Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Asymmetric J-curve: evidence from UK-German commodity trade

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Empirica Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Previous studies that have investigated the J-curve phenomenon between the UK and its largest trading partner from the European Union (EU), Germany, used aggregate bilateral trade data and found no support for the phenomenon. In this paper, we disaggregate the trade data by industry and investigate the symmetric as well as asymmetric J-curve hypothesis for each of the 95 2-digit industries that trade between the two countries. We found support for the symmetric J-curve effect in 12 industries, but support for the asymmetric J-curve effect 21 industries. Since the asymmetric approach required separating pound depreciation from appreciation, the approach also allowed us to identify industries that could benefit or be hurt from pound depreciation and those that could be hurt or benefit from pound appreciation.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. For a review article see Bahmani-Oskooee and Ratha (2004).

  2. Germany, the U.S., and China are the three largest trading partner of the U.K. with 13%, 11%, and 7% trade share respectively (Source, Bahmani-Oskooee et al. 2017, Table 1).

  3. This section closely follows Bahmani-Oskooee and Aftab (2018) and Bahmani-Oskooee and Durmaz (2020) in this journal.

  4. Note that estimates of α2 and α3 could also be positive and negative, respectively if increased economic activity is due to an increase in the production of import-substitute goods (Bahmani-Oskooee 1986).

  5. Note that by lagging the dependent and independent variables in (1) by one period and including the outcome for lagged error term, we see that indeed, lagged error term is the same as linear combination of lagged level variables.

  6. Note that once normalization takes place, we have \(\hat{\alpha }_{1} = {\raise0.7ex\hbox{${\hat{\eta }_{1} }$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\hat{\eta }_{1} } { - \hat{\eta }_{0} }}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${ - \hat{\eta }_{0} }$}}\); \(\hat{\alpha }_{2} = {\raise0.7ex\hbox{${\hat{\eta }_{2} }$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\hat{\eta }_{2} } { - \hat{\eta }_{0} }}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${ - \hat{\eta }_{0} }$}}\); and \(\hat{\alpha }_{3} = {\raise0.7ex\hbox{${\hat{\eta }_{3} }$} \!\mathord{\left/ {\vphantom {{\hat{\eta }_{3} } { - \hat{\eta }_{0} }}}\right.\kern-\nulldelimiterspace} \!\lower0.7ex\hbox{${ - \hat{\eta }_{0} }$}}\).

  7. Note that Bahmani-Oskooee (2020) has demonstrated that estimate of η0 is exactly the same as estimate of the coefficient attached to the lagged error-correction term in Engle and Granger (1987) setting.

  8. Indeed, by applying the ADF test we had to confirm that there are no I(2) variable in any of the models.

  9. Shin et al. (2014, p. 291).

  10. For some other application of these models see Apergis and Miller (2006), Halicioglu (2007), Verheyen (2013), Hajilee and Al-Nasser (2014), Gogas and Pragidis (2015), Durmaz (2015), Baghestani and Kherfi (2015), Al-Shayeb and Hatemi (2016), Lima et al. (2016), Nusair (2017), Aftab et al. (2017), Arize et al. (2017), Gregoriou (2017), Lucarelli et al. (2018), Hatemi et al. (2018), Istiak and Alam (2019), Hajilee and Niroomand (2019), Olaniyi (2019), and Bahmani-Oskooee and Nasir (2020).

  11. Our long-run results did not change when we considered other lag selection criteria. However, short-run results were somewhat different in terms of number of lags selected.

  12. Exact name of each industry and their trade shares appear in Table 2.

  13. From the long run estimates, it appears that the trade balance of industries coded 18, 23, 34, 39, 81, 86, and 93 will be hurt by pound depreciation since the estimate attached to the exchange rate is negative. This could be due to inelastic import demands in either country.

  14. The real exchange rate carries an insignificant coefficient using aggregate trade data (see last row of Table 2).

  15. Note that in industry coded 89 in Table 7, estimate of b is greater than one. This implies that since data are monthly, little over 50% of adjustment takes place in two weeks.

  16. In all industries in all four groups, asymmetric cointegration was supported either by the F or the t-test. Industries in which either partial sum variable carries a significant coefficient by asymmetric cointegration was not supported, are excluded from the list.

References

  • Aftab M, Shah Syed K, Katper N (2017) Exchange-rate volatility and Malaysian-Thai bilateral industry trade flows. J Econ Stud 44:99–114

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Al-shayeb A, Hatemi A-J (2016) Trade openness and economic development in the UAE: an asymmetric approach. J Econ Stud 43:587–597

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Apergis N, Miller S (2006) Consumption asymmetry and the stock market: empirical evidence. Econ Lett 93:337–342

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arize AC, Malindretos J, Igwe EU (2017) Do exchange rate changes improve the trade balance: an asymmetric nonlinear cointegration approach. Int Rev Econ Fin 49:313–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Baghestani H, Kherfi S (2015) An error-correction modeling of US consumer spending: are there asymmetries? J Econ Stud 42:1078–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M (1985) Devaluation and the J-curve: some evidence from LDCs. Rev Econ Stat 67:500–504

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M (1986) Determinants of international trade flows: case of developing countries. J Develop Econ 20:107–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M (1991) Is there a long-run relation between the trade balance and the real effective exchange rate of LDCs? Econ Lett 36:403–407

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee, M. (2020) The J-curve and the effects of exchange rate changes on the trade balance. In: F.L. Rivera-Batiz (eds.) International money and finance, Volume 2 of F. L. Rivera-Batiz (ed.) Encyclopedia of international economics and global trade, World Scientific Publishing Co., Singapore, chapter 11, 2020, pp. 297–319.

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Aftab M (2018) Malaysia-EU trade at the industry level: is there asymmetric response to exchange rate volatility? Empirica 45:425–455

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Alse J (1994) Short-run versus long-run effects of devaluation: error-correction modeling and cointegration. East Econ J 20:453–464

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Durmaz N (2020) Asymmetric cointegration and the J-curve: evidence from commodity trade between Turkey and EU. Empirica 47:757–792

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Fariditavana H (2015) Nonlinear ARDL approach, asymmetric effects and the J-curve. J Econ Stud 42:519–530

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Fariditavana H (2016) Nonlinear ARDL approach and the J-curve phenomenon. Open Econ Rev 27:51–70

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Malixi M (1992) More evidence on the J-curve from LDCs. J Policy Model 14:641–653

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Nasir AM (2020) The J-curve: asymmetric evidence from industry trade between US and UK. Appl Econ 52:2679–2693

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Ratha A (2004) The J-curve: a literature review. Appl Econ 36:1377–1398

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Economidou C, Goswami G (2006) Bilateral J-curve between the UK vis-à-vis her major trading partners. Appl Econ 38:879–888

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bahmani-Oskooee M, Ghodsi H, Halicioglu F (2017) UK trade balance with its trading partners: an asymmetry analysis. Econ Anal Policy 56:188–199

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bussiere M (2013) Exchange rate pass-through to trade prices: the role of nonlinearities and asymmetries. Oxford Bull Econ Stat 75:731–758

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Durmaz N (2015) Industry level J-curve in Turkey. J Econ Stud 42(4):689–706

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engle RF, Granger CWJ (1987) Cointegration and error correction: representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica 55:251–276

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gil-Alana LA, Luqui N, Cunado J (2008) Trade balance and exchange rate: unit roots, co-integration and long memory in the US and the UK. Econ Notes 37:59–74

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gogas P, Pragidis I (2015) Are there asymmetries in fiscal policy shocks? J Econ Stud 42:303–321

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gregoriou A (2017) Modelling non-linear behaviour of block price deviations when trades are executed outside the bid-ask quotes. J Econ Stud 44:206–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajilee M, Al-Nasser OM (2014) Exchange rate volatility and stock market development in emerging economies. J Post Keynesian Econ 37:163–180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hajilee M, Niroomand F (2019) On the link between financial market inclusion and trade openness: an asymmetric analysis. Econ Anal Policy 62:373–381

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Halicioglu F (2007) The J-curve dynamics of Turkish bilateral trade: a cointegration approach. J Econ Stud 34:103–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hatemi-J A, Gupta R, Netshitenzhe N (2018) Does tourism cause growth asymmetrically in a panel of G-7 countries? A short note. Empirica 45:49–57

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Himarios, D. (1989) Do devaluations improve trade balance? The evidence revisited. Econ Inq 27(1): 143-168.

  • Istiak K, Alam MR (2019) Oil prices, policy uncertainty and asymmetries in inflation expectations. J Econ Stud 46:324–334

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Junz HB, Rhomberg R (1973) Price competitivemess in export trade among industrial countries. Am Econ Rev 63:412–419

    Google Scholar 

  • Kyereme SS (2002) Determinants of United States’ trade balance with Australia. Appl Econ 34:1241–1250

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lima L, Vasconcelos CF, Simão J, de Mendonça H (2016) The quantitative easing effect on the stock market of the USA, the UK and Japan: an ARDL approach for the crisis period. J Econ Stud 43:1006–1021

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lucarelli S, Andrini FU, Bianchi A (2018) Euro depreciation and trade asymmetries between Germany and Italy versus the US: industry level estimates. Appl Econ 50:15–34

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Magee SP (1973) Currency contracts, pass through and devaluation. Brooking Papers Econ Activity 1:303–325

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Marwah K, Klein LR (1996) Estimation of J-curve: United States and Canada. Can J Econ 29:523–539

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nusair SA (2017) The J-curve phenomenon in European transition economies: a nonliear ARDL approach. Int Rev Appl Econ 31:1–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Olaniyi C (2019) Asymmetric information phenomenon in the link between CEO pay and firm performance: an innovative approach. J Econ Stud 46:306–323

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pattichis C (2012) Exchange rate effects on trade in services. J Econ Stud 39:697–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pesaran MH, Shin Y, Smith RJ (2001) Bound testing approaches to the analysis of level relationship. J Appl Econ 16:289–326

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rahman M, Mustafa M, Burckel DV (1997) Dynamics of the yen-dollar real exchange rate and the US-Japan real trade balance. Appl Econ 29:661–664

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rose AK, Yellen JL (1989) Is there a J-curve? J Monet Econ 24:53–68

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin Y, Yu B, Greenwood-Nimmo M (2014) Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In: Sickels R, Horrace W (eds) Festschrift in honor of peter schmidt: econometric methods and applications. Springer, New York, pp 281–314

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Verheyen F (2013) Interest rate pass-through in the EMU: new evidence using nonlinear ARDL framework. Econ Bull 33:729–739

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. The Center for Research On International Economics and Department of Economics, The University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, WI, USA

    Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee

  2. Department of Economics, Karabuk University, Karabuk, Turkey

    Huseyin Karamelikli

Authors
  1. Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Huseyin Karamelikli
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Mohsen Bahmani-Oskooee.

Additional information

Responsible Editor: Fritz Breuss.

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Valuable comments of two anonymous reviewers are greatly appreciated. Any remaining error, however, is our own.

Appendices

Appendix

Data definition and source

Monthly data over the period January 1999–September 2019 are used in the empirical analysis. The data come from the following sources:

  1. A.

    Eurostat – International Trade (https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/)

  2. B.

    International Financial statistics (IFS).

2.1 Variables

TBi = UK trade balance with the Germany defined as UK exports (dispatch) to the Germany divided by UK imports (Arrival) from the Germany in ith industry (Source: A).

YUK = United Kingdom’s aggregate output as measured by an index of industrial production since this is the only measure available at monthly frequency. (Source: B).

YGR = The Germany’s aggregate output as measured by an index of industrial production. (Source: B).

REX = The real bilateral exchange rate of the EURO against Pound Sterling. It is defined as REX = (PGR. NEX/PUK) where NEX is the nominal exchange rate defined as number of Pound per Euro. Thus, a decline in REX reflects a real appreciation of the Pound. Both price levels are measured by CPI. All data come from source B.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bahmani-Oskooee, M., Karamelikli, H. Asymmetric J-curve: evidence from UK-German commodity trade. Empirica 48, 1029–1081 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-021-09502-z

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10663-021-09502-z

Keywords

JEL Classification

Search

Navigation