Document Type : Article-Based Dissertations

Authors

1 Ph.D candidate of Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of Management and Social Science,Tehran North Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

2 Assistant Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of Management and Social Science,Tehran North Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran

3 Assistant Professor of Economics, Department of Economics, Faculty of Management and Social Science,Tehran North Branch, Islamic Azad University, Tehran, Iran.

Abstract

EXTENDED ABSTRACT
INTRODUCTION
The degree of international capital mobility is a decisive and vital factor in the economic, political, and social life of countries and low capital mobility is considered as a concern for them. Capital mobility among countries has always been the focus of many policymakers and observers of the international economy. The main issue in this research is to address a new approach in measuring the degree of capital mobility and solving the Feldstein-Horioka (FH) puzzle in the studied countries. The main purpose of this study is to investigate the status of international capital mobility between 10 developing oil-exporting countries in the period 2000-2018 using the dynamic panel data technique. Theoretically in an open economy, saving and investment are more affected by capital flows and global interest rates. Hence, the relationship between these two variables is not expected to be strong in an economy that is open to capital flows. This analysis contradicts the results of the FH study. Their experimental findings in 1980, using cross-sectional analysis, showed that the correlation between savings and investment for the 16 OECD countries during the period 1960-1974 was close to one (between 0.85 and 0.95). They interpreted the value of this coefficient as the reason for the low mobility of capital. This finding was contrary to the expectations of capital mobility in these countries, because, in fact, the degree of integration of these countries in international capital markets has been high. This became known as the FH puzzle and became the source of discussions about the degree of financial integration and the degree of trade openness in the industrialized world. The results of research in many cases indicate that experimental models that do not take into account the degree of financial openness and economic globalization, lead to an upward bias in the savings coefficient. Therefore, our empirical approach includes adding the variables of the degree of trade openness and the Kof index as indicators of traditional and modern globalization, respectively, as well as the interactive effect of the Kof index on the original equation, which has been used for the first time in domestic and foreign studies.  Also, for the first time, by adding new variables on the initial form of the FH equation, a new specification of the initial equation for solving the puzzle in internal studies has been investigated. Given the characteristics of the countries under study that have sufficient financial resources to finance and do not need external resources, the study of international capital mobility for them can be important because it clarifies the role of home bias in accurately estimating international capital flows.The results indicate the elimination of home bias in estimating the relationship between saving and investment and the realization of the relationship between the two variables.
 
METHODOLOGY
After performing the unit root test on the model variables, through the Leimer test, the H0 hypothesis was rejected for the pooled data model, so we used cross-sectional analysis to estimate panel data for 10 developing oil-exporting countries (Iran, UAE, Oman, Saudi Arabia, Azerbaijan, Ecuador, Kazakhstan, Indonesia, Egypt, and Sudan). Then we used two cointegration techniques called the Pedroni panel-data cointegration test and the Kao panel-data cointegration test to detect the existence of a long-term relationship between variables. Finally, two fully modified ordinary least squares (FMOLS) and dynamic ordinary least squares (DOLS) estimators were used to estimate the long-run equilibrium parameters in estimating the models. All research variables except the Kof index are extracted from World Bank (WDI) database. KOF Globalization Index statistics are taken from the 2021 time series on the website of the Swiss  Economic Institute.
 
 
 
FINDINGS
As expected, the Kof variable has a significant positive coefficient in determining the investment ratio. The degree of openness has not helped to explain the investment ratio. The interaction effect of the Kof index with the savings ratio has a significant negative coefficient. The savings ratio variable with a significant (close to one) positive and significant coefficient indicates the importance of the savings ratio coefficient in determining the investment ratio. Under these conditions, domestic investment is made only through domestic savings. 
 
CONCLUSION
The inclusion of the Kof index, the degree of trade openness, and the interaction of the Kof index in the original FH equation eliminated home bias and made the value of the savings ratio coefficients a reality. Therefore, the very low degree of capital mobility among the studied countries can be conclusively concluded.  In general, our main conclusion is that there is no evidence of the confirmation of the FH conundrum for the selected study countries. The degree of openness of trade as a factor reducing trade friction did not play a role in determining the investment ratio and reducing home bias, while increasing the Kof index as a factor reducing trade and financial friction played a decisive role in determining the investment ratio. The changes made to the FH equation play an important role in solving this important puzzle of the international economy. The degree of trade openness is not the best representative for reducing trade friction. Therefore, the results of our research confirm the introduction of the Kof index as an advanced and modern version of the degree of trade openness for studies on the FH puzzle.

Keywords

Main Subjects

Alizadeh, M., & Golkhandan, A. (2014). International Mobility of Capital and the Feldstein-Horioka Riddle: A Comparative Comparison of Mena and Group of Seven Countries. Quarterly Journal of Economic Development Research, 14: 67-98. https://www.noormags.ir/view/fa/articlepage/1054826 [In Persian].
Ahmad, M. (2013). Capital Mobility and Feldstein Horioka Puzzle in India. scholarly research journal for interdisciplinary studies, 4, 1649-1661.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Chakrabarti, A. (2005). Openness, size, and the saving–investment relationship. Economic Systems, 29(3), 283-293.
Baxter, M., & Crucini, M. J. (1993). Explaining saving--investment correlations. The American Economic Review, 416-436.
Bibi, N., & Jalil, A. (2016). Revisiting Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle. Pakistan Economic and Social Review, 54(2), 233-254.
Bineau, Y. (2014). Regional capital mobility within Bulgaria. Journal of Global Economics, 2(2).
Chen, B., McCoskey, S. K., & Kao, C. (1999). Estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data: a Monte Carlo study. American Journal of Mathematical and Management Sciences, 19(1-2), 75-114.
Cyrille, S. M. (2010). Saving-investment correlation and capital mobility in Sub-Saharan African countries: A reappraisal through inward and outward capital flows’ correlation. International Journal of Economics and Finance, 2(2), 97-106.
David, A. C., Gonçalves, C. E., Werner, A. M., & Roldos, J. (2020). Reexamining the National Savings-Investment Nexus Across Time and Countries. IMF Working Papers, 2020(124).
Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied economics, 38(10), 1091-1110.
Eaton, J., Kortum, S., & Neiman, B. (2016). Obstfeld and Rogoff׳ s international macro puzzles: a quantitative assessment. Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, 72, 5-23.
Ehsani, M.A. & Taheri Bazkhaneh., S. (2017). Testing the Validity of the Feldstein-Horioka Puzzle in Iran (Considering Lucas Critique). The Quarterly Journal of Applied Economic Studies in Iran, 6 (24): 1-22. doi: 10.22084/aes.2017.12967.2399 [In Persian].
Falahi, M., Khodaparast Mashhadi, M., Salimifar, M., Haghnejad, A. (2011). Relationship between Economic Growth and Government Size in Selected OPEC Countries: A Multivariate Analysis Using Panel Data Techniques. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics(JQE), 8(2), 79-94. doi: 10.22055/jqe.2011.10601 [In Persian].
Feldstein, M. (1982). Domestic saving and international capital movements in the long run and the short run (0898-2937). Retrieved from
Feldstein, M., & Bacchetta, P. (1991). National saving and international investment. National saving and economic performance, 201-220.
Feldstein, M., & Horioka, C. (1979). Domestic savings and international capital flows (0898-2937). Retrieved from
Ford, N., & Horioka, C. Y. (2017). The ‘real’explanation of the PPP puzzle. Applied Economics Letters, 24(5), 325-328.
Fouquau, J., Hurlin, C., & Rabaud, I. (2008). The Feldstein–Horioka puzzle: a panel smooth transition regression approach. Economic Modelling, 25(2), 284-299.
Giannone, D., & Lenza, M. (2010). The Feldstein‐Horioka Fact. Paper presented at the NBER International Seminar on Macroeconomics.
Greene, W. H. (2003). Econometric analysis: Pearson Education India.
Hadian, E. (1999). Investigating the relationship between savings and investment in the Iranian economy using an error correction model. The Journal of Planning and Budgeting, 4(9), 69-84. http://ensani.ir/file/download/article/20101023175053-p0116800450691.pdf [In Persian].
Hassan, I. B. (2016). International capital mobility in West Africa: A panel cointegration approach. Cogent Economics & Finance, 4(1), 1256023.
Hoffmann, M. (2004). International capital mobility in the long run and the short run: can we still learn from saving–investment data? Journal of International Money and Finance, 23(1), 113-131.
Hsiao, C. (2007). Panel data analysis—advantages and challenges. Test, 16(1), 1-22.
Irandoust, M. (2019). Saving and investment causality: implications for financial integration in transition countries of Eastern Europe. International Economics and Economic Policy, 16(2), 397-416.
Kao, C. (1999). Spurious regression and residual-based tests for cointegration in panel data. Journal of econometrics, 90(1), 1-44.
Kao, C., & Chiang, M.-H. (2001). On the estimation and inference of a cointegrated regression in panel data. In Nonstationary panels, panel cointegration, and dynamic panels: Emerald Group Publishing Limited.
Kasuga, H. (2004). Saving–investment correlations in developing countries. Economics letters, 83(3), 371-376.
Kouton, J. (2018). An Asymmetric Analysis of the Relationship between Openness and Inflation in Côte d’Ivoire. International Journal of Economics and Financial Issues, 8(6), 65.
Lapp, S. (1996). The Feldstein-Horioka paradox: A selective survey of the literature. Retrieved from
Mastroyiannis, A. (2007). Current account dynamics and the Feldstein and Horioka puzzle: The case of Greece. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 4(1), 91-99.
Narayan, P. K. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: evidence from cointegration tests. Applied economics, 37(17), 1979-1990.
Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (2000). Perspectives on OECD economic integration: implications for US current account adjustment. Global Economic Integration: Opportunities and Challenges, 169-208.
Payne, J. E., & Kumazawa, R. (2005). Capital mobility, foreign aid, and openness: further panel data evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. Journal of Economics and Finance, 29(1), 122-126.
Pedroni, P. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in heterogeneous panels with multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics, 61(S1), 653-670.
Pedroni, P. (2004). Panel cointegration: asymptotic and finite sample properties of pooled time series tests with an application to the PPP hypothesis. Econometric theory, 20(3), 597-625.
Peter, C. B. P., & Hansen, B. E. (1990). Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes. The Review of economic studies, 57(1), 99-125. doi:10.2307/2297545
Potrafke, N. (2015). The evidence on globalisation. The World Economy, 38(3), 509-552.
Razak, L. A., & Masih, M. (2017). Revisit Feldstein-Horioka puzzle: evidence from Malaysia (1960-2015).
Sahoo, M., babu, M. S., & Dash, U. (2016). Current account sustainability in SAARC economies: Evidence from combined cointegration approach. Theoretical and Applied Economics, 609(4), 281-298. Retrieved from https://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/79014.html
Salmani, B., Barghi Oskoee, M., Razzaghi, S., Khodaverdizadeh, S. (2016). The Effect of Savings Rate on Investment in Selected Developed and Developing Countries. Quarterly Journal of Applied Theories of Economics, 3(3), 45-68. Available at: https://ecoj.tabrizu.ac.ir/article_5435.html?lang=en
Sinn, S. (1992). Saving-investment correlations and capital mobility: On the evidence from annual data. The economic journal, 102(414), 1162-1170.
Stock, J. H., & Watson, M. W. (1993). A simple estimator of cointegrating vectors in higher order integrated systems. Econometrica: journal of the Econometric Society, 783-820.
Tesar, L. L. (1991). Savings, investment and international capital flows. Journal of international economics, 31(1-2), 55-78.
Wong, D. Y. (1990). What do saving-investment relationships tell us about capital mobility? Journal of International Money and Finance, 9(1), 60-74.
Wooldridge, J. M. (2002). Econometric analysis of cross section and panel data: MIT press.
Yavari, K., Khodabakhsh, M., Najarzadeh, R. (2021). Estimation of Resource Allocation Inefficiency in the Iranian Manufacturing Sector. Quarterly Journal of Quantitative Economics(JQE), 18(2), 71-84. doi: 10.22055/jqe.2021.27519.1964 [In Persian].
Younas, J., & Chakraborty, D. (2011). Globalization and the Feldstein–Horioka puzzle. Applied economics, 43(16), 2089-2096.