Advertisement

Fiscal Sustainability from a Nonlinear Framework: Evidence from 14 European Countries

  • Esra HasdemirEmail author
  • Tolga Omay
Conference paper
Part of the Springer Proceedings in Business and Economics book series (SPBE)

Abstract

This study examines the fiscal sustainability of 14 European Union (EU) Member countries in the long run. For this purpose, a linear Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and a variety of nonlinear univariate unit root tests are applied to the debt-to-GDP series of the 14 EU Member countries; Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Greece, Hungary, Italy, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Slovakia and Sweden. In addition to that, the nonlinear unit root tests applied in this study are classified according to the source of nonlinearities: (i) time dependent nonlinearity (structural break(s)), (ii) state dependent nonlinearity and (iii) hybrid nonlinearity. Thus, the nonlinearities and their sources in data generating process of debt-to-GDP series of every country can be determined. The findings of this study show that the null of linear unit root cannot be rejected for none of the countries by applying linear ADF whereas it can be rejected as a result of nonlinear unit root tests for considerable number of countries, i.e. 11 out of 14 countries exhibit time dependent nonlinearity, 6 out of 14 exhibit state dependent nonlinearity and 10 out of 14 exhibit hybrid nonlinearity in their relevant data. So, the source of nonlinearities in the relevant data differs according to the country. That is, for testing the fiscal sustainability, the nonlinearities in the data need to be taken into account. Ignoring the nonlinearities in the testing procedure can lead misleading results in the decision of fiscal sustainability in the long run.

Keywords

Fiscal sustainability Nonlinearity Unit root tests 

References

  1. Afonso, A. (2005). Fiscal sustainability: The unpleasant European case. FinanzArchiv/Public Finance Analysis, 61(1), 19–44.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Afonso, A., & Fault, C. (2010). What do we really know about fiscal sustainability in the EU? A panel data diagnostic. Review of World Economics, 145(4), 731–755.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Arestis, P., Cipollini, A., & Fattouh, B. (2004). Threshold effects in the U.S. budget deficit. Economic Inquiry, 42(2), 214–222.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Baharumshah, A. Z., & Lau, E. (2007). Regime changes and the sustainability of fiscal imbalance in East Asian countries. Economic Modelling, 24, 878–894.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bajo-Rubio, O., Díaz-Roldán, C., & Esteve, V. (2004). Searching for threshold effects in the evolution of budget deficits: an application to the Spanish case. Economics Letters, 82, 239–243.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Bajo-Rubio, O., Díaz-Roldán, C., & Esteve, V. (2008). US deficit sustainability revisited: A multiple structural change approach. Applied Economics, 40(12), 1609–1613.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036840600843996.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Berenguer-Rico, V., & Carrion-i Silvestre, J. L. (2011). Regime shifts in stock-flow I(2)–I(1) systems: The case of fiscal sustainability. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 26(2), 298–321.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bohn, H. (1998). The behavior of U.S. public debt and deficits. Quarterly Journal of Economics, 113(3), 949–963.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Chen, Shyh-Wei. (2014). Testing for fiscal sustainability: New evidence from the G-7 and some European countries. Economic Modelling, 37, 1–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clarida, R. H., Goretti, M., & Taylor, M. P. (2007). Are there thresholds of current account adjustment in the G7? G7 current account imbalances: Sustainability and adjustment (169–203). NBER.Google Scholar
  11. Davies, R. B. (1987). Hypothesis testing when a nuisance parameter is present only under the alternative. Biometrika, 74(1), 33–43.Google Scholar
  12. Ehrhart, C., & Llorca, M. (2008). The sustainability of fiscal policy: Evidence from a panel of six South-Mediterranean countries. Applied Economic Letters, 15, 797–803.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Enders, W., & Granger, C. W. G. (1998). Unit root tests and asymmetric adjustment with and example using the term structure of interest rates. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 16(3), 304–311.Google Scholar
  14. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012a). A unit root test using a fourier series to approximate smooth breaks. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 74(4), 574–599.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Enders, W., & Lee, J. (2012b). The flexible Fourier form and Dickey-Fuller type unit root tests. Economics Letters, 117(1), 196–199.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hamilton, J. D., & Falvin, M. A. (1986). On the limitations of government borrowing: A framework for empirical testing. American Economic Review, 76, 808–819.Google Scholar
  17. Hasdemir, E., Omay, T., & Denaux, Z. (2019). Testing the current account sustainability for BRICS countries: Evidence from a nonlinear framework. Economics Bulletin, 39(1), 310–320.Google Scholar
  18. Kalyoncu, H. (2005). Fiscal policy sustainability: test of intertemporal borrowing constraints. Applied Economics Letters, 12(15), 957–962.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kapetanios, G., Shin, Y., & Snell, A. (2003). Testing for a unit root in the nonlinear STAR Framework. Journal of Econometrics, 112, 359–379.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Leybourne, S., Newbold, P., & Vougas, D. (1998). Unit roots and smooth transitions. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 19(1), 83–97.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Makrydakis, S., Tzavalis, E., & Balfoussias, A. (1999). Policy regime changes and the long-run sustainability of fiscal policy: An application to Greece. Economic Modelling, 16, 71–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Martin, G. M. (2000). US deficit sustainability: A new approach based on multiple endogenous breaks. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 15(1), 83–105.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Omay, T., & Yildirim, D. (2014). Nonlinearity and smooth breaks in unit root testing. Econometrics Letters, 1(1), 2–9.Google Scholar
  24. Omay, T. (2015). Fractional frequency flexible Fourier form to approximate smooth breaks in unit root testing. Economics Letters, 134, 123–126.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Omay, T., Emirmahmutoglu, F., & Hasanov, M. (2018). Structural break, nonlinearity and asymmetry: A re-examination of PPP proposition. Applied Economics, 50(12), 1289–1308.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2017.1361005.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Ono, H. (2008). Searching for nonlinear effects and fiscal sustainability in G-7 countries. Applied Economic Letters, 15, 457–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Park, J. Y., & Shintani, M. (2005). Testing for a unit root against transitional autoregressive models. Vanderbilt University Department of Economics Working Paper 05010.Google Scholar
  28. Payne, J. E. (1997). International evidence on the sustainability of budget deficits. Applied Economics Letters, 4(12), 775–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Payne, J. E., & Mohammadi, H. (2006). Are adjustments in the U.S. budget deficit asymmetric? Another look at sustainability. Atlantic Economic Journal, 34, 15–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Quintos, C. E. (1995). Sustainability of the deficit process with structural shifts. Journal of Business & Economic Statistics, 13(14), 409–417.Google Scholar
  31. Sarno, L. (2001). The behavior of US public debt: A nonlinear perspective. Economics Letters, 74, 119–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Sollis, R., Leybourne, S. J., & Newbold, P. (2002). Tests for symmetric and asymmetric nonlinear mean reversion in real exchange rates. Journal of Money, Credit, and Banking, 34(3a), 686–700.Google Scholar
  33. Sollis, R. (2009). A simple unit root test against asymmetric STAR nonlinearity with an application to real exchange rates in Nordic countries. Economic Modelling, 26, 118–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Trehan, B., & Walsh, C. E. (1988). Common trends, the government’s budget balance, and revenue smoothing. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 12, 425–444.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Wilcox, D. (1989). The sustainability of government deficits: Implications of the present value borrowing constraint. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 21(3), 291–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Logistic ManagementUniversity of Turkish Aeronautical AssociationAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of EconomicsAtilim UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations