sustainability

Article
The Impact of Trade Openness on Economic Stability in
Asian Countries
Vu Manh Hoai Nguyen 1 , Tin Huu Ho 2,3 , Luan Huynh Nguyen 4 and An Thi Ha Pham 1, *

1 Faculty of Finance and Banking, Van Lang University, 69/68 Dang Thuy Tram Street, Ward 13,
Binh Thanh District, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam; vu.nmh@vlu.edu.vn
2 Institute for Development and Research in Banking Technology, University of Economics and Law,
Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam; tinhh@uel.edu.vn
3 Vietnam National University, Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam
4 Faculty of Mechanical-Electrical and Computer Engineering, School of Technology, Van Lang University,
Ho Chi Minh City 700000, Vietnam; luan.nh@vlu.edu.vn
* Correspondence: an.pth@vlu.edu.vn

Abstract: The purpose of this study was to investigate the nexus between trade openness and three
aspects of macroeconomic stability, including growth stability, inflation stability, and exchange rate
stability, in 20 Asian countries from 2011 to 2019. The empirical analysis was carried out with the
help of the autoregressive distributed lag (ADRL) model to examine the impact of trade openness
on economic stability. Our results revealed that trade openness was negatively associated with
the growth stability of the countries located in the Asian region, while the opposite was true for
exchange rate stability in the short run. There was, however, no relation between trade openness and
inflation stability, which requires further investigation. In addition to contributing new empirical
evidence to academic literature, our study expects to have important implications for policymakers.
In particular, Asian countries are recommended to speed up the process of trade liberalisation to
accelerate long-run economic growth and exchange rate stability.

Keywords: trade openness; macroeconomic stability; Asian countries; ADRL

Citation: Nguyen, V.M.H.; Ho, T.H.;

Nguyen, L.H.; Pham, A.T.H. The
1. Introduction
Impact of Trade Openness on
Economic Stability in Asian
It is commonly acknowledged that a stable macroeconomic environment is required
Countries. Sustainability 2023, 15,
for sustainable economic growth by providing a more secure environment for private
11736. https://doi.org/10.3390/ sector investment decisions [1,2]. There is also compelling evidence, which is the contents
su151511736 and implementation of the macroeconomic reform agenda of the 1990s, to support this
viewpoint [3]. For instance, in Latin America, the restoration of budgetary restraint and
Academic Editor: Bruce Morley
the decline in inflation came before the resumption of economic growth in Chile and
Received: 3 May 2023 Mexico. In contrast, the macroeconomic instability and high inflation that characterise the
Revised: 9 June 2023 economic crises in Brazil and Argentina are punctuated by attempts at stabilisation. The
Accepted: 15 June 2023 rapidly developing nations of East Asia typically maintain single-digit or low double-digit
Published: 30 July 2023 inflation and largely avoided a balance of payments crises. Even when they experienced
them, as in the case of Korea in 1980, they moved quickly to address them [4]. In light of
this foundation, more recent research on macroeconomic stability frequently focuses on
three key factors, including output growth stability, inflation stability, and exchange rate
Copyright: © 2023 by the authors.
stability [5–8].
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
However, Fischer (1992) also stated that macroeconomic stability alone is insufficient
This article is an open access article
for sustained growth [2]. Instead, the overall economic strategy pursued by outward
distributed under the terms and
orientation is also crucial. Following Fischer’s view, current studies indicate that trade
conditions of the Creative Commons
openness (“trade openness” can also be termed “trade liberalisation” by many other
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
research articles. For the sake of consistency, in this paper, we will only use the term “trade
4.0/).
openness”) contributed significantly to the process of sustainable economic growth not only

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736. https://doi.org/10.3390/su151511736 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 2 of 20

in developed but also in developing countries [8–10]. Therefore, a country should engage
in cross-border commerce with other nations. Additionally, it should boost production to
compete with other trading partners in order to earn foreign currency from exporting goods
and services. Because there is an abundance of unskilled labour in developing countries,
trade openness allows a country’s comparative advantage to be fully utilised by amplifying
ideas and innovations, resulting in high returns on investments and enhancement of
production [11–16]. For these reasons, trade openness is a crucial component of scholarly
and policy discussion. Up until now, there is still an uncertainty on whether there is any
relationship between trade openness and sustainable economic growth.
Regarding practical implications, policymakers, particularly in the developing world,
were forced to reconsider the current import substitution policies and replace them with
outward-oriented growth policies (i.e., trade openness). This development is a result of the
impressive growth experiences of the Tiger economies in the East Asian region, as well as
the recent marvellous growth experiences of China and India, which eventually provides an
opportunity for developing countries to catch up with the richer counterpart [9,17,18]. Fur-
thermore, the World Bank and International Monetary Fund both consider trade openness
to be a vital part of the structural adjustment program in various developing countries. For
example, trade openness can contribute to human development and sustainable economic
growth, and it can then solve the problem of poverty and unemployment [19–21].
With respect to academic literature, many theories suggest the importance of trade
openness in economic growth. Examples include the neoclassical growth theory [22,23]
and the absolute advantage theory [24,25]. These theories emphasise how international
trade influences changes in productivity and institutional quality, and are referred to
as the “integration view” since it explains the importance of market integration and its
obstacles in promoting global economic convergence. Furthermore, it is also the main
factor affecting the sustainable growth of developing countries [26]. On the other hand, the
development of endogenous (new) growth theory show that economic growth is exogenously
accelerated by the technical progress—an endogenous factor rather than an exogenous
one. Therefore, several policies such as R&D (Research and Development) expenditures,
human capital, and trade openness could improve economic growth since the positively
impact on technological change. This theory also asserts that interactions with other nations
cannot result in long-term economic growth. Instead, sustainable economic growth can
be achieved by expanding the scope of spillover [12,27–30]. Furthermore, the compensation
hypothesis claims that economic growth stability (many studies also use the term “volatility”
or “instability” instead of “stability”. Since the two terms are interchangeable, in this
paper, we shall use the term “stability”) is seen as the consequential effect of either trade
openness or increased trade exposure that dampers domestic economic stability [31–34].
In this paper, we reveal several gaps that we expect to contribute significantly to the
literature. First, even though the stories of flourishing economic growth of Asia countries
conveyed the importance of trade openness policies [9], until now, no study covered
the whole Asia region related to the relationship between trade openness and economic
growth. According to our knowledge, the literature regarding the relationship between
trade openness and economic growth focused mostly on developed countries [32,33,35–38],
or cross economies [39–43]. As for the Asian region, only several particular Asia countries
were studied separately, i.e., Malaysia [44–46]; Pakistan and India [47,48], or several South
Asian countries [49]. There were also studies conducted in countries and regions other
than Asia [16,38,50–52]. Muinir et al. (2015) and Amna Intisa et al. (2020),might be
the exceptions with respect to Asian region studies, but their data only covered up to
the year 2010 and 2017, respectively [53,54]. Second, most studies paid attention to the
nexus between trade openness and economic growth, while only a few concentrated
on other aspects of macroeconomic stability, i.e., inflation stability [55] and exchange
rate stability [56–58]. However, no study simultaneously examined all three aspects of
macroeconomic stability, including growth stability, inflation stability, and exchange rate
stability. Third, the previous studies showed no consensus in the empirical results based on
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 3 of 20

the above-mentioned theories. Instead, studies produced mixed and ambiguous results for
the past few decades. On the one hand, an increasing number of academics discovered the
beneficial effect of trade openness on economic growth [8,38,39,45,47]. On the other hand,
some empirical studies found that trade openness hinders economic development [9,59–68].
By contrast, several other studies claimed conflicting results between trade openness and
economic growth. For instance, Kim, Lin, and Suen (2016) found that trade openness
enhances growth stability in the short run, but it eventually contributes to lower output
stability in the long run in cross-countries [41]. The results above were further confirmed
by the studies of Udeagha and Ngepah (2021) and Bartak et al. (2021) [16,40]. In particular,
they additionally examined the nonlinear relationship and concluded that higher trade
openness hampers economic growth, whereas lower trade openness induces increases in
economic growth in the long run. Lastly, some studies contended that there is no proof that
trade openness has an impact on economic growth [26,53,65,68,69].
With an aim to address the above research gaps, our study first provides empirical
evidence on the nexus between trade openness and the three aspects of macroeconomic
stability, adapted from Fischer (1992), in 20 Asian countries from 2011 to 2019 [2]. In recent
years, it was noticed that Asian countries shifted toward a more liberal regime [18]. There-
fore, an empirical study of the relationship between trade openness and economic stability
would be helpful for policymakers to execute and implement the proper international
trade policies in light of the observed statistics. Sustainable economic development is
important [70,71], and so, it is important to find strategies or policies that promote it. If
trade liberalisation has a beneficial effect on economic growth, policymakers will have
simpler choices regarding foreign trade policies. However, alternative measures would
need to be taken if trade openness did not promote development [72].
Our results demonstrate that trade openness has a significant long- and short-term
impact on sustainable economic growth through macroeconomic stability across the Asian
region, as assessed by the gross domestic products (GDP) fluctuations. However, the inflation
stability-indicated link between trade openness and macroeconomic stability was negligible.
Additionally, when macroeconomic stability was gauged by changes in exchange rates, higher
trade openness raised macroeconomic growth stability in the short term.
The remainder of this study is structured as follows. Section 2 outlines the theoretical
framework and reviews the relevant research on trade openness and economic stability to
consequently propose the research hypotheses. Section 3 explains the methodology and the
details of the data used in this study. Section 4 reports the empirical results and discussions,
while Section 5 offers a summary of our findings and concluding remarks.

2. Literature Review
2.1. Theoretical Background
2.1.1. The Three Aspects of Macroeconomic Stability
According to Fischer (1992), a stable macroeconomic framework is an essential condi-
tion for a sustainable growth of an economy [2]. However, Fischer also stated that, by itself,
the term macroeconomic stability is difficult to succinctly yet sufficiently define. The World
Bank (1990) stated that macroeconomic stability is achieved within the five conditions
of low and predictable inflation, appropriate interest rate, stable and sustainable fiscal
policies, competitive and predictable real exchange rate, and viable balance of payments.
From that premise, more recent studies on macroeconomic stability often focused on three
main aspects, which could be aptly named “growth stability”, “inflation stability”, and
“exchange rate stability” [5–8]. For the first aspect, growth stability, economic growth is
calculated based on the growth of a country’s GDP. In particular, the standard deviation of
the annual GDP or GDP per capita growth rate (the latter is also coined by the World Bank
as “output volatility”) is a preferred measurement of the macroeconomic growth stability of
a country (see, for example, [39,40,73]). There are two main reasons why scholars often use
the standard deviation of GDP/GDP per capita as a measure for macroeconomic growth
stability. First, GDP growth often results from changes in fiscal and monetary policies (see,
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 4 of 20

for example, [74,75]). Second, GDP growth is also impacted by changes in interest rates. The
widely available data of countries’ GDP or GDP per capita allows this strand of literature to
compare economic growth stability between a large number of countries over a long period.
For instance, Balavac and Pugh (2016) applied the formula to determine the relationship
between trade openness and GDP stability in 25 transition countries from 1996 to 2010 [39].
In the same year, Chenaf-Nicet and Rougier (2016) examined the impact of macroeconomic
stability, proxied by GDP stability, on foreign direct investments (FDI) flows between Euro-
pean Union (EU) and Middle East/North African (MENA) countries [73]. More recently,
Bartak et al. (2021) conducted an episodic-approach study on the macroeconomic stability
of as many as 182 countries over a long period of 67 years (from 1951 to 2017) relying on
the above GDP stability formula [40].
Following Fischer’s suggestion that macroeconomic stability can be impacted by
inflation, the second aspect of macroeconomic stability research is “inflation stability”.
Studies in this research stream often examine the impact of inflation or inflation stability
on the economic growth of a country. The original measure for inflation stability was
developed by Grier and Tulloc (1989) and then Fischer (1992), who employed the standard
deviation of the inflation rate as a proxied measure [76]. Similar to GDP-related data,
inflation is readily available and, thus, can be used for studies across many countries
over a long period. Therefore, studies usually used inflation as one of the core variables
affecting the economic growth of countries, as well as their stability. One notable study is
Al-Marhubi’s (1998) research on the role of inflation stability on economic growth across
78 countries over the period of 21 years (1965–1985) [77]. In, perhaps, one of the most
extensive studies in the field, Judson and Orphanies (1999) examined the relationship
between inflation stability and macroeconomic growth across 119 countries over 34 years
from 1959 to 1992 using Grier and Tulloc’s measure [78].
Finally, the third main aspect of macroeconomic stability addresses the balance of
payments in a country, often represented through its “exchange rate stability”. To calculate
this aspect, researchers usually apply the standard deviation of a country’s real exchange
rate. This measure is based on a theoretical contribution by Obstfeld and Rogoff (1998) [79].
In particular, they suggested that exchange rates uncertainties could result in an unexpected
appreciation of a country’s currency and, thus, could adversely affect its economic growth.
The above measure also shares the advantage of the GDP and inflation measures, which is
the wide availability of its data. Therefore, studies also employ the measure for exchange
rate stability in multi-country research across a long period of time. Examples include
Schnabl’s (2008) study focusing on 41 small open economies around the European Monetary
Union (EMU) border from 1994 to 2005 [80]. More recently and using the same measure,
Morina et al. (2020) studied the impact of the balance of payments, proxied by the real
exchange rate stability formula, on Central and Eastern European countries’ macroeconomic
growth [81].

2.1.2. Trade Openness

In this section, we present several theories that inform our sustainability study on
macroeconomic stability. Regarding economic growth, there are mainly three strands.
In the first strand, the neoclassical growth theory suggests that trade openness can en-
courage capital formation and better resource allocation effectiveness, thereby facilitating
an improvement in the quality of economic growth [8,23]. Similarly, the absolute advantage
theory contends that access to bigger global markets via international trade increases produc-
tivity [24,25]. On the other hand, it was also suggested that trade can harm a country’s growth
potential if foreign demand is biased toward products with a lower learning potential [82]
and that trade restrictions can lead to a reallocation of resources to the sectors with a higher
growth potential [83]. In the second strand, the new growth theory demonstrates how techno-
logical advancement is an endogenous factor rather than an exogenous one that exogenously
accelerates economic development. Therefore, given their favourable effects on technological
change, several policies, including R&D spending, human capital, and trade openness in
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 5 of 20

knowledge-based industries, could enhance economic development. According to this theory,

interactions with other countries cannot lead to long-term economic development because
they only serve to broaden the scope of spillover effects. Increased foreign trade necessitates
integration into deeper, more extensive, and stable markets. Thus, it may also require risk
diversification, which may increase stability [8,12,27–30,47].
Finally, the compensation hypothesis claims that economic growth stability is seen as the
consequential effects of trade openness. Since increased trade exposure reduces domes-
tic economic stability, demands for compensation via generous systems of transfers and
services increase. Additionally, because governments spend more on welfare to compen-
sate individuals harmed by trade, more open economies typically have higher levels of
spending [32,33,38,84].
For the other aspects, the new growth theory also explains that trade openness is likely
to affect inflation by affecting output through increased foreign investment. Ashra (2002)
explained the mechanism as follows: (1) improved efficiency, lowering costs by altering the
composition of inputs used both domestically and internationally, (2) best use of resources,
(3) improved capacity utilisation, and (4) increased foreign investment, thus increasing
output growth and relieve price pressure [85].
In terms of the real exchange rate, the macroeconomic theory claims that non-monetary
variables (i.e., productivity shocks, demand shocks, and labour supply shocks) may clarify
real exchange rate stability. Additionally, the effect of these shocks on the real exchange
rate may be slowed down or amplified depending on how open a market is [56,57].

2.2. Trade Openness and Its Impact on the Economy

Many studies employing at least one of the above aspects of macroeconomic stability
also include trade openness as a very important variable affecting it. According to Yanikkaya
(2003), a clear and fixed definition of trade openness was lacking [86]. In the beginning,
and by definition, trade openness can be achieved by employing favourable exchange rate
policies towards a country’s export sector, regardless of the policies employed in its importing
sector [87]. This definition was then amended by Harrison [88] (p. 420), who stated that trade
openness should be treated as trade neutrality, which means a unit of foreign exchange saved
through import substitution should equal a unit of foreign exchange earned through exports.
More recently, the definition of trade openness is gradually becoming closer to the term “free
trade”, the system in which are no deliberate trade distortions or bias [86]. According to past
economic studies, there is a significant relationship between trade openness and each of the
three main aspects usually employed to explain countries’ macroeconomic stability.
First, there are many studies on the impact of trade openness on GDP growth of
countries. Classically, Rodrick et al. (2004) indicated that trade shares are not influential
in determining accumulation or productivity [26]. Furthermore, when they controlled
institutional quality, trade was almost always insignificant or often resulted in negative
sign with the income levels of 79 countries. In 2016, Kim et al. examined the impact of
trade on the economic growth stability of 73 countries over 52 years from 1960 to 2011 [41].
Relying on GDP growth stability as the main measure, they find trade openness reduces
growth stability in the short run but increases it in the long run. In a more focused study
on India and Pakistan’s macroeconomic stability within the 30 years from 1985 to 2014,
Adeel-Farooq et al. (2017) indicated that trade openness significantly and positively impacts
the economic growth stability of the two countries [47]. More recently, Kong et al. (2021)
concluded that trade openness can improve the quality of China’s economic growth stability
in both the short and long term [8]. In short, the previous studies showed no consensus in
the empirical results based on the above-mentioned theories. Instead, studies produced
mixed and ambiguous results for the past few decades. Hence, to conform with many past
studies, we posit hypotheses H1a and H1b below:

H1a. Trade openness has a positive impact on countries’ growth stability in the short term.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 6 of 20

H1b. Trade openness has a positive impact on countries’ growth stability in the long term.

Second, there are also studies that focused on the relationship of trade openness and
inflation stability. However, they are seemingly less common than those on trade openness
and growth stability. In addition, the focus is not only on inflation stability, but also current
inflation level and its impact on macroeconomic stability together with trade openness. A
specific example is Kim et al. (2016), in which they found that within a more open trade
regime, countries with low inflation tend to have a lower macroeconomic stability in the short
run, but higher stability in the long run [41]. More recently, Nguyen et al. (2022) confirmed
that trade openness has a small but negative relationship with inflation stability in Vietnam
from 1997 to 2020 [55]. Nevertheless, some other studies claimed that there is no significant
relationship between trade openness and inflation stability. For example, Binici et al. (2012)
concluded that trade openness does not impact the Organisation for Economic Cooperation
and Development (OECD) countries’ inflation [89]. Similarly, Munir et al.’s (2015) research
on nine Asian countries from 1976 to 2010 found no significant association between trade
openness and inflation stability [53]. We aimed to provide insights into this conflicting research
area by stating the null hypotheses H2a and H2b below:

H2a. Trade openness has no impact on countries’ inflation stability in the short term.

H2b. Trade openness has no impact on countries’ inflation stability in the long term.

Third, studies on the relationship between trade openness and exchange rate stability
usually indicate a positive association between the two variables. (Or, in other words, most
of those studies indicate a negative association between trade openness and exchange rate
volatility, as a reduction in (negative relationship with) volatility is an increase in (positive
relationship with) stability.) Moreover, studies also often signify the importance of both
variables in improving sustainable economic growth in general. For example, Baharom et al.’s
(2008) study in Malaysia during 1975–2005 confirmed that trade openness and the balance
of payments, proxied by the exchange rate, have a positive relationship [45]. Baharom et al.
also stated that both variables also positively affect economic growth [45]. In their research
of 82 countries from 1974 to 2013, Calderón and Kubota (2018) state that trade openness
improves countries’ real exchange rate stability [56]. In a more recent study in South Africa,
Mpofu (2021) also confirmed that a positive relationship exists between trade openness and
real exchange rate stability [58]. Based on past studies, we introduce hypotheses H3a and
H3b below to verify again the positive relationship between trade openness and exchange
rate stability:

H3a. Trade openness has a positive impact on countries’ exchange rate stability in the short term.

H3b. Trade openness has a positive impact on countries’ exchange rate stability in the long term.

3. Data and Methodology

3.1. Data
We used secondary data collected from the World Bank (www.databank.worldbank.
org, accessed on 1 February 2023). Twenty Asian countries were studied from 2011 to
2019: Armenia, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Brunei Darussalam, Bhutan, China, Georgia, India,
Israel, (it is notable that, among the countries whose data were collected, Israel stands
out as a developed OECD country. Therefore, its unique characteristics relative to the
other examined countries could significantly impact the regression’s results. To ensure
the robustness of our model, we attempted to re-run the regression without the data from
Israel. However, the results remain almost the same, which is why we did not include them
in this paper. Results of this variant will be provided upon request) Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz
Republic, Cambodia, Sri Lanka, Maldives, Malaysia, Pakistan, Philippines, Singapore,
Thailand, and Vietnam. This period was chosen because of the availability and certainty
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 7 of 20

of data. In particular, the global crisis period of 2008–2010 and the COVID-19 pandemic
period of 2020–2022 were not included, ensuring the results of this study are not affected
by global-scale negative events.

3.2. Research Model

To assess the impact of trade openness on macroeconomic stability in Asian countries,
we used the research models set up by Baharom et al. (2008), Zhang et al. (2019), and Kong
et al. (2021) as follows [8,45,90]:

MSit = β 0 + β 1 TOPit + β 2 Zit + ε it (1)

where i stands for the i-th country, t for year t, MS represents macroeconomic stability
variable, TOP is trade openness, and Z are control variables. The control variables inherited
from the previous studies include employment ratio, government capital reserves, private
capital reserves, money supply, and foreign direct investment FDI.
As for the control variable, following previous studies on trade openness and macroe-
conomic stability, we used the following variables: employment rate [91]; government and
private capital reserves [92–94]; and foreign direct investment (FDI) [8,45,95]. Table 1 below
describes the variables in the research model in detail.

Table 1. Description of research variables in the model.

Variable Explanation Measure

Standard deviation of the annual GDP growth rate
Growth stability
(SD_LNGDP)
Standard deviation of the annual inflation rate
MS Macroeconomic stability Inflation stability
(SD_INFLATION)
Standard deviation of real exchange rate
Exchange rate stability
(SD_EXCHANGE)
Ratio of import and export
TOP Trade openness (Export—Import)/GDP
difference to GDP
Standard deviation of the ratio of employed workers
Employment rate which is divided by the total number of people in
the labour force (SD_EMP)
Z Control variables Government capital reserves GOV.
Private capital reserves PRI
Foreign direct investment Ln (FDI)
M2 Monetary Aggregate The ratio of M2 money supply to GDP (M2_GDP)
Source: Synthesis of the author team.

3.3. Research Methodology

We used the autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) framework to estimate the model
(1) because ARDL is considered a successful, flexible, and easy-to-use model for analysing
multivariate time series or tabular data. When investigating time series, the first step is
to check the stationarity of the data series. According to Pesaran et al. (2001), the ARDL
model is flexible in handling time series cases that are not of the same integrated order [96].
Additionally, it also has more advantages in reliability than Johansen’s cointegration test
technique in the case of small sample sizes. In terms of estimating long-term relationships,
the ARDL model does not estimate the system of equations but estimates each equation
separately and can accept the different lags of the variables in the model.
To implement the ARDL model, after unit root testing of the data series, we took the
following steps:
1. Determine the lags of variables in the model via the Akaike Information Criterion
(AIC) and Schwarz Criterion (SC);
2. Determine the co-integration between variables and looks for long-term relationships
between variables;
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 8 of 20

3. Test the long-term relationships between variables in the model through the ARDL
regression model with defined lags;
4. Verify standard distribution and autocorrelation of residuals and data interpolation.

4. Empirical Results
4.1. Preliminary Investigation
4.1.1. Descriptive Statistics
Table 2 presents the statistical results describing the variables observed in the model.
It shows that for the indicator of macroeconomic stability, the standard deviation of the
SD_GDP was at an average of 1.28%, fluctuating from 0.03% to 8.34%. The standard
deviation of the SD_INFLATION was 1.21%, fluctuating in the range of 0.02–5.85%. The
standard deviation of SD_EXCHANGE was 201.95% on average, fluctuating between 0.00%
and 1408.68%.

Table 2. Statistics describing the study sample.

SD_GDP SD_INF SD_EX TOP SD_EMP GOV. PRI LN_FDI M2_GDP

N 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177 177
Min 0.03 0.02 0.00 4.21 0.01 8.66 8.97 14.79 26.69
1 sq qu 0.38 0.51 0.12 10.72 0.20 10.56 11.00 20.61 43.02
Median 0.75 1.06 1.22 16.79 0.36 11.85 13.11 22.04 63.09
Mean 1.24 1.38 58.11 24.81 0.49 11.73 12.63 21.99 75.69
3rd qu 1.80 1.84 6.22 26.69 0.70 12.67 13.64 23.35 93.76
Max 8.34 5.85 1408.68 112.19 2.07 15.51 16.42 26.40 207.67
Var 1.63 1.46 40,785.78 660.11 0.13 2.73 3.34 4.72 1752.92
Sd 1.28 1.21 201.95 25.69 0.37 1.65 1.83 2.17 41.87
Note: Collated by the author. SD_GDP: Standard deviation of the annual GDP growth rate; SD_INFLATION:
Standard deviation of the annual inflation rate; SD_EXCHANNGE: Standard deviation of real exchange rate; TOP:
Trade openness; SD_EMP: Standard deviation of the ratio of employed workers to the total number of people in
the labore force; GOV: Government capital reserves; PRI: Private capital reserves; LN_FDI: Natural log of Foreign
Direct Investment; M2_GDP: The ratio of M2 money supply to GDP.

For other indicators, trade openness (TOP) was measured through the ratio of import
and export difference to GDP with an average of 24.81%, fluctuating in the 4.21–112.19%
range. The standard deviation of SD_EMP was 0.49% on average, with fluctuations in the
0.01–2.07% range. Government capital reserves (GOV), at an average of 11.73% of GDP,
fluctuated between 8.66% and 15.51%. Private capital reserves (PRI) were 12.63% of GDP on
average, fluctuating from 8.97% to 16.42%. The value of foreign direct investment (LN_FDI),
at an average of 21.99, fluctuated between 14.79 and 26.4. The ratio of M2 money supply to
GDP (M2_GDP) had an average of 75.69% and fluctuated from 26.69% to 207.67%.

4.1.2. Correlation Coefficient Matrix

Table 3 reports the analysis results of the correlation coefficient between variables in the
model. The results indicate that the independent variables were poorly correlated with each
other, suggesting that there was no multicollinearity between the independent variables.
In addition, TOP had a positive correlation with the SD_GDP and SD_INFLATION but
a negative correlation with the SD_EXCHANGE. The correlation coefficients in Table 4
only reflect the correlation in the linear regression model. Because the linear correlation
coefficient was low, the linear regression model cannot be used and we need to find another
one. Through the Dickey–Fuller augmented test, it indicates that ARDL model can be
suitable. In terms of statistics, the adjusted R-squares coefficient of 0.3 or more was still
considered acceptable.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 9 of 20

Table 3. Correlation coefficient matrix.

SD_GDP SD_INF SD_EX TOP SD_EMP GOV PRI FDI M2_GDP

SD_GDP 1.000
SD_INF 0.299 1.000
SD_EX −0.190 0.117 1.000
TOP 0.282 0.074 −0.175 1.000
SD_EMP 0.317 0.035 −0.113 0.198 1.000
GOV. −0.278 −0.138 −0.060 −0.296 −0.149 1.000
PRI −0.247 −0.139 −0.092 −0.278 −0.150 0.962 1.000
FDI −0.163 −0.154 −0.040 −0.003 −0.233 −0.120 −0.166 1.000
M2_GDP −0.220 −0.315 −0.086 0.060 −0.121 0.145 0.111 0.709 1.000

Table 4. Dickey–Fuller augmented test.

Variables ADF Statistic Lags Order p–Value Conclusion

SD_GDP −4.2272 5 0.01000 Stationary
SD_INFLATION −4.4111 5 0.01000 Stationary
SD_EXCHANGE −3.9956 5 0.01094 Stationary
TOP −4.1148 5 0.01000 Stationary
SD_EMP −4.4535 5 0.01000 Stationary
GOV. −3.8549 5 0.01786 Stationary
PRI −3.4540 5 0.04869 Stationary
LN_FDI −3.8664 5 0.01729 Stationary
M2_GDP −3.9677 5 0.01231 Stationary

4.2. Unit-Root Test and Co-Integration Test

4.2.1. Unit-Root Test
Table 4 shows that all variables through the Dickey–Fuller augmented test had p-values
under 5% significance. Therefore, we have grounds to conclude that the data series was all
stationary. That is, the data are eligible to build an ARDL model between dependent variables
and independent variables.

4.2.2. Co-Integration Test

Table 5—Panel A shows that in the Trace and Maximum eigenvalue tests, only in
the case of 1 co-integration vector that the critical values at both 5% and 1% were less
than the corresponding statistical value. This result means that there exists a cointegration
relationship between variables. Thus, we have a basis for considering the long-term ARDL
model. For Panel B, in the Trace and Maximum eigenvalue tests, only in the case of 0 co-
integration vectors, the critical values at both 5% and 1% were smaller than the respective
statistical value. This result means that there exists a unique co-integration relationship
between the variables and there is a basis for considering the long-run ARDL model.
Finally, in Panel C, the Trace and Maximum eigenvalue tests show that the critical values
at both 5% and 1% were less than the corresponding statistical value only in the case of
0 co-integration vectors. This result means that there exists a co-integration relationship
among the variables. Therefore, there is a basis for considering the long-term ARDL model.

4.2.3. ARDL Model Selection

The results in Table 6—Panel A describe the evaluation index of the Akaike information
criterion AIC estimation model with the dependent variable SD_GDP. The results show
that in ARDL models with different order coefficients, the ARDL model (1,2,1,1,1,0,0)
had the lowest Akaike information criterion of 500.3201. Therefore, this model is best
suited for data interpolation. On the other hand, Panel B shows that in ARDL models
with different order coefficients, the ARDL model (1,0,0,2,2,0,0) had the lowest Akaike
information criterion of 499.06930. Therefore, this model is best suited for data interpolation.
Finally, the results in Table 6—Panel C show that the ARDL model (1,2,0,1,1,1,1) had the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 10 of 20

lowest Akaike information criterion of 2239,865. Therefore, this model is best suited for
data interpolation.

Table 5. Trace and Maximum eigenvalue tests.

Test Null Hypothesis Statistic 5% Critical Value 1% Critical Value

Panel A: SD_GDP
0 co-integration vector 187.69 124.25 136.06
1 co-integration vector 124.62 90.39 104.20
2 co-integration vector 64.58 70.60 78.87
Trace 3 co-integration vector 42.88 48.28 55.43
4 co-integration vector 25.90 31.52 37.22
5 co-integration vector 13.12 17.95 23.52
6 co-integration vector 4.60 8.18 11.65
0 co-integration vector 63.07 44.91 51.30
1 co-integration vector 60.04 39.43 44.59
2 co-integration vector 21.70 33.32 38.78
Maximum eigenvalue 3 co-integration vector 16.98 27.14 32.14
4 co-integration vector 12.79 21.07 25.75
5 co-integration vector 8.51 14.90 19.19
6 co-integration vector 4.60 8.18 11.65
Panel B: SD_INFLATION
Trace 0 co-integration vector 164.89 124.25 136.06
1 co-integration vector 101.05 90.39 104.20
2 co-integration vector 64.64 70.60 78.87
3 co-integration vector 43.11 48.28 55.43
4 co-integration vector 26.16 31.52 37.22
5 co-integration vector 12.93 17.95 23.52
6 co-integration vector 4.54 8.18 11.65
Maximum eigenvalue 0 co-integration vector 63.84 44.91 51.30
1 co-integration vector 36.42 39.43 44.59
2 co-integration vector 21.53 33.32 38.78
3 co-integration vector 16.95 27.14 32.14
4 co-integration vector 13.23 21.07 25.75
5 co-integration vector 8.39 14.90 19.19
6 co-integration vector 4.54 8.18 11.65
Panel C: SD_EXCHANGE
Trace 0 co-integration vector 163.68 124.25 136.06
1 co-integration vector 100.57 90.39 104.20
2 co-integration vector 63.17 70.60 78.87
3 co-integration vector 41.82 48.28 55.43
4 co-integration vector 25.68 31.52 37.22
5 co-integration vector 13.07 17.95 23.52
6 co-integration vector 4.76 8.18 11.65
Maximum eigenvalue 0 co-integration vector 63.11 44.91 51.3
1 co-integration vector 37.4 39.43 44.59
2 co-integration vector 21.35 33.32 38.78
3 co-integration vector 16.14 27.14 32.14
4 co-integration vector 12.61 21.07 25.75
5 co-integration vector 8.31 14.9 19.19
6 co-integration vector 4.76 8.18 11.65
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 11 of 20

Table 6. Model selection according to the AIC index.

Panel A: SD_GDP
ID SD_GDP TOP SD_EMP GOV. PRI LN_FDI M2_GDP AIC
1 1 2 1 1 1 0 0 500.3201
2 1 2 1 1 1 0 1 500.4397
3 1 2 1 0 1 0 0 500.8088
4 1 2 0 1 1 0 0 500.8367
5 1 2 1 1 2 0 0 501.4777
6 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 501.9884
7 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 502.0566
8 1 2 1 2 1 1 1 502.8354
9 1 2 1 1 2 1 1 503.1007
10 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 505.0645
Panel B: SD_INFLATION
ID SD_INFLATION TOP SD_EMP GOV PRI LN_FDI M2_GDP AIC
1 1 0 0 2 2 0 0 499.06930
2 1 0 0 2 2 0 1 500.53410
3 1 0 0 2 2 1 1 502.51820
4 1 0 0 2 1 1 1 502.92650
5 1 0 0 1 1 1 1 503.15890
6 1 0 1 1 1 1 1 504.58890
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 506.43510
Panel C: SD_EXCHANGE
ID SD_EXCHANGE TOP SD_EMP GOV PRI LN_FDI M2_GDP AIC
1 1 2 0 1 1 1 1 2239.865
2 1 2 0 1 1 1 2 2240.203
3 1 2 0 1 1 2 1 2241.000
4 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 2241.800
5 1 2 0 1 2 1 1 2241.841
6 1 2 0 2 1 1 1 2241.865
7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 2251.506

4.3. ARDL Model Estimation Results

4.3.1. ARDL Model Estimation Results
Table 7—Panel A presents the results of the ARDL model regression (1,2,1,1,1,0,0), the
specific estimation coefficient was as follows:

Table 7. ARDL model estimation results.

Variables Coefficient Std. Error t–Test p–Value

Panel A: SD_GDP (1,2,1,1,1,0,0)
(Intercept) 2.3198185 1.0249514 2.263 0.0249
SD_GDPt−1 0.3621607 0.0717350 5.049 0.0000 ***
TOPt 0.0155832 0.0076935 2.025 0.0445 **
TOPt−1 −0.0089743 0.0096344 −0.931 0.3530
TOPt−2 0.0006306 0.0063022 0.100 0.9204
SD_EMPt 0.5557864 0.2536052 2.192 0.0298 **
SD_EMPt−1 −0.4024415 0.2627199 −1.532 0.1275
GOVt 0.5778227 0.4309124 1.341 0.1818
GOVt−1 −0.6442804 0.4229689 −1.523 0.1296
PRIt −0.7610779 0.3953300 −1.925 0.0560 *
PRIt−1 0.8217079 0.3921763 2.095 0.0377 **
LN_FDIt −0.0789160 0.0497773 −1.585 0.1148
M2_GDPt −0.0007993 0.0022466 −0.356 0.7225
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 12 of 20

Table 7. Cont.

Variables Coefficient Std. Error t–Test p–Value

Panel B: SD_INFLATION (1,0,0,2,2,0,0)
(Intercept) 1.266137 0.987271 1.282 0.2015
SD_INFLATIONt−1 0.561764 0.064413 8.721 0.0000 ***
TOPt 0.001585 0.003099 0.512 0.6097
SD_EMPt −0.159361 0.221025 −0.721 0.4719
GOVt 0.923947 0.422243 2.188 0.0301 **
GOVt−1 −1.426024 0.587712 −2.426 0.0163 **
GOVt−2 0.621166 0.414332 1.499 0.1358
PRIt −0.937760 0.396946 −2.362 0.0193 **
PRIt−1 1.395204 0.556871 2.505 0.0132 **
PRIt−2 −0.579654 0.393377 −1.474 0.1425
LN_FDIt −0.006544 0.048093 −0.136 0.8919
M2_GDPt −0.004501 0.002269 −1.984 0.0490 **
Panel C: SD_EXCHANG (1,2,0,1,1,1,1)
(Intercept) −104.50532 141.97706 −0.736 0.46276000
SD_EXCHANGEt−1 0.64940 0.05734 11.326 0.00000000 ***
TOPt −2.78557 1.10275 −2.526 0.01250000 **
TOPt−1 2.50269 1.39460 1.795 0.07460000 *
TOPt−2 −0.21891 0.90698 −0.241 0.80959000
SD_EMPt 19.06966 31.77715 0.600 0.54928000
GOVt −160.58185 63.64756 −2.523 0.01261000 **
GOVt−1 173.10485 62.95149 2.750 0.00665000 ***
PRIt 107.35100 59.56061 1.802 0.07336000 *
PRIt−1 −129.71707 59.13194 −2.194 0.02969000 **
LN_FDIt 37.08143 12.16516 3.048 0.00269000 ***
LN_FDIt−1 −23.86773 12.26932 −1.945 0.05348000 *
M2_GDPt −3.48445 0.68706 −5.072 0.00000108 ***
M2_GDPt−1 3.17504 0.70156 4.526 0.00001160 ***
Residual standard error: 0.9696 on 162 degrees of freedom. Multiple R-squared: 0.3523, Adjusted R-squared: 0.3044.
F-statistic: 7.344 on 12 and 162 DF, p-Value: 1.113 × 10−10 . *, **, *** significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels,
respectively. Residual standard error: 0.9687 on 163 degrees of freedom. Multiple R-squared: 0.4018, Adjusted
R-squared: 0.3615. F-statistic: 9.955 on 11 and 163 DF, p-Value: 1.025 × 10−13 . *, **, *** significance at the 10%, 5%,
and 1% levels, respectively. Residual standard error: 144.4 on 152 degrees of freedom. Multiple R-squared: 0.5559,
Adjusted R-squared: 0.5179. F-statistic: 14.64 on 13 and 152 DF, p-Value: <2.2 × 10−16 . *, **, *** significance at the 10%,
5%, and 1% levels, respectively.

The estimated results indicate that trade openness (TOP) positively impacts macroe-
conomic stability measured by the GDP stability in Asian countries at a 5% significance
level with a regression coefficient of 0.015868. This result demonstrates that when trade
openness increases, the stability of economic growth decreases, which reduces the stability
of economic growth. This result can be explained by the fact that as exports increase, the
gross national product consequently increases to a greater extent. This result is consistent
with the result of Mireku et al., 2017, which concluded that economic growth stability is neg-
atively influenced by changes in trade openness in both the long and short term [38]. They
explained that this result could be directly attributed to the rise in foreign direct investment
and multinational firms operating in the country. Secondly, the negative openness–stability
relationship may be linked to many benefits of bilateral and multilateral trade that the
economy gained after being opened. Thirdly, the change of trade policies from import-led
substitution policies to export-led policies can also be the reason. The institution of import
controls and import substitution agenda of the government negatively influence the bal-
ance of payment position of the country. Moreover, the output growth stability might be
linked to the economy’s lack of comparative advantage in producing and processing of
several essential commodities. Therefore, changes in the price of these goods on the global
market unavoidably result in higher or lower GDP growth [38]. In addition, DiGiovanni
and Levchenko (2009) also found that the relationship between trade openness and overall
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 13 of 20

stability was negative and economically significant [97]. Bartak et al. (2021) proved a
positive relationship between openness and economic growth but a negative relationship
between openness and growth stability [40].
Table 7—Panel B presents the results of the ARDL model regression (1,0,0,2,2,0,0), the
specific estimated coefficients were as follows:
The estimated results show that trade openness (TOP) had no impact on macroeco-
nomic stability through the indicator measuring inflation stability in Asian countries. This
shows that when trade openness increases, it does not increase or decrease the stability
of inflation. This result is consistent with the results of the study of Nguyen, Phan, and
Tran (2022), which concluded that trade openness negatively influences inflation, but the
effect is negligible [55]. In addition, Munir, Hasan, and Muhammad (2015) proved that
there was no significant relationship between inflation and trade openness in their selected
Asian countries [53]. They explained that trade openness is insignificant when some of
the channels through which inflation is impacted are taken into account in the model. The
study of Binici et al. (2012) also had the same result, which showed that trade openness
does not affect inflation in OECD countries [89]. Furthermore, Watson (2016) demonstrated
that trade openness has two opposite effects on the inflation stability of countries [98]. On
the one hand, trade integration and greater competition increase the strategic complemen-
tarity of firms’ pricing decisions and the degree of real price rigidity, making inflation less
sensitive to changes in the economic conditions in the country. On the other hand, stronger
competitive pressure increased the opportunity cost of not adjusting prices. Thus, it led
to more frequent price adjustments, reducing the rigidity of nominal prices and making
inflation more sensitive to other shocks. The overall impact of these changes can cancel
each other out.
Table 7—Panel C presents the results of the ARDL model regression (1,2,1,1,1,0,0). The
specific estimated coefficients were as follows:
The results illustrate that trade openness (TOP) positively impacts macroeconomic
stability through the measurement of exchange rate stability in Asian countries at a 5%
level of significance with a regression coefficient of −2.78557. This result demonstrates that
as trade openness increases, it increases exchange rate stability and, thus, the economic
growth stability. To further explain this result, considering the Government’s tendency
to increase the stability of the exchange rate in countries where imports and exports
increase. This result was consistent with the results of the study of Calderón and Kubota
(2018), Caporale et al. (2014), and Hau (2002), which also proved the positive relationship
between trade openness and real exchange rate stability [56,57,99]. In addition, Mpofu
(2021) found that in the floating exchange rate regime, the higher the trade openness, the
more real exchange rate stability is improved [58]. Hau (2002) explained that the more open
economies generally have a more responsive aggregate price level [57]. The effect of the
domestic money supply shock on the real household balances is, thus, reduced, increasing
real exchange rate stability.

4.3.2. Long- and Short-Term Estimates for the ARDL Model

Table 8—Panel A contains the long-term and short-term estimation results for the
ARDL model. In particular, it shows that TOPt−1 impacts SD_GDP in the long run at
the 5% significance level and TOPt affects SD_GDP in the short run at a 5% significance
level. As for Panel B, the long-term and short-term estimation results for the ARDL model
show that only the SD_INFLATIONt−1 affects SD_ INFLATION in the long term at 1%
significance level. Meanwhile, GOVt and PRIt impact SD_INFLATION in the short term at
5% significance level. Finally, in panel C, the long- and short-term estimation results for the
ARDL model indicate that SD_INFLATIONt−1 impact the long-term SD_EXCHANGE at a
1% significance level. In addition, the variables of TOPt ; GOVt ; PRIt ; LN_FDIt ; M2_GDPt−1
impact short-term SD_EXCHANGE in a statistically significant way.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 14 of 20

Table 8. Long-term and short-term estimated results for the ARDL model.

Models Variables Coefficient Std. Error t–Test p–Value

Panel A: SD_GDP
(Intercept) 2.3198185 1.0249514 2.263 0.0249
SD_GDPt−1 −0.6378393 0.0717350 −8.892 0.0000 ***
TOPt−1 0.0072395 0.0033482 2.162 0.0321 **
SD_EMPt−1 0.1533450 0.2627332 0.584 0.5603
Long–term model
GOVt−1 −0.0664578 0.1729009 −0.384 0.7012
PRIt−1 0.0606300 0.1511257 0.401 0.6888
LN_FDIt −0.0789160 0.0497773 −1.585 0.1148
M2_GDPt −0.0007993 0.0022466 −0.356 0.7225
∆TOPt 0.0155832 0.0076935 2.025 0.0445 **
∆TOPt−1 −0.0006306 0.0063022 −0.100 0.9204
Short–term model ∆SD_EMPt 0.5557864 0.2536052 2.192 0.0298 **
∆GOVt 0.5778227 0.4309124 1.341 0.1818
∆PRIt −0.7610779 0.3953300 −1.925 0.0560 *
Panel B: SD_INFLATION
Long–term model (Intercept) 1.266137 0.987271 1.282 0.2015
SD_INFLATIONt−1 −0.438236 0.064413 −6.803 0.0000
TOPt 0.001585 0.003099 0.512 0.6097
SD_EMPt −0.159361 0.221025 −0.721 0.4719
GOVt−1 0.119088 0.175738 0.678 0.4990
PRIt−1 −0.12221 0.154237 −0.792 0.4293
LN_FDIt −0.006544 0.048093 −0.136 0.8919
M2_GDPt −0.004501 0.002269 −1.984 0.0490
Short–term model ∆GOVt 0.923947 0.422243 2.188 0.0301
∆GOVt−1 −0.621166 0.414332 −1.499 0.1358
∆PRIt −0.93776 0.396946 −2.362 0.0193
∆L(PRIt−1 ) 0.579654 0.393377 1.474 0.1425
Panel C: SD_EXCHANGE
Long–term model (Intercept) −104.50532 141.97706 −0.736 0.46276000
SD_EXCHANGEt−1 −0.35060 0.05734 −6.115 0.00000001 ***
TOPt−1 −0.50179 0.47084 −1.066 0.28814000
SD_EMPt 19.06966 31.77715 0.600 0.54928000
GOVt−1 12.52300 24.83116 0.504 0.61472000
PRIt−1 −22.36607 21.84607 −1.024 0.30746000
LN_FDIt−1 13.21370 7.56977 1.746 0.08279000 *
M2_GDPt−1 −0.30941 0.34375 −0.900 0.36942000
Short–term model ∆TOPt −2.78557 1.10275 −2.526 0.01250000 **
∆TOPt−1 0.21891 0.90698 0.241 0.80959000
∆GOVt −160.58185 63.64756 −2.523 0.01261000 **
∆PRIt 107.35100 59.56061 1.802 0.07336000 *
∆LN_FDIt 37.08143 12.16516 3.048 0.00269000 ***
∆M2_GDPt−1 −3.48445 0.68706 −5.072 0.00000108 ***
Note: *, **, *** significance at the 10%, 5%, and 1% levels, respectively.

4.3.3. Test for the Existence of Cointegration between Variables in the Model
Table 9 describes the results of the bound test for the existence of cointegration among
the variables in the models. The results show that both the F-test and t-test give p-values of
less than 5% significance. Therefore, we have a basis to conclude that the co-integration
relationship exists between the variables in the models.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 15 of 20

Table 9. Bound Test Results.

Model with SD_GDP Model with SD_INFLATION Model with SD_EXCHANGE

Types of Test Dependent Variable Dependent Variable Dependent Variable
Statistic p–Value Statistic p–Value Statistic p–Value
F–test 9.9952 0.000001 6.0030 0.0003272 4.8997 0.0012750
t–test −8.8916 0.000001 −6.8035 0.0001314 −6.1148 0.0006687

4.3.4. Data Interpolation Results

The figures represent the data interpolation results of the dependent variable SD_GDP
(Figure 1), SD_INFLATION (Figure 2) and SD_EXCHANGE (Figure 3). The red line depicts
the interpolation result, while the blue line describes the original value of the dependent
Sustainability
Sustainability 2023,
Sustainability 2023, 15,
2023, 15, x
15, x FOR
x FOR PEER
FOR PEER REVIEW
PEER REVIEW
REVIEW 16
16 of
16 of 20
of 20
20
variable. The figures show that the interpolation lines closely match the curve of the original
value (blue lines), which implies that the regression results in the model (1) were quite good.

Figure
Figure 1. The
Figure1. The data
data interpolation
interpolation result
resultwith
withSD_GDP
SD_GDPdependent
dependentvariable.
variable.

Figure
Figure 2. The
2. The
Figure2. data
The data interpolation
data interpolation result
interpolation result with
resultwith SD_INFLATION
withSD_INFLATION dependent
SD_INFLATIONdependent variable.
dependentvariable.
variable.

Figure 3.
Figure3. The
3. The data
The data interpolation
data interpolation result
interpolation result with
resultwith SD_EXCHANGE
withSD_EXCHANGE dependent
SD_EXCHANGEdependent variable.
dependentvariable.
variable.
Figure

5.
5. Conclusions
Conclusions
The
The ARDL
ARDL model
model was
was used
used in
in this
this study
study to
to analyse
analyse the
the impact
impact of
of trade
trade openness
openness on
on
macroeconomic stability
macroeconomic stability in
in 20
20 Asian
Asian countries
countries from
from 2011
2011 to
to 2019
2019 with
with employment
employment rate,
rate,
government capital reserves, private capital reserves, foreign direct investment, and M2
monetary aggregate as the control variables. The results showed that trade openness neg-
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 16 of 20

5. Conclusions
The ARDL model was used in this study to analyse the impact of trade openness
on macroeconomic stability in 20 Asian countries from 2011 to 2019 with employment
rate, government capital reserves, private capital reserves, foreign direct investment, and
M2 monetary aggregate as the control variables. The results showed that trade openness
negatively influences macroeconomic stability which is measured through GDP fluctuations
in Asian countries both in the short and long term. However, the correlation between trade
openness and macroeconomic stability indicated by inflation stability was insignificant. In
addition, when macroeconomic stability was measured through exchange rate fluctuations,
greater trade openness increased the stability of macroeconomic growth in the short run.
There were two implications following these results.
First, the more open an economy is, the more the GDP growth rate fluctuates, which
reduces macroeconomic stability in Asian countries. Trade openness has several advantages,
such as increasing import and export opportunities and creating employment opportunities,
which, in turn, significantly enhance economic growth. However, it is also notable that
the degree of economic growth fluctuates at a larger rate than that of trade openness. This
result proposed that Asian countries should take advantage of increased trade openness,
exports, and output to meet the demand for exported goods and services and develop the
economy. However, at the same time, they should focus on technological innovation to
increase the long-term productivity and output without being dependent on exports. This
strategy should allow them to achieve sustainable economic development in the long term.
Second, trade openness increased exchange rate stability, resulting in greater macroe-
conomic stability in Asian countries. In the context of globalisation, trade liberalisation
can easily increase trade openness. Consequently, countries need to take advantage of the
short-term exchange rate stability brought about by the increased trade openness. If they
can make use of the short-term stability to build up a stable monetary policy and a solid,
trustworthy environment for their economy, their long-term economic sustainability can
be achieved. In conclusion, we believe our study about the effect of trade openness on
macroeconomic stability contributes to promoting economic sustainability and increasing
international integration. In addition, we made certain contributions to the measurement
methods of economic stability and provided empirical evidence on the correlation be-
tween trade openness and economic stability in Asian countries. The relationship between
trade openness and economic growth stability can be positive or negative depending on
countries, stages of development, and time periods. Previous studies mainly focused on
the linear correlation between trade openness and economic growth stability, inflation,
and exchange rate. However, previous articles did not mention the short- and long-term
mechanisms of this relationship and the stability factors in business cycles. To address
the existing research gap, we adopted a more comprehensive approach. First, we built
an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model within a unified analytical framework
to examine the relationship between trade openness and economic stability indicated by
growth, inflation, and exchange rate fluctuations. Second, an error correction model was
also established to clarify these variables’ short- and long-term effects.
However, our study still had certain limitations. In particular, we did not examine the
difference in the relationship between different groups of countries. The impact of trade
openness on macroeconomic stability can be affected by cross-country, data, or other estimated
characteristics. Additionally, the impact of some characteristics on imports and exports between
specific countries can significantly change the nature of the trade openness–macroeconomic
stability relationship. Future follow-up research can, thus, continue to expand our study. First,
subsequent research may examine differences in the relationship between countries grouped
by different characteristics. Second, it would be interesting to assess the relative impact of
trade openness on the macroeconomic stability of different countries through nation-specific
characteristics. For instance, each country’s import–export industry’s unique circumstances
and characteristics would warrant closer examination. Another example would be the inflation
difference between different pairs of trading countries. We believe that by narrowing down the
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 17 of 20

research to specific countries or groups of trading countries, a more detailed evaluation of each
country’s macroeconomic stability can be expanded from the basis of our study.

Author Contributions: Conceptualisation, V.M.H.N.; methodology, A.T.H.P.; software, L.H.N.; vali-

dation, V.M.H.N., A.T.H.P. and T.H.H.; formal analysis, V.M.H.N. and A.T.H.P.; investigation, L.H.N.;
resources, L.H.N.; data curation, L.H.N.; writing—original draft preparation, V.M.H.N., A.T.H.P. and
T.H.H.; writing—review and editing, V.M.H.N., A.T.H.P., L.H.N. and T.H.H.; visualisation, A.T.H.P.;
supervision, V.M.H.N.; project administration, V.M.H.N.; funding acquisition, V.M.H.N. and A.T.H.P.
All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research was funded by Van Lang University, Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The data presented in this study are available on request from the
corresponding author.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Bleaney, M.F. Macroeconomic stability, investment and growth in developing countries. J. Dev. Econ. 1996, 48, 461–477. [CrossRef]
2. Fischer, S. Macroeconomic stability and growth. Cuad. De Econ. 1992, 29, 171–186.
3. Montiel, P.; Servén, L. Macroeconomic stability in developing countries: How much is enough? World Bank Res. Obs. 2006, 21,
151–178. [CrossRef]
4. Little, I.M.D. (Ed.) Boom, Crisis, and Adjustment: The Macroeconomic Experience of Developing Countries; World Bank Publications:
Washington, DC, USA, 1993.
5. Agénor, P.R.; Pereira da Silva, L.A. Macroeconomic stability, financial stability, and monetary policy rules. Int. Financ. 2012, 15,
205–224. [CrossRef]
6. Basyariah, N.; Kusuma, H.; Qizam, I. Determinants of sukuk market development: Macroeconomic stability and institutional
approach. J. Asian Financ. Econ. Bus. 2021, 8, 201–211.
7. Brychko, M.; Bilan, Y.; Lyeonov, S.; Mentel, G. Trust crisis in the financial sector and macroeconomic stability: A structural
equation modelling approach. Econ. Res. Ekon. Istraživanja 2021, 34, 828–855. [CrossRef]
8. Kong, Q.; Peng, D.; Ni, Y.; Jiang, X.; Wang, Z. Trade openness and economic growth quality of China: Empirical analysis using
ARDL model. Financ. Res. Lett. 2021, 38, 101488. [CrossRef]
9. Hye, Q.M.A.; Lau, W.Y. Trade openness and economic growth: Empirical evidence from India. J. Bus. Econ. Manag. 2015, 16,
188–205. [CrossRef]
10. Udeagha, M.C.; Ngepah, N. Trade liberalization and the geography of industries in South Africa: Fresh evidence from a new
measure. Int. J. Urban Sci. 2020, 24, 354–396. [CrossRef]
11. Krueger, A.O.; Berg, M.A. Trade, Growth, and Poverty: A Selective Survey; International Monetary Fund: Washington, DC, USA, 2003.
Available online: https://www.imf.org/en/Publications/WP/Issues/2016/12/30/Trade-Growth-and-Poverty-A-Selective-
Survey-16281 (accessed on 2 May 2023).
12. Krueger, A.O. Import substitution versus export promotion. Financ. Dev. 1985, 22, 20.
13. Krueger, A.O. The experience and lessons of Asia’s super exporters. In Export-Oriented Development Strategies; Routledge: London,
UK, 2019; pp. 187–212.
14. Gnangnon, S.K.; Brun, J.F. Trade openness, tax reform and tax revenue in developing countries. World Econ. 2019, 42, 3515–3536.
[CrossRef]
15. Ngepah, N.N. International trade and agricultural production: Evidence from the Southern African Development Community
sub-region. Dev. South. Afr. 2014, 31, 494–514. [CrossRef]
16. Udeagha, M.C.; Ngepah, N. The asymmetric effect of trade openness on economic growth in South Africa: A nonlinear ARDL
approach. Econ. Chang. Restruct. 2021, 54, 491–540. [CrossRef]
17. Banday, U.J.; Murugan, S.; Maryam, J. Foreign direct investment, trade openness and economic growth in BRICS countries:
Evidences from panel data. Transnatl. Corp. Rev. 2021, 13, 211–221. [CrossRef]
18. Tahir, M.; Khan, I. Trade openness and economic growth in the Asian region. J. Chin. Econ. Foreign Trade Stud. 2014, 7, 136–152.
[CrossRef]
19. Acheampong, A.O.; Boateng, E.; Amponsah, M.; Dzator, J. Revisiting the economic growth–energy consumption nexus: Does
globalization matter? Energy Econ. 2021, 102, 105472. [CrossRef]
20. Nourzad, F.; Powell, J.J. Openness, growth, and development: Evidence from a panel of developing countries. Sci. J. Adm. Dev.
2003, 1, 72–94.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 18 of 20

21. Tahir, M.; Mazhar, T.; Afridi, M.A. Trade openness and sectoral growth in developing countries: Some new insights. J. Chin. Econ.
Foreign Trade Stud. 2019, 12, 90–103. [CrossRef]
22. Helpman, E.; Krugman, P. Market Structure and Foreign Trade: Increasing Returns, Imperfect Competition, and the International Economy;
MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 1987.
23. Rodrik, D. Imperfect competition, scale economies, and trade policy in developing countries. In Trade Policy Issues and Empirical
Analysis; University of Chicago Press: Chicago, IL, USA, 1988; pp. 109–144.
24. Smith, A. An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations; Strahan, W., Cadell, T., Eds.; University of Chicago Press:
London, UK, 1776; Volume 1.
25. Thirlwall, A.P. Trade, Trade Liberalisation and Economic Growth: Theory and Evidence; African Development Bank: Abidjan, Côte d’Ivoire,
2000; Volume 63.
26. Rodrik, D.; Subramanian, A.; Trebbi, F. Institutions rule: The primacy of institutions over geography and integration in economic
development. J. Econ. Growth 2004, 9, 131–165. [CrossRef]
27. Grossman, G.M.; Helpman, E. Endogenous innovation in the theory of growth. J. Econ. Perspect. 1994, 8, 23–44. [CrossRef]
28. Romer, P.M. Increasing returns and long-run growth. J. Political Econ. 1986, 94, 1002–1037. [CrossRef]
29. Romer, P.M. The problem of development: A conference of the institute for the study of free enterprise systems. J. Political Econ.
1990, 98, S1–S11.
30. Lucas, R.E., Jr. On the mechanics of economic development. J. Monet. Econ. 1988, 22, 3–42. [CrossRef]
31. Bergh, A. The Compensation Hypothesis Revisited and Reversed. Scand. Political Stud. 2021, 44, 140–147. [CrossRef]
32. Down, I. Trade openness, country size and economic volatility: The compensation hypothesis revisited. Bus. Politics 2007, 9, 1–20.
[CrossRef]
33. Ehrlich, S.D.; Hearn, E. Does compensating the losers increase support for trade? An experimental test of the embedded liberalism
thesis. Foreign Policy Anal. 2014, 10, 149–164. [CrossRef]
34. Ma, Y.; Yao, C. Openness and government size: Revisiting the relationship using a large cross-country panel. Int. Rev. Econ.
Financ. 2022, 79, 448–465. [CrossRef]
35. Dahmani, M.; Mabrouki, M.; Ben Youssef, A. ICT, trade openness and economic growth in Tunisia: What is going wrong? Econ.
Chang. Restruct. 2022, 55, 2317–2336. [CrossRef]
36. Giovanni, J.D.; Levchenko, A.A. Trade openness and volatility. Rev. Econ. Stat. 2009, 91, 558–585. [CrossRef]
37. Ho, T.T.; Tran, X.H.; Nguyen, Q.K. Tax revenue-economic growth relationship and the role of trade openness in developing
countries. Cogent Bus. Manag. 2023, 10, 2213959. [CrossRef]
38. Mireku, K.; Animah Agyei, E.; Domeher, D. Trade openness and economic growth volatility: An empirical investigation. Cogent
Econ. Financ. 2017, 5, 1385438. [CrossRef]
39. Balavac, M.; Pugh, G. The link between trade openness, export diversification, institutions and output volatility in transition
countries. Econ. Syst. 2016, 40, 273–287. [CrossRef]
40. Bartak, J.; Jabłoński, Ł.; Jastrz˛ebska, A. Examining GDP growth and its volatility: An episodic approach. Entropy 2021, 23, 890.
[CrossRef]
41. Kim, D.H.; Lin, S.C.; Suen, Y.B. Trade, growth and growth volatility: New panel evidence. Int. Rev. Econ. Financ. 2016, 45, 384–399.
[CrossRef]
42. Majumder, M.K.; Raghavan, M.; Vespignani, J. Oil curse, economic growth and trade openness. Energy Econ. 2020, 91, 104896.
[CrossRef]
43. Raghutla, C. The effect of trade openness on economic growth: Some empirical evidence from emerging market economies.
J. Public Aff. 2020, 20, e2081. [CrossRef]
44. Aslam, B.; Hu, J.; Ali, S.; AlGarni, T.S.; Abdullah, M.A. Malaysia’s economic growth, consumption of oil, industry and CO2
emissions: Evidence from the ARDL model. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2022, 19, 3189–3200. [CrossRef]
45. Baharom, A.H.; Habibullah, M.S.; Royfaizal, R.C. The relationship between trade openness, foreign direct investment and growth:
Case of Malaysia. MPRA Paper, No. 11928. 2008. Available online: https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/11928/1/MPRA_paper_
11928.pdf (accessed on 2 May 2023).
46. Nguyen, M.-L.T.; Bui, T.N. Trade openness and economic growth: A study on Asean-6. Economies 2021, 9, 113. [CrossRef]
47. Adeel-Farooq, R.M.; Abu Bakar, N.A.; Raji, J.O. Trade openness, financial liberalization and economic growth: The case of
Pakistan and India. South Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2017, 6, 229–246. [CrossRef]
48. Kumari, R.; Shabbir, M.S.; Saleem, S.; Yahya Khan, G.; Abbasi, B.A.; Lopez, L.B. An empirical analysis among foreign direct
investment, trade openness and economic growth: Evidence from the Indian economy. South Asian J. Bus. Stud. 2023, 12, 127–149.
[CrossRef]
49. Rahman, M.M.; Saidi, K.; Mbarek, M.B. Economic growth in South Asia: The role of CO2 emissions, population density and trade
openness. Heliyon 2020, 6, e03903. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
50. Cevik, E.I.; Atukeren, E.; Korkmaz, T. Trade openness and economic growth in Turkey: A rolling frequency domain analysis.
Economies 2019, 7, 41. [CrossRef]
51. Ghazouani, T.; Boukhatem, J.; Sam, C.Y. Causal interactions between trade openness, renewable electricity consumption, and
economic growth in Asia-Pacific countries: Fresh evidence from a bootstrap ARDL approach. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2020,
133, 110094. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 19 of 20

52. Malefane, M.R.; Odhiambo, N.M. Trade openness and economic growth: Empirical evidence from Lesotho. Glob. Bus. Rev. 2021,
22, 1103–1119. [CrossRef]
53. Munir, S.; Hasan, H.; Muhammad, M. The effect of trade openness on inflation: Panel data estimates from selected Asian
economies (1976–2010). Southeast Asian J. Econ. 2015, 3, 23–42.
54. Amna Intisar, R.; Yaseen, M.R.; Kousar, R.; Usman, M.; Makhdum, M.S.A. Impact of trade openness and human capital on
economic growth: A comparative investigation of Asian countries. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2930. [CrossRef]
55. Nguyen, T.T.; Phan, T.D.; Tran, N.A. Impact of fiscal and monetary policy on inflation in Vietnam. Investig. Manag. Financ. Innov.
2022, 19, 201–209. [CrossRef]
56. Calderón, C.; Kubota, M. Does higher openness cause more real exchange rate volatility? J. Int. Econ. 2018, 110, 176–204.
[CrossRef]
57. Hau, H. Real exchange rate volatility and economic openness: Theory and evidence. J. Money Credit Bank. 2002, 34, 611–630.
[CrossRef]
58. Mpofu, T.R. The determinants of real exchange rate volatility in South Africa. World Econ. 2021, 44, 1380–1401. [CrossRef]
59. Adhikary, B.K. FDI, trade openness, capital formation, and economic growth in Bangladesh: A linkage analysis. Int. J. Bus. Manag.
2011, 6, 16. [CrossRef]
60. Eris., M.N.; Ulas.an, B. Trade openness and economic growth: Bayesian model averaging estimate of cross-country growth
regressions. Econ. Model. 2013, 33, 867–883. [CrossRef]
61. Goh, S.K.; Sam, C.Y.; McNown, R. Re-examining foreign direct investment, exports, and economic growth in Asian economies
using a bootstrap ARDL test for cointegration. J. Asian Econ. 2017, 51, 12–22. [CrossRef]
62. Jalil, A.; Rauf, A. Revisiting the link between trade openness and economic growth using panel methods. J. Int. Trade Econ. Dev.
2021, 30, 1168–1187. [CrossRef]
63. Lawal, A.I.; Nwanji, T.I.; Asaleye, A.; Ahmed, V. Economic growth, financial development and trade openness in Nigeria: An
application of the ARDL bound testing approach. Cogent Econ. Financ. 2016, 4, 1258810. [CrossRef]
64. Mohamed Sghaier, I. Trade openness, financial development and economic growth in North African countries. Int. J. Financ. Econ.
2021, 28, 1729–1740. [CrossRef]
65. Vlastou, I. Forcing Africa to open up to trade: Is it worth it? J. Dev. Areas 2010, 44, 25–39. [CrossRef]
66. Rathnayaka Mudiyanselage, M.M.; Epuran, G.; Tescas, iu, B. Causal Links between Trade Openness and Foreign Direct Investment
in Romania. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2021, 14, 90. [CrossRef]
67. Rigobon, R.; Rodrik, D. Rule of law, democracy, openness, and income: Estimating the interrelationships1. Econ. Transit. 2005, 13,
533–564. [CrossRef]
68. Zahonogo, P. Trade and economic growth in developing countries: Evidence from sub-Saharan Africa. J. Afr. Trade 2016, 3, 41–56.
[CrossRef]
69. Musila, J.W.; Yiheyis, Z. The impact of trade openness on growth: The case of Kenya. J. Policy Model. 2015, 37, 342–354. [CrossRef]
70. Ulaşan, B. Trade openness and economic growth: Panel evidence. Appl. Econ. Lett. 2015, 22, 163–167. [CrossRef]
71. Baldwin, R.E.; Forslid, R. Trade and growth Any unfinished business? Eur. Econ. Rev. 1998, 42, 695–703. [CrossRef]
72. Willard, L. Does Openness Promote Growth? Agenda A J. Policy Anal. Reform 2000, 7, 251–260. [CrossRef]
73. Chenaf-Nicet, D.; Rougier, E. The effect of macroeconomic instability on FDI flows: A gravity estimation of the impact of regional
integration in the case of Euro-Mediterranean agreements. Int. Econ. 2016, 145, 66–91. [CrossRef]
74. Alesina, A.; Ardagna, S. Large changes in fiscal policy: Taxes versus spending. Tax Policy Econ. 2010, 24, 35–68. [CrossRef]
75. Coenen, G.; Straub, R.; Trabandt, M. Fiscal policy and the great recession in the euro area. Am. Econ. Rev. 2012, 102, 71–76.
[CrossRef]
76. Grier, K.B.; Tullock, G. An empirical analysis of cross-national economic growth, 1951–1980. J. Monet. Econ. 1989, 24, 259–276.
[CrossRef]
77. Al-Marhubi, F. Cross-country evidence on the link between inflation volatility and growth. Appl. Econ. 1998, 30, 1317–1326.
[CrossRef]
78. Judson, R.; Orphanides, A. Inflation, volatility and growth. Int. Financ. 1999, 2, 117–138. [CrossRef]
79. Obstfeld, M.; Rogoff, K. Risk and Exchange Rates. In Economic Policy in the International Economy: Essays in Honor of Assaf Razin;
Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2003; pp. 74–120.
80. Schnabl, G. Exchange rate volatility and growth in small open economies at the EMU periphery. Econ. Syst. 2008, 32, 70–91.
[CrossRef]
81. Morina, F.; Hysa, E.; Ergün, U.; Panait, M.; Voica, M.C. The effect of exchange rate volatility on economic growth: Case of the CEE
countries. J. Risk Financ. Manag. 2020, 13, 177. [CrossRef]
82. Spilimbergo, A. Growth and trade: The North can lose. J. Econ. Growth 2000, 5, 131–146. [CrossRef]
83. Azarnert, L.V. Trade, luxury goods, and a growth-enhancing tariff. Macroecon. Dyn. 2018, 22, 1462–1474. [CrossRef]
84. Mehta, D.; Mallikarjun, M. Impact of fiscal deficit and trade openness on current account deficit in India: New evidence on twin
deficits hypothesis. EconomiA 2023, (ahead-of-print).
85. Ashra, S. Inflation and Openness: A Study of Selected Developing Economies; Working Paper No. 84; Indian Council for Research on
International Economic Relations: New Delhi, India, 2002.
Sustainability 2023, 15, 11736 20 of 20

86. Yanikkaya, H. Trade openness and economic growth: A cross-country empirical investigation. J. Dev. Econ. 2003, 72, 57–89.
[CrossRef]
87. Krueger, A.O. Liberalization, direction of bias, and economic growth. In Liberalization Attempts and Consequences; NBER:
Cambridge, MA, USA, 1978; pp. 277–300.
88. Harrison, A. Openness and growth: A time-series, cross-country analysis for developing countries. J. Dev. Econ. 1996, 48, 419–447.
[CrossRef]
89. Binici, M.; Cheung, Y.W.; Lai, K.S. Trade openness, market competition, and inflation: Some sectoral evidence from OECD
countries. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2012, 17, 321–336. [CrossRef]
90. Zhang, D.; Du, W.; Zhuge, L.; Tong, Z.; Freeman, R.B. Do financial constraints curb firms’ efforts to control pollution? Evidence
from Chinese manumanufacturing firms. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 215, 1052–1058. [CrossRef]
91. Mohseni, M.; Jouzaryan, F. Examining the effects of inflation and unemployment on economic growth in Iran (1996–2012). Procedia
Econ. Financ. 2016, 36, 381–389. [CrossRef]
92. Aizenman, J.; Lee, J. International reserves: Precautionary versus mercantilist views, theory and evidence. Open Econ. Rev. 2007,
18, 191–214. [CrossRef]
93. Obstfeld, M.; Shambaugh, J.C.; Taylor, A.M. Financial stability, the trilemma, and international reserves. Am. Econ. J. Macroecon.
2010, 2, 57–94. [CrossRef]
94. Pina, G. The recent growth of international reserves in developing economies: A monetary perspective. J. Int. Money Financ. 2015,
58, 172–190. [CrossRef]
95. Herzer, D. How does foreign direct investment really affect developing countries’ growth? Rev. Int. Econ. 2012, 20, 396–414.
[CrossRef]
96. Pesaran, M.H.; Shin, Y.; Smith, R.J. Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. J. Appl. Econom. 2001, 16,
289–326. [CrossRef]
97. Di Giovanni, J.; Levchenko, A.A. International trade and aggregate fluctuations in granular economies. Soc. Econ. Dyn. Meet. Pap.
2009, 419, 585.
98. Watson, A. Trade openness and inflation: The role of real and nominal price rigidities. J. Int. Money Financ. 2016, 64, 137–169.
[CrossRef]
99. Caporale, G.M.; Sova, A.D.; Sova, R. The short-run and long-run effects of trade openness on financial development: Some panel
evidence for Europe. Int. J. Financ. Econ. 2022. (online ahead of print). [CrossRef]

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual
author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to
people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.