欧洲核心和外围国家的商业周期趋势:对乌克兰的影响

Taras Zholos, Valerii Mazurenko
{"title":"欧洲核心和外围国家的商业周期趋势:对乌克兰的影响","authors":"Taras Zholos, Valerii Mazurenko","doi":"10.17721/1728-2667.2023/222-1/7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Economic theory suggests that economic integration can promote business cycle co-movement, which in turn facilitates the institution of common counter-cyclical policies. However, evidence from empirical studies on co-movement within the EU and Europe as a whole is mixed, particularly concerning a so-called group of peripheral countries. This article argues that the existence of large international shocks and their heterogeneous impact on national economies changes the interpretation of co-movement. A decomposition of business cycles into common and country-specific components via a flexible Bayesian dynamic factor model with time-varying parameters and stochastic volatility reveals that the patterns of co-movement among the EU core and periphery are similar after common shocks – such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic – and the upward bias introduced by the use of the Pearson correlation coefficient is accounted for. However, it is found that there is another important distinction between the EU core and periphery; that is, during the period of the Great Re-moderation that followed the Great Recession, the business cycles of the core EU countries converged to a lower level of volatility than those of the periphery. Moreover, it is shown that various standard measures of business cycle co-movement can conflate co-movement and volatility convergence, which alters their interpretation. Importantly, this article relates the experience of the EU core and periphery to that of Ukraine. In particular, it is found that the business cycle of Ukraine is similar to those of the EU periphery in terms of the level of its volatility and co-movement vis-à-vis the core EU countries, which has important implications for further development of Ukraine's European integration policy.","PeriodicalId":30924,"journal":{"name":"Visnik Kiivs''kogo Nacional''nogo Universitetu imeni Tarasa Sevcenka Ekonomika","volume":"168 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"BUSINESS CYCLE TRENDS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN CORE AND PERIPHERY: IMPLICATIONS FOR UKRAINE\",\"authors\":\"Taras Zholos, Valerii Mazurenko\",\"doi\":\"10.17721/1728-2667.2023/222-1/7\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Economic theory suggests that economic integration can promote business cycle co-movement, which in turn facilitates the institution of common counter-cyclical policies. However, evidence from empirical studies on co-movement within the EU and Europe as a whole is mixed, particularly concerning a so-called group of peripheral countries. This article argues that the existence of large international shocks and their heterogeneous impact on national economies changes the interpretation of co-movement. A decomposition of business cycles into common and country-specific components via a flexible Bayesian dynamic factor model with time-varying parameters and stochastic volatility reveals that the patterns of co-movement among the EU core and periphery are similar after common shocks – such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic – and the upward bias introduced by the use of the Pearson correlation coefficient is accounted for. However, it is found that there is another important distinction between the EU core and periphery; that is, during the period of the Great Re-moderation that followed the Great Recession, the business cycles of the core EU countries converged to a lower level of volatility than those of the periphery. Moreover, it is shown that various standard measures of business cycle co-movement can conflate co-movement and volatility convergence, which alters their interpretation. Importantly, this article relates the experience of the EU core and periphery to that of Ukraine. In particular, it is found that the business cycle of Ukraine is similar to those of the EU periphery in terms of the level of its volatility and co-movement vis-à-vis the core EU countries, which has important implications for further development of Ukraine's European integration policy.\",\"PeriodicalId\":30924,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Visnik Kiivs''kogo Nacional''nogo Universitetu imeni Tarasa Sevcenka Ekonomika\",\"volume\":\"168 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-01-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Visnik Kiivs''kogo Nacional''nogo Universitetu imeni Tarasa Sevcenka Ekonomika\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2023/222-1/7\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Visnik Kiivs''kogo Nacional''nogo Universitetu imeni Tarasa Sevcenka Ekonomika","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17721/1728-2667.2023/222-1/7","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

经济理论表明,经济一体化可以促进经济周期的协同运动,这反过来又有利于制定共同的反周期政策。然而,关于欧盟内部和整个欧洲的联合行动的实证研究证据好坏参半,特别是关于所谓的外围国家集团。本文认为,大型国际冲击的存在及其对国家经济的异质影响改变了对联合运动的解释。通过具有时变参数和随机波动的灵活贝叶斯动态因素模型,将商业周期分解为共同和特定国家的组成部分,结果表明,在大衰退和COVID-19大流行等共同冲击之后,欧盟核心和外围国家之间的共同运动模式是相似的,并且考虑了使用Pearson相关系数所引入的向上偏差。然而,我们发现欧盟核心国家和外围国家之间还有一个重要的区别;也就是说,在大衰退(Great Recession)之后的“大再缓和”(Great Re-moderation)期间,欧盟核心国家的商业周期趋同于比外围国家更低的波动水平。此外,研究还表明,经济周期共同运动的各种标准度量可能将共同运动和波动收敛混为一谈,从而改变了它们的解释。重要的是,本文将欧盟核心和外围国家的经验与乌克兰的经验联系起来。特别是,研究发现乌克兰的经济周期在波动性和与欧盟核心国家的联动程度上与欧盟外围国家相似,这对乌克兰欧洲一体化政策的进一步发展具有重要意义。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
BUSINESS CYCLE TRENDS WITHIN THE EUROPEAN CORE AND PERIPHERY: IMPLICATIONS FOR UKRAINE
Economic theory suggests that economic integration can promote business cycle co-movement, which in turn facilitates the institution of common counter-cyclical policies. However, evidence from empirical studies on co-movement within the EU and Europe as a whole is mixed, particularly concerning a so-called group of peripheral countries. This article argues that the existence of large international shocks and their heterogeneous impact on national economies changes the interpretation of co-movement. A decomposition of business cycles into common and country-specific components via a flexible Bayesian dynamic factor model with time-varying parameters and stochastic volatility reveals that the patterns of co-movement among the EU core and periphery are similar after common shocks – such as the Great Recession and the COVID-19 pandemic – and the upward bias introduced by the use of the Pearson correlation coefficient is accounted for. However, it is found that there is another important distinction between the EU core and periphery; that is, during the period of the Great Re-moderation that followed the Great Recession, the business cycles of the core EU countries converged to a lower level of volatility than those of the periphery. Moreover, it is shown that various standard measures of business cycle co-movement can conflate co-movement and volatility convergence, which alters their interpretation. Importantly, this article relates the experience of the EU core and periphery to that of Ukraine. In particular, it is found that the business cycle of Ukraine is similar to those of the EU periphery in terms of the level of its volatility and co-movement vis-à-vis the core EU countries, which has important implications for further development of Ukraine's European integration policy.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
8
审稿时长
4 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信