 as 0.000 and 0.316 respectively. This suggests that the coefficient of
the current account balance (a11) lagged one period is statistically different from
even at 1% level of significance. With the null hypothesis that, a11 = a12 = 0
therefore violated, means that the existence of a significant causal link from current
account imbalance to government budget deficits is confirmed for South Africa in
the short run. This by implication suggests that for South Africa, the current
account balance may prove to be a veritable policy instrument for predicting fiscal
balance position. In effect, prudent current account management may provide the
panacea for fiscal consolidation for South Africa at least in a short term.
143
The above results provide evidence that for both Nigeria and South Africa, the
consumers appear to be Ricardians in the short-run. This suggests that short term
fiscal measures designed to stimulate aggregate demand may prove ineffective as
consumers may reduce their consumption in order to save in anticipation of future
tax increase. In effect, the results suggest that Ricardian equivalence hypothesis
holds for both Nigeria and South Africa in the short-run. This proposition,
articulated by a classical economist, David Ricardo (1817) and popularized by
Barro (1974), is of the view that policy shifts in the composition of public
financing, (that is whether through debt or tax cuts) has no significant impact on
real interest rates, aggregate demand, private spending, the exchange rate or the
external accounts. Proponents of this view point out that while tax cuts have the
effect of reducing public saving and enlarging the budget deficit, they increase
private saving by an amount equivalent to the expected increase in the tax burden
in the future years. This suggests that government budget deficits may not alter
aggregate domestic savings and economic growth or the level of aggregate demand
including demand for imports for the fact that far-sighted individuals fully
capitalize the implied increase in future taxes associated with current tax cut.
Otherwise stated, the theory implies that there is no visible correlation between the
two anomalies. This has very serious implications for fiscal policy decisions for
Nigeria and South Africa, because if this assertion is right, it may render fiscal
144
policy impotent in the short-run. While South African economy still maintain the
Rcardian equivalence hypothesis in the long-run, twin deficits hypothesis is
verified for Nigeria in the long-run. This suggests that, for Nigeria, policy shifts in
the composition of public financing, (that is whether through debt or tax cuts) in
the long-run will have significant impact on real interest rates, aggregate demand,
private spending, the exchange rate or the external accounts.
The results of the impulse response function as presented in table 14 in the
appendix, indicate that a one percentage basis point standard deviation innovation
in government budget balance (LGBB), shows negative and persistent effect on
current account balance (LCAB), though such effect remains grossly
inconsequential over the time horizon of interest. In the same vein, in table 15 for
South Africa, the response of LCAB to one basis point shock on LGBB, though
positive and consistent, is equally too meager to be considered to be of any
consequence.
Furthermore, the results of the Forecast Error Variance Decomposition for Nigeria
as presented in table 16 in the appendix show that the contribution of government
budget balance variable to the current account balance variation for the period
under review, ranged from zero percent in period one to a meager 7% in period ten.
145
Similar experience was observed for South Africa in table 17 which shows that
LGBB only accounts for just between zero percent in the 1st period and about 10%
in the 10th period of the innovations in LCAB within the time frame of interest. The
results of both the IRF and FEVD for Nigeria and South Africa indicate that LGBB
has little explanatory power for the development in LCAB. With LCAB
accounting for the highest proportion of its own error variance all through the
forecast horizon for the both countries, it would appear that there is no significant
correlation between current account balance and the rest of the employed
independent variables. Therefore, both the IRF and FEVD results lend supports to
and are consistent with the granger causality evidence of Ricardian Equivalence for
the both economies. The results suggest that the relationship between the two
deficits appear to be a complex one and that fiscal policy should not be used in
isolation to supervise developments in current account stance.
4.7 Comparative Analysis and Justification of Results
The inclusion of a trading partner is not just for the purpose of comparison and
references, but for the fact that the current account balance of each country
depends not only on its own budget deficit, but also on the budget deficits of its
trading partners (Douglas, 1988). To this effect we consider it plausible for a
146
comparative analysis of the results with recourse to some identified country
specifics that may influence the outcomes.
Many reasons, may account for Ricardian equivalence not holding exactly so that
the important issue is to determine the extent of departure from the Ricardian
equivalent proposition (REP). In the short-run, South African consumers appear to
be more Ricardians than their Nigerian counterparts as economic agents. This is
clearly demonstrated by the magnitude of the P-Values of the parameter estimates
for the both countries as exhibited in tables 9 and 10. The scenario presented for
Nigeria is quiet normal for a country with installed capacity utilization of just
about 57.87% in 2012 with high unemployment rate of 33.8% (CBN statistical
Bulletin, 2012), which in all must have contributed significantly to an output gap.
The association between fiscal policy and the current account balance is
significantly affected by the level of the output gap, defined as actual output less
potential output (Ali et al., 2010). While in the long-run scenario, twin deficits
hypothesis is adequately identified for Nigeria, Ricardian equivalence remained
adequately verified for South Africa. This has divergent policy impletions for the
management of the both economies.
147
Furthermore, according by World Development Indicator (2012) the percentage of
Nigerian population living below $2 per day grew from 83.1% in 2004 to 84.5 by
2010 and for South Africa, the report of survey from the same source shows
reduction in poverty rate of the South African population, gauged by those living
below $2 per day, from 35.7% in 2006 to 31.3% by 2009. Also, an indication of
the average income level in an economy can be proxied by the gross national
income per capita. The values of this variable as at 2010, with the world ranking in
bracket, show $1,180 (168) and $6,090 (102) for Nigeria and South Africa
respectively. This suggests stronger income base and thus higher marginal
propensity to save by private consumption agents for South Africa than Nigeria.
148
References
Ali Abbas, S. M., Jacques, Bouhga-Hagbe., Antonio J. F., Paolo, M., & Ricardo C. V. (2010). Fiscal policy and the current account. International Monetary Fund WP/10/121, 1 – 23.
Anil Seth (2007), Scholarpedia, 2(7):1667. Barro, R. J. (1974). Are government bonds net wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 82,
1095-1117. Douglas, B. B. (1988). Budget deficits and the balance of trade. The National Bureau of Economic Research, 2, 1 - 33 Ebrahim, M., Mohammad, A., & Ala, B. (2012). The relationship between current account and government budget balance: the case of kuwait. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2 (7), 168 – 175.
Engle, R. F., & Granger, C.W. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 50, 987 – 276.
Granger, C. W. J (1981). Some properties of time series data and their use in econometric model specification. Journal of Econometrics, 16: 121–130. Gujarati, D. N (1995). Basic econometrics. Singapore:McGraw-Hill international editions Hatemi-J, A. (2001). Time-Series econometrics applied to macroeconomic issues. Sweden: Jonkoping international business school.
Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical analysis of cointegrating sectors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 213-54.
Johansen, S.; & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum Likelihood Estimation and inference on cointegration-with application to the demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169-210.
Maylene, Y.D.,& Agbola, F. W.(n.d). Estimating the long-run effects of exchange change rate devaluation on the trade balance of South Africa. School of Business and Economics, Monash University South Africa Campus. Nozar, H., & Loretta, W. (2006). The dynamics of current account and budget deficits in
selected countries of the Middle East and North Africa. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 5, 111 – 129.
149
Olusegun, O. A (2008). Oil price shocks and the nigerian economy: a forecast error variance decomposition analysis. Journal of Economic Theory, 2 (4): 124-130. Phillips, P.C.B., Perron, P., (1988).Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75, 335–346. Rose, A. K (1990). Exchange rates and trade balance: some evidence from developing of countries. Economic Letters, 34: 270 – 275
Song, Y. (1997). The real exchange rate and the current account balance in Japan. Journal of Japanese and International Economies 11, 143-184.
150
CHAPTER FIVE
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This study investigates the relationship between budget and current account
balances and most importantly to identify which one to target in order to effect
adjustment in the other. To achieve these fits, we opt to deploy the relevant
variables with current account deficit (CAB) as the explained variable, and budget
deficit (GBB) as explanatory variables, and augmented with real exchange rate
(RER), real gross domestic product (RGDP), real interest rate (RIR), real trade
openness (OPNESS)) as control variables. To gauge the suitability of these
variables for purposes intended, we employ the ADF and PP test procedures. The
results for Nigeria and South Africa respectively show that in all cases, the
variables become stationary at most in their first difference at 1% level of
significance for all the employed data series. This suggests that all the employed
variables for estimation of specified equations are quiet fit for purposes intended.
5.1 Summary of Findings
The twin deficits hypothesis has expressed a much professed tie between domestic
budget deficit and current account imbalance. This has engendered extensive
academic debate and empirical testing in the 1980’s and the early 1990. According
151
to Nozar & Loretta (2006) the causal relationship of the twin deficits provides five
competing scenarios as: that budget deficits cause current account deficits; budget
deficits and current account deficits are not casually related (Rcardian
equivalence); there is bi-directional causality between the two macroeconomic
variables; current account deficits cause budget deficits (current account targeting)
and finally the scenario which suggests that the twin anomalies trend apart (twin
divergence). These formed the basis of our research questions, objective and thus
the hypothesis. The objective of this study in general term is to empirically
determine the positions of Nigeria and South Africa in the context of the above
scenarios. To this end, long-run (VEC) and short-run (VAR) Granger Non
Causality Tests are performed on the time series macroeconomic variables of
interest for Nigeria and South Africa and the results obtained elucidate the
following findings in line with the specific objectives of the study:
1. The result of the co integration test (Trace) between variables of equation 5
suggests that the null hypothesis of no co integration cannot be rejected for
South Africa, as they indicate no co integration among the variables of the
model. This suggests that for South Africa, there is no long run steady-state
relationship between the dependent and explanatory variables in the
expressed equation. In contrast, result of Trace test for co integration
between the data set for Nigeria is a departure from the South Africa’s
152
evidence as the results indicate two (2) co-integrating vectors. This
indication suggests that for Nigeria, the existence of steady state long run
equilibrium relationship between the explained and explanatory variables
cannot be rejected and that the dynamic behavior of current account balance
in response to innovations in fiscal deficits suggests that the system corrects
its previous period disequilibrium by 60 percent a year.
2. The results provide empirical evidence that twin deficits hypothesis does not
hold in the case of both Nigeria and South Africa in the short-run as the null
hypothesis that developments in government budget deficits do not
significantly influence innovations in current account imbalance in the
economies under consideration cannot be rejected. But evaluation of the
VEC model for long-run significant causal relationship between fiscal
deficits and current account imbalance suggests that twin deficits hypothesis
cannot be rejected for Nigeria on the long-run. Twin deficits hypothesis
posits positive and significant causal relation between budget deficits and
currents account deficits with budget causing current account.
3. In the same vein, the results further provide empirical evidence that current
account targeting scenario does not hold for Nigeria in both short-run and
153
long term scenarios. But for South Africa, the null hypothesis that
developments in current account balance do not significantly cause
innovations in fiscal deficits can out rightly be rejected in the short-run, even
at 1% level of significance. Current account targeting scenario posits
positive and significant causal relation between budget deficits and currents
account deficits with current account balance causing budget balance.
4. The results further reveal that in the short-run, economies of Nigeria and
South Africa are both characterized by Ricardian equivalence hypothesis as
it provides compelling evidence that the null hypothesis that innovations in
fiscal deficits do not significantly cause developments in current account
imbalance is true. Ricardian equivalence proposition (REP) predicts that the
two deficits share no significant causal relationship and therefore are
independent.
5. Finally, the results further reveal that the scenario of a significant bi-
directional relationship between current account balance and budget deficits,
in all cases, cannot be verified for both Nigeria and South Africa.
154
The responses of current account imbalance to shocks in the independent variables
for both Nigeria and South Africa remain inconsequential, just as the results of the
current account balance variance decomposition analysis for Nigeria and South
Africa reveals that the variance in current account balance is significantly
explained by it’s own innovation, which accounts for approximately 93% in the 2nd
year period and decreased to about 83% in the 5th period and further to about 81%
in the 10th period with the independent variables contributing meagerly. The results
of both the impulse response function and the variance decomposition tests lend
supports to the outcome of causality tests in the short-run.
5.2 Major Contribution to Knowledge
A critical look at the above macroeconomic indices of unemployment rate,
average installed manufacturing capacity utilization, the GDP per capita and
poverty rates at national poverty lines for the both countries under review; suggest
that intensity of Ricardian equivalence in any economy may further be dependent
on the poverty level of its citizens and per capita income. All these factors must
have provided the basis for the disparity between the levels of intensity of the
Ricardian equivalence for Nigeria and South Africa. Ricardian equivalent predicts
that the two deficits share no significant causal relationship and therefore
independent. This is quite evident in the result of no cointegration and supported
155
by rejection of twin deficits hypothesis in the short-run for South Africa with lower
poverty level and higher per capital income.
5.3 Conclusion
This study examines the empirical relationship between fiscal deficit and current
account imbalance employing data for Nigeria and South Africa for the period of
1960 to 2011. We employ co-integration analysis and, VEC and VAR granger non
causality process to investigate the existence of long-run and short term causalities
for the economies under consideration and complimented with impulse response
function and forecast error decomposition estimates. The results indicate no
evidence of twin deficits hypothesis for both Nigeria and South Africa in the short-
run. For Nigeria, evidence of twin deficits hypothesis is identified in the long-run.
The absence of evidence of the twin deficits phenomenon for both Nigeria and
South Africa in the short-run time frame, suggests that the Ricardian equivalence
proposition (REP) holds for the economies under consideration within such time
horizon. This concept is of the view that since people are rational, they know that
the reduction in taxes, resulting from the government expansionary fiscal policy of
tax cut or increase in public debt, is temporal and will save the extra disposable
income to pay for the future higher taxes. This suggests that the national savings
position will be sustained because the decrease in government savings represented
156
by increased fiscal deepening will be equitably compensated by the additional
precautionary private savings for expected future increase in taxes. This designates
fiscal balance variable as exogenous to current account balance model and
indicates lack of responsiveness of private consumption to fiscal impulse. This
casts doubts on the efficacy of the use of fiscal policy in the management of
external balance.
5.4 Recommendations
1. Abstracting from the above results, we are of the view that fiscal policy should
not be intended for improvement in current account balance or in the least should
not be used in isolation to supervise developments in current account stance in the
short-run for both Nigeria and South Africa.
2. The identification of twin deficits hypothesis for Nigeria in the long-run
suggests that use of fiscal policy in the management of external balance may be
effective and indicates that fiscal policy may be intended for improvement in
current account balance.
5.5 Suggestions for Future Research
For the purpose of further contributing to geography, there is an ample prospect of
getting more germane results when other countries’ data are employed using the
157
same econometric technique as featured in this study. Also, alterations in the scope
of the study in terms of time frame using other countries’ or the same countries’
data will still provide relevant verdict that might be of interest. We suggest that
readers use this topic for their research varying geography and in time frame.
158
Bibliography Abell, J. D. (1990). Twin Deficits During 1980s: An Emperical Investigation. Journal of Macroeconomics, 12, 81 – 96. Ahmad, Z. B., & Evan, L. (2007). Dynamics of fiscal and current account deficits in Thailand: an empirical investigation. Journal of Economic Studies, 34 (6), 454 – 475. Ahmad, Z. B., Evan L., & Ahmed M. K. (2006). Testing twin deficits hypothesis using VARs
and variance decomposition. Journal of the Asia Pacific economy, 11 (3), 331- 354.
Ahmed, M. K., & Teo, W. G. (1999). Causality tests of budget and current account deficits: Cross-country comparisons. Empirical Economics, 24 (3), 389 – 402. Alberto, B. (2005). The US twin deficits in perspective: an econometric assessment. LLEE
Working Document No.24, 1 – 30. Alberto, B. (2006). Structural breaks and the twin deficits hypothesis. International Economics and Economic Policy, 3 (2), 137 – 155. Ali, F. D. (2002). On Budget Deficits and Interest Rates: Another Look at the Evidence. International Economic Journal, 16 (2), 19 – 29. Ali Abbas, S. M., Jacques, Bouhga-Hagbe., Antonio J. F., Paolo, M., & Ricardo C. V. (2010).
Fiscal Policy and the Current Account. International Monetary Fund WP/10/121, 1 – 23.
Alkswani, M.A. (2000, October). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon in Petroleum Economy:
Evidence from Saudi Arabia. Paper presented at the Seventh Annual Conference, Economic Research Forum (ERF), Amman, Jordan.
Andrew M. M., Harold L. G. Jr., & Rita I. C.(2009). Alternative Model Selection Using Forecast Error Variance Decompositions in Wholesale Chicken Markets. Journal of Agricultural and Applied Economics, 41(1), 227–240. Anil Seth (2007), Scholarpedia, 2(7):1667. Anoruo, E., Ramchander, S. (1998). Current Account and Fiscal Deficits: Evidence from Five Developing Economics of Asia. Journal of Asian Economics, 9 (3), 487-501. Aqeel, A & Nishat, M. (2000). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon: Evidence from Pakistan. The Pakistan Development Review, 39 (4), 535–550
159
Bachman, B. (1992). Current Account Deficit Unrelated to Budget Surplus. National Centre for Policy Analysis, http://www.ncpa.org/barlett.html.
Bahmani – Oskooee. M., & Brook, T. (1999). Bilateral J-curve between U. S and Her Trading
Partners. Weltwirt schaftliches Archive 135 (1), 156-165. Bartolini, L., & Lahiri, A. (2006). Twin deficits, twenty years later. Current Issues in Economics and Finance 12, 1-7. Bellongia, M. T., & courtney C.S. (1985). Would lower federal deficits increase US farm exports? Federal Reserve Bank of St. louis, review No: 5-19. Bemheim, B. D. (1988). Budget Deficits and The Balance Of Trade. MIT Press Tax Policy and the Economy, 2: 1 – 32. Baharumshah, A. Z., Lau, E., & Khalid, A. M. (2006). Testing twin deficits hypothesis using VARs and variance decomposition. Journal of the Asia Pacific economy, 11(3), 331-354. Barro, R. J. (1974). Are Government Bonds Net Wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 82,
1095-1117. Bartlett, B. (1999). Are Budget Surpluses Equivalent to Tax Cuts? Idea House. National Center
for Policy Analysis, 1-3. Bhattacharya, R. (1997). The Trade Balance and the Real Exchange Rate: Evidence from a VAR
for the United States. The Journal of Economics, XXIII, I. Bilgili, E., & Bilgili, F. (1998), Bütçe Açıklarının Cari İşlem Dengesi Üzerindeki Etkileri: Teorive Uygulama. İşletme-Finans Dergisi 13, 4-16. Bluedorn, J., & Leigh, D. (2011). Revisiting the Twin Deficits Hypothesis: The Effect of Fiscal
Consolidation on the Current Account. IMF Economic Review, 59, 582–602. Boucher, J. L. (1991). The U.S. Current Account: A Long and Short Run Empirical Perspective. Southern Economic Journal, 58 (1), 93-111. Boyd, D., Caporale, G.M., & Smith, R. (2001). Real Exchange Rate affects the Balance of
Trade: Cointegration and Marshall-Lerner Condition. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 6, 187 – 200.
Cardoso, M., & Doménech, R. (2008). On Ricardian Equivalence and Twin Divergence: The
Spanish Experience in the 2009 Crisis. BBVA Economic Research Department University of Valencia, Spain.
Cavallo, M. (2005). Understanding the Twin Deficits: New Approaches, New Results. FRBSF
Economic Letter, Number 2005-16.
160
Cavallo, M. (2007). Government Consumption Expenditures and the Current Account. Journal of Public Finance and Management, 7.
Clarida, R., & Prendergast, J. (1999). Fiscal Stance and the Real Exchange: Some Empirical Evidence. NBER Working Paper No. 7077. Christiane, N., & Isabel, V. (2008). Fiscal Policies, The Current Account And Ricardian
Equivalence. European Central Bank Working Paper Series No 935. Christiane, N., & Katja, F. (2006). Does Fiscal Policy Matter for the Trade Account? A Panel
Cointegration Study. IMF Working Papers 06/147. Corsetti, G.,& Müller, G. (2007). Twin Deficits, Openness and the Business Cycle. Working
Paper 2007/20, EUI. Cuddington, J. T. and Vinals,J. M. (1986). Budget deficits and the current account: An
Intertemporal Disequilibrium Approach. Journal of International Economics, 21 (1 – 2), 1-24 Darrat, A. F. (1988). Have Large Budget Deficits Caused Rising Trade Deficits? Southern Economic Journal, 879-87. Dewald, W. G., & Michael, U. (1990). The Twin-Deficit Illusion. Cato Journal, 9 (3), 689–707. Dickey, D., & Fuller, W.A. (1981). Likelihood Ratio Statistics for Autoregressive Time Series with Unit Root. Econometrica 49, 1057 -72. Douglas, B. B. (1988). Budget Deficits and The Balance Of Trade. The National Bureau of Economic Research, 2, 1 - 33 Eberechukwu, U., & Maxwell, E. (2012). Re-Examining the Determinants of Current Account Balance in an Oil-Rich Exporting Country: A Case of Nigeria. Centre for the Study of Economies of Africa, CSEA Working Paper WPS/12/01, 1 – 33. Ebrahim, M., Mohammad, A., & Ala, B. (2012). The Relationship between Current Account and Government Budget Balance: The Case of Kuwait. International Journal of Humanities and Social Science, 2 (7), 168 – 175. Edwards, S. (2005a). The End of Large Current Account Deficits, 1970- 2002: are there Lessons for the United States? National Bureau of Economic Research Workin Paper Number 11669. Egwaikhide, F. 0. (1989). The Dynamics of Trade and Economic Development. Retrieved from en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Egypt#Reform_era
161
Elias, S., Pedro, A. C., & Micaela A. (2012). Modelling economic growth with internal and external imbalances: Empirical evidence from Portugal. Economic Modelling, 29 (2), 478-486.
Elif, A., & Gül, I. T. (2001). Turkish Twin Effects: An Error Correction Model of Trade
Balance. Economic Research Center Working Papers No: 0106. Enders, W., & Lee, B. (1990). Current Account and Budget Deficits: Twin or Distant Cousins.
Review of Economics and Statistics, 72, 374-382. Engle, R. F., & Granger, C.W. (1987). Cointegration and Error Correction: Representation, Estimation,
and Testing. Econometrica, 50, 987 – 276.
Erceg, C. J., Guerrieri, L., & Gust, C. (2005), Expansionary Fiscal Shocks and the Trade
Deficit,” International Finance Discussion Paper No. 2005 (825), Federal Reserve Board.
Eugene, K., Mbodja, M., & Kern, O. K. (2004). Causality tests of the relationship between the
twin deficits. Empirical Economics, 29 (3), 503 – 525. Evan, L., & Ahmad, Z. B. (2006). Twin Deficits Hypothesis in SEACEN Countries: A Panel
Data Analysis of Relationships between Public Budget and Current Account Deficits. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 6 (2): 1 – 14.
Evan, L., & Ahmad, Z. B. (2003). Sustainability of External Imbalances: The Case of Malaysia.
The Singapore Economic Review, 48 (1), 61 – 80. Evans, P. (1988). Are Consumers Ricardian? Evidence for the United States. Journal of Political
Economy, 96, 983-1004. Evans, P. (1993). Consumers Are Not Ricardian: Evidence from Nineteen Countries. Economic
Inquiry, 31: 534-548. Egwaikhide, F. O. (1997). Effects of budget deficits on the current account balance in Nigeria: A
simulation exercise. African Economic Research Consortium, 70, 1 – 32. Feldstein, M. S. (1986). The Budget Deficit And The Dollar. NBER NBER Working Paper No.
1898, Macroeconomics Annual.
Fajana, F.O. (1993). Nigeria's Debt Crisis. UNECA Development Research Paper Series, No.5. Feyrer, J., & Shambaugh, J. C. (2009). Global Savings and Global Investment: the Transmission of Identified Fiscal Shocks. National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 15113. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w15113
162
Ganchev, G. T. (2010). The twin deficit hypothesis: the case of Bulgaria. Financial Theory and Practice 34 (4), 357-377.
Giancarlo, C., & Müller, G. J. (2006). Twin Deficits: Squaring Theory, Evidence and Common
Sense. European University Institute, University of Rome III and CEPR and Goethe University Frankfurt.
Gagnon, J. E. (2011). Current Account Imbalances Coming Back. Peterson Institute for
International Economics Working Paper No. 11-1, 1 – 35.
Godley, W., & Cripps, F. (1983). Macroeconomics. Oxford University Press. Gonzalo, J. (1994). Five Alternative Methods of Estimating Long-Run Equilibrium Relatioships.
Journal of Econometrics, 60, 203 – 2033.
Granger, C. W. J (1981). Some Properties of Time Series Data and Their Use in Econometric Model Specification. Journal of Econometrics, 16: 121–130.
Granger, C. W. J. (1988). Some Recent Developments in a Concept of Causality. Journal of Econometrics, 39 (1/2), 199-211.
Gujarati, D. N (1995). Basic Econometrics. Singapore:McGraw-Hill International Editions Gupta-Kapoor, A., & Ramakrishnan, U. (1999). Is there a J-Curve? A New Estimation for Japan. International Economic Journal, 13(4), 71-79. Halil, A., & Sami, T. (2011). Twin Deficit Problem and Feldstein-Horioka Hypothesis in
Turkey: ARDL Bound Testing Approach and Investigation of Causality. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 74, 30 – 44.
Hatemi-J, A. (2001). Time-Series Econometrics Applied to Macroeconomic Issues. Sweden: Jonkoping International Business School
Helmut, L. (2008). 'Impulse response function. The New Palgrave Dictionary of
Hendry, D. F. (1986). Economic Modeling with Coitegrated Variables. Special Issue, 48 (3), 1-
27. Higgins, M., & Klitgaard, T. (1998). Viewing the Current Account Deficit as a Capital Inflow. Current Issues Economics and Finance, 4 (13), 1 – 5. Holmes, M. J. (2004). The budget and current account balance: a case of twin deficits, twin divergence or Ricardian equivalence? Applied Economics Research Bulletin 1- 14.
163
Holmes, M. J. (2011). The budget and current account balance: a case of twin deficits, twin divergence or Ricardian equivalence? Applied Economics Research Bulletin, berkeleymath.com Islam, M. F. (1998). Brazil's twin deficits: An empirical examination. Atlantic Economic Journal,
26 (2), 121 – 128. James, H. (1994). Time Series Analysis, Chapter 1, page 5. Princeton University Press. Jarko, F. (2003). The Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle and Twin Deficits in Selected Country.
Economic Change and Restructuring, 36 (2), 135 – 152. Javid, Y.; Javid, M., & Arif, U. (2011), “Fiscal Policy and Current Account Dynamics in Case of
Pakistan,” The Pakistan Development Review , 49 (4).
Johansen, S. (1988). Statistical Analysis of Cointegrating Vectors," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 213-54.
Johansen, S.; & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum Likelihood Estimation and Inference on Cointegration-with Application to the Demand for Money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169-210.
Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and Hypothesis Testing of Gaussian Vector Autoregression Models. Econometrics 59. Johansen, S., & Juselius, K. (1994). Identification of Long-run and Short-run Structure: An application of ISLM Model. Journal of Econometrics, 63, 7 – 36 Kanolafe, O. R. (1996). Exchange Rate Policy and Nigeria’s External Sector Performance. Nigeria Journal of Economics and Social Studies, 38. Kasa, K. (1994). Finite Horizons and the Twin Deficits. Economic Review, Federal Reserve
Bank of Boston, 3, 19-28. Kayfmann, S., Scharler, T., & Winckler, G. (2002). The Austrain Current Account Deficit:
Driven by Twin Deficits or by International Expenditure Allocation? Emperical Economics, 27, 529 – 542.
Kearney, C., & Monadjemi, M. (1990). Fiscal Policy and Current Account Performance:
International Evidence on the Twin Deficits. Journal of Macroeconomics, 197- 218.
Khalid, A. M., & Teo, W. G. (1999). Causality Test of Budget and Current Account Deficits:
Cross-Country Comparisons. Empirical Economics, 24, 389 – 402.
164
Kim, K.H. (1995). On the Long-Run Determinants of the U.S. Trade Balance: A Comment.
Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 17, 447-55. Kim, S., & Roubini, N. (2008). Twin deficit or twin divergence? Fiscal policy, current account,
and real exchange rate in the U.S. Journal of International Economics 74, 362- 383.
Kim, S. & Roubini, N. (2003). Twin deficits or Twin Divergence? Fiscal Policy, Current Account, and Real Exchange Rate in the US. Unpublished paper, New York University,. Kumar, V. (2009). The Importance of Review of Related Literature in a Research Paper. Retrieved from http://www.helium.com/items/1591883-review-of-literature- literature-research-college-research-planning-reserch-research-planning Kumhof, M., Lebarz, C. R., Romain, R. A., & Throckmorton, N. A. (2012). Income Inequality
and Current Account Imbalances. IMF Working Paper No. 12/8. Retrieved from http://ssrn.com/abstract=1997721.
Laney, L.O. (1984). The Strong Dollar, the Current Account and Federal Deficits: Cause and
Effects. Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas Economic Review, 1-14. Leachman, L. L., & Francis, B. (2002). Twin Deficits: Apparition or Reality? Applied
Economics, 34, 1121 – 1132.
Levan, E., & Akinori T. (2011). Have the Implications of Twin Deficits Changed? Sudden Stops over Decades. International Advances in Economic Research, 17 (1), 66 – 76.
Holmes, M. J. (2011). Threshold cointegration and the short-run dynamics of twin deficit behaviour. Research in Economics, 65 (3), 271-277.
Mariam, C., Josep, L. C., & Cecilio, T. (2010). External Imbalances in A Monetary Union: Does the Lawson Doctrine to Europe? Retrived from www.researchgate.net/...Lawson_doctrine.../9fcfd5099876220373.p
Massimo, G., & Roel, B. (2005). What are the Trade Spill-Overs from Fiscal Shocks in Europe? An Empirical Analysis. DE Economists, 153.
Maylene, Y.D.,& Agbola, F. W.(n.d). Estimating the Long-Run Effects of Exchange change Rate Devaluation on the Trade Balance of South Africa. School of Business and Economics, Monash University South Africa Campus. McCoskey, S., & Chihwa, K.(1999). Comparing Panel Data Cointegration Tests with an Application to the Twin Deficits Problem. Syracuse University. Mimeo.
165
Michele, C. (2005). Understanding the Twin Deficits: New Approaches, New Results. Frbsf Economic Letter Number 2005-16, Milessi-Ferreti, G. M. and A. Razin (1996). Sustainability of persistent current account deficits. NBER working paper 5467. Miller, S. M., & Russek, F. S. (1989). Are The Twin Deficits Really Related? Contemporary
Economic Policy, Western Economic Association International, 7(4), 91-115. Miller, S. M., & Russek, F. S. (1989). Are the Twin Deficits Really Related? Contemporary
Policy Issues, 7
Morten, O. R., Stephanie Schmitt-Grohé., & Martín, U. (2007). Explaining the Effects of Government Spending Shocks on Consumption and the Real Exchange Rate. NBER Working Paper No. 13328, 1 – 36.
Mukhtar T, M. Z., & Ahmed, M. (2007). An Empirical Investigation for Twin Deficits Hypothesis in Pakistan. Journal of Economic Corporation, 28 (4), 63 – 80. Müller, G. J., Bussière, M., & Fratzscher, M. (2004). Current Account Dynamics in OECD and
EU Acceding Countries - An Intertemporal Approach. ECB Working Paper No. 311: 1 – 40.
Mundell, A. R. (1963), “Capital Mobility and Stabilization Policy Under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates,” Canadian Journal of Economics and Political Science, 29(4), 475-85. Neda, F., & Mohammad, P. (2011). The relationship between budget deficits and current account deficits. Journal of American Science, 7(10), 267-275. Normadin, M. (1994). Budget Deficit Persistence and the Twin Deficits Hypothesis. Center for
Research on Economic Fluctuations and Employment. Universite du Quebec, Montrel. Working Paper No. 31.
Normadin, M. (1999). Budget Deficit persistence and the twin deficits hypothesis. Journal of International Economics, 49, 171 – 193. Nozar, H., & Ernie, W. (n.d). The Dynamics of Internal and External Debts: Further Evidence from the Middle East and North Africa. Research in Business and Economics Journal, 1 – 17. Nozar, H., & Loretta, W. (2006). The Dynamics of Current Account and Budget Deficits in
Selected Countries of the Middle East and North Africa. International Research Journal of Finance and Economics, 5, 111 – 129.
166
Oladipo, S. O., Oseni, I. O., Onakoya, A. B. (2012). Empirical Analysis of Twins’ Deficits in Nigeria. International Journal of Management & Business Studies, 2 (3), Oladipo, S. O., & Akinbobola, T. O. (2011). Budget Deficit and Inflation in Nigeria: A Causal Relationship. Journal of Emerging Trends in Economics and Management Sciences, 2 (1), 1-8
Olanipekun , D. B. (2012). A Bound Testing Analysis of Budget Deficits and Current Account Balance in Nigeria (1960-2008). International Business Management, 6, 408-416.
Olopoenia, R. A. (1986). Some observations on the Macroeconomic Implications of the Budget in an Oil Exporting Developing Economy. The Nigerian Journal of Economic and Social Studies, 3, 285—296. Olugbenga, O. A., & Oluwole, O. (2006). An Empirical Investigation of Budget and Trade
Deficits: The Case of Nigeria. The Journal of Developing Areas, 39(2) 153-174. Olusegun, O. A (2008). Oil Price Shocks and the Nigerian Economy: A Forecast Error Variance Decomposition Analysis. Journal of Economic Theory, 2 (4): 124-130. Ozmen, E. (2004). Current Account Deficits, Macroeconomic Policy Stance and Governance:
An Empirical Investigation. ERC Economics Working Paper No. 04/14. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.606641.
Papaioannou, S., & Yi, K. (2001). The Effects of a Booming Economy on the U.S. Trade Deficit.
Current Issues in Economics and Finance, Federal Reserve Bank of New York, 7, 2.
Phillips, P.C.B., Perron, P., (1988).Testing for a unit root in time series regression. Biometrika 75, 335–346. Philip, R. L., & Roberto, P. (1998). The trade balance and fiscal policy in the OECD. European
Economic Review, 42 (3–5), 887–895. Piersanti, G. (2000). Current Account Dynamics and Expected Future Budget Deficits: Some
International Evidence. Journal of International Money, 19, 255 – 271. Poterba, J. M., & Summers, L. H. (1986). Financial Lifetimes And The Crowding Out Effects Of
Budget Deficits. NBER Working Paper No. 1955,1–18. Retrieved from http://www.nber.org/papers/w1955.pdf
Reitschuler, G., & Jesús C. C. (2004). Ricardian Equivalence Revisited: Evidence from OECD
countries. Economics Bulletin, 5 (16), 1−10.
167
Riccardo, F. (2011). Global Imbalances, the International Crisis and the Role of the Dollar. Università di Verona, Dipartimento di Scienze economiche Working Papers 18/2011.
Rincon, H. C. (1998). Testing the Short-and-Long-Run Exchange Rate Effect on Trade Balance:
The case of Colombia. Dissertation Paper (Ph.D), University of Illinois, Urbana-Campaign.
Romer, C. D., & Romer, D. H (2007). The Macroeconomic Effects of Tax Changes: Estimates Based on aNew Measure of Fiscal Shocks. University of California,Berkeley, 1– 44. Retrieved from http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~cromer/RomerDraft307.pdf
Rose, A. K (1990). Exchange Rates and Trade Balance: Some Evidence from Developing of Countries. Economic Letters, 34: 270 – 275 Rosensweig, J. A., & Tallman, E. W. (1993). Fiscal Policy And Trade Adjustment: Are The
Deficits Really Twins? Economic Enquiry, 31 (4), 580 – 594.
Salifu, B. I., & Francis, Y. K. (1996). Comovements in budget deficits, money, interest rates, exchange rates and the current account balance: some empirical evidence. Applied Economics, 28 (1), 117-130.
Sofia, K., & Suzanna-Maria, P. (2011). The twin deficits hypothesis: Revisiting an EMU
country. Journal of Policy Modeling, In Press. Somia, I., Shahid, M. P. A., Mahpara, S., & Fazli, R. (2011). Old Wine in New Bottles: Testing
the Keynesian Preposition of Twin Deficit in Case of Pakistan. International Journal of Business and Social Science (Special Issue), 2(5), 209 – 213.
Song, Y. (1997). The Real Exchange Rate and the Current Account Balance in Japan. Journal of Japanese and International Economies 11, 143-184.
Sophocles, N. B., George, H., Christos,P., Nicholas, T. T., & Melina, A. V. (2012). Current account determinants and external sustainability in periods of structural change. Economic Change and Restructuring, 45 (1-2), 71-95.
Soyoung, K., & Nouriel, R. (2007). Twin Deficit or Twin Divergence? Fiscal Policy, Current Account, and Real Exchange Rate in the USA. www.crei.cat/people/canova/teaching%20pdf/Twin%20def.pdf Suchismita, B., & Sudipta, J. (2011). India’s Twin Deficits: Some Fresh Empirical Evidence. I.
C. R. A. Bulletin, Money and Finance, 84 – 104. Summers L. H. (1988). Tax Policy and the International Competitiveness. In J. Frankel (Ed), International Aspects of Fiscal Policy, 349 – 375.
168
Tahir, M., Muhammad, Z.,& Mehboob, A (2007). An Empirical Investigation for the Twin Deficits Hypothesis in Pakistan. Journal of Economic Corporation, 28 (40), 63– 80. Tallman, E. W., & Jeffrey, A. R. (1991). Investigating U.S. Government and Trade Deficits.
Federal Reserve Bank of Atlanta Economic Review,1, 1-11. Tonia, K. (2007). Current Account Situation in South Africa: Issues to Consider. Economic Research Working Paper No 90. Udah, E. B. (2011). Adjustment Policies and Current Account Behaviour: Empirical Evidence
from Nigeria. European Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 6 (1), 217 – 231.
Vamvoukas, G. A. (1997). Have large budget deficits caused an increasing trade deficit? Evidence from developing country. Atlantic Economic Journal, 25 (1), 80 – 90.
Vamvoukas, G. (1999). The Twin Deficits Phenomenon: Evidence from Greece. Applied
Economics, 31, 1093-1100. Walter, E., & Bong-Soo, L. (1990). Current Account and Budget Deficits: Twins or Distant
Cousins? The Review of Economics and Statistics, 72(3), 373-381. Williamson, J. (1982). The Exchange Rate System. Washington D. C. Institute for International Economics Winner, L. E. (1993). The Relationship of the Current Account Balance and the Budget Balance.
The American Economist, 37 (2) 78 – 84. Zietz, J., & Pemperton, D.K. (1990). The U.S. Budget and Trade Deficits: A Simultaneous
Equation Model. Southern Economic Journal, 23-35.
169
Appendix
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LCAB
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LGBB
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LRER
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LLENDRATE
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to RGDP
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LOPNESS
- .04
.00
.04
.08
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LCAB
- .04
.00
.04
.08
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LGBB
- .04
.00
.04
.08
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LRER
- .04
.00
.04
.08
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LLENDRATE
- .04
.00
.04
.08
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to RGDP
- .04
.00
.04
.08
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LOPNESS
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LCAB
-0 .5
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LGBB
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LRER
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LLENDRATE
-0.5
0 .0
0 .5
1 .0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to RGDP
-0.5
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LOPNESS
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LCAB
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LGBB
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LRER
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LLENDRATE
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to RGDP
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LOPNESS
- .02
-.01
.00
.01
.02
.03
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LCAB
- .02
-.01
.00
.01
.02
.03
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LGBB
- .02
-.01
.00
.01
.02
.03
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LRER
- .02
- .01
.00
.01
.02
.03
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LLENDRATE
- .02
- .01
.00
.01
.02
.03
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to RGDP
- .02
-.01
.00
.01
.02
.03
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LOPNESS
- .04
-.02
.00
.02
.04
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LCAB
- .04
-.02
.00
.02
.04
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LGBB
- .04
-.02
.00
.02
.04
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LRER
- .04
- .02
.00
.02
.04
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LLENDRATE
- .04
- .02
.00
.02
.04
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to RGDP
- .04
-.02
.00
.02
.04
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LOPNESS
Response to Cholesky One S.D. Innovations
FIGURE 1: Impulse Response Functions Multiple Graphs for South Africa
170
- .2
.0
.2
.4
.6
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LCAB
-.2
.0
.2
.4
.6
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LGBB
-.2
.0
.2
.4
.6
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LRER
- .2
.0
.2
.4
.6
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LLENDRATE
- .2
.0
.2
.4
.6
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to RGDP
- .2
.0
.2
.4
.6
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LCAB to LOPNESS
- .1
.0
.1
.2
.3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LCAB
-.1
.0
.1
.2
.3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LGBB
-.1
.0
.1
.2
.3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LRER
- .1
.0
.1
.2
.3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LLENDRATE
- .1
.0
.1
.2
.3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to RGDP
- .1
.0
.1
.2
.3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LGBB to LOPNESS
-20
0
20
40
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LCAB
-20
0
20
40
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LGBB
-20
0
20
40
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LRER
-20
0
20
40
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LLENDRATE
-20
0
20
40
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to RGDP
-20
0
20
40
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LRER to LOPNESS
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LCAB
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LGBB
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LRER
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LLENDRATE
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to RGDP
-1
0
1
2
3
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LLENDRATE to LOPNESS
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LCAB
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LGBB
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LRER
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LLENDRATE
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to RGDP
0.0
0.5
1.0
2 4 6 8 10
Response of RGDP to LOPNESS
-.04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LCAB
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LGBB
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LRER
-.0 4
.0 0
.0 4
.0 8
.1 2
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LLENDRATE
-.0 4
.0 0
.0 4
.0 8
.1 2
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to RGDP
- .04
.00
.04
.08
.12
2 4 6 8 10
Response of LOPNESS to LOPNESS
Response to Cholesky One S.D. Innovations
FIGURE 3: Impulse Response Functions Multiple Graphs for Nigeria
171
Table 14: Current Account Balance Variance Decomposition for Nigeria.
Period S.E. LCAB LGBB LRER LLENDRATE RGDP LOPNESS
1 0.3814 100.0000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
2 0.4183 93.15183 0.265648 0.610554 1.149584 2.609927 2.212460 3 0.4322 87.52360 3.309375 0.748420 2.495873 3.670178 2.252549 4 0.4395 85.20456 4.845782 1.166744 2.731682 3.603785 2.447445 5 0.4443 83.46896 5.904005 1.881458 2.692386 3.604505 2.448687 6 0.4465 82.63617 6.616511 2.069478 2.665485 3.574460 2.437894 7 0.4475 82.28316 6.991335 2.060950 2.653999 3.575063 2.435496 8 0.4482 82.02998 7.234940 2.093796 2.646643 3.564697 2.429940 9 0.4488 81.80034 7.429838 2.144674 2.644821 3.557123 2.423205 10 0.4494 81.60714 7.585810 2.186445 2.649631 3.553536 2.417440
Table 15: Current Account Balance Variance Decomposition for South Africa Period S.E. LCAB LGBB LRER
LLENDRATE RGDP LOPNESS
1 0.079579 100.0000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000
2 0.098309 89.21609 0.070040 0.004561 0.001055 3.860310 6.847942 3 0.108926 85.99516 0.400280 0.178578 0.046221 5.568422 7.811336 4 0.117039 78.52295 2.399620 1.350123 0.044707 9.623966 8.058631 5 0.122325 73.96171 4.946171 2.144947 0.280328 10.49039 8.176447 6 0.126880 69.56649 7.320332 2.526568 0.400952 11.64281 8.542854 7 0.129763 67.13885 8.700444 2.643528 0.466061 12.10564 8.945481 8 0.132047 65.17824 9.500295 2.697617 0.452302 12.78655 9.384993 9 0.133618 63.88346 9.959056 2.696942 0.474832 13.19518 9.790530 10 0.134982 62.68580 10.26717 2.666169 0.572871 13.62640 10.18159
172
-20
-10
0
10
20
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
CUSUM 5% Significance
FIGURE 2: Cusum Test for Equation Stability for South Africa
-20
-10
0
10
20
70 75 80 85 90 95 00 05 10
CUSUM 5% Significance
FIGURE 4: Cusum Test for Equation Stability for Nigeria