, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 425–455 | Cite as

Malaysia-EU trade at the industry level: Is there an asymmetric response to exchange rate volatility?

  • Mohsen Bahmani-OskooeeEmail author
  • Muhammad Aftab
Original Paper


Aftab et al. (Empirica 43:461–485, 2016) in this journal assessed the impact of exchange rate volatility on Malaysia-EU trade at commodity level using the linear ARDL approach of Pesaran et al. (J Appl Econom 16:289–326, 2001) and did not find significant effects in most of the 81 Malaysian exporting and 66 importing industries. In this paper, we argue for asymmetric effects of exchange rate volatility on the same industries’ trades which implies using Shin et al.’s (Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt, Springer, New York, 2014) nonlinear ARDL approach. While we find short-run asymmetric effects of volatility in almost all industries, we find evidence of adjustment asymmetry in 17 exporting and nine importing industries. We also find significant impact or short-run cumulative asymmetry in 12 exporting and six importing industries. The most important finding is significant long-run asymmetric effects in 36 Malaysian exporting industries and 25 Malaysian importing industries. Clearly, trade flows react to an increased exchange rate volatility differently than to a decreased volatility.


Exchange rate volatility Asymmetry effects Commodity trade Malaysia US Nonlinear ARDL 

JEL Classification



  1. Aftab M, Ahmad R, Ismail I, Ahmed M (2016) Does exchange-rate uncertainty matter in the Malaysia-E.U. bilateral trade? An industry level investigation. Empirica 43:461–485CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Apergis N, Miller S (2006) Consumption asymmetry and the stock market: empirical evidence. Econ Lett 93:337–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arize AC, Osang T, Slottje DJ (2000) Exchange-rate volatility and foreign trade: evidence from thirteen LDCs. J Bus Econ Stat 18:10–17Google Scholar
  4. Bahmani-Oskooee M (1986) Determinants of international trade flows: case of developing countries. J Dev Econ 20:107–123CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bahmani-Oskooee M, Fariditavana H (2016) “Nonlinear ARDL Approach and the J-curve phenomenon. Open Econ Rev 27:51–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bahmani-Oskooee M, Hegerty SW (2007) Exchange rate volatility and trade flows: a review article. J Econ Stud 34:211–255CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Bahmani-Oskooee M, Harvey H, Aftab M (2016) Asymmetry cointegration and the J-curve: new evidence from Malaysia-Singapore commodity trade. J Econ Asymmetries 14:211–226Google Scholar
  8. Bussiere M (2013) Exchange rate pass-through to trade prices: the role of nonlinearities and asymmetries. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 75:731–758CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. De Grauwe P (1988) Exchange rate variability and the slowdown in growth of international trade. IMF Staff Papers, pp 63–84Google Scholar
  10. De Vita G, Abbott A (2004) Real exchange rate volatility and US exports: an ARDL bounds testing approach. Econ Issues 9:69–78Google Scholar
  11. De Vita G, Kyaw KS (2008) Determinants of capital flows to developing countries: a structural VAR analysis. J Econ Stud 35:304–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Delatte A-L, Lopez-Villavicencio A (2012) Asymmetry exchange rate pass-through: evidence from major countries. J Macroecon 34:833–844CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Doganlar M (2002) Estimating the impact of exchange rate volatility on exports: evidence from Asian Countries. Appl Econ Lett 9:859–863CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Doroodian K (1999) Does exchange rate volatility deter international trade in developing countries? J Asian Econ 10:465–474CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Durmaz N (2015) Industry level J-curve in Turkey. J Econ Stud 42:689–706CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hajilee M, Al-Nasser OM (2014) Exchange rate volatility and stock market development in emerging economies. J Post Keynes Econ 37:163–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Halicioglu F (2007) The J-curve dynamics of turkish bilateral trade: a cointegration approach. J Econ Stud 34:103–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Moore T (2007) Has entry to the European Union altered the dynamic links of stock returns for the emerging markets? Appl Financ Econ 17(17):1431–1446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Narayan PK, Narayan S, Prasad BC, Prasad A (2007) Export-led growth hypothesis: evidence from Papua New Guinea and Fiji. J Econ Stud 34:341–351CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Peree E, Steinherr A (1989) Exchange rate uncertainty and foreign trade. Eur Econ Rev 33:1241–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econom 16:289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Sickles RC, Horrace WC (eds) Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt. Springer, New York, pp 281–314Google Scholar
  23. Verheyen F (2013) Interest Rate pass-through in the EMU-new evidence using nonlinear ARDL framework. Econ Bull 33(1):729–739Google Scholar
  24. Wong KN, Tang TC (2008) The effects of exchange rate variablity on Malaysia’s disaggregated electrical exports. J Econ Stud 35:154–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.The Center for Research on International Economics and Department of EconomicsUniversity of Wisconsin-MilwaukeeMilwaukeeUSA
  2. 2.Department of Finance and BankingUniversity of MalayaKuala LumpurMalaysia

Personalised recommendations