Advertisement

Financial Innovation

, 5:39 | Cite as

Savings, investment, and growth in Nepal: an empirical analysis

  • Aadersh Joshi
  • Sumit Pradhan
  • Jagadish Prasad BistEmail author
Open Access
Research
  • 172 Downloads

Abstract

This study analyzes the relationship between savings, investment, and economic growth in Nepal over 1975–2016. The structural breaks in the variables have been accounted for using the (Zivot and Andrews’s, J Bus Econ Stat 10: 251–270 1992) unit root test along with (Gregory and Hansen’s, Oxf Bull Econ Stat 58: 555–560, 1996) cointegration approach. The ARDL approach to cointegration in the presence of structural breaks has also been utilized to analyze the long-and short-run dynamics of savings, investment, and growth in Nepal. The results show structural breaks in the real GDP per capita during 2001 when the Royal Massacre and a state of emergency have taken place in Nepal. After allowing for this structural break, evidence of a cointegration relationship amongst savings, investment, and economic growth was identified. The estimates of the ARDL approach suggest that investment has a significant and positive impact on economic growth. However, gross domestic savings have a negative impact on growth in the long run. These results clearly show weaknesses of the economy in mobilizing savings into productive sectors.

Keywords

Savings Investment Economic Growth Structural Break ARDL Model 

Abbreviations

ADF

Augmented dickey-fuller

AIC

Akaike information criterion

ARDL

Autoregressive distributed lags

CE

Cointegrating equations

CUSUM

Cumulative sum of recursive residuals

CUSUMSQ

Cumulative sum of square of recursive residuals

GDP

Gross domestic product

GDS

Gross domestic savings

GPC

GDP per capita

INV

Investment

PP

Phillips–Perron test

SIC

Schwarz information criterion

ZA

Zivot and Andrews test

Introduction

The importance of savings in developing countries depends on the long-debated economic theory that the rate of economic growth is the function of the rate of investment and the latter is constrained by the rate of domestic savings (Arndt 1991). Solow’s (1956) growth model argued that economic growth depends on and follows higher saving rates. In fact, Solow (1988) subsequently stated that a developing economy that succeeds in permanently increasing its savings (investment) rate will have a comparatively higher output level than otherwise and must therefore grow faster for a period. He further indicated that stimulating investment will favor faster medium-run growth through its effect on the transfer of technology from laboratory to factory. The key is that savings contribute to economic growth by freeing up resources that can be employed to then raise the productive capacity of the economy by increasing the amount of capital-equipment, machinery, buildings, among others (Mason 1988). The importance of savings for economic growth can also be witnessed in the economic progress made by, for instance, China, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea, and Thailand (Patra et al. 2017). However, low-income countries such as Nepal, which lack a frontier technology, mostly fail in utilizing the available savings in productive sectors.

In such economies, the absence of foreign direct investment (FDI) and, hence, the unavailability of recent technologies and skills hampers the efficient utilization of available resources. As such, increasing the efficiency of investment or the effective use of scarce capital is of great importance (Arndt 1991). In this vein, Aghion et al. (2016) argued that savings do not always matter for growth. They further asserted that poor countries require cooperation amongst foreign investors familiar with the frontier technology and the local sectors familiar with the domestic conditions to mobilize the available savings into productive sectors. In this case, domestic savings matter for technology adaptation and therefore growth.

However, low-income countries such as Nepal save at a lower rate and experience slow economic growth. The statistics show that the average gross domestic savings over 1975–2016 were around 11% of the GDP (World Bank 2018). This indicates that Nepal’s consumption rate is very high. Additionally, it is worrying that consumed goods are solely imported, fueling a persistent trade deficit. The World Bank Indicators show that, during 2014–2018, Nepal’s trade deficit was above 30% of the GDP. The lack of private and FDI (only 0.13% of the GDP over 1975–2016), rudimentary tradable sector of the economy, and total dependence on India for fuel are further widening the trade deficit. To this end, it is also important to note that the remittance inflow is the only source backing the current account deficit, international trade, and forex reserve of the country. Therefore, the country is not able to utilize the remittance pool in its productive sectors. Accordingly, Nepal has to consider a paradigm shift from its current remittance-led and consumption-based growth to one that is investment- and productivity-driven.

Moreover, a decade-long Civil War, from 1996 to 2006, the political turmoil in the subsequent years until 2018, corruption, weak regulatory and legal policies, poor information systems, and poor technological innovations have been major barriers to the development of Nepal’s financial sector (Bist and Bista 2018). Thus, the poor and urban-based financial sector is another hurdle in channeling savings into the productive sectors in the country. Nevertheless, the new constitution and federalist system, the recent political stability1 in the country, and government’s quest for the development of the nation are likely to induce significant changes in investment policies for both domestic and foreign investors. In fact, the current government has the target of graduating the country from World Bank’s low-income category to the middle-income category by 2030. To make this happen, Nepal recently organized the “Investment Summit 2019” to attract foreign investors and succeeded in signing more than 15 memorandums of understanding between foreign and domestic investors. Therefore, it has become more important than ever to analyze the relationship between savings, investment, and growth in Nepal as to assist policymakers in the policy formulation.

Although a few studies having tried to investigate this relationship in Nepal (see Budha 2012; Adhikary 2015), there still exists a significant gap in the analysis of savings, investment, and economic growth. The major issue with these studies is that, although they have used time series data, there has been no attempt to address the issue of structural breaks given that Nepal’s political and economic history has registered some structural changes over time. As such, ignoring these facts may severely distort the findings of any related study. In fact, Perron (1989) argued that ignoring potential structural breaks can invalidate the statistical results not only of unit root tests but also of cointegration tests. Therefore, it is not clear whether the estimates of extant studies represent a valid inference instead of a spurious one.

To this end, this study seeks to contribute to this debate by using Nepal as a case study. First, there is limited knowledge on the savings, investment, and growth nexus using recent data on Nepal. To the best of our knowledge, no study has analyzed the savings, investment, and growth relationship using recent time series data analysis techniques such as the autoregressive-distributed lag (ARDL) approach or cointegration in the presence of structural breaks. Second, no study on Nepal has made the use of unit root or cointegration tests to account for structural breaks in analyzing the proposed relationship. This study is the first to use Zivot and Andrews’s (1992) unit root test along with Gregory and Hansen’s (1996) cointegration to account for structural breaks. Similarly, to check the robustness of the cointegration results, this study examines the presence of a long-run relationship using three cointegration techniques, namely the Johansen, Gregory–Hansen, and ARDL approaches to cointegration.

The remainder of the paper is organized as follows. Section 2 briefly reviews extant related studies. Section 3 presents the data, model specification, and empirical results. The conclusions and implications of the study’s findings are drawn in the final section.

Literature review

The financial system is the backbone of an economy (Levine 1997). As such, Dermirguc-Kunt (2006) argued that a healthy financial system is the foundation on which sustained economic growth can be achieved. Therefore, financial system stability is important for the growth of a nation (Kou et al. 2019). Specifically, a well-functioning financial system affects economic growth by intervening in savings and investment. While the relationship between savings, investment, and growth has long been studied but the results remain mixed. The related literature can be dived into two main streams: one stating that savings matter for growth and the other stating that they do not always influence economic growth. Romer (1986) and Lucas Jr. (1988) argued that savings lead to increases in investment and, hence, economic growth. Their argument is that capital formation is the foundation of economic growth, becoming possible only when savings increases (Solow 1956; Domar 1946; Harrod 1939). According to the neoclassical growth theory of Solow (1956) and Swan (1956), savings are an important source of investment (capital formation) that will lead to economic growth. Therefore, the crux of this school of thought is that savings precede economic growth.

This view that saving causes economic growth has further been supported by various empirical studies. For instance, Alguacil et al. (2004) used the Granger non-causality test developed by Toda and Yamamoto (1995), and found that higher savings lead to higher economic growth. Similarly, Ang (2007) revealed a cointegrating long-run relationship between domestic savings and investment rates during 1965–2003 in Malaysia. Attanasio et al. (2000) found that investment rates Granger-cause growth rates using a panel of 123 countries over the period 1961–1994. Jangili (2011) analyzed the relationship between savings, investment, and economic growth in India and identified a co-integration relationship for which the causality is unidirectional from higher savings to investment and to growth. Further, Narayan (2005) in China, Khundrakpam and Ranjan (2010) in India, Ma and Li (2016) in developed economies found a high correlation level between savings and investment.

Similarly, following the view that savings cause economic growth, Masih and Peters (2010), Tang and Tan (2014), Patra et al. (2017), and Tang and Chua (2012) concluded that savings precede growth. A study on the savings and growth nexus in India by Singh (2010) found long-run effects of savings on income. The study further suggested the need to accelerate domestic savings to finance capital accumulation and foster higher income and growth.

However, the literature also encompasses studies accounting the reverse causality between savings and economic growth, that is, that growth precedes savings. Keynesian theory argued that savings are a leakage dependent on the level of income or its growth (Tang and Tan 2014). Carroll and Weil (1994) asserted that the effect of savings on growth may be overstated. They found that growth Granger-cause savings, but savings do not Granger-cause growth. In fact, Carroll et al. (2000) argued that savings and growth are strongly and positively correlated across countries because high growth leads to high savings, not the other way around.

Similarly, Sinha and Sinha (1998), Gavin et al. (1997), and Abu (2010) suggested that, contrary to conventional wisdom, higher savings precede economic growth, the causality running from economic growth to savings. However, Bolarinwa and Obembe (2017) and Mohan (2006) observed mixed results. Specifically, Bolarinwa and Obembe (2017) found unidirectional causality running from economic growth to gross domestic savings for Ghana and Burkina Faso; from gross domestic saving to economic growth for Liberia, Niger, and Sierra; and no causality between savings and growth for Nigeria. Similarly, Odhiambo (2009) found bi-directional causality between savings and economic growth. However, Sothan (2014) identified no causal relationship between savings and economic growth in Cambodia. Budha (2012) found short-run bidirectional causality between investment and gross domestic product and between gross domestic savings and investment, but no short-run causality between gross domestic savings and gross domestic product in Nepal.

Similarly, it is also important to note that extant studies have even found a negative relationship between domestic savings and economic growth. For instance, Verma (2007), Sahoo et al. (2001), and Bist and Bista (2018) observed a negative and statistically significant impact of savings on economic growth. Aghion et al. (2016) explained this negative relationship by the lack of coordination between foreign firms familiar with frontier technology and local units familiar with local conditions. Similarly, Chao et al. (2019) argued that the use of cross-border capital flows as an arbitrage tool in financial markets is harmful to both financial market and economic progress in developing countries.

Therefore, with no global consensus on the relationship between savings, investment, and growth, this study analyzes this relationship in the context of Nepal. Despite the abundance of studies on investment, savings, and growth in other countries, their results cannot be generalized in the context of Nepal because of the differences between political systems, financial systems, policies and regulations, and other country-specific factors affect this relationship. Therefore, this study contributes to the literature by providing recent evidence on the relationship between savings, investment, and growth in Nepal.

Data, model specification, and empirical results

Annual data for a period of 43 years from 1974 to 2016 were used in the study. Data for gross domestic savings, gross domestic investment, and economic growth were collected from the World Bank (2018) of the World Bank. Economic growth has been measured using the real GDP per capita (2010 USD = 100%) and the gross domestic savings and gross fixed capital formation (proxy for investment) are expressed in billions USD. The graphical representation of the data is shown in Fig. 1.
Fig. 1

Plot of GPC, GDS, and INV

The figure shows that all variables used in this study are upward trending. Therefore, before using any econometric techniques to analyze the relationship between savings, investment, and economic growth, it is important to test the stationarity of the variables. Thus, considering the trending nature of the data, this study used augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) and Phillips–Perron (PP) unit root tests along with the Zivot and Andrews (1992) (ZA) unit root test, which endogenously corrects for one structural break to test the order of the integration among the variables. Table 1 shows the results of the ADF and PP unit root tests.
Table 1

Augmented Dickey–Fuller (ADF) and Phillips–Perron (PP) unit root tests

Variables

Level

First difference

ADF

PP

ADF

PP

InGPC

0.967

1.654

−7.468a

−7.580a

InGDS

−1.580

−1.580

−4.863a

−4.864a

InINV

0.533

0.660

−7.946a

−7.858a

Note: The optimal lag order for ADF and bandwidth for PP unit root tests are determined using the Schwarz information criterion (SIC) and Bartlett kernel, respectively. InGPC, InGDS, and InINV stand for logarithm of real GDP per capita, gross domestic savings, and investment, respectively. The null hypotheses of the ADF and PP tests refer to the existence of a unit root

asignificant at the 1% level

The results of the ADF and PP unit root tests are presented in Table 1, which shows that all variables used in this study are first-difference stationary. Therefore, it can be concluded that the real GDP per capita, gross domestic savings, and investment are integrated of order one (i.e., I (1)). However, Lee and Chang (2005) argued that standard ADF and PP tests that lead to the non-rejection of a unit root may be suspect when the sample under consideration incorporates economic events capable of causing shifts in regime. Therefore, the result of the ZA test are presented in Table 2.
Table 2

Zivot and Andrews test for unit roots with one structural break

Variables

Year of break

Result

GPC

−3.0269

2001

Unit root

GDS

−5.0269

1997

Unit root

INV

−3.6305

2005

Unit root

Note: The lag order is determined by the Schwarz information criterion (SIC). GPC, GDS, and INV stand for real GDP per capita, gross domestic savings, and investment, respectively. The null hypotheses of the ADF and PP tests refer to the existence of a unit root

Table 2 shows that structural changes in real GDP per capita took place in 2001, the year of the Royal Massacre in Nepal. During the same year, the then King Gyanendra Shah declared a state of emergency in Nepal. The ZA test results find a breakpoint in 1997 in gross domestic savings and in 2005 in investment.

Cointegration and long-run relationship

Considering the nature of the variables (all are I (1)) and the presence of structural breaks, this study has made the use of three cointegration techniques namely, Johansen cointegration, Gregory–Hansen cointegration, and ARDL. The results of Johansen cointegration test are presented in Table 3.
Table 3

Johansen cointegration test

Hypothesized

No. of CE(s)

Eigenvalue

Max-Eigen

Statistic

Critical Value

P-value

None*

0.5197

28.5984

21.1316

0.0037

At most 1

0.1241

5.1664

14.2646

0.7207

At most 2

0.0008

0.0309

3.8415

0.8604

Note: Dummy variable (D2001) is used as an exogenous series to account for the structural break in economic growth. The critical values follow MacKinnon et al. (1999)

* significant at the 1% level

The results of both the trace and maximum eigenvalue tests show one cointegrating vector at the 5% or better significance level. Following the Johansen cointegration results, the Gregory–Hansen procedure for cointegration is estimated to test the existence of a long-run relationship between growth, savings, and investment with an endogenously determined structural break. The results and critical values are reported in Table 4.
Table 4

Gregory–Hansen cointegration test with structural break

Model

T-statistics (ADF)

Break year

Critical value 5%

Result

F (lnGPC/lnGDS, lnINV)

−6.140

2001

−5.960

Cointegration

Note: The null hypothesis is of no-cointegration. GPC, GDS, and INV stand for real GDP per capita, gross domestic savings, and investment, respectively. Full structural break; trend is included in the model

The results show a long run cointegrating relationship between growth, savings, and investment when economic growth is used as a dependent variable in the structural break of 2001. As previously mentioned, the break year of 2001 detected by the Gregory–Hansen procedure corresponds with the Royal Massacre and a state of emergency in Nepal.

Although the Johansen and Gregory–Hansen procedures for cointegration show a cointegrating relationship between savings, investment, and growth, Pesaran et al. (2001) argued that Johansen’s cointegration test is sensitive to sample size. Therefore, owing to the low power and other problems associated with these tests, the ARDL bounds testing approach for cointegration has also been performed to analyze the long and short-run dynamics of savings, investment, and growth. Since ARDL does not consider the structural breaks in the system, a dummy variable (based on the ZA unit root test and Gregory–Hansen cointegration) is introduced in the model to represent the breakpoint in the series. Therefore, the estimated ARDL representation takes the following forms:
$$ \Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}}=\upalpha +\sum \limits_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{p}}{\uplambda}_{1\mathrm{i}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{i}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{j}=0}^{\mathrm{q}}{\uplambda}_{2\mathrm{j}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{j}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{k}=0}^{\mathrm{r}}{\uplambda}_{3\mathrm{k}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{k}}+{\updelta}_1\ln\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_2\ln\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_3\ln\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_4{\mathrm{D}}_{2001}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{t}} $$
(1)
$$ \Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}}=\upalpha +\sum \limits_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{p}}{\uplambda}_{1\mathrm{i}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{i}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{j}=0}^{\mathrm{q}}{\uplambda}_{2\mathrm{j}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{j}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{k}=0}^{\mathrm{r}}{\uplambda}_{3\mathrm{k}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{k}}+{\updelta}_1\ln\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_2\ln\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_3\ln\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_4{\mathrm{D}}_{1997}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{t}} $$
(2)
$$ \Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}}=\upalpha +\sum \limits_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{p}}{\uplambda}_{1\mathrm{i}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{i}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{j}=0}^{\mathrm{q}}{\uplambda}_{2\mathrm{j}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{j}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{k}=0}^{\mathrm{r}}{\uplambda}_{3\mathrm{k}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{k}}+{\updelta}_1\ln\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_2\ln\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_3\ln\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\updelta}_4{\mathrm{D}}_{2007}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{t}} $$
(3)

where Δ is the difference operator and GPC the real GDP per capita (USD 2010 = 100%). Since the results of the ZA test show that the regressand (GDP per capita) undergoes a structural break in 2001, dummy variable D2001 is introduced in eq. (1) to represent the structural break. The dummy variable (D2001) takes 0 until 2000 and 1 thereafter. Similarly, dummy variable D1997 is introduced in eq. (2) to control for the structural break in the GDS and dummy variable D2007 is in eq. (3) to control for the structural break in the INV.

The coefficients (λ1–λ3) represent the short-term dynamics of the model, whereas δ1–δ3 are the long-run coefficients. The values (p, q, r) are the selected number of lags for the cointegrating equations based on the SIC. The bound testing has been performed to test for the existence of a long-run relationship among variables by conducting an F-test for the joint significance of the coefficients of the lagged levels of the variables. The Wald coefficient restriction test has been performed to test for the level effect with the null hypothesis of no level effect, that is,
$$ {\mathrm{H}}_{\mathrm{null}:}\;{\updelta}_1={\updelta}_2={\updelta}_3=0 $$

In sum, this study tests for the joint significance of the lagged level variables using the standard Wald or F-test. If the calculated F-statistic is greater than the upper bound critical values I (1) provided by Pesaran et al. (2001), the null hypothesis of no cointegration can be rejected. However, if the calculated F-statistic is below the lower bound critical values I (0), the null hypothesis of no cointegration cannot be rejected. However, if the calculated F-statistic falls between the lower and upper bound critical values, the cointegration inference is indecisive.

The ARDL specification of the short-run dynamics can be derived by constructing an error correction model (ECM) of the following form:
$$ \Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}}=\upalpha +\sum \limits_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{p}}{\uplambda}_{1\mathrm{i}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{i}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{j}=0}^{\mathrm{q}}{\uplambda}_{2\mathrm{j}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{j}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{k}=0}^{\mathrm{r}}{\uplambda}_{3\mathrm{k}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{k}}+{\uplambda}_6\mathrm{ECM}{1}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{t}} $$
(4)
$$ \Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}}=\upalpha +\sum \limits_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{p}}{\uplambda}_{1\mathrm{i}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{i}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{j}=0}^{\mathrm{q}}{\uplambda}_{2\mathrm{j}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{j}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{k}=0}^{\mathrm{r}}{\uplambda}_{3\mathrm{k}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{k}}+{\uplambda}_6\mathrm{ECM}{1}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{t}} $$
(5)
$$ \Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}}=\upalpha +\sum \limits_{\mathrm{i}=1}^{\mathrm{p}}{\uplambda}_{1\mathrm{i}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{INV}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{i}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{j}=0}^{\mathrm{q}}{\uplambda}_{2\mathrm{j}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GDS}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{j}}+\sum \limits_{\mathrm{k}=0}^{\mathrm{r}}{\uplambda}_{3\mathrm{k}}\Delta \mathrm{ln}\ {\mathrm{GPC}}_{\mathrm{t}-\mathrm{k}}+{\uplambda}_6\mathrm{ECM}{1}_{\mathrm{t}-1}+{\mathrm{e}}_{\mathrm{t}} $$
(6)
where ∆ is the first difference operator and ECTt-1 the lagged value of error correction term. ECM indicates both long-run causality and the speed of adjustment. The first important issue to be considered is whether λ6 ≠ 0. If this is not the case, the cointegration findings would not be reliable. The results of the bound testing are reported in Table 5.
Table 5

Bound testing for existence of a level relationship

Equation

F-value

Break

Year

Lag

order

Critical Value-Upper bound (1%)

Pesaran et al. (2001)

Narayan (2005)

F (ln GPC/ln GDS, ln INV)

8.541a

2001

(3, 3, 3)

6.36

7.337

F (ln GDS/ln GPC, ln INV)

2.64

1997

(1, 2, 1)

6.36

7.337

F (ln INV/ln GDS, ln GPC)

1.26

2007

(2, 1, 0)

6.36

7.337

Note: The values between parentheses are the selected number of lags based on the Schwarz information criterion (SIC). GPC, GDS, and INV stand for the real GDP per capita, gross domestic savings, and investment, respectively. The critical value from Narayan (2005) is obtained for an unrestricted intercept and no trend (n = 40 and K = 2).

asignificant at the 1% level

Similar to the results of the Johansen and Gregory–Hansen cointegration tests in the previous section, the results in Table 5 show that when the real GDP per capita is used as the dependent variable, the calculated F-statistics (8.541) is higher than the upper bound critical value of 6.36 and 7.337 (Narayan 2005) at the 1% level. This indicates a cointegrating relationship between savings, growth, and investment. However, the results show no evidence of cointegration or a long-run relationship when saving and investment are used as dependent variables. Therefore, it can be concluded that the long-run causality is unidirectional from savings and investment to economic growth in Nepal. However, these findings are not consistent with the Carroll–Weil hypothesis (Carroll and Weil 1994), which states that economic growth causes savings. Similarly, our results are not consistent with the findings of Abu (2010), Bolarinwa and Obembe (2017), Mohan (2006), Odhiambo (2009), and Sothan (2014).

After confirmation of the cointegration between variables, the long-run estimates are presented in Table 6.
Table 6

ARDL model: Long-run results

Regressor

Coefficient

P-values

Dependent variable: ln GPC

 ln GDS

−0.068

0.638

 ln INV

0.427***

0.009

 D2001

0.077

0.161

 Intercept

−1.134

0.210

Diagnostic test statistics

 

Test stats

P-value

 LM

0.061

0.807

 JB

0.985

0.611

 Ramsey

1.055

0.314

Note: GPC, GDS, and INV stand for the real GDP per capita, gross domestic savings, and investment, respectively. LM, JB, and Ramsey denote the test statistics for serial correlation, normality of errors, and functional form, respectively

*** significant at 1% level

Table 6 shows domestic savings have a negative impact on economic growth. Ceteris paribus, a 1% increase in gross domestic savings causes a 0.068% decrease in real GDP per capita in the long run. However, this result is not significant. The negative long-run beta coefficients for gross domestic savings indicate domestic savings do not influence growth in Nepal. This finding is against the logic of the endogenous growth model, which states that savings influence growth. One explanation comes from Aghion et al. (2016), who state that domestic savings do not always matter for growth. Specifically, according to Aghion et al. (2016), growth in relatively poor countries mainly results from innovations that allow local sectors to catch up with the current technology frontier. However, catching up with the frontier in any sector requires the co-operation of a foreign investor who is familiar with frontier technology and a domestic entrepreneur familiar with the local conditions to which the technology must be adapted. In such a country, domestic savings matter for technology adaptation and therefore growth. However, Nepal has not been able to draw on the technological potential and other contributions that foreign investment can make to the process of development (Pant, 2010). In other words, Nepal has failed to catch up with the frontier and, hence, domestic savings do not have a positive impact on economic growth in this case. This finding is also consistent with those of Sahoo et al. (2001) and Verma (2007).

Similarly, the results show that investment defined as fixed capital formation has a positive and significant impact on economic growth in Nepal. In the long run, keeping other things constant, a 1% increase in investment will lead to an increase of 0.427% in the real GDP per capita. This shows that formation of capital in an economy leads to higher growth in the long run.

The diagnostic statistics show the used ARDL model seems to be data congruent and free from specification errors. Further, the error terms are normally distributed (Jarque–Bera test) and serially independent (LM test) and the model is dynamically stable (Ramsey test). Therefore, the results are not spurious.

The results of the ECM are presented in Table 7. The lagged real GDP is negative and significant at the 1% significance level. This indicates that the Nepalese economy was unable to sustain the pace of its economic growth during the study period. Similarly, unlike the long run, the short-run impact of gross domestic savings is positive. However, the coefficients are not significant. This shows the weakness of the economy in using savings in productive sectors. The main policy implication of this finding is that policymakers should formulate policies in such a way that savings could be utilized in productive sectors by increasing capital formation in the country.
Table 7

ARDL model: ECM results

Regressor

Coefficient

Prob.

Dependent variable: ΔGPC

 Δln GPC−1

− 0.5417a

0.0003

 Δln GPC−2

− 0.5027a

0.0008

 Δln GDS

0.0240

0.0722

 Δln GDS−1

0.0211

0.3267

 Δln GDS−2

0.0327

0.1022

 Δln INF

−0.0208

0.5046

 Δln INF−1

0.0266

0.5070

 Δln INF−2

−0.1458a

0.0002

 D2001

0.0143

0.2356

 ECM−1

−0.1868b

0.0161

Diagnostic test statistics

 R_squared

0.7279

 

 F-value

6.9582

 

 DW-statistic

2.0240

 

Note: ECM = ln GPC + 0.0683 ln GDS - 0.4267 ln GFC - 0.0767 D2001 + 1.1341 Intercept

asignificant at the 1% level

bsignificant at the 5% level

The results in Table 7 also show the lagged values of investment have a significant negative impact on economic growth in the short run at the 1% significance level. Similarly, ECM− 1 has the correct sign and implies that nearly 19% of the disequilibria in the real GDP per capita from the previous years’ shock adjusts back to the long run in the current year.

This study also performed the cumulative sum (CUSUM) of recursive residuals and cumulative sum of square (CUSUMSQ) of recursive residuals stability tests. Fig. 2 shows the CUSUM and CUSUMSQ plots.
Fig. 2

CUSUM and CUSUMSQ plots for the stability test

From Fig. 2, the CUSUM and CUSUMSQ statistics are well within the critical bounds, implying that the model is stable over the analyzed period.

Conclusions and policy recommendations

This study examined the relationship amongst saving, growth and investment in the context of Nepal using an annual dataset for 1975–2016. The time series properties of the data were first analyzed for possible structural breaks using the Zivot and Andrews (1992) model. Cointegration has been identified using the Johansen, Gregory–Hansen, and ARDL approaches.

The empirical evidence indicates a stable long-run relationship between savings, investment, and economic growth in the presence of structural breaks but only when economic growth is the dependent variable. This indicates that the long-run relationship is running from savings and investment to economic growth in Nepal. These findings support the view of Solow (1988) in that savings cause economic growth. This implies policymakers must emphasize increasing savings in the country. Since Nepal is an import-based country financed by remittances, the domestic savings along with remittances has been spent largely on the consumption of imported goods and services. Therefore, this creates an urgency for a policy that focuses on utilizing available resources into the tradable sector of the economy by encouraging both production-based consumption and remittance-based investment.

Similarly, the long-run estimates of the ARDL model indicate that investment has a positive significant impact on economic growth. However, the results showed a negative impact of gross domestic savings on economic growth in Nepal. This finding indicates the weakness of the Nepalese financial sector in mobilizing the savings to the productive sectors. These findings further support the argument that savings in Nepal are not investment friendly. On average, the 11% of the GDP in domestic savings, 0.13% in FDI, and above 40% in trade deficit support the study findings and argue that investment is low in Nepal. Therefore, to fulfil the current economic target of the government of graduating the country to the middle-income category by 2030, policymakers have to pay attention to the existing relationship between savings, investment, and growth. This also highlights the urgency in formulating policies that enhance the effective mobilization of savings into productive sectors. Such policies will in turn lead to increases in investment and thus economic growth.

We strongly suggest that generalizations of this study should be considered with caution. The main limitation of the study corresponds to the country considered. That is, the study is confined to the Nepalese context. Therefore, the results may not be relevant to the contexts of other countries.

Footnotes

  1. 1.

    The incumbent government has a more than a two third majority in the parliament. The stakeholders are thus construing it as a stable government at least for the next five years.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Not applicable

Authors’ contributions

All the authors contributed equally to this work. Similarly, all the authors have read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors declare that no funding was received for this article.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

References

  1. Abu N (2010) Saving-economic growth nexus in Nigeria, 1970–2007: Granger causality and co-integration analyses. Rev Econ Bus Stud 3(1):93–104Google Scholar
  2. Adhikary BK (2015) Dynamic Effects of FDI, Trade Openness, Capital Formation and Human Capital on the Economic Growth Rate in the Least Developed Economies: Evidence from Nepal. Int J Trade Econ Finance 6(1):1–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Aghion P, Comin D, Howitt P, Tecu I (2016) When does domestic savings matter for economic growth? IMF Econ Rev 64(3):381–407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Alguacil M, Cuadros A, Orts V (2004) Does saving really matter for growth? Mexico (1970–2000). J Int Dev 16(2):281–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Ang JB (2007) Are saving and investment cointegrated? The case of Malaysia (1965–2003). Applied Econ 39(17):2167–2174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Arndt HW (1991) Saving, investment and growth: recent Asian experience. PSL Q Rev 44(177):151–162Google Scholar
  7. Attanasio OP, Picci L, Scorcu AE (2000) Saving, growth, and investment: a macroeconomic analysis using a panel of countries. Rev Econ Stat 82(2):182–211CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bist JP, Bista NB (2018) Finance–Growth Nexus in Nepal: An Application of the ARDL Approach in the Presence of Structural Breaks. Vikalpa 43(4):236–249CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Bolarinwa ST, Obembe OB (2017) Empirical Analysis of the Nexus between Saving and Economic Growth in Selected African Countries (1981–2014). J Dev Policy Pract 2(1):110–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Budha B (2012) A multivariate analysis of savings, investment and growth in Nepal. Munich Personal RePEc Archive. Retrieved from google: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/43346/.
  11. Carroll CD, Overland J, Weil DN (2000) Saving and growth with habit formation. Am Econ Rev 90(3):341–355CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Carroll CD, Weil DN (1994) Saving and growth: a reinterpretation. Carnegie-Rochester Conference Series on Public Policy 40:133–192CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Chao X, Kou G, Peng Y, Alsaadi F E (2019) Behavior monitoring methods for trade-based money laundering integrating macro and micro prudential regulation: a case from China. Technological and Economic Development of Economy, 1–16.Google Scholar
  14. Dermirguc-Kunt A (2006). Finance and economic development: Policy choices for developing countries (Working Paper No. 3955). World Bank Policy Research. Retrieved from http://documents.worldbank.org/curated/en/825071468316170479/pdf/wps3955.pdf
  15. Domar ED (1946) Capital expansion, rate of growth, and employment. Econometrica, Journal of the Econometric Society 14(2):137–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Gavin M, Hausmann R, Tavli E (1997) Saving behavior in Latin America: overview and policy issues. In: Hausmann R, Reisen R (eds) Promoting Savings in Latin America. OECD and Inter-American Development Bank, ParisGoogle Scholar
  17. Gregory AW, Hansen BE (1996) Practitioners corner: tests for cointegration in models with regime and trend shifts. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 58(3):555–560CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Harrod RF (1939) Toward a Dynamic Economic. Macmillan and Co. Ltd., LondonGoogle Scholar
  19. Jangili R (2011) Causal relationship between saving, investment and economic growth for India–what does the relation imply?. Available at: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/40002/1/MPRA_paper_40002.pdf
  20. Khundrakpam JK, Ranjan R (2010) Saving-investment nexus and international capital mobility in India: Revisiting Feldstein-Horioka hypothesis. Indian Econ Rev 45(1):49–66Google Scholar
  21. Kou G, Chao X, Peng Y, Alsaadi FE, Herrera-Viedma E (2019) Machine learning methods for systemic risk analysis in financial sectors. Technological Econ Dev Econ 29:1–27Google Scholar
  22. Lee CC, Chang CP (2005) Structural breaks, energy consumption, and economic growth revisited: Evidence from Taiwan. Energy Econ 27(6):857–872CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Levine R (1997) Financial development and economic growth: Views and agenda. J Econ Lit 35(2):688–726Google Scholar
  24. Lucas RE Jr (1988) On the mechanics of economic development. J Monetary Econ 22(1):3–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Ma W, Li H (2016) Time-varying saving–investment relationship and the Feldstein–Horioka puzzle. Econ Model 53:166–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. MacKinnon JG, Haug AA, Michelis L (1999) Numerical distribution functions of likelihood ratio tests for cointegration. J Appl Econometrics 14(5):563–577CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Masih R, Peters S (2010) A revisitation of the savings–growth nexus in Mexico. Econ Lett 107(3):318–320CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Mason A (1988) Saving, economic growth, and demographic change. Popul Dev Rev 14(1):113–144CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Mohan R (2006) Causal relationship between savings and economic growth in countries with different income levels. Econ Bull 5(3):1–12Google Scholar
  30. Narayan PK (2005) The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Appl Econ 37(17):1979–1990CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Odhiambo NM (2009) Savings and economic growth in South Africa: A multivariate causality test. J Policy Model 31(5):708–718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Patra SK, Murthy DS, Kuruva MB, Mohanty A (2017) Revisiting the causal nexus between savings and economic growth in India: An empirical analysis. Economia 18(3):380–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Perron P (1989) The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica 57(6):1361–1401CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Pesaran M, Shin Y, Smith R (2001) Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J Appl Econ 16(3):289–326CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Romer PM (1986) Increasing returns and long-run growth. J Pol Econ 94(5):1002–1037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Sahoo P, Nataraj G, Kamaiah B (2001) Savings and Economic Growth in India: The Long Run Nexus. Savings Dev 25(1):67–80Google Scholar
  37. Singh T (2010) Does domestic saving cause economic growth? A time-series evidence from India. J Policy Model 32(2):231–253CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sinha D, Sinha T (1998) Cart before the horse? The saving–growth nexus in Mexico. Econ Lett 61(1):43–47CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Solow RM (1956) A contribution to the theory of economic growth. Q J Econ 70(1):65–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Solow RM (1988) Growth theory and after. Am Econ Rev 78(3):307–317Google Scholar
  41. Sothan S (2014) Causal relationship between domestic saving and economic growth: Evidence from Cambodia. Int J Econ Finance 6(9):213–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Swan TW (1956) Economic growth and capital accumulation. Econ Rec 32(2):334–361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Tang CF, Chua SY (2012) The savings-growth nexus for the Malaysian economy: a view through rolling sub-samples. Appl Econ 44(32):4173–4185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Tang CF, Tan BW (2014) A revalidation of the savings–growth nexus in Pakistan. Econ Model 36:370–377CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Toda HY, Yamamoto T (1995) Statistical inference in vector autoregressions with possibly integrated processes. J Econometrics 66(1–2):225–250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Verma R (2007) Savings, investment and growth in India: an application of the ARDL bounds testing approach. South Asia Econ J 8(1):87–98CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. World Bank (2018). World Development Indicators. Retrieved from: https://databank.worldbank.org/source/world-development-indicators
  48. Zivot E, Andrews DW (1992) Further evidence on the great crash, the oil-price shock, and the unit-root. J Bus Econ Stat 10(3):251–270Google Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s). 2019

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Global College International affiliated to Midwestern UniversityKathmanduNepal
  2. 2.Uniglobe College affiliated to Pokhara UniversityKathmanduNepal
  3. 3.The British College affiliated to University of the West of England, Bristol, UKKathmanduNepal

Personalised recommendations