Skip to main content

Do Developing Countries Still Suffer from the Foreign Exchange Constraint? An Empirical Study for 1990–2014

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Studies in International Economics and Finance

Abstract

Globalization can potentially ease or firm up the foreign exchange constraint of a country. Considering a sample of 42 less developed countries and fixing an approximate date of globalization in 1991, we show that, at the aggregate level, the constraint has relaxed for them since the 1990s. After fixing the approximate dates of globalization for each country from the available literature and replicating the analysis at the country level, we found mixed results. Though the results are mixed, a general conclusion can be derived from the results: The foreign exchange constraint has relaxed due to globalization in upper-middle and lower-middle-income developing countries, while the opposite is true for low-income countries. Balance-of-payment accounting statistics show interesting correspondences. Merchandise exports and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) tend to have a high and positive correspondence with relaxing the burden of the constraint while Foreign Portfolio Investment (FPI) and efforts toward reduction of imports have no correspondence. Policy insights derived from the analysis suggest export diversification is important for improving current account balance.

… The problem for many developing countries is the deficiency of productive capacity and not the anomaly of its underutilization and … the availability of foreign exchange may become, under many circumstances, the principal factor limiting economic activity. Demand constraints do exist … but supply constraints generated either by the availability of capital or by the availability of foreign exchange are more important.

Stiglitz et al. (2006: 56)

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 139.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 179.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. 1.

    The literature dates back at least to the 1960s (Chenery and Bruno, 1962; Manne, 1963; McKinnon, 1964). Some more recent literature includes Porter and Ranney (1982), Moran (1989), Lensink (1995), Agenor and Monteil (2008), Stiglitzet et al. (2006), Maiti (1984), Snehadji (1998), MacKenzie and Ohndorf (2013), McKinnon (1964), Kohli (1978), Princová (2010), Panshak et al. (2020), Senbeta (2013), and Wyplosz (2007).

  2. 2.

    Population greater than 1 million is arbitrarily chosen.

  3. 3.

    https://data.imf.org/?sk=4c514d48-b6ba-49ed-8ab9-52b0c1a0179b&sId=1409151240976 and https://data.imf.org/?sk=2DFB3380-3603-4D2C-90BE-A04D8BBCE237.

  4. 4.

    Q–A: Quand Andrews test, FER: foreign exchange reserve. Wald: Wald test.

  5. 5.

    Q–A: Quand Andrews test, FER: foreign exchange reserve. Wald: Wald test.

  6. 6.

    Q–A: Quand Andrews test, FER: foreign exchange reserve. Wald: Wald test.

  7. 7.

    See Appendix 1 for a formal derivation.

  8. 8.

    The following countries have a mixture of I(0) and I(1) variables: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Chad, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Mauritania, and Papua New Guinea. The Philippines has all the variables as I(0). For the rest of the countries, all variables are I(1) (see Appendix).

  9. 9.

    LZ: log of z where z: ratio between domestic expenditure and foreign exchange availability.

  10. 10.

    The error-correction mechanism revealed that convergence occurred in the same period for Brazil, Hungary, Kenya, Morocco, Togo, and Bhutan.

  11. 11.

    [1] ADF RESID: Augmented Dickey Fuller residuals, an asterisk mark implies significant variable.

  12. 12.

    The CUSUM squared test had the same pattern and is therefore not reported.

References

  • Agenor & Monteil. (2008). Macroeconomics. 3rd edn. Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahad, M., Afza, T., & Shahbaz, M. (2017). Financial development and estimation of import demand function in Pakistan: Evidence from combined cointegration and causality tests. Global Business Review, 18(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916666909

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Andrews & Ploberger. (1994). “Optimal test when a nuisance parameter is present under only alternatives: Econometrica, 62, 1383–1414.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee. (1986). Determinants of international trade flows: The Case of Developing Countries. Journal of Development Economics, 20(1), 107–123.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahluwalia, M. S. (2002). Economic Reforms in India since 1991: Has Gradualism Worked? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 67–88.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arize, A., & Afifi, R. (1987). An economic examination of import demand function in thirty developing countries. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 9(4), 604–616.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aryeetey, E., Devarajan, S., Kanbur, R., & Kasekende, L. (2012). Overview. In E. Aryeetey, S. Devarajan, R. Kanbur, & L. Kasekende (Eds.), The Oxford companion to the economics of Africa (pp. 1–23). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ayodotun, A., & Farayibi, A. (2016). Modelling the determinants of import demand in Sub-Sahara Africa. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), 1–27.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bacheta, M. (2009). Globalization and informal job in developing countries. World Trade Organization.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee, M. (1998). Cointegration approach to estimate the long-run trade elasticities in LDCs. International Economic Journal, 12(3), 89–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Kara, O. (2003). Relative responsiveness of trade flows to a change in price and exchange rate. International Review of Applied Economics, 17(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269217032000090496

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Kara, O. (2005). Income and price elasticities of trade: Some new estimates. The International Trade Journal, 19(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853900590933125

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bangara, B. C. (2019) A New Keynesian DSGE model for Low Income Economies with Foreign Exchange Constraints. Economic Research Southern Africa (ERSA) working paper 795.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bankoff, G. (2006). The historical geography of disaster. ‘Vulnerability’ and ‘local knowledge’ in Western discourse. In G. Bankoff, G. Freaks, D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping vulnerability. Disasters, development, and people (pp. 25–36). Earthscan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo & Mendoza. (2000). Rational contagion and the globalization of securities market. Journal of International Economics, 51, 79–113.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceglowski, J. (1993). Intertemporal substitution in import demand. Journal of International Money and Finance, 10(March (1991)), 118–130.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, T., Ho, Y. H., & Huang, C. (2005). A Reexamination of South Korea’s aggregate import demand functions: The bounds test analysis. Journal of Economic Development, 30(1), 119–128.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chenery, H. B., & Bruno, M. (1962). Development alternatives in an open economy: The case of Israel. The Economic Journal, 72 (285), 79–103.

    Google Scholar 

  • Clarida, R. (1994). Cointegration, aggregate consumption, and the demand for imports: A structural econometric investigation. American Economic Review, 84, 298–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091–1110.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta-Chaudhuri, M. (1990, Summer). Market failure and Government failure. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 25–39.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dutta D., & Ahmed, N. (2004). An aggregate import demand function for India: A cointegration analysis.

    Google Scholar 

  • Emran, S. (1996). Foreign exchange rationing and the aggregate import demand function. Economics Letters, 51, 315–322.

    Google Scholar 

  • Faini, G. (1988). “Import demand in developing countries”: Country economics department. The World Bank November 1988 WPS 122.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosu, A. (Ed.). (2013a). Development success. Historical accounts of more advanced countries. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fosu, A. (Ed.). (2013b). Achieving development success. Strategies and lessons from the developing world. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein M., & Khan, M. (1978). The supply and demand for exports: A simultaneous approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 275–286.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldstein, M., & Khan, M. S. (1985). Income and price effects in foreign trade. In R. W. Jo & P. B. Kenen (Eds.), Jones (pp. 1041–1105). Elsevier Science Publications.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gollin, D., & Rogerson, R. (2010). Agriculture, roads, and economic development in Uganda. NBER Working Paper No. 15863.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gräbner, C., Heimberger, P., Kapeller, J., et al. (2021). Understanding economic openness: A review of existing measures. Review of World Economics, 157, 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-020-00391-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Greenaway, et al. (2001). Trade liberalisation and growth in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 67, 229–244.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J.-E. (2019). The KOF globalisation index—Revisited. Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harvey, S., & Sedegah, K. (2011). Import demand in Ghana: Structure, behaviour and stability. African Economic Research Consortium AERC Research Paper 233, Nairobi.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2006). Doomed to choose: Industrial policy as predicament. Mimeo, Harvard University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics., 72(2), 603–633.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. L., & Katz, E. (1984, March). Oil price instability and domestic energy substitution for imported oil. The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, 60(168), 85–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hillman, A. (2009). Trade liberalization and globalization in the encyclopedia of public choice (C. K. Rowley, F. Schneider, Eds.) (Vol. I, pp. 312–320). Kluwer Academic Publishers.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hope, N., Kochar, A., Noll, R., & Srinivasan, T. N. (2013). Economic reform in India: Challenges, prospects, and lessons. Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Huh, H.-S., & Park, C.-Y. (2019, July). A new index of globalization: Measuring impacts of integration on economic growth and income inequality (pp. 1–49). No. 587. ADB Working paper, Philippines.

    Google Scholar 

  • IMF. International Financial Statistics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kohli, U. R. (1978, May). A gross national product function and the derived demand for imports and supply of exports. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 11(2), 167–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kose, et al. (2003). Globalization, the business cycle, and macroeconomic monitoring. IMF Working Paper. WP/11/25.

    Google Scholar 

  • MacKenzie, I. I. A., & Ohndorf, M. M. (2013). Restricted Coasean bargaining. Journal of Public Economics, 97(C), 296–307.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maiti, P. (1984). India’s imports during the last three decades: An econometric study. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B, 48(1) (April 1986), 78–81

    Google Scholar 

  • Manne, A. S. (1963). Key sectors of the Mexican economy 1960–1970. In A. S. Manne & H. M. Markowitz (Eds.), Studies in process analysis (pp. 379–400). Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • McKinnon, R. R. I. (1964). Foreign exchange constraints in economic development and efficient aid allocation. The Economic Journal, 74(294), 388–409.

    Google Scholar 

  • Min, B. S., Mohammad, H. A., & Tang, T. C. (2002). An analysis of South Korea’s import demand. Journal of Asia-Pacific Affairs, 4, 1–17.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mishra & Mohanty. (2017). Is Fiscal Policy Pro-Cyclical or Counter-Cyclical? Evidence from India: Arthashatra, 6(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, C. (1989). Imports under a foreign exchange constraint. The World Bank Economic Review, 3(2), 279–295.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moran & Pearson. (1988). Tread carefully in the field of TRIP measures. The World Economy, 11(1), 119–134, 03.

    Google Scholar 

  • Mwega, F. M. (1993). Import demand elasticities and stability during trade liberalization: A case study of Kenya. Journal of African Economies, v2.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nannicini et al. (2011). Assessing economic liberalization episodes: A synthetic control approach. A Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3) (July 2013), 983–1001.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, D. (2008). Liberalization and development. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, D. (2017). Economic liberalisation in India: Then and now. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(2), 41–48.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nayyar, D. (1996). Economic liberalization in India: Analytics, experience and lessons. Orient Longmans.

    Google Scholar 

  • Norman, A., & Stiglitz, J. (2012). African development prospects and possibilities. In E. Aryeetey, S. Devarajan, R. Kanbur, & L. Kasekende (Eds.), The Oxford companion to the economics of Africa (pp. 33–47). Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (1996). Foundations of international economics. MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Olabisi, M., & Charles Sawyer, W. (2021). The Demand for imports and exports in Africa: A survey. Journal of African Trade, 71(1–2), 45–59.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oukiazis, E., Antunes, M., & Kostakis, I. (2018). The Greek economy under the twin deficit pressure: A demand-oriented growth approach. International Review of Applied Economics, 32(2), 215–236.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Panshak, et al. (2020). Towards determining Nigeria’s economic growth path: A balance-of-payments constrained growth approach. Science Direct.

    Google Scholar 

  • Park, J. D. (2019) Korea’s path of development in retrospect. In Re-inventing Africa’s development. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03946-2_7

  • Pedar. (2004). Globalization, the Celtic tiger, and social outcome: Is Ireland is a model or mirage. Globalisations, 1(2), 205–222.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pedroni. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in a heterogeneous panel in multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics0305Statistics 0305–9049 Volume 61, Issue S1 Pages 653–670

    Google Scholar 

  • Peseran, et al. (1999). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of long-run relationship. Discussion paper series no 46. http://www.econ.ed.ac.uk/papers/id46_esedps.pdf

  • Porter, C., & Ranney, I. (1982). An eclectic model of recent LDC macroeconomic policy. Analyses Working Development, 10(9), 751–165.

    Google Scholar 

  • Prasad, et al. (2003). How does globalization affect the synchronization of business cycles? Econstore, IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 702. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/20635/1/dp702.pdf

  • Princová, K. (2010). Globalisation, vulnerability, poverty and human limits. In Beyond globalization: Exploring the limits of globalization in the regional context. http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ/16-princova.pdf

  • Rajan, R. (2019). Rising tide. Finance and Development. IMF, 2019, Washington DC, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (1998). Trade Policy and Economic Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Working Paper 6562. NBER, Cambridge, MA, USA.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, Dani (2006). The social cost of foreign exchange reserves. International Economic Journal, 20(3), 253–266.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rodrik, D. (2006). Imperfect competition, scale economies, and trade policy in developing countries Chapter http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5849 Chapter pages in book: (pp. 109–144).

  • Rodrik, D. (2008). The real exchange rate and economic growth. Brooking papers on Economic activity (fall).

    Google Scholar 

  • Senbeta, S. R. (2013). Foreign exchange constraints and macroeconomic dynamics in a small open economy. Working Papers 2013023, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Senhadji. (1998). Time-series estimation of structural import demand equation a cross country analysis. American Economic Review, 45(2).

    Google Scholar 

  • Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals Statistics 6(2), 461–464 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  • Steger, Manfred B. (2013). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stiglitz, J. E., Ocampo, J. A., Spiegel, S., Ffrench-Davis, R., & Nayyar, D. (2006). Stability with Growth: Macroeconomics, liberalization, and development. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tahir, M., Arturo Ruiz Estrada, M., & Afridi, M. A. (2019). Foreign inflows and economic growth: An empirical study of the SAARC region. Economic Systems, 43, 1–8.

    Google Scholar 

  • Thirlwall, A. P. (2011). Balance of payments constrained growth models: History and overview. PSL Quarterly Review, 64(259), 307–351.

    Google Scholar 

  • Tirmazee, Z. S., & Naveed, R. (2014). Reviewing Pakistan’s import demand function: A Time-Series Analysis, 1970–2010. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 19(September 2014), 371–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • UNCTAD. (2020). World investment report 2020. UNCTAD. Accessed on June 15, 2021. https://worldinvestmentreport.unctad.org/world-investment-report-2020/

  • Vacu, N. P., & Odhiambo, N. M. (2020). The determinants of import demand in South Africa: An empirical investigation. International Economics, 73(1) (February), 51–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Walton, M (2009)” Vulnerability and globalization: On protection, power and identity in India” http://www.michaelwalton.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Vulnerability-and-globalization_August-2009.pdf.

  • Wan, J. R., & Henry, Y. (2003). Reform unleashed Korean growth. German Economic Review, 4(1), 19–34.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williamson, J.G. (Eds.) (1999). Globalization and history (p. 343). MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Bank. (1993). The East Asean miracle, economic growth and public policy. Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • World Development Report. (2010).

    Google Scholar 

  • Wyplosz. (2007). The eurozone in the current crisis ADBI working paper series.

    Google Scholar 

  • Xu, X. (2000). The dynamic-optimizing approach to import demand a structural model. Economics Letters, 74(2002), 265–270.

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang, H., Wei, Y., & Ma, S. (2021). Overcoming the “Solow paradox”: Tariff reduction and productivity growth of Chinese ICT firms. Journal of Asian Economics (forthcoming).

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou, G., Yan, X., & Luo, S. (2018). Financial security and optimal scale of foreign exchange reserve in China. Sustainability, 10(1724), 1–19.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Appendices

Appendix 1

Let the utility function be

$$ U\left[ {D_{t} ,M_{t} } \right] = N\frac{{D_{t}^{1 - \alpha } }}{1 - \alpha } + R\frac{{M_{t}^{1 - \beta } }}{1 - \beta }. $$

Therefore, the current-value Hamiltonian will now be

$$ \begin{aligned} H_{c} & = N.\frac{{D_{t}^{1 - \alpha } }}{1 - \alpha } + R\frac{{M_{t}^{1 - \beta } }}{1 - \beta } + \lambda_{t} \left[ {\theta A_{t} K_{t} - D_{t} - P_{t} M_{t} .} \right] \hfill \\ & \quad + \lambda_{A} ((\sigma - \gamma )A_{t} ) + \mu_{t} (F_{t} - P_{t} M_{t} ) \hfill \\ \end{aligned} $$

The first-order conditions are

$$ ND_{t}^{ - \alpha } = \lambda_{t} $$
(18)
$$ RM_{t}^{ - \beta } = P_{t} (\lambda_{t} + \mu_{t} ), $$
(19)
$$ \begin{gathered} F_{t} - P_{t} M_{t} \ge 0 \hfill \\ \mu_{t} \left[ {F_{t} - P_{t} M_{t} } \right] = 0. \hfill \\ \end{gathered} $$

Eliminating λt from (18) and (19), we have.

$$ND_{t}^{ - \alpha } P_{t} \left[ {1 + \mu_{t}^{ * } } \right] = RM_{t}^{ - \beta }, $$

where \(\mu_{t}^{ * } = \frac{{\mu_{t} }}{{\lambda_{t} }}\) is the change in the marginal utility of foreign exchange availability to the marginal utility of domestic goods.

Taking log on both sides yields

$$ \log M_{t} = \frac{1}{\beta }(\log R - \log N) - \frac{1}{\beta }\log P_{t} + \frac{\alpha }{\beta }\log D_{t} - \frac{1}{\beta }\log (1 + \mu_{t}^{*} ). $$
(20)

Let the functional form of \(\mu_{t}^{*}\) be

$$ \mu_{t}^{*} = e^{{\theta_{1} Z_{t} }} - 1, $$

where Zt is the ratio of foreign exchange reserve to the GDP (Xu, 2000). We, therefore, assume that the change in the marginal utility of foreign exchange availability to the marginal utility of domestic goods is a function of the ratio between domestic expenditure and foreign exchange availability. Therefore,

$$ \log (1 + \mu_{t}^{*} ) = \theta_{1} Z_{t} . $$

Let Zt be the ratio between domestic expenditure and foreign exchange availability.

Thus, Eq. (20) can be rewritten as

$$ \log M_{t} = \frac{1}{\beta }(\log R - \log N) - \frac{1}{\beta }\log P_{t} + \frac{\alpha }{\beta }\log D_{t} - \frac{{\theta_{1} }}{\beta }Z_{t} . $$
(21)

In Eq. (21), \(\frac{{\theta_{1} }}{\beta }\) is our coefficient of interest. In what follows, we estimate Eq. (21)—or equivalently Eq. (14)—using our sample of countries and years.

Appendix 2

Unit Root Test (Phillips-Perron)

Country

Level

First difference

LM

LGDP

LP

Z

LM

LGDP

LP

Z

Argentina

−2.24

−1.96

−3.05

3.04

−4.6

2.97

−3.48

−5.27

Benin

−3.08

−1.65

1.71

−1.96

−8.04

−5.43

8.04

−6.41

Bhutan

−6.29

−2.06

−1.29

2.94

 

−7.34

−5.39

7.04

Brazil

−2.43

−1.33

−1.19

−0.23

−6.06

−3.71

−3.74

−4.15

Burkina Faso

−0.92

−1.69

−2.29

−2.26

−6.48

−6.15

−5.85

−4.31

China

−3.47

−2.60*

−2.91

−0.17

−6.45*

−6.71*

−6.46*

−4.91*

Congo (Rep)

2.94

−2.29

−1.72

1.53

−8.1

3.62

−3.53

4.72

Dominican Republic

1.06

1.94

−2.33

−2.26

−7.46

4.47

4.6

−5.21

El Salvador

−3.47

−1.61

−1.91

−0.17

−6.45*

5.76*

−6.46*

−4.91*

Ethiopia

−0.44

−2.36

−1.37

−2.77

8.4

−6.13

−4.87

−5.54

The Gambia

−2.9

−2.05

−1.44

−1.78

5.75

−3.82

−5.22

−5.73

Guinea−Bissau

−0.69

−2.8

−0.37

1.6

−5.09

−3.6

−4.67

4.86

Haiti

1.06

1.94

−2.33

−2.26

−7.46

4.47

1.06

1.94

Hungary

−1.46

−2.2

1.11

−2.04

−3.83

6.6

3.83

−6.13

India

1.91

2.46

3.11

1.12

−5.15

−4.82

−5.52

−6.7

Jordan

−1.41

−2.66

2.46

−0.73

−5.16

−3.99

−5.7

−3.58

Libya

−3.28

−0.34

−0.27

−3.46

−5.72

−4.32

−5.89

−4.87

Malawi

−1.85

−1.44

−1.5

−2.23

−6.57

−4.99

−15.35

−5.43

Malaysia

−1.96

−1.96

−2.56

−3

−5.56

−5.4

−3.15

−5.16

Mauritius

−1.87

−2.41

−2.92

−2.37

4.5

−5.41

4.37

−5.28

Morocco

−1.41

−2.66

2.46

−0.73

−5.16

−3.99

−5.7

−4.87

Nicaragua

−0.16

−2.83

−2.65

0.65

4.56

−5.59

6.99

4.89

Pakistan

−3.39

−3.16

−3.44

−3.64

−6.92

−7.3

−5.26

−4.1

Paraguay

−2.48

−1.65

−1.32

1.37

−4.74

−3.73

−4.87

4.55

The Philippines

−6.19

−4.73

−4.08

−4.65

    

Rwanda

2.97

−2.19

0.77

−1.8

9.36

−4

−6.02

−4.82

Senegal

−2.06

−1.96

0.4

0.85

−5.21

−5.23

−5.79

−5.79

Somalia

−2.27

−2

−3.04

−1.24

−7.03

−8.47

−8.24

−4.86

Sri Lanka

−2.12

−2.89

−2.22

−2.82

−4.52

−4.95

−4.5

−4.68

Thailand

−1.59

−3.53

−3.22

−2.9

−4.24

−8.08

−8.1

−4.57

Togo

1.72

2.92

−3.04

−1.94

−7.07

−6.83

−8.89

8.6

Trinidad & Tobago

−1.34

−1.71

−2.67

−2.26

−5.36

−3.91

−5.95

−3.66

Tunisia

−3.29

−1.79

−2.71

−1.17

−6.75

−6.61

−3.69

−5.5

Turkey

−2.07

−1.49

−1.81

−1.27

−3.83

−5.8

−4.27

−4.63

Unit Root Test (for ARDL)

Country

Level

First difference

LM

LGDP

LP

Z

LM

LGDP

LP

Z

Bangladesh

−3.47

−4.60*

−2.91

−0.17

−6.45*

 

−6.46*

−4.91*

Kenya

−2.05

5.07*

−2.45

−3.05

−4.48*

 

−3.95*

−10.54

Bolivia

−3.79*

−1.75

−1.02

−1.26

 

−3.99*

−3.56*

−3.60*

Burundi

−2.90

−1.73

−1.24

−5.61*

−7.02*

−3.57*

−6.30*

 

Central African Republic

−4.19*

−2.02

−2.95

−2.62

 

−6.27*

−6.97*

−4.34*

Chad

−3.21

−1.57

−3.90*

−5.50*

−6.44*

−6.05*

  

Costa Rica

−0.69

−2.80

−0.37

3.60*

−5.09*

−3.60

−4.67

 

Mauritania

4.76*

−3.14

6.45*

4.39*

 

−8.55

  

Papua New Guinea

2.81

−3.18

4.087*

−1.53

−6.57*

−5.27*

 

3.60*

Swaziland

3.47

−3.60*

3.67*

−2.71

−5.61*

  

−5.64*

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Bhattacharyya, R., Chatterjee, R., Das, G.G. (2022). Do Developing Countries Still Suffer from the Foreign Exchange Constraint? An Empirical Study for 1990–2014. In: Yoshino, N., Paramanik, R.N., Kumar, A.S. (eds) Studies in International Economics and Finance. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7062-6_23

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics