Empirical Economics

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 371–385 | Cite as

Assessing fiscal sustainability subject to policy changes: a Markov switching cointegration approach

  • Vasco J. GabrielEmail author
  • Pataaree Sangduan


We propose a Markov switching cointegration approach to assess long run fiscal sustainability. This method allows us to simultaneously: (1) test for cointegration in the presence of significant fiscal policy changes; (2) assess the type of fiscal regime that a country experienced at a given period and (3) analyse the timing of the transition between the estimated regime types. Given its flexibility, our approach enable us to uncover a richer and more complex dynamics in the analysis of fiscal sustainability, which standard linear cointegration methods fail to capture.


Fiscal sustainability Markov switching Cointegration 

JEL Classification

C22 E62 H60 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Ahmed S, Rogers JH (1995) Government budget deficits and trade deficits: are present value constraints satisfied in long-term data? J Monet Econ 36: 351–374CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Alexandre F, Bacao P, Gabriel VJ (2007) Volatility in asset prices and long-run wealth effect estimates. Econ Model 24: 1048–1064CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Andrews DWK, Monahan JC (1992) An improved heteroskedasticity and autocorrelation consistent covariance matrix estimator. Econometrica 60: 953–966CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baharumshah AZ, Lau E (2007) Regime changes and the sustainability of fiscal imbalance in East Asian countries. Econ Model 24: 878–894CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bohn H (2007) Are stationarity and cointegration restrictions really necessary for the intertemporal budget constraint? J Monet Econ 54: 1837–1847CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Choi I, Saikkonen P (2009) Testing for nonlinear cointegration. Econ Theory (forthcoming)Google Scholar
  7. Corradi V, Swanson NR, White H (2000) Testing for stationarity-ergodicity and for comovements between nonlinear discrete time Markov processes. J Econ 96: 39–73Google Scholar
  8. Davies A (2006) Testing for international equity market integration using regime switching cointegration techniques. Rev Financ Econ 15: 305–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gabriel VJ, Psaradakis Z, Sola M (2002) A simple method of testing for cointegration subject to multiple regime change. Econ Lett 76: 213–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gregory AW, Hansen BE (1996a) Residual-based tests for cointegration in models with regime shifts. J Econ 70: 99–126Google Scholar
  11. Gregory AW, Hansen BE (1996b) Tests for cointegration in models with regime and trend shifts. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 58: 555–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hakkio CS, Rush M (1991) Cointegration and government borrowing constraints: evidence for the United States. J Bus Econ Stat 9: 429–445Google Scholar
  13. Hall SG, Psaradakis Z, Sola M (1997) Cointegration and changes in regime: the Japanese consumption function. J Appl Econ 12: 151–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hamilton JD, Flavin MA (1986) On the limitations of government borrowing. A framework for testing. Am Econ Rev 76: 808–819Google Scholar
  15. Hansen BE (1992) Tests for parameter instability in regressions with I(1) processes. J Bus Econ Stat 10: 321–335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hansen PR (2003) Structural breaks in the cointegrated vector autoregressive model. J Econ 114: 261–295Google Scholar
  17. Haug AA (1991) Cointegration and government borrowing constraints: evidence for the United States. J Bus Econ Stat 9: 97–101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Haug AA (1995) Has federal budget deficit policy changed in recent year? Econ Inq 33: 104–118CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Johansen S (1988) Statistical analysis of cointegration vectors. J Econ Dyn Control 12: 231–254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Kalyoncu H (2005) Fiscal policy sustainability: test of intertemporal borrowing constraints. Appl Econ Lett 12: 957–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kim CJ, Nelson CR (1999) State-space models with regime switching. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  22. Krolzig HM (1999) Statistical analysis of cointegrated VAR processes with Markovian shifts. Humboldt University Working Paper 373Google Scholar
  23. MacKinnon JG (1991) Critical values for cointegration tests. In: Engle RF, Granger CWJ (eds) Long-run economic relationships. Oxford University Press, Oxford, pp 267–276Google Scholar
  24. Martin GM (2000) US deficit sustainability: a new approach based on multiple endogenous breaks. J Appl Econ 15: 83–105CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Payne JE (1997) International evidence on the sustainability of budget deficits. Appl Econ Lett 4: 775–779CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Payne JE, Mohammadi H, Cak M (2008) Turkish budget deficit sustainability and the revenue-expenditure nexus. Appl Econ 40: 823–830CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Psaradakis Z, Sola M, Spagnolo F (2004) On Markov error-correction models, with and application to stock prices and dividends. J Appl Econ 19: 69–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Quintos CE (1995) Sustainability of the deficit process with structural shifts. J Bus Econ Stat 13: 409–417CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Stock JH, Watson MW (1993) A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica 61: 783–820CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wilcox D (1989) The sustainability of government deficit: implications of the present-value borrowing constraint. J Money Credit Banking 21: 291–306CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of EconomicsUniversity of SurreyGuildford, SurreyUK
  2. 2.NIPE-University of MinhoBragaPortugal
  3. 3.Bureau of the BudgetBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations