In this research, we investigate the dynamic relationship between the trade balance and exchange rate in the case of India using threshold cointegration and an asymmetric error-correction model. Empirical results validate that the long-run dynamic relationship between the trade balance and exchange rates is asymmetric. In the short run, the trade balance responds only due to positive deviations in the exchange rate. In contrast, in the exchange rate model, the exchange rate reacts only due to negative deviations in the trade balance. In addition, the results exhibit that the adjustment following variation in the exchange rate seems higher than the adjustment in the trade balance in the short run. Besides, the results indicate that the speed of adjustment due to the positive and negative shocks differs in the trade balance and the exchange rate models. Further, the uni- directional Granger causality result suggests that the trade balance substantially affects the exchange rate. However, the Granger causality effect of the exchange rate on the trade balance seems minimal. Finally, our results validate the impact of momentum equilibrium adjustment path asymmetric effects between the trade balance and exchange rate, indicating that the adjustment path is asymmetric in the long run. Therefore, policy planners in India should consider the asymmetric adjustment between these two drivers to overcome trade balance discrepancies in the short and long run.
ArizeA. (1990). An econometric investigation of export behaviour in seven Asian developing countries. Applied Economics, 22(7), 891–904.
2.
ArizeA. C. (1994). Cointegration test of a long-run relation between the real effective exchange rate and the trade balance. International Economic Journal, 8(3), 1–9.
3.
ArizeA. C., & MalindretosJ. (2012). Nonstationarity and nonlinearity in inflation rate: Some further evidence. International Review of Economics and Finance, 24, 224–234.
4.
ArizeA. C., MalindretosJ., & IgweE. U., (2017). Do exchange rate changes improve the trade balance: An asymmetric non-linear cointegration approach. International Review of Economics and Finance, 49, 313–326.
5.
AutyR. M. (Ed.). (2001). Resource abundance and economic development. Oxford University Press.
6.
AzizN. (2008). The role of exchange rate in the trade balance empirics from Bangladesh. University Press.
7.
Bahmani-OskooeeM. (2001). Nominal and real effective exchange rates of Middle Eastern countries and their trade performance. Applied Economics, 33(1), 103–111.
8.
Bahmani-OskooeeM., & GelanA. (2018). Exchange-rate volatility and international trade performance: Evidence from 12 African countries. Economic Analysis and Policy, 58, 14–21.
9.
Bahmani-OskooeeM., & RathaA. (2004). The J-curve: A literature review. Applied Economics, 36(13), 1377–1398.
10.
BalkeN. S., & FombyT. B. (1997) Threshold cointegration. International Economic Review, 38(3), 627–645.
11.
BeheraS. R. (2015a). International capital mobility and saving-investment relationship in the newly industrialized countries. International Review of Applied Economics, 29(3), 287–308.
12.
BeheraS. R. (2015b). International capital mobility and saving-investment relationship in India. Economics Bulletin, 35(1), 430–440.
13.
BeheraS. R. (2016). Current account dynamics and capital mobility in the newly industrialized countries. International Review of Applied Economics, 30(4), 441–461.
14.
BeheraS. R. (2017). Saving–investment dynamics and capital mobility in the newly industrialized countries. The Singapore Economic Review, 62(02), 403–422.
15.
Ben-DavidD., LumsdaineR., & PapellD. H. (2003) Unit root, post-war slowdowns, and long-run growth: Evidence from two structural breaks. Empirical Economics, 28(2), 303–319.
16.
BhatS. A., & BhatJ. A. (2021). Impact of exchange rate changes on the trade balance of India: An asymmetric nonlinear cointegration approach. Foreign Trade Review, 56(1), 71–88.
17.
BlanchardO. J., & Milesi-FerrettiG. M. (2009). Global imbalances: In midstream? (pp. 3–31). International Monetary Fund.
18.
BoydD., CaporaleG. M., & SmithR. (2001). Real exchange rate effects on the balance of trade: Cointegration and the Marshall–Lerner condition. International Journal of Finance and Economics, 6, 187–200.
BroockW. A., ScheinkmanJ. A., DechertW. D., & LeBaronB. (1996). A test for independence based on the correlation dimension. Econometric Reviews, 15(3), 197–235.
21.
BussiereM. (2013). Exchange rate pass-through to trade prices: the role of nonlinearities and asymmetries. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 75(5), 31–758.
22.
CaballeroR. J., FarhiE., & GourinchasP. (2008). An equilibrium model of ‘Global Imbalances’ and low-interest rates. American Economic Review, 98(1), 358–393. DOI: 10.1257/aer.98.1.358
23.
CanerM., & HansenB. E. (2001). Threshold is autoregressive with a unit root. Econometrica, 69(6), 1555–1596.
24.
ChenR., & TsayR. S. (1993). Functional-coefficient autoregressive models. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 88(421), 298–308.
25.
ClementeJ., Monta˜nésA., & ReyesM. (1998). Testing for a unit root in variables with a double change in the mean. Economics Letters, 59(2), 175–182.
26.
DedeogluD., & OgutK. (2017). Asymmetric cointegration with threshold adjustment model of exchange rates and the trade balance in Turkey. The Journal of International Trade and Economic Development, 26(2), 174–194.
27.
DogruT., IsikC., & Sirakaya-TurkE. (2019). The balance of trade and exchange rates: Theory and contemporary evidence from tourism. Tourism Management, 74, 12–23. 10.1016/j.eap.2017.12.005
28.
DoojavG. O. (2018). The effect of real exchange rate on trade balance in a resource-rich economy: The case of Mongolia. Foreign Trade Review, 53(4), 211–224.
29.
EndersW., & GrangerC. W. J. (1998). Unit root tests and asymmetric adjustment with an example using the term structure of interest rates. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 16(3), 304–311.
30.
EndersW., & SiklosP. L. (2001). Cointegration and threshold adjustment. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 19(2), 166–176.
31.
EngleR. F., & GrangerC. W. J. (1987). Cointegration and error correction: Representation, estimation, and testing. Econometrica, 55, 251–276. 10.2307/1913236
32.
FrankelJ., ParsleyD., & WeiS. J. (2012). Slow pass-through around the world: A new import for developing countries?Open Economies Review, 23, 213–251. 10.1007/s11079-011-9210-8
33.
GoldsteinM., & KhanM. S. (1978). The supply and demand for exports: A simultaneous approach. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 60(2), 275–286.
34.
HatemiJ. A., & IrandoustM. (2005). Bilateral trade elasticities: Sweden versus her major trading partners. American Review of Political Economy, 3(2), 38–50.
35.
HaynesS. E., & StoneJ. A. (1982). Impact of the terms of trade on the US trade balance: A reexamination. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 64(4), 702–706.
36.
HimariosD. (1989). Do devaluations improve the trade balance? The evidence revisited. Economic Inquiry, 27(1), 143–168.
37.
JibrillaA. A., & TijjaniM. S. (2015). Asymmetric cointegration between exchange rate and trade balance in Nigeria. Cogent Economics and Finance, 3(1), 1045213.
38.
JohansenS., & JuseliusK. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with applications to demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169–210.
39.
KennedyO. (2013). Kenya’s foreign trade balance: An empirical investigation. European Scientific Journal, 9(19).
40.
LeeT. H., WhiteH., & GrangerC. W. (1993). Testing for neglected nonlinearity in time series models: A comparison of neural network methods and alternative tests. Journal of Econometrics, 56(3), 269–290.
41.
LumsdaineR. L., & PapellD. H. (1997). Multiple trend breaks and the unit root hypothesis. Review of Economics and Statistics, 79(2), 212–218.
42.
MaddalaG. S., & KimI. M. (2003). Unit root, cointegration, and structural, change (5th ed.). Cambridge University Press.
43.
MallickL., & BeheraS. R. (2020). Does trade openness affect economic growth in India? Evidence from threshold cointegration with asymmetric adjustment. Cogent Economics and Finance, 8(1), 1782659.
44.
MallickL., BeheraS. R., & DashD. P. (2020). Does CPI granger cause WPI? Empirical evidence from threshold cointegration and spectral granger causality approach in India. The Journal of Developing Areas, 54(2), 109–125.
45.
MallickL., BeheraS. R., & MurthyR. R. (2021). Does the twin deficit hypothesis exist in India? Empirical evidence from an asymmetric non-linear cointegration approach. The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 24, e00219.
46.
MallickL., BeheraR. S., & MurthyR. R. (2021). Dynamics of capital account and current account in India: Evidence from threshold cointegration with asymmetric error correction. Applied Economics Letters, 30(4), 423–428.
47.
MartinF. E. (2016). Exchange rate regimes and current account adjustment: An empirical investigation. Journal of International Money and Finance, 65, 69–93.
48.
NgY., HarW.-M., & TanG. (2008). Real exchange rates and trade balance relationship: An empirical study of Malaysia. International Journal of Business and Management, 3(8), 130–137.
49.
ObstfeldM., & RogoffK. (2009). Global imbalances and the financial crisis: Products of common causes (Discussion Paper 7606). CEPR.
50.
OnafowaraD. A. (2003). Exchange rate and trade balance in East Asia: Is there a J–Curve?Economic Bulletin, 5, 1–13.
51.
PerronP. (1989). The great crash, the oil price shock, and the unit root hypothesis. Econometrica: Journal of the Econometric Society, 57(6), 1361–1401. 10.2307/1913712
52.
PerronP., & VogelsangT. J. (1992). Nonstationarity and level shifts with an application to purchasing power parity. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, 10(3), 301–320.
53.
PesaranM. H., ShinY., & SmithR. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326.
54.
PortesR. (2009). Global imbalances. In DewatripontM., FreixasX., & PortesR. (Eds.), Macroeconomic stability and financial regulation: Key issues for the G20 (pp. 19–26). IMF.
55.
SharmaC., & PalD. (2018). Exchange rate volatility and India’s cross-border trade: A pooled mean group and non-linear cointegration approach. Economic Modelling, 74, 230–246.
56.
SinghT. (2002). India’s trade balance: The role of income and exchange rates. Journal of Policy Modeling, 24(5), 437–452.
57.
SmithB. (2014). Dutch disease and the oil and boom and bust (Working Papers No. 133). Oxford Centre for the Analysis of Resource Rich Economies, University of Oxford, Oxford.
58.
SollisR., LeybourneS., & NewboldP. (2002). Tests for symmetric and asymmetric non-linear mean reversion in real exchange rates. Journal of Money Credit and Banking, 34(3), 686–700.
59.
SunC. (2011). Price dynamics in the import wooden bed market of the United States. Forest Policy and Economics, 13(6), 479–487.
60.
SunC. H., & ChiuY. B. (2010). Taiwan’s trade imbalance and exchange rate revisited. Applied Economics, 42(7), 917–922.
61.
TeraesvirtaT., LinC. F., & GrangerC. W. J. (1993). Power of the neural network linearity test. Journal of Time Series Analysis, 14, 209–220.
62.
Van der PloegF. (2011). Natural resources: Curse or blessing?Journal of Economic Literature, 49, 366–420.
63.
WarnerD., & KreininM. E. (1983). Determinants of international trade flows. The Review of Economics and Statistics, 96–104.
64.
WilsonP., & TatK. C. (2001). Exchange rates and the trade balance: The case of Singapore 1970 to 1996. Journal of Asian Economics, 12(1), 47–63.
