Complex Network Analysis of Global Stock Market Co-Movement During The COVID-19 Pandemic Based On Intraday Open-High-Low-Close Data

Huang et al.
Financial Innovation (2024) 10:7 Financial Innovation

https://doi.org/10.1186/s40854-023-00548-5
RESEARCH Open Access
Complex network analysis of global stock

market co‑movement during the COVID‑19
pandemic based on intraday
open‑high‑low‑close data
Wenyang Huang1, Huiwen Wang2,3, Yigang Wei2,4* and Julien Chevallier5,6
*Correspondence:
weiyg@buaa.edu.cn Abstract
1
College of Economics This study uses complex network analysis to investigate global stock market co-
and Management, China movement during the black swan event of the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19)
Agricultural University, Beijing,
China
pandemic. We propose a novel method for calculating stock price index correla-
2
School of Economics tions based on open-high-low-close (OHLC) data. More intraday information can be
and Management, Beihang utilized compared with the widely used return-based method. Hypothesis testing
University, Beijing, China
3
Key Laboratory of Complex
was used to select the edges incorporated in the network to avoid a rigid setting
System Analysis, Management of the artificial threshold. The topologies of the global stock market complex net-
and Decision (Beihang work constructed using 70 important global stock price indices before (2017–2019)
University), Ministry of Education,
Beijing, China
and after (2020–2022) the COVID-19 outbreak were examined. The evidence shows
4
Beijing Key Laboratory that the degree centrality of the OHLC data-based global stock price index complex
of Emergency Support network has better power-law distribution characteristics than a return-based network.
Simulation Technologies for City
Operations, Beijing, China
The global stock market co-movement characteristics are revealed, and the financial
5
IPAG Business School (IPAG centers of the developed, emerging, and frontier markets are identified. Using central-
Lab), 184 bd Saint‑Germain, Paris, ity indicators, we also illustrate changes in the importance of individual stock price
France
6
University of Paris 8 (LED), 2 rue
indices during the COVID-19 pandemic. Based on these findings, we provide sug-
de la Liberté, Saint‑Denis, France gestions for investors and policy regulators to improve their international portfolios
and strengthen their national financial risk preparedness.
Keywords: Complex network, Stock market co-movement, OHLC data, Degree
centrality analysis
Introduction
Stock market co-movement refers to a phenomenon in which multiple national stock
markets experience the same trend of rising and falling under the deepening economic
globalization and financial market integration (Forbes and Rigobon 2002). The classi-
cal theory holds that the co-movement of international stock markets stems primarily
from two mechanisms. On the one hand, the economic fundamentals of various stock
markets are interconnected. The core proposition of this point is that the stock market
is a ‘barometer’ of the macroeconomy, and the macro fundamentals of various countries
© The Author(s) 2024. Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits
use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original
author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third
party material in this article are included in the article’s Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the mate-
rial. If material is not included in the article’s Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or
exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
Huang et al. Financial Innovation (2024) 10:7 Page 2 of 50
are interconnected, thus triggering the transnational co-movement of different stock

markets (McQueen and Roley 1993). On the other hand, the market contagion mecha-
nism leads to up-and-down linkages. This view holds that, in the event of a black swan
event, such as a financial crisis, the herding effect in the financial market amplifies the
speculative behavior of investors, aggravates the price volatility of the stock market, and
enhances the co-movement between stock markets (King and Wadhwani 1990).
The global stock market is a complex economic system that comprises the stock mar-
kets of many countries and regions. This is an ideal testing ground for complex network
analysis techniques to explore the complex co-movements of international stock markets
(Wen et al. 2019). With their unique topology, complex networks can effectively cap-
ture the behavioral characteristics of various stock markets, intuitively represent their
interdependence, and identify influential stock markets (Roy and Sarkar 2011). In recent
years, a popular research topic in complex networks has explored the change in the top-
ological characteristics of complex networks in black swan events (Jin et al. 2012). The
co-movement of global stock markets has been investigated using the complex network
during the subprime crisis and global financial crisis (Liu and Tse 2012; Li and Pi 2018),
the collapse of Lehman Brothers (Roy and Saker 2011, 2013), the European debt crisis
(Nobi et al. 2014; Gong et al. 2019), and Coronavirus Disease 2019 (COVID-19) (Aslam
et al. 2020; Samitas et al. 2022).
In 2020, acute pneumonia COVID-19 swept the world, spread to more than 200 coun-
tries, and quickly developed into a global public health and economic disaster. Three
months after the outbreak, more than 500,000 people were diagnosed with COVID-
19 (Zhang et al. 2020). As of December 31, 2022, COVID-19 has caused 660.4 million
infections and 6.6902 million deaths in 289 countries or territories (Dong et al. 2020).
The COVID-19 pandemic has significantly increased uncertainty and volatility in global
financial markets (Haroon and Rizvi 2020; Okorie and Lin 2021). In the context of uncer-
tainty, investors become more cautious and seek safe havens to avoid possible financial
losses, significantly weakening the liquidity of financial markets (Omay and Iren 2019).
Global stock markets reacted quickly to the COVID-19 outbreak, and stock price indices
in various countries experienced significant declines (Aslam et al. 2020). In March 2020,
the United States stock market hit the circuit breaker mechanism four times in 10 days,
while the last meltdown returned from 2007 to 2008 during the global financial crisis
(Zhang et al. 2020). The European STOXX 600 index fell by more than 20% compared
with its high index at the beginning of 2020. The day after the World Health Organi-
zation declared COVID-19 a global pandemic, March 12, was the worst day in global
stock markets. The Nikkei 225 index of the Tokyo Stock Exchange plunged by more than
20% compared with its high value in December 2019. European stock markets fell by
11%, the United’s stock price index fell by more than 10%, and the S&P 500 index fell
by 9.5% (Samitas et al. 2022). These declines forced a halt in trading on the Asia–Pacific
and New York stock exchanges. the immense black swan event of COVID-19 had a huge
impact on global stock markets, complicating the international economic and financial
situation.
This study models the topology of global stock market networks before and after the
COVID-19 outbreak using complex network theory to reveal the hidden information
and relationships of global stock market co-movements. In the context of the COVID-19
outbreak, studying the co-movements among the world’s stock markets will help policy-
makers take appropriate measures to resist international shocks, prevent financial risks,
and maintain macroeconomic security while opening domestic capital markets (Roy and
Sarkar 2013). Investors also need to clearly understand the co-movement changes in the
international market to improve their investment judgment abilities and make adjust-
ments to an internationally diversified portfolio (Samitas et al. 2022). This study provides
a dynamic and visual paradigm for complex network research, which will provide poli-
cymakers and investors with a better understanding of global stock markets in the event
of a black swan event. The contributions of this study to the literature on stock market
co-movement are fourfold.
(1) A novel method for calculating the similarity between a pair of stock price indices
was proposed. Most of the existing literature calculates stock price index similarity
based solely on the return on the close price (e.g., Liu and Tse 2012; Roy and Sarker
2013; Li and Pi 2018; Zhang et al. 2020; Aslam et al. 2020). This practice may lead
to the loss of important trading information, including open, high, and low prices
(Huang et al. 2022a). In addition, the return-based method cannot provide a reli-
able measure of the similarity between two stock price indices in some cases (see
Fig. 3) because the close price fails to fully reflect the intraday gaming dynamics of
market buyers and sellers. By contrast, the proposed open-high-low-close (OHLC)
data-based method can take full advantage of intraday trading information and
guarantee a reliable similarity measure by additionally considering intraday volatil-
ity and the relative positions of open and close prices.
(2) The proposed hypothesis testing-based edge-selection approach provides new
insights for building complex networks. Most existing stock price index complex
networks in the literature are threshold networks, that is, when the similarity of
two stock price indices is higher than the threshold. A connected edge between two
corresponding nodes is revealed in the network. For example, the threshold values
used by Roy and Sarkar (2011, 2013), Nobi et al. (2014), and Li and Pi (2018) are 0.6,
0.6, 0.3, and 0.9. Differences in threshold values can significantly affect the topology
of the network structure. When the threshold value is significant, the network is
sparse; when the threshold value is small, the network is dense. However, threshold
values are often set artificially. This study examines the degree of similarity between
each pair of stock price indices using t-statistics for hypothesis testing. An edge
between a pair of nodes with a significant similarity coefficient was incorporated
into the complex network to avoid the rigid setting of artificial thresholds.
(3) The degree centricity of the OHLC data-based network exhibited better power-law
distribution characteristics than the widely used return-based network. The degree
distribution of complex networks in the financial domain should follow a power-
law distribution (Aiello et al. 2001; Boginski et al. 2006), which can be used as a
criterion to measure whether the constructed financial complex network is reason-
able. The maximum likelihood estimation for the degree of centricity of the con-
structed network indicates that the goodness-of-fit of the OHLC data-based net-
work is 0.5939, which is higher than that of the return-based network (0.5369).
The Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics based on bootstrapping further prove that the
degree distribution of the OHLC data-based network has a 78.6% probability of

obeying a power law distribution. By comparison, that of the return-based network
was only 10.4%.
(4) This study uses an extensive sample to describe the data accurately, and is therefore
able to observe structural changes in global financial networks over the COVID-
19 period. Literature on global stock market co-movement in the context of public
health crises, especially during COVID-19, is limited. Only a few studies, such as
that of Aslam et al. (2020), used a complex network analysis method to study the
impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on 56 global stock price indices in the early stage
from October 15, 2019, to August 7, 2020, while Samitas et al. (2022) investigated
volatility and contagion risk in 51 major global stock markets from January 1, 2018,
to June 18, 2020, based on network analysis. However, many uncertainties remain
regarding the impact of COVID-19 on global stock market co-movement and the
comparison of global stock market networks before and after the outbreak. This
study explored a long window between January 1, 2017, and December 31, 2022,
spanning the COVID-19 outbreak period. In addition, we estimate a series of stock
price indices for 70 major global stock markets. A complex network analysis identi-
fies the dynamic topological characteristics of the global financial market network
before and after the COVID-19 outbreak. The findings provide an in-depth and
comprehensive understanding of stock market co-movements.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows: The “Literature review” section
discusses the primary literature on complex network analyses of global stock market co-
movement. The “Data and method” section provides the data and methods employed for
complex networks, and the “Empirical analysis of global stock market complex network”
section presents an empirical analysis of the global stock market complex network.
Finally, conclusions are presented in the “Conclusions”.
Literature review
Complex network analysis is a powerful tool for exploring topological relationships
among actors (Scott 1988). In recent decades, complex network analysis has been widely
used in various sociological research fields, such as international trade (Kim and Shin
2002), epidemic spread (Firestone et al. 2011), and smuggling networks (Huang et al.
2020). Integrating complex networks and finance involves studying stock market co-
movement (Li and Pi 2018; Aslam et al. 2020). For instance, Roy and Sarkar (2011) use
the Pearson correlation coefficient to measure the similarity between the returns of 93
global stock price indices from 2006 to 2010. They used the correlation coefficient as a
weight to construct a complex network and a minimum-spanning tree with a correla-
tion threshold of 0.6. The results indicate that SXXP and SXXE from Europe were the
most influential stock price indices in the global stock market complex network before
and after the collapse of Lehman Brothers. Liu and Tse (2012) employed a complex
network analysis to examine the co-movement between the close price returns of the
stock price indices of 67 member countries of the World Federation of Exchanges from
2006 to 2010. The results indicate that, before the 2008 financial crisis, the global stock
market network exhibited cyclical synchronized behavior, and co-movement became
pronounced after the financial crisis. In addition, developed markets are more inter-
connected than other ones. Roy and Sarkar (2013) conduct a complex network analysis
based on 93 global stock price indices from 2006 to 2010. They detected stock market
volatility in different periods through changes in the degree centrality ranking. The
results indicate that the global stock market network became more interconnected dur-
ing the financial crisis. Nobi et al. (2014) constructed a complex threshold network of 30
global stock price indices and 145 local Korean stocks from 2000 to 2012 based on the
Pearson correlation coefficient with a threshold of 0.3. The results indicate that the aver-
age correlation of global stock price indices strengthened over time, whereas the average
correlation between local Korean stocks tended to decrease.
Cao et al. (2017) construct a complex network based on the fluctuation correlations
of 27 global stock price indices from January 1999 to December 2014. The dynamic evo-
lution of the Chinese and international stock market relationships was analyzed using
a sliding window approach. The results show that the connection between the Chinese
and foreign stock markets became more vigorous, especially after China joined the
WTO. Li and Pi (2018) construct a complex weighted network, minimum spanning tree,
and threshold complex network of 38 global stock price indices from 2005 to 2010 based
on the Pearson correlation coefficient. The results indicate that the United States, South-
east Asia, and European stock markets formed three clusters. Gong et al. (2019) ana-
lyzed stock market network connectivity using the transfer entropy method. The results
showed that the overall connectivity of the network increased during the financial crisis.
The closer the stock market is to the center of the network, the more likely it is to be
affected by a financial crisis. Tang et al. (2019) applied the Granger causality test to con-
struct a Granger causality-oriented network of 33 major global stock price indices. The
results show that the United States stock price index dominates the network, with Euro-
pean and Asian indices not far behind. Wen et al. (2019) use tail-dependent networks
to capture financial markets characterized by extreme volatility. According to the close
price data of stock price indices in 73 countries from 2000 to 2016, the global efficiency
of the tail-dependent network is higher than that of the Pearson’s correlation coefficient
network. Moreover, the European market is more influential than the Asian and African
markets.
From the literature review above, the existing literature on the complex networks of
global stock markets focuses on comparing network changes before and after a black
swan event, such as the mortgage, global financial, and European debt crises. Iwanicz-
Drozdowska et al. (2021) investigate the impact of various economic and non-economic
events on stock market spillover effects in 16 major developed and emerging countries
from 2000 to 2020. The results show that viruses (e.g., the COVID-19 pandemic) were
the most widespread sources of market contagion. Hence, COVID-19 can be considered
a significant research event affecting global stock markets. According to the Johns Hop-
kins University Center for Systems Science and Engineering COVID-19 data repository,
COVID-19 has caused 660.4 million infections and 6.6902 million deaths in 289 coun-
tries or territories as of December 31, 2022 (Dong et al. 2020). Figure 1 shows the cumu-
lative number of COVID-19 cases in different continents from 22/1/2020 to 31/12/2022,
which illustrates that the number of infected people maintained a rapid growth trend
throughout the study period. COVID-19 poses an unprecedented threat to the economic
Fig. 1 Cumulative daily new COVID-19 cases by continent
functioning of countries worldwide (Altig et al. 2020; Deb et al. 2022a). An outstanding
issue is severe unemployment (Aslam et al. 2020). For example, according to the Bureau
of Labour Statistics, more than 22 million Americans lost their jobs between February
and October 2020 (Milovanska-Farrington 2022); the South Asia Report 2020 pointed
out that approximately 140 million people in South Asian countries were unemployed
owing to lockdown measures (UNDP 2020). The Center for Monitoring the Indian Econ-
omy stated that approximately 38 million Indians have lost their jobs due to COVID-19
(Gururaja and Ranjitha 2022). In an economically integrated world where production
and trade are closely linked, the impact of COVID-19 has long exceeded the loss of labor
due to death from the disease and the inability to work due to illness. COVID-19 has led
to a dramatic decline in industrial production, disruptions in global supply chain oper-
ations, restrictions on trade shipments between countries, the spread of global panic,
massive business bankruptcy, halving of global economic growth, and a plunge in global
stock price indices (Ashraf 2020; Gupta et al. 2020; Jackson 2021).
The existing literature based on complex networks to study stock market co-move-
ment still lacks exploration in the global pandemic context. The literature on the eco-
nomic and financial impacts of public health crisis-type shocks is scarce for two reasons.
First, the spread of infectious diseases was limited in the past and the extent and severity
of the infected areas were much lower than those of COVID-19. Second, global stock
market correlations were weak before the 1990s (Claessens et al. 2011). When finan-
cial markets are relatively independent, public health shocks external to the economic
system hardly cause significant stock market co-movement. However, studying stock
market co-movement responses in the context of public health crises is essential for the
development of financial globalization and the gradual increase in financial system cor-
relation. The limited literature on global stock market co-movement in the context of
COVID-19 includes Aslam et al. (2020), who use a complex network approach to ana-
lyze the impact of COVID-19 on 56 stock price indices worldwide between Novem-
ber 15, 2019, and August 7, 2020. They divided the 56 stock markets into developed,
emerging, and frontier markets. The findings show an increase in the number of global
stock price indices that are positively correlated during the pandemic. France and Ger-
many were at the center of developed markets, whereas Taiwan and Slovenia were at the
center of emerging and frontier markets. Samitas et al. (2022) investigate the impact of
Fig. 2 A graphical representation of OHLC data
Fig. 3 Toy cases for the inadequacy of similarity measure based only on returns
the COVID-19 pandemic on 51 major stock markets based on dependence dynamics

and network analysis.
The study was conducted from January 1, 2018, to June 18, 2020. Evidence suggests
that the lockdown and coronavirus transmission led to an immediate financial conta-
gion. They provide investors and policymakers with important information on the use of
financial networks to improve portfolio selection. Yuan et al. (2022) construct a nonlin-
ear financial contagion network for 26 major global stock markets during the COVID-19
pandemic using a dynamic hybrid copula-extreme value theory (EVT) model. The inves-
tigation spanned from January 1, 2019, to March 27, 2022. Investor behavior, including
investor attention, sentiment, and fear, was measured using Google search volumes.
They found that investor behavior plays an important role in explaining pandemic-
driven financial contagions.
Although the above studies examined global stock market co-movement during the
COVID-19 epidemic using a complex network approach (Aslam et al. 2020; Samitas
et al. 2022), they only utilized the return information of the close price. However, in
the financial market, stock price index data take the form of OHLC data (see Fig. 2). In
addition to close price, other intraday trading information includes open, high, and low
prices (Huang et al. 2022a).
The correlation coefficient measure that considers only the close price loses essen-
tial trading information. In many situations, it does not accurately reflect the similar-
ity between pairs of stock price indices. Figure 3 shows two toy cases. In Fig. 3a, b, the
returns of stock price indices i and j are the same in period t. However, Fig. 3a shows
that stock price index i is a bull market in periods (t − 1) and t, while stock price index j
belongs to a bear market in the same period. In Fig. 3b, the stock price index i surges and
then falls back, while there is a sharp dip in the stock price index j and then a rebound.
Additional intraday trading information provides evidence of the significantly different
gaming dynamics between market buyers and sellers. There should be similarity differ-
ences between the two stock price indices i and j in period t in both situations, as illus-
trated in Fig. 3, where the stock price indices i and j show the potential for rising and
falling trends, respectively. In contrast, the two stock price indices have perfect similari-
ties if the calculation is solely based on returns, which does not align with the economic
implications. In contrast, the other method can measure the difference between i and j.
In conclusion, the existing literature has three main shortcomings related to stock
market co-movement based on complex networks. First, the existing literature lacks an
analysis of stock market co-movement in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, and
the sample countries and time horizons investigated are inadequate. Second, the com-
plex global stock market networks constructed in the literature solely consider close
prices. This approach essentially loses important intraday trading information (e.g.,
open, high, and low prices). This does not correctly reflect the similarity between pairs
of stock price indices in some cases (see Fig. 3). Third, existing literature uses artificially
specified thresholds for selecting edges incorporated in complex networks that lack
credibility. To fill these gaps, this study constructs complex networks of 70 worldwide
stock markets from 2017 to 2019 as the pre-COVID-19 outbreak period and from 2020
to 2022 as the post-COVID-19 outbreak period. A new network construction method
was proposed based on OHLC data and hypothesis testing for edge selection. A com-
plex network analysis was conducted to investigate global stock market network changes
according to the network basis and centrality indicators. Stock market conditions by
year, market segmentation, and continent are discussed separately to provide different
analytical perspectives. This study provides a new approach for studying global stock
market co-movement using complex networks that can fully use intraday trading infor-
mation, enrich the relevant literature, and have broad applications. Government regula-
tors can use this analysis to monitor the core nodes and ensure a stable overall market.
Government regulators can also consider the national stock market’s ability to resist
epidemics and develop relevant response mechanisms. Investment institutions and indi-
vidual investors can use this analysis to improve portfolio allocation and make better
investment decisions.
Data and method

Data
This study uses OHLC data for major stock price indices worldwide from January 1,
2017, to December 31, 2022. The data covered 70 countries and regions from six con-
tinents and were sourced from the Wind database (https://www.wind.com.cn/). These
countries were selected based on data availability and GDP size. The countries selected
for this study account for more than 98% of global GDP. The dataset considered in this
study examines a larger number of countries. It has a longer time horizon than most
existing studies and provides detailed and reliable insights into global stock market co-
movement observations during COVID-19.
Table 1 lists the specific countries and regions and the corresponding stock price
index codes in the Wind database. Among the selected stock price indices, 2 were
Table 1 Summary of selected stock price indices

Continent Country/region Code Continent Country/region Code
Oceania Australia AS51 South America Brazil IBOVESPA

New Zealand NZ50 Argentina MERV
North America the United States SPX Chile IPSA
Canada GSPTSE Colombia COLOM20
Mexico MXX Peru 960400.MI
Venezuela IBVC Africa Egypt CASE
Europe the United Kingdom FTSE Nigeria NGSEINDX
France FCHI Morocco WIMAR
Germany GDAXI South Africa JALSH
Italy FTSEMIB Kenya 136,643.MI
Russia IMOEX Mauritius 136,644.MI
Spain IBEX Tunisia 136,646.MI
Switzerland SSMI Asia China 000300.SH
Portugal BVLX Hong Kong HSI
Ireland ISEQ Taiwan TW50
Netherlands AEX Japan N225
Belgium BFX South Korea KOSDAQ
Luxembourg LUXXX Singapore STI
Denmark KAX India SENSEX
Finland HEX Thailand SETI
Norway OSEAX Indonesia JKSE
Sweden OMXS30 Malaysia KLSE
Austria ATX Philippines PSI
Greece ASE Vietnam VNINDEX
Poland WIG Jordan 940000.MI
Czech PX Pakistan WIPAK
Hungary BUX Sri Lanka 914400.MI
Ukraine UX Bahrain 133712.MI
Turkey XU100 Kuwait 133713.MI
Croatia CRO Qatar 133715.MI
Estonia TALSE Kazakhstan 136637.MI
Slovenia SBITOP Israel TA125
Bulgaria SOFIX Lebanon BLOM
Romania BET Saudi Arabia SASEIDX
Serbia BELEXLIN the United Arab Emirates DFM
from Oceania, 4 were from North America, 5 were from South America, 7 were from
Africa, 23 were from Asia, and 29 were from Europe. The sample countries are con-
centrated in Asia and Europe because of their different levels of geographical aggrega-
tion and economic development.
Method
Correlation coefficient based on OHLC data
The existing literature tends to measure the similarity between different stock mar-
kets based on close price returns, with the close price return of the i-th stock price
index in period t calculated according to the following formula (Liu and Tse 2012; Roy
and Sarkar 2013; Nobi et al. 2014; Li and Pi 2018; Aslam et al. 2020).
(c)
(c) (c) xit
Rit = ln xit − ln xi(t−1) = ln (c)
, (1)
xi(t−1)
(c) (c)
where xit and xi(t−1) represent the close price of the ith stock price index in periods t
and (t − 1), respectively.
The similarity between stock markets i and j is then measured based on the Pearson
correlation coefficient (Liu and Tse 2012; Roy and Sarkar 2013; Li and Pi 2018).

Cov Ri , Rj E Ri Rj − E(Ri )E Rj
ρij = =
Var(Ri )Var Rj Var(Ri )Var Rj
T Tt=1 Rit Rjt − Tt=1 Rit Tt=1 Rjt (2)

=
2 2
T Tt=1 Rit2 −
T
T Tt=1 Rjt2 −
T
t=1 Rit t=1 Rjt
Stock price indices are available as OHLC data for financial markets. Therefore, meas-
uring the similarity between stock price indices using only close-price returns may lead
to a loss of intraday trading information. To utilize information from a full range of
financial data, this study measured the similarity between different stock price indices
based on OHLC data. For the OHLC data of the i-th stock price index in period t, that is,
(o) (h) (l) (c)
xit = xit , xit , xit , xit ′, this study first divides its portions by the previous day’s close
price to obtain the normalized data:

(o) (h) (l) (c)

(o∗) (h∗) (l∗) (c∗)
xit xit xit xit
x∗it = xit , xit , xit , xit ′= (c)
, (c) , (c) , (c) ′, (3)
xi(t−1) xi(t−1) xi(t−1) xi(t−1)
(o) (h) (l) (c)

where * is the mark of the normalized data; xit , xit , xit and xit represent the open,
(c)
high, low, and close prices of the ith stock price index in period t, respectively; xi(t−1)
stands for the close price of the ith stock price index in period t. There are two reasons
for the normalization of Eq. (3). First, similar to taking the natural logarithm when cal-
culating daily returns, dividing xit by the previous day’s close price narrows the value
range, thus enhancing the stability of the data. Second, the stock price index is the ratio
of the data relative to the basement period, and its absolute value size of the stock price
index may vary significantly from one stock price index to another. The relative position
of quaternary price data, which can reflect intraday gaming dynamics, is more important
than the absolute numerical size of the OHLC data (Huang et al. 2022a). Therefore, stock
price indices with similar quaternary price location structures should share high simi-
larities. Dividing xit by the previous day’s close price eliminates the effect of the absolute
value of the stock price index and highlights the importance of the relative position of its
quaternary prices (Tao et al. 2017).
Although x∗it eliminates the effect of the absolute value of the stock price index, using
x∗it directly as the basic unit to measure the correlation coefficient is still unreasonable.
There are two reasons for this finding. (1) First, the quaternary components of x∗it do not
differ significantly in value, and the difference between using its quaternary components
directly and considering the close price four times is slight. Thus, the economic implica-
tions implied by the OHLC data in the relative positional relationship of its quaternary
components cannot be adequately examined by x∗it (Huang et al. 2022b). (2) Three con-
(l∗)
straint relationships exist among
the quaternary components of x∗it : 1. xit > 0, 2.
(l∗) (h∗) (o∗) (c∗) (l∗) (h∗)
xit < xit , 3. xit , xit ∈ xit , xit . These constraints limit the range of values of
the internal components. Therefore, a method is required that can effectively uncon-
strain x∗it and extract meaningful financial information.
Referring to Huang et al. (2022a), we conducted an unconstrained transformation
method on x∗it and derived y it , which has no more constraints and represents the finan-
cial characteristics of the OHLC data well. The transformation formula is as follows:
 (l∗) 
 (1)
 � ln xit �
yit  (h∗)
ln xit − xit
(l∗) 
(2)   
yit
  
(o)
y it =  = it , (4)
  
(3) ln
 yit   1−it
(o)


(4) (c)
yit
 
it
ln (c)
1−it
(o∗) (l∗) (c∗) (l∗)

(o) xit −xit (c) xit −xit
where it = (h∗) (l∗) and it = (h∗) (l∗) .
xit −xit xit −xit
The four components of y it have explicit and fruitful economic implications. The first
(1)
component, yit , is a measure of the absolute size of the stock price index. Given that the
(l)
(l) (c)
(1) (l∗) xit
difference between xit and xit is not significant, yit = ln xit = ln (c) is approxi-
xi(t−1)
mately equal to the widely used close-price return, Rit . This means that this study
extracts three other characteristic indicators from intraday trading prices in addition to
(2)
the returns considered in other studies. The second component, yit reflects the range of
fluctuations in stock price indices. The third and fourth components of y it represent the
relative positions of the open and close prices in the stock price index, respectively. A
similarity measure between stock markets based on y it instead of xit can examine the
original price information and the intraday gaming process between buyers and sellers
(Huang et al. 2022a).
Formultiple
stock markets, the sample set we consider is an n × p dimensional matrix
Y = y ij containing n time points and p variables, where each element y ij repre-
n×p
sents the unconstrained stock price index OHLC data. Remark Y as:
 
y 11 y 12 · · · y 1p
 y 21 y 22 · · · y 2p  � �
Y = .  = Y 1, Y 2, . . . , Y p , (5)
 
. . .
.
 .. .. .. . 
y n1 y n2 · · · y np

where Y j = y 1j , y 2j , . . . , y nj ′ denotes the jth column of matrix Y j = 1, 2, . . . , p ,

which is composed of n observations y ij ∈ R4 (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) corresponding to the stock

price index of a country or region. To calculate the correlation coefficient between stock
price indices of two countries or regions, the sample mean and covariance are first
defined as follows:
(1) For Y j ∈ R4n, define its sample mean as
1
Yj = y 1j + y 2j + · · · + y nj ∈ R4 . (6)
n
(2) For any pair of Y j , Y k ∈ R4n, define their sample covariance as

n
1
Sjk = Cov Y j , Y k = y ij − Y j , y ik − Y k ∈ R. (7)
n R4
i=1
(3) For Y j ∈ R4n, define its sample variance as

n
1
Sj2 = Var Y j = y ij − Y j , y ij − Y j ∈ R⊖. (8)
n R4
i=1
Then, the correlation coefficient of any pair of Y j , Y k ∈ R4n can be deduced by
Sjk
rjk = ∈ R⊖. (9)
Sj Sk
In line with the Pearson correlation coefficient, the t test statistic for rjk can be con-
structed in the context of a large sample (Hollander and Wolfe 1973; Press et al. 1992).
rjk
trjk = ∼ t(4n − 2).
2
1−rjk (10)
4n−2
The corresponding p value of the two-tailed t-test statistic trjk is given by Eq. (11),
where Ŵ(·) is the gamma function.
 � � 
4n−1
trjk Ŵ 4n−1
2
�
x 2 �− 2
ptjk = 2 ∗ 1 − ∫ √ 1+ dx. (11)
−∞ (4n − 2)π xtŴ(2n − 1) 4n − 2
The null hypothesis ( H0) and alternative hypothesis ( H1) of the t test are given by
Eq. (12). When the derived ptjk is greater than 0.05, we consider that the null hypothesis
cannot be rejected, and the correlation coefficient rjk between Y j and Y k equals zero;
that is, there is no linear correlation. Accordingly, no connected edges exist from nodes
j to k in a complex network. When the calculated ptjk was less than 0.05, the alterna-
tive hypothesis was accepted instead of the null hypothesis. This indicates that rjk is not
equal to zero; that is, there is a significant linear correlation between Y j and Y k . Accord-
ingly, a connected edge exists between nodes j and k in the complex network, indicating
stock market co-movement.
H0 : rjk = 0 and H1 : rjk �= 0. (12)
Basic indicators of complex network

The world stock market complex network is constructed in the following manner:
each country or region is used as a node, and the correlation coefficient between the
two stock price indices of the corresponding stock markets is calculated using Eq. (9),
and the correlation coefficient that is significant at the 0.05 level is taken as the con-
nection weight between nodes. The basic metrics of the network are as follows:
(1) Number of nodes (N): number of nodes in the network.

(2) Number of edges (E): number of edges in the network.
(3) Average degree (AD): number of edges connected by a node. The directed network
is divided into in-degree and out-degree networks, but not into undirected net-
works. Average degree is the average number of edges connected to a node. In an
undirected network,
2×E
AD = . (13)
N
(4) Average weighted degree (AWD): the average degree weighted by the weights of the
edges. Note the average correlation coefficient as r and we have

j� =k,prjk <0.05 rjk
AWD = AD × r = AD × . (14)
2×E
(5) Network diameter: the maximum of all shortest paths between two connected
nodes.
(6) Network density (ND): Ratio of the actual number of edges to the maximum pos-
sible number of edges. The calculation formula is as follows:
E
ND = . (15)
N × (N − 1)/2
(7) Average clustering coefficient: A ratio measurement of whether two different nodes
that connect to a common node also have a connection.
(8) Average path length: The shortest path length between two nodes.
Complex network centrality analysis

Centrality is an essential concept in complex network analysis, which describes the
degree of importance of individual nodes in a complex network. Existing studies
have defined different centrality measures that characterize the potential importance,
influence, and prominence of network nodes from different perspectives. The central-
ity indicators selected for this study are as follows:
(1) Degree centrality (D(x)): For a node x, its degree centrality denotes the number of
edges it connects to. By denoting the set of edges connected by node x as e(x), we
obtain

e(x) = ex1 , ex2 , . . . , exD(x) . (16)
For a world stock market network, the higher the degree of centrality of a node, the
more significantly the stock price indices of other countries are correlated with the
stock price index of that country or region.
(2) Weighted degree centrality (WD(x)): For node x, the weighted degree centrality is
calculated by weighting its connected edges based on their weights. We obtain:
D(x)
1
WD(x) = wxi , (17)
D(x)
i=1
where wxi is the weight of edge exi connected to node x. Degree centrality can only
measure the number of stock markets in other countries that are significantly cor-
related with a country or region’s stock market but not the strength of positive or
negative correlations. The weighted degree centrality can compensate for the insuf-
ficient measurement of connection strength. Suppose that the weighted degree cen-
trality of a node is high. In this case, other stock price indices are significantly and
positively correlated with the country or region’s stock price index and the stock
market co-movement phenomenon is more pronounced.
(3) Closeness centrality (C(x)): In a network, the closeness centrality of a node is
defined as the reciprocal of the sum of the shortest path lengths between that node
and all the other connected nodes. Thus, a higher proximity centrality implies that
a node is closer to all other nodes, indicating that the node occupies a central posi-
tion in the network. The proximity centrality of node x was first defined by Bavelas
(1950) and is expressed by the following equation:
1
C(x) = , (18)
y d x, y
where d(x,y) denotes the shortest path between the nodes x and the node y con-
nected to it. In practical applications, the normalized form of C(x) is commonly
used to represent the average length of the shortest paths, rather than their sum.
The normalized form of C(x) is generally obtained by multiplying the previous
equation by (N-1). We obtain:
N −1
C̃(x) = . (19)
y d x, y
The greater the closeness centrality of a node, the more rapid are the changes
in the stock market of that country or region that can be transmitted to other stock
markets.
(4) Betweenness centrality (B(x)): In a fully connected network, the shortest path exists
for any pair of nodes s and t. Betweenness centrality is a measure of the complex
network centrality based on these shortest paths. The basic idea is to count the ratio
of the number of nodes on the shortest paths of the other two nodes to the total
number of shortest paths in the network. The first formal definition of intermediary
centrality for node x was provided by Freeman (1977).
σst (x)
B(x) = , (20)
σst
s� =x� =t
where σst denotes the number of shortest paths between any pair of nodes s and t,
and σst (x) denotes the number of nodes x passing through in σst . In this study, we
used the centralized B(x), which was calculated as follows:
B(x) − min
B̃(x) = , (21)
max − min
where max and min represent the largest and smallest betweenness centralities
among all nodes, respectively. A country or region with high betweenness central-
ity can play an intermediary role in the correlation between the stock price indices
of the other two countries and effectively transmit the fluctuations in the two stock
markets.
(5) Eigenvector centrality (E(x)): Eigenvector centrality assigns more weight to a node’s
connections with other high-centrality nodes when measuring the importance of a
node in a complex network. A high eigenvector score implies that a node is closely
connected to many nodes with high eigenvector centrality. For a given complex
network G with N nodes and E edges, record A = ax,y as the adjacency matrix,

where ax,y = 1 if node x is connected to node y, and ax,y = 0 otherwise. The eigen-
vector centrality of node x can be defined as
1 1
E(x) = E y = ax,y E y , (22)

y∈M(x) y∈G
where E(x) and E(y) represent the eigenvector centralities of nodes x and y, respec-
tively; λ is a constant; M(x) is a set of neighbors of node x. Equation (20) can be
rewritten as the eigenvector equation Ax = λx. We can derive several different
eigenvalues λ based on the eigenvector equation. However, the additional require-
ment that all entries in the eigenvector should be non-negative indicates that only
the most significant eigenvalue outcome can be measured (Lohmann et al. 2010).
Power iteration is one of the many eigenvalue algorithms that can be used to deter-
mine the principal eigenvector.
Given that multiple information flow mechanisms can coexist in the network (Borgatti
2005), it is difficult to determine which centrality measure to use to judge the impor-
tance of stock price indices in the financial market network. Identifying influential nodes
in a network is an open problem, because a single centrality measure cannot account
for all possible types of interactions between nodes in a network (Chen et al. 2012).
Referring to Roy and Sarkar (2013), this study considers centrality indicators together,
according to the idea of averaging. Specifically, for each centrality indicator, each stock
price index was ranked first in descending order. The sorted stock price indices are then
assigned ranks, with the first-ranked stock price index having a rank of one, the second-
ranked stock price index having a rank of two, and so on. Stock price indices with the
same centrality index were assigned the same ranks, whereas the ranks of the following
lower-centrality stock price indices were adjusted according to the number. For example,
if two stock price indices are tied for the first centrality, then they will both have a rank
of 1, and the third stock price index will have a rank of 3. Given that the mechanism of
the different centrality weights is unknown, the final ranking of each stock price index
is in ascending order according to the average rank of these five centrality indicators.
Therefore, for the centrality indicators, the most important stock price index will have
the lowest average rank, and the least important stock price index will have the largest
average rank.
Empirical analysis of global stock market complex network

This section first analyzes the overall correlation of global stock markets and divides
them global stock market into developed, emerging, and frontier markets for separate
discussions. Then, the power-law distribution of the degree centrality of the return-
based network and OHLC data-based network is discussed. Finally, an analysis of the
complex networks of global stock markets before and after the COVID-19 outbreak is
conducted based on basic indicators of complex networks and centrality indicators.
Overall correlation analysis

Figure 4 shows global stock market correlations from 2017 to 2022. The correlation
between any two stock markets [calculated using Eq. (9)] are represented by squares.
Blue squares indicate positive correlations and red squares indicate negative correla-
tions. Darker blue squares indicate stronger positive correlations, and darker red squares
indicate stronger negative correlations.
The overall correlation of the global stock market from 2017 to 2022 exhibits four
patterns. First, the blue squares characterize the vast majority of positive correlations,
whereas the red squares characterize a few negative correlations and are very light in
color. Second, 2020 is the first year of the COVID-19 outbreak. The two stock price
indices were positively correlated by 80.21%, which was 16.84%, 9.13%, and 13.27%
higher than that in 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. This result indicates a significant
strengthening of the overall positive correlation in the global stock markets in 2020,
which is generally caused by the negative influence of COVID-19 on global stock mar-
kets. Third, in 2021, the second year of the COVID-19 outbreak, the number of blue
squares decreases significantly lower among the investigated years, indicating a signifi-
cant decrease in the overall positive correlation of the global stock market. Compared to
2020, the overall positive correlation will decrease by 12.49% by 2021.
The weakening of stock market co-movement in 2021 may be mainly due to the severe
polarization of global stock markets. In 2021, the lockdown practices were gradually
lifted in various countries, and the economy began to recover. However, owing to dif-
ferences in the improvement of economic fundamentals in various countries, the trac-
tion for stock rebounds was also different. The more a country or region’s economy is on
an upward trend, the more likely that investment institutions will become bullish in the
stock market. Moreover, investment institutions are likely to bear stock markets when a
country or region’s upward or downward economic trend is weak. Owing to the herding
effect, investors amplify the impact of investment institutions on stock market move-
ments. For example, Vietnam, a global hub for processing and manufacturing, received
significant foreign investment in 2021 and experienced a rapid rise in its stock price
Fig. 4 Overall correlation plots of global stock markets in different years
index by 33.72%; the United States stock market increased by 28.79% due to accom-
modative monetary policy; Europe experienced substantial economic growth in early
2021 and fell back towards the end of the year due to the impact of the Omicron mutant
strain, eventually reaching an increase of around 15%; South Korea and Japan experi-
enced relatively weak economic growth, resulting in an increase of approximately 5.5%
in their stock price indices; China’s stock index fell by 6.21% due to the ongoing lock-
down, and the Hong Kong stock index fell by 14.83% due to the impact of the mainland.
Fourth, the number of blue squares is expected to increase again in 2022 compared with
2021. This indicates an increase in the overall positive correlation of the global stock
market by 2022, which is 5.66% higher than that in 2021. This enhanced co-movement
is due to the worldwide recovery of economic fundamentals and the strengthening of
economic trade.
According to the world-class financial services provider, the FTSE Group, the world
stock market can be divided into three market segments. The first category includes
developed markets dominated by developed capitalist countries. The second category
comprises emerging markets dominated by developing countries in Asia, Africa, and
South America. The third category is the frontier market, which mainly comprises coun-
tries in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. Table 2 lists countries in these three market
segments.
Figure 5 and Table 3 present the overall correlation results for the three market seg-
ments by year. The overall correlations of different market segments exhibited four
Table 2 FTSE’s stock market segmentation

Developed markets Emerging markets Frontier markets
Number Country/region Number Country/region Number Country/region
1 The United States 1 Mexico 1 Croatia

2 Canada 2 Venezuela 2 Estonia
3 Australia 3 Brazil 3 Slovenia
4 New Zealand 4 Argentina 4 Bulgaria
5 The United Kingdom 5 Chile 5 Romania
6 France 6 Colombia 6 Serbia
7 Germany 7 Peru 7 Nigeria
8 Italy 8 Russia 8 Morocco
9 Spain 9 Greece 9 Kenya
10 Switzerland 10 Poland 10 Mauritius
11 Portugal 11 Czech 11 Tunisia
12 Ireland 12 Hungary 12 Vietnam
13 Netherlands 13 Ukraine 13 Jordan
14 Belgium 14 Turkey 14 Sri Lanka
15 Luxembourg 15 Egypt 15 Bahrain
16 Denmark 16 South Africa 16 Kazakhstan
17 Finland 17 China 17 Lebanon
18 Norway 18 Taiwan
19 Sweden 19 India
20 Austria 20 Thailand
21 Hong Kong 21 Indonesia
22 Japan 22 Malaysia
23 South Korea 23 Philippines
24 Singapore 24 Pakistan
25 Israel 25 Kuwait
26 Qatar
27 Saudi Arabia
28 The United Arab Emirates
characteristics. (1) The positive correlation in developed markets was significantly higher
than that in emerging and frontier markets. From 2017 to 2022, the average positive cor-
relation of developed markets reached 92.00%, compared to 78.22% in emerging markets
and 57.23% in frontier markets, which were 17.62% and 60.75% higher, respectively. (2)
Fig. 5 Correlation coefficient of global stock price index. Note The first row is 2017, the second row is 2018,
the third row is 2019, the fourth row is 2020, the fifth row is 2021, and the sixth row is 2022; the first column is
developed markets, the second column is emerging markets, and the third column is frontier markets
Fig. 5 continued
Table 3 Proportion of positive and negative correlation coefficients for market segments
Year Market Positive correlations Negative correlations
2017 Overall 1658 (68.65%) 757 (31.35%)

Developed market 273 (91.00%) 27 (9.00%)
Emerging market 272 (71.96%) 106 (28.04%)
Frontier market 67 (49.26%) 69 (50.74%)
2018 Overall 1775 (73.50%) 640 (26.50%)
Emerging market 290 (76.72%) 88 (23.28%)
Frontier market 78 (57.35%) 58 (42.65%)
2019 Overall 1710 (70.81%) 705 (29.19%)
Emerging market 297 (78.57%) 81 (21.43%)
Frontier market 70 (51.47%) 66 (48.53%)
2020 Overall 1937 (80.21%) 478 (19.79%)
Emerging market 314 (83.07%) 64 (16.93%)
Frontier market 91 (66.91%) 45 (33.09%)
2021 Overall 1695 (70.19%) 720 (29.81%)
Emerging market 300 (79.37%) 78 (20.63%)
Frontier market 80 (58.82%) 56 (41.18%)
2022 Overall 1791 (74.16%) 624 (25.84%)
Emerging market 301 (79.63%) 77 (20.37%)
Frontier market 81 (59.56%) 55 (40.44%)
In 2020, when COVID-19 broke out, the positive correlations in the developed, emerg-
ing, and frontier markets increased by 8.06%, 5.72%, and 30.00%, respectively, com-
pared to 2019. (3) In 2021, the positive correlation ratios of the developed, emerging,
and frontier markets decreased by 10.85%, 4.46%, and 12.09%, respectively, compared
to 2020. However, the positive correlation ratios for emerging and frontier markets are
still higher in 2021 than in 2017, 2018, and 2019. In contrast, the positive correlation
ratios for developed markets in 2021 are lower than those in 2017, 2018, and 2019. (4)
The same pattern was witnessed in 2022 as in 2021. The positive correlation ratios for
emerging and frontier markets are still higher in 2022 than in 2017, 2018, and 2019. In
contrast, the positive correlation ratios for developed markets in 2022 are lower than
those in 2017, 2018, and 2019. This result suggests that stock market co-movement in
the emerging and frontier markets strengthened after the COVID-19 outbreak. In con-
trast, stock market co-movement in developed markets strengthened significantly in the
first year and weakened significantly in the second and third years. This provides evi-
dence of the diversion of international investments in different developed markets dur-
ing the post-pandemic period.
Basic indicators of global stock market complex network

The global stock market complex networks are established by using each country or
region as a node and the significant correlations at a significance level of 0.05 as the
weights of the edges. Table 4 presents the base indicators of the world stock price index
complex network for each year from 2017 to 2022.
According to Table 4 and Fig. 6, the following conclusions can be found.
(1) The global stock market network was relatively stable from 2017 to 2019 before the
COVID-19 outbreak. Stock market co-movement was weakest in 2017 and strong-
est in 2018. For these 3 years, each region’s stock price index is significantly cor-
related with the stock price indices of 25.143, 30.171, and 27.171 in other regions.
The average weighted degrees are positive, indicating that the stock price indices of
each country or region are mostly positively correlated, with an average correlation
coefficient of around 0.14–0.17. The average path lengths are below 2, indicating
a "small world" phenomenon in the global stock market network, which was also
verified in the works of Tse et al. (2010), Li and Pi (2018), and Yang and Hou (2022).
Table 4 Basic indicators of the world stock market complex network during 2017–2022
Indicator 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022
Number of nodes 70 70 70 70 70 70
Number of edges 880 1056 951 1364 920 1123
Average degree 25.143 30.171 27.171 38.971 26.286 32.086
Average weighted degree 3.675 5.112 4.540 8.422 4.159 6.036
Average correlation coefficient 0.146 0.169 0.167 0.216 0.158 0.188
Network diameter 4 3 4 4 4 3
Network density 0.364 0.437 0.394 0.565 0.381 0.465
Average clustering coefficient 0.552 0.628 0.604 0.759 0.605 0.675
Average path length 1.683 1.589 1.661 1.469 1.717 1.556
Fig. 6 A comparison of the global stock market complex network between 2019 and 2020
(2) In 2020, when the COVID-19 outbreak began, the global stock market co-move-
ment became more pronounced. Compared to 2017, 2018, and 2019, there were
significantly more stock markets with significant correlations in 2020, with a signifi-
cant increase in the average degree, average weighted degree, network density, and
average cluster coefficient, and a decrease in the average path length. Compared
with 2019, the average degree, average weighted degree, average correlation coeffi-
cient, network density, and average clustering coefficient of the global stock market
network in 2020 increased by 43.43%, 85.51%, 29.34%, 43.40%, and 25.66%, respec-
tively. The year 2020 also witnessed an 11.56% decrease in the average path length
compared with 2019. Figure 6 illustrates a comparison of the global stock market
complex networks for 2019 and 2020. The size of the nodes in Fig. 6 is proportional
to the degree of centrality, and the degree of centrality of each node in 2020 was
significantly larger than in 2019. This phenomenon indicates a general downward
trend of stock price indices in most countries under COVID-19, making stock mar-
ket co-movement significantly more robust in 2021 than in 2020. These results are
consistent with those reported by Aslam et al. (2020), Ashraf (2020), Gupta et al.
(2020), Jackson (2021) and Samitas et al. (2022).
(3) The 2021 global stock price index complex network exhibits more inconsistent
characteristics, and only 920 pairs of stock markets are significantly correlated.
Compared to 2020, the average degree decreased by 32.55%, average weighted
degree decreased by 50.62%, average correlation coefficient decreased by 26.85%,
network density decreased by 32.57%, average clustering coefficient decreased by
20.29%, and average path length increased by 16.88%. This finding illustrates the dif-
ferent ups and downs in stock price indices worldwide in 2021, and the weakening
of stock market co-movement. For countries where the epidemic was under control
and the lockdown was lifted, industrial production gradually recovered, consumer
confidence increased, and stock price indices showed an upward trend. Their stock
price indices tended to decline in countries where the epidemic persisted or where
the lockdown persisted.
(4) The year 2022 witnessed a strengthening of global stock market co-movement. The
closeness of the global stock market network in 2022 is second only to that in 2020
during the entire observation period. Compared to 2021, the average degree, aver-
age weighted degree, average correlation coefficient, network density, and average
clustering coefficient increased by 22.06%, 45.13%, 18.99%, 22.05%, and 11.57%,
respectively, whereas the network diameter and average path length decreased by
25.00% and 9.38%, respectively. Due to the milder disease caused by the Omicron
strain and the successful promotion of vaccines and potent drugs, the epidemic’s
impact on economic production activities has decreased (Antonini et al. 2022;
Deb et al. 2022b). The year 2022 saw a consistent improvement in economic fun-
damentals across countries and more frequent import and export trade, strength-
ening economic ties between countries. Therefore, stock market co-movement is
enhanced by 2022.
Power‑law distribution of degree centrality

Aiello et al. (2001) argued that the degree centricity distributions of complex networks
in the Internet, telecommunications, finance, biology, sociology, and other fields follow
a power law model. Boginski et al. (2006) measured the similarity of listed stock returns
in the financial sector in the United States from 1998 to 2002. They found that in the
threshold network, the degree centricity showed a precise power-law distribution. Tse
et al. (2010) constructed a complex network based on the close prices of all U.S. stocks
from July 2005 to August 2007 and from June 2007 to May 2009. The results show that
the stock market network’s degree distribution is scale-free and follows a power-law
distribution. According to this pattern, the degree centrality distribution of the global
stock market complex network constructed using an appropriate network construction
method should be characterized by a power-law distribution.
The testing and characterization of power-law distributions are complicated because

of fluctuations in the long-tail component and an uncertain range of applicability values.
Therefore, the commonly used ordinary least squares method may perform poorly, lead-
ing to biased estimations and misleading conclusions. Clauset et al. (2009) proposed a
framework for identifying and measuring power-law distributions. The model is based
on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic, which combines the maximum likelihood estima-
tion method. They argued that random variables may obey power-law distributions in
ranges larger than Xmin instead of the full value range. Compared to the BIC, Kuiper,
and Anderson–Darling statistics (D’Agostino and Stephens 1986), Clauset et al. (2009)
proved that the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic is a better goodness-of-fit test method
for determining Xmin . As the degree centricity distribution in this study did not have
heavy tails, Xmin = 1 was set to ensure the integrity of the data. The bootstrapping
method based on the Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic proposed by Clauset et al. (2009)
is used to measure the extent to which the degree centricity distribution of the network
obeys a power-law distribution.
For the return-based and OHLC data-based networks, the degree of centrality and cor-
responding number of nodes are summarized for the years from 2017 to 2022. Power-
law distributions were fitted to the degree centrality of the two network types using the
maximum-likelihood estimation method. The results are shown in Fig. 7. The estima-
tion yielded a goodness-of-fit of 0.5369 for the return-based network and 0.5939 for the
OHLC data-based network. The 500 bootstrapping of Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistics
shows that the degree centricity of the return-based network has a 10.4% probability of
obeying a power law distribution. In contrast, the probability of the OHLC data-based
network was 78.6%. These results show that the proposed OHLC data-based network
outperforms the traditional return-based network in terms of the scale-free power-law
distribution properties of the global stock market network.
Centrality analysis of the global stock market complex network

This section examines the five centrality indicators: degree, weighted degree, close-
ness, betweenness, and eigenvalue centrality. Table 5 summarizes the average rank-
ings of the five degree centrality indicators for the different market segments and
continents for each year from 2017 to 2022. Table 6 presents detailed results for each
sample country or region. The individual rankings of the five centrality indicators are
Fig. 7 Power-law distribution of return-based and OHLC data-based networks

Table 5 Average rankings of centrality in 2017 to 2022 by market segments and continent
Segments 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Before After Average
Developed markets 22.58 24.66 23.10 26.84 24.22 26.65 23.45 25.90 24.68
Emerging markets 35.11 34.86 33.34 33.37 34.00 34.40 34.44 33.92 34.18
Frontier markets 53.62 51.49 56.19 49.47 50.73 51.47 53.77 50.56 52.16
Europe 25.92 26.05 26.52 25.37 25.10 25.80 26.16 25.42 25.79
South America 31.00 39.12 29.32 33.00 32.20 32.88 33.15 32.69 32.92
North America 30.95 34.85 38.70 32.10 35.00 39.60 34.83 35.57 35.20
Oceania 30.10 48.40 44.40 47.10 42.10 28.30 40.97 39.17 40.07
Asia 43.94 42.10 40.92 42.87 41.85 42.70 42.32 42.47 42.40
Africa 51.17 44.63 52.26 48.14 49.17 51.09 49.35 49.47 49.41
given in Table 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in the Appendix. Fruitful findings were derived from
the figures in Tables 5 and 6. (1) In terms of market segmentation, developed markets
occupied an overwhelmingly dominant position in the world stock market network,
with an average centrality ranking of 24.68 for the 25 developed markets’ stock price
indices from 2017 to 2022. Emerging markets were in second place, with an average
centrality ranking of 34.18, for its 28 stock price indices. Frontier markets had the
lowest importance, with an average centrality ranking of only 52.16 for the 17 stock
price indices included. Liu and Tse (2012) and Aslam et al. (2020) similarly find that
developed markets have more robust connectivity properties than other markets in
the global stock market. (2) Regarding continents, Europe occupies the most criti-
cal position in the world stock market network. The average centrality ranking of the
stock price indices in the European region from 2017 to 2022 is 25.79, followed by
South America (average ranking of 32.92), North America (average ranking of 35.20),
Oceania (average ranking of 40.07), Asia (average ranking 42.40), and Africa (aver-
age ranking 49.41). Roy and Sarkar (2013), Qiao et al. (2015), Wen et al. (2019), and
Samitas et al. (2022) also find European countries dominate the global stock market
network. They explained that the European countries’ shared commercial trade and
common currency meant that their links were intensely weighted. (3) Developed mar-
kets were centered on Austria (average ranking 9.3), Portugal (average ranking 9.7),
the United Kingdom (average ranking 12.0), Ireland (average ranking 13.1), Sweden
(average ranking 13.4), and Norway (average ranking 10.30); emerging markets were
centered on South Africa (average ranking 9.7), the Czech Republic (average rank-
ing 14.6), Poland (average ranking 15.9), Chile (average ranking 14.9), Brazil (average
ranking 18.4), Mexico (average ranking 18.6), and Argentina (average ranking 20.3);
and frontier markets were centered in Croatia (average ranking 37.8) and Romania
(average ranking 38.1). Several other studies have reported similar findings. Examples
include Aslam et al. (2020), who revealed the importance of Poland and the Czech
Republic in the stock market network before and after the COVID-19 epidemic using
a minimum spanning tree (MST); Memon and Yao (2021), who identified Austria and
Sweden as super-hub nodes in Europe during the first wave of the COVID-19 epi-
demic based on MST; and Samitas et al. (2022), who found that South Africa and
Sweden had high centrality in global stock markets from 2018 to 2020 based on
dependency dynamics and network analysis.
Table 6 Each country or region’s average ranking of centrality indicators in 2017–2022
Rank Country/region 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Average Continent Segment
1 Austria 19.8 4.2 3.8 9.4 2.8 16.0 9.3 Europe Developed
Huang et al. Financial Innovation
2 South Africa 3.6 2.2 7.0 17.0 22.0 6.6 9.7 Africa Emerging
3 Portugal 28.6 5.4 4.0 12.2 10.4 5.2 11.0 Europe Developed
4 The United Kingdom 18.6 2.4 2.4 14.4 2.6 31.4 12.0 Europe Developed
5 Ireland 12.2 6.6 10.0 4.0 15.2 30.4 13.1 Europe Developed
(2024) 10:7
6 Sweden 5.0 13.4 1.0 32.0 14.8 14.0 13.4 Europe Developed
7 Norway 8.4 11.8 4.6 21.6 3.2 31.2 13.5 Europe Developed
8 Finland 8.2 21.8 11.0 24.8 16.2 5.4 14.6 Europe Developed
8 Czech 15.2 12.2 8.2 26.4 13.8 11.8 14.6 Europe Emerging
10 Chile 4.6 16.8 8.0 26.4 16.6 17.2 14.9 South America Emerging
11 Poland 9.4 25.2 16.8 9.2 28.8 6.2 15.9 Europe Emerging
12 Brazil 16.4 22.8 13.2 17.0 26.0 14.8 18.4 South America Emerging
13 Mexico 7.8 22.6 28.8 18.4 11.6 22.4 18.6 North America Emerging
13 Belgium 12.2 35.2 21.4 25.4 12.6 5.0 18.6 Europe Developed
15 Luxembourg 19.2 16.0 13.6 8.2 14.6 43.4 19.2 Europe Developed
16 Argentina 22.2 25.8 21.2 15.2 14.6 22.6 20.3 South America Emerging
17 Denmark 15.8 5.8 12.2 39.0 30.6 22.6 21.0 Europe Developed
18 Switzerland 14.6 27.8 35.4 19.6 25.6 3.8 21.1 Europe Developed
19 Greece 26.4 20.8 25.2 9.2 14.8 32.0 21.4 Europe Emerging
20 Russia 23.8 10.0 19.2 31.4 19.0 37.2 23.4 Europe Emerging
21 India 10.0 27.0 26.4 30.6 17.2 30.6 23.6 Asia Emerging
22 Israel 19.0 20.2 27.4 37.8 19.4 23.8 24.6 Asia Developed
23 The United States 23.4 17.4 25.8 28.2 31.2 26.8 25.5 North America Developed
24 France 25.8 17.4 26.8 28.2 28.6 26.8 25.6 Europe Developed
25 Singapore 36.4 21.8 37.8 15.6 29.6 17.8 26.5 Asia Developed
26 Hungary 46.8 12.2 20.2 10.0 8.0 63.6 26.8 Europe Emerging
Page 26 of 50
Table 6 (continued)
27 The United Arab Emirates 48.6 24.0 23.0 18.6 27.0 27.0 28.0 Asia Emerging
28 Taiwan 33.6 25.8 25.0 19.6 24.8 40.2 28.2 Asia Emerging
29 Italy 11.6 37.8 32.4 19.4 21.4 48.6 28.5 Europe Developed
30 Netherlands 31.4 31.6 21.0 26.4 30.2 31.4 28.7 Europe Developed
31 Spain 14.2 37.0 27.6 28.8 37.0 31.2 29.3 Europe Developed
(2024) 10:7
32 Germany 29.6 31.4 28.2 31.4 29.6 27.4 29.6 Europe Developed
33 New Zealand 12.6 36.6 41.0 49.0 40.0 5.8 30.8 Oceania Developed
34 Thailand 39.2 28.6 30.4 40.0 36.2 15.6 31.7 Asia Emerging
35 Japan 35.8 33.2 48.4 28.0 27.6 30.0 33.8 Asia Developed
36 Hong Kong 34.4 35.8 18.6 33.8 40.4 42.6 34.3 Asia Developed
37 Malaysia 33.4 24.4 32.0 52.8 41.4 22.4 34.4 Asia Emerging
38 Saudi Arabia 48.6 45.2 24.4 27.8 31.6 43.0 36.8 Asia Emerging
39 Canada 30.6 38.2 36.0 36.4 37.2 48.2 37.8 North America Developed
39 Croatia 43.0 45.6 57.2 28.6 39.0 13.4 37.8 Europe Frontier
41 Romania 49.0 26.8 38.4 26.0 26.2 62.4 38.1 Europe Frontier
42 Turkey 58.2 35.0 48.2 33.2 30.8 26.2 38.6 Europe Emerging
43 Estonia 53.6 55.6 47.0 25.4 42.0 11.2 39.1 Europe Frontier
44 Bulgaria 33.0 42.0 53.6 43.4 53.0 13.4 39.7 Europe Frontier
45 Indonesia 44.8 28.8 42.8 46.4 41.0 42.2 41.0 Asia Emerging
46 Slovenia 46.8 41.8 52.8 28.8 39.2 37.2 41.1 Europe Frontier
47 Philippines 30.0 41.0 42.0 39.4 44.4 52.4 41.5 Asia Emerging
48 China 37.8 37.6 43.0 52.2 37.2 46.6 42.4 Asia Emerging
49 South Korea 49.6 47.4 39.4 52.2 40.4 42.6 45.3 Asia Developed
50 Vietnam 49.2 44.6 34.6 48.2 55.4 48.2 46.7 Asia Frontier
51 Ukraine 26.6 63.2 61.8 51.8 61.8 21.0 47.7 Europe Emerging
52 Australia 47.6 60.2 47.8 45.2 44.2 50.8 49.3 Oceania Developed
Page 27 of 50
Table 6 (continued)
53 Pakistan 49.8 53.2 47.4 45.0 47.8 53.2 49.4 Asia Emerging
(2024) 10:7
54 Egypt 64.6 53.2 55.4 24.0 48.4 60.4 51.0 Africa Emerging
55 Peru 59.6 67.6 54.4 47.8 46.6 47.4 53.9 South America Emerging
56 Nigeria 63.6 47.0 58.8 51.0 49.0 55.6 54.2 Africa Frontier
57 Serbia 44.6 59.4 65.0 67.6 56.0 38.8 55.2 Europe Frontier
58 Qatar 55.6 65.6 45.2 56.4 61.8 51.6 56.0 Asia Emerging
59 Kenya 59.6 56.4 52.2 59.0 49.8 61.8 56.5 Africa Frontier
60 Sri Lanka 63.4 54.0 63.0 51.2 49.0 59.4 56.7 Asia Frontier
61 Morocco 44.6 49.2 68.0 67.6 53.8 58.0 56.9 Africa Frontier
62 Colombia 52.2 62.6 49.8 58.6 57.2 62.4 57.1 South America Emerging
63 Lebanon 53.0 61.4 65.6 52.0 56.0 55.0 57.2 Asia Frontier
64 Jordan 66.6 54.0 55.0 61.8 52.0 55.4 57.5 Asia Frontier
65 Tunisia 54.4 53.0 60.4 55.8 59.0 67.4 58.3 Africa Frontier
66 Kuwait 52.4 61.4 50.2 64.6 61.6 63.0 58.9 Asia Emerging
67 Venezuela 62.0 61.2 64.2 45.4 60.0 61.0 59.0 North America Emerging
68 Mauritius 67.8 51.4 64.0 62.6 62.2 47.8 59.3 Africa Frontier
69 Bahrain 62.0 67.2 60.2 57.6 59.0 55.0 60.2 Asia Frontier
70 Kazakhstan 57.4 66.0 59.4 54.4 61.8 64.4 60.6 Asia Frontier
Page 28 of 50
Table 7 shows the significant changes in the centrality rankings of the world stock
market network in 2020, 2021, and 2022 after the COVID-19 outbreak. In this study,
a country or region is considered significantly less or more critical if its stock price
index has increased or decreased by at least ten places compared to the previous year’s
centrality ranking. The centrality ranking in this study was calculated based on the
average degree centrality, weighted degree centrality, closeness centrality, between-
ness centrality, and eigenvector centrality. These five centrality indicators provide a
comprehensive measure of the importance of a stock price index in a global stock
market network from various perspectives (Roy and Sarkar 2013). When the central-
ity ranking of a stock price index decreases or increases significantly, it means that
Table 7 Stock price indices with significant changes in centrality ranking

Country/region 2020 2021 2022 Country/region 2020 2021 2022
Ireland – Down Down Bahrain – – –

Chile Down – – Colombia – – –
Denmark Down – – the United States – – –
Hong Kong Down – – Tunisia – – –
Kuwait Down – – Portugal – – –
Vietnam Down – – Spain – – –
Norway Down Up Down Indonesia – – –
Russia Down Up Down Poland – Down Up
the United Kingdom Down Up Down India – Up Down
Luxembourg – – Down Venezuela Up Down –
Kenya – – Down Slovenia Up Down –
Austria – – Down Romania Up – Down
Canada – – Down Sri Lanka Up – Down
Saudi Arabia – – Down Greece Up – Down
Taiwan – – Down Hungary Up – Down
Egypt Up Down Down Italy Up – Down
Czech Down Up – Mexico Up – Down
Israel Down Up – Malaysia Down Up Up
South Korea Down Up – Croatia Up Down Up
Sweden Down Up – Estonia Up Down Up
Finland Down – Up Singapore Up Down Up
Qatar Down – Up Ukraine Up Down Up
South Africa Down – Up Japan Up – –
the United Arab Emirates – – – Lebanon Up – –
France – – – Belgium – Up –
Germany – – – China – Up –
Jordan – – – Brazil – – Up
Kazakhstan – – – Mauritius – – Up
Netherlands – – – New Zealand – – Up
Nigeria – – – Thailand – – Up
Pakistan – – – Morocco – Up –
Peru – – – Turkey Up – –
Philippines – – – Bulgaria Up – Up
Argentina – – – Switzerland Up – Up
Australia – – – Serbia – Up Up
there are more or less other stock price indices with which it has a significant correla-
tion, the strength of the correlation is greater or smaller, changes in that stock market
are transmitted to other stock markets faster or slower, the efficiency of transmitting
fluctuations between two other stock markets is higher or lower, and the connection
to other important stock price indices is tighter or looser (Moghadam et al. 2019).
Several patterns were derived from the results presented in Table 7. First, the stock
price indices for Norway, Russia, the United Kingdom, and Egypt witnessed significant
centrality ranking changes for three consecutive years in 2020, 2021, and 2022. This
indicates that the financial markets in these countries are more volatile and that atten-
tion should be paid to strengthening financial risk prevention during the epidemic. A
typical example is the United Kingdom, which adopted a herd immunization policy at
the beginning of the COVID-19 outbreak in 2020, resulting in a large population being
infected (Burckhardt et al. 2022). The widespread infection caused a tight labor market
and an economic downturn, corresponding to a decline in the importance of its stock
price index in 2020. As vaccine promotion and herd immunity were achieved, the United
Kingdom economy gradually recovered in 2021 and experienced an increase in the
importance of its stock price index in 2021. In 2022, the United Kingdom’s economy was
hit by an Omicron strain, with a record number of infections. Repeated epidemic out-
breaks led to a lack of investor confidence and a renewed decline in the importance of
the stock price index in 2021. Second, for countries that experienced only a drop in the
stock price index centrality ranking, attention should be paid to encouraging production
and economic recovery during the epidemic. For example, Ireland is the only country or
region that has seen two drops in its centrality rankings in 2021 and 2022, respectively.
In the general context of an epidemic, Ireland should pay particular attention to encour-
aging people to work, vigorously reviving production, and stabilizing economic levels to
attract investment. Third, the centrality rankings of many established capitalist countries
such as France, Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, the United States, Portugal, and
Spain did not change significantly between 2020 and 2022. This result indicates that the
stock markets of these countries were more resilient to financial volatility in an epidemic
environment than those with significant centrality ranking changes. Fourth, Bulgaria,
Switzerland, and Serbia experience two increases in their stock price index rankings
from 2020 to 2022. International investors can focus on these markets for effective asset
allocation.
Conclusions
This study investigates global stock market co-movements during the COVID-19 pan-
demic. This study has important implications for determining the impact of the COVID-
19 outbreak on the topology of the global stock market network, government policies
and regulations in financial markets, portfolio adjustments, and risk management by
individual and institutional investors (Tang et al. 2018; Aslam et al. 2020). A novel com-
plex network construction method is proposed based on OHLC data and hypothesis
testing for edge selection. The degree distribution of the OHLC data-based network
exhibited better power-law distribution properties than those of the return-based net-
work, implying a more rational construction of the complex network. The topologies of
the global stock market complex networks constructed using 70 important global stock
price indices before (2017–2019) and after (2020–2022) the COVID-19 outbreak were
examined using a fruitful dataset. Several important conclusions are drawn.
First, significant stock market co-movements occurred before and after the COVID-19
pandemic. This positive correlation is significantly higher in developed markets than in
emerging or frontier markets. The positive correlation ratios between the two stock price
indices in the global stock market complex network reached 68.65% in 2017, 73.50% in
2018, 70.81% in 2019, 80.21% in 2020, 70.19% in 2021 and 74.16% in 2022. In addition,
the developed markets’ average positive correlation ratio from 2017 to 2022 is 92.00%,
17.62%, and 60.75% higher than those of the emerging and frontier markets, respectively.
Second, stock market co-movement in emerging and frontier markets strengthened
from 2020 to 2022, following the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. In contrast, the
stock market co-movement of developed markets strengthened in 2020 but weakened
in 2021 and 2022. The results provide evidence of the diversion of international invest-
ments in different developed markets during the post-pandemic period.
Third, in the wake of the COVID-19 outbreak, the global stock market network
became very dense in 2020, relatively sparse in 2021, and returned to a dense state by
2022. Compared with 2019, the average degree of the 2020 global stock market com-
plex network increased by 43.43%. The year 2021 witnessed inconsistent characteristics
in the complex network of the world stock market. Compared to 2020, the 2021 global
stock market complex network shows a 32.55% decrease in the average degree. In 2022,
the closeness of the global stock market network is second only to that of 2020 during
the entire investigation period from 2017 to 2022. Compared to 2021, the average degree
of the 2022 global stock market complex network increases by 22.06%.
Fourth, the stock price indices of developed markets and European countries occupy
a dominant position in the world’s stock market complex network. The rankings based
on the five centrality indicators indicated an average ranking of 24.68 for developed mar-
kets, 34.18 for emerging, and 52.16 for frontier markets 2017 to 2022. The centers of
developed markets are recognized as Austria, Portugal, the United Kingdom, Ireland,
Sweden, and Norway; the centers of emerging markets are South Africa, the Czech
Republic, Poland, Chile, Brazil, Mexico, and Argentina; and the centers of frontier mar-
kets are Croatia and Romania. The European region occupies the most crucial posi-
tion in the world’s stock market network, with an average centrality ranking of 25.79
from 2017 to 2022, followed by South America (32.92), North America (35.20), Oceania
(40.07), Asia (42.40), and Africa (49.41).
Fifth, the centrality rankings of different countries showed different dynamics during
the pandemic period. The stock price indices for Norway, Russia, the United Kingdom,
and Egypt witnessed significant changes over three consecutive years from 2020 to 2022.
Ireland was the only country or region with two drops in rankings in 2021 and 2022,
respectively. The centrality rankings of established capitalist countries, such as France,
Germany, the Netherlands, Australia, the United States, Portugal, and Spain, did not
change significantly from 2020 to 2022. Countries such as Bulgaria, Switzerland, and
Serbia only experienced an increase in their stock price index rankings from 2020 to
2022.
Based on the estimation results of the OHLC data-based complex network, an array
of concrete recommendations is provided. First, developed markets enjoy better stock
market co-movement characteristics than do emerging and frontier markets. This indi-
cates that the economic fundamentals of developed countries are interconnected with
those of other countries. As a result, developed market stock price indices have more
stable real economic support and are suitable for long-term investors. Establishing capi-
talist countries with high financial risk resilience during an epidemic is a good choice.
Second, the frontier and emerging markets are uncertain because of their weaker over-
all interconnectedness with global stock markets. More uncertainty indicates more sig-
nificant rates of return and risk. Short-term investors seeking substantial profits can
focus on frontier and emerging markets. Bulgaria and Serbia, which have consistently
increased in terms of centrality in the global stock market network, can be considered.
Third, as the COVID-19 pandemic progressed, the economic trends in each country or
region varied depending on epidemic prevention and economic recovery. Greater vola-
tility and uncertainty in the global equity markets are double-edged swords for investors.
Investors should divest appropriately to control risk when an epidemic and production
recovery are uncertain.
Moreover, additional investments can lead to substantial profits when epidemics
and production recovery are inevitable. Fourth, for international investors, risk can be
reduced by reducing their exposure to countries with strong economic correlations.
One potential investment strategy is to choose several countries and regions with
different co-movement patterns for diversification. Pairs trading strategies designed
based on the movement of correlated stock price indices can also be considered (Elli-
ott et al. 2005; Gatev et al. 2006; Mudchanatongsuk et al. 2008). Fifth, Norway, Russia,
the United Kingdom, and Egypt continue to witness significant changes in their cen-
trality rankings in 2020, 2021, and 2022, respectively. These countries should improve
their public healthcare protection systems and enhance their epidemic risk resilience,
thereby improving their financial risk-prevention capabilities and protecting their
macroeconomic security. Finally, high-welfare countries, led by Ireland, must encour-
age the workforce and make solid efforts to restore production and stabilize economic
levels.
The primary limitation of this study is the relatively macroscopic nature of the par-
ticipants. Considering that most investors choose portfolios that tend to be on the
same stock market, future studies could employ the proposed complex network con-
struction approach to conduct an in-depth investigation of various stocks in a particu-
lar stock market. Thus, the network topology may be utilized to optimize portfolios
and provide investors with practical trading strategies (Boginski et al. 2014; Tang et al.
2018).
Appendix
See Tables 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12.
Table 8 Degree centrality ranking in 2017 to 2022
1 South Africa 1 1 5 2 8 3 3.33 Developed Africa

2 Portugal 26 3 4 4 5 4 7.67 Emerging Europe

3 Austria 18 3 5 4 3 18 8.50 Developed Europe
4 Czech 8 11 5 18 5 11 9.67 Emerging Europe
5 Chile 1 11 5 24 9 13 10.50 Emerging South America
(2024) 10:7
6 Norway 7 9 2 12 1 34 10.83 Developed Europe

7 Poland 6 17 15 1 26 3 11.33 Emerging Europe
8 Ireland 13 3 10 2 12 31 11.83 Developed Europe
9 The United Kingdom 20 1 2 12 1 37 12.17 Developed Europe
10 Sweden 3 9 1 33 17 12 12.50 Developed Europe
11 Finland 7 17 13 31 9 1 13.00 Developed Europe
12 Brazil 14 17 13 12 22 10 14.67 Emerging South America
13 Mexico 4 17 25 24 4 17 15.17 Emerging North America
14 Greece 24 14 15 4 9 27 15.50 Emerging Europe
15 Luxembourg 18 11 10 4 14 42 16.50 Developed Europe
16 Argentina 20 24 15 18 12 18 17.83 Emerging South America
17 India 4 26 24 18 14 24 18.33 Emerging Asia
18 Belgium 12 36 21 24 17 4 19.00 Developed Europe
19 Denmark 13 3 9 49 26 25 20.83 Developed Europe
20 Russia 26 7 12 31 16 35 21.17 Emerging Europe
21 Switzerland 13 28 34 18 35 1 21.50 Developed Europe
22 The United States 20 15 19 35 24 23 22.67 Developed North America
23 Hungary 46 7 15 4 5 64 23.50 Emerging Europe
24 Israel 20 15 25 35 19 29 23.83 Developed Asia
25 Taiwan 38 21 21 10 19 38 24.50 Emerging Asia
26 The United Arab Emirates 43 26 21 12 22 27 25.17 Emerging Asia
Page 33 of 50
Table 8 (continued)
26 Singapore 38 21 30 4 43 15 25.17 Developed Asia
28 France 24 24 30 35 26 26 27.50 Developed Europe

29 Italy 7 38 30 24 24 51 29.00 Developed Europe
30 Germany 26 35 25 35 26 30 29.50 Developed Europe
31 Netherlands 30 33 25 35 30 32 30.83 Developed Europe
(2024) 10:7
32 Spain 13 36 30 40 33 34 31.00 Developed Europe

33 Japan 32 33 42 24 30 27 31.33 Developed Asia
34 New Zealand 7 42 50 42 48 7 32.67 Developed Oceania
35 Thailand 40 30 36 33 47 11 32.83 Emerging Asia
36 Hong Kong 33 40 19 24 37 46 33.17 Developed Asia
37 Romania 52 23 36 10 19 64 34.00 Frontier Europe
38 Malaysia 34 28 34 49 41 22 34.67 Emerging Asia
39 Croatia 52 46 55 18 30 9 35.00 Frontier Europe
40 Estonia 55 53 46 18 43 3 36.33 Frontier Europe
41 Saudi Arabia 46 44 25 24 40 42 36.83 Emerging Asia
41 Turkey 59 30 42 40 33 17 36.83 Emerging Europe
43 Bulgaria 34 46 48 42 51 9 38.33 Frontier Europe
44 Slovenia 46 49 48 12 35 41 38.50 Frontier Europe
45 Indonesia 41 30 45 45 39 43 40.50 Emerging Asia
45 Canada 26 42 41 53 41 44 41.17 Developed North America
47 China 34 40 39 48 37 50 41.33 Emerging Asia
48 Philippines 34 38 42 44 43 48 41.50 Emerging Asia
49 South Korea 43 46 36 52 43 36 42.67 Developed Asia
50 Vietnam 46 44 40 47 54 44 45.83 Frontier Asia
51 Egypt 66 51 50 12 56 56 48.50 Emerging Africa
52 Pakistan 47 52 47 46 49 52 48.83 Emerging Asia
Page 34 of 50
Table 8 (continued)
53 Ukraine 30 65 61 54 66 20 49.33 Emerging Europe
(2024) 10:7
54 Australia 43 62 53 58 54 48 53.00 Developed Oceania

55 Serbia 42 60 67 69 59 39 56.00 Frontier Europe
56 Nigeria 68 50 61 49 50 59 56.17 Frontier Africa
57 Venezuela 57 59 58 55 56 60 57.50 Emerging North America
58 Peru 63 69 53 56 51 55 57.83 Emerging South America
59 Lebanon 51 62 67 58 60 53 58.50 Frontier Asia
59 Morocco 52 53 70 67 51 63 59.33 Frontier Africa
61 Colombia 55 65 55 60 60 62 59.50 Emerging South America
62 Jordan 69 56 58 63 56 61 60.50 Frontier Asia
63 Qatar 58 69 50 63 70 58 61.33 Emerging Asia
64 Kenya 63 60 60 63 60 63 61.50 Frontier Africa
65 Bahrain 66 67 61 60 60 57 61.83 Frontier Asia
65 Tunisia 58 55 64 60 65 69 61.83 Frontier Africa
67 Mauritius 70 56 64 67 66 54 62.83 Frontier Africa
68 Kazakhstan 58 67 64 56 66 68 63.17 Frontier Asia
69 Kuwait 58 62 55 70 66 69 63.33 Emerging Asia
69 Sri Lanka 63 58 69 63 60 67 63.33 Frontier Asia
Page 35 of 50
Table 9 Weighted degree centrality ranking in 2017–2022


(2024) 10:7

Page 36 of 50
Table 9 (continued)

(2024) 10:7

Page 37 of 50
Table 9 (continued)
(2024) 10:7

Page 38 of 50
Table 10 Closeness centrality ranking in 2017 to 2022


(2024) 10:7

Page 39 of 50
Table 10 (continued)

(2024) 10:7

Page 40 of 50
(2024) 10:7

Page 41 of 50
Table 11 Betweenness centrality ranking in 2017–2022


(2024) 10:7

Page 42 of 50

(2024) 10:7

Page 43 of 50
(2024) 10:7

Page 44 of 50
Table 12 Eigenvector centrality ranking in 2017 to 2022


(2024) 10:7

Page 45 of 50

(2024) 10:7

Page 46 of 50
(2024) 10:7

Page 47 of 50
Abbreviations
COVID-19 Coronavirus Disease 2019
OHLC Open-high-low-close
N Number of nodes
E Number of edges
AD Average degree
AWD Average weighted degree
ND Network density
D(x) Degree centrality
WD(x) Weighted degree centrality
C(x) Closeness centrality
B(x) Betweenness centrality
E(x) Eigenvector centrality
Acknowledgements
We are grateful for the grants and would like to express our sincere gratitude to the editors, reviewers, and proofreaders
who provided suggestions to our study.
Author contributions
WH: methodology, software, formal analysis, writing—original draft. HW: conceptualization, methodology, funding
acquisition. YW: validation, writing—review and editing, supervision, funding acquisition. JC: validation, writing—review
and editing.
Funding
The authors are grateful for the financial support from the Beijing Municipal Social Science Foundation (No. 20GLC054),
the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Nos. 72021001, 72174020, 71904009), the Natural Science Foundation
of Beijing Municipality (No. 9232014), and the Humanities and Social Science Fund of Ministry of Education of China (No.
18YJC840041).
Availability of data and materials
Available on request.
Declaration
Competing interests
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
Received: 29 September 2022 Accepted: 1 September 2023
References
Aiello W, Chung F, Lu L (2001) A random graph model for power law graphs. Exp Math 10(1):53–66
Altig D, Baker S, Barrero JM, Bloom N et al (2020) Economic uncertainty before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Public
Econ 191:104274
Antonini M, Eid MA, Falkenbach M et al (2022) An analysis of the COVID-19 vaccination campaigns in France, Israel, Italy and
Spain and their impact on health and economic outcomes. Health Policy Technol 11(2):100594
Ashraf BN (2020) Economic impact of government interventions during the COVID-19 pandemic: international evidence
from financial markets. J Behav Exp Finance 27:100371
Aslam F, Mohmand YT, Ferreira P et al (2020) Network analysis of global stock markets at the beginning of the coronavirus
disease (Covid-19) outbreak. Borsa Istanbul Rev 20:S49–S61
Bavelas A (1950) Communication patterns in task-oriented groups. J Acoust Soc Am 22(6):725–730
Boginski V, Butenko S, Pardalos PM (2006) Mining market data: a network approach. Comput Oper Res 33(11):3171–3184
Boginski V, Butenko S, Shirokikh O et al (2014) A network-based data mining approach to portfolio selection via weighted
clique relaxations. Ann Oper Res 216:23–34
Borgatti SP (2005) Centrality and network flow. Soc Netw 27(1):55–71
Burckhardt RM, Dennehy JJ, Poon LLM et al (2022) Are COVID-19 vaccine boosters needed? The science behind boosters. J
Virol 96(3):e01973-e2021
Cao G, Shi Y, Li Q (2017) Structure characteristics of the international stock market complex network in the perspective of
whole and part. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc
Chen D, Lü L, Shang MS et al (2012) Identifying influential nodes in complex networks. Physica A 391(4):1777–1787
Claessens S, Kose MA, Terrones ME (2011) Financial cycles: what? how? when?. In: NBER international seminar on macroeco-
nomics. University of Chicago Press, Chicago, IL, vol. 7, no. 1, pp. 303–344
Clauset A, Shalizi CR, Newman MEJ (2009) Power-law distributions in empirical data. SIAM Rev 51(4):661–703
D’Agostino RB, Stephens MA (1986) Goodness-of-fit techniques. Marcel Dekker, New York
Deb P, Furceri D, Ostry JD, Tawk N (2022a) The economic effects of Covid-19 containment measures. Open Econ Rev
33(1):1–32
Deb P, Furceri D, Jimenez D et al (2022b) The effects of COVID-19 vaccines on economic activity. Swiss J Econ Stat 158(1):1–25
Dong E, Du H, Gardner L (2020) An interactive web-based dashboard to track COVID-19 in real time. Lancet Infect Dis
20(5):533–534
Elliott RJ, Van Der Hoek J, Malcolm WP (2005) Pairs trading. Quant Finance 5(3):271–276
Firestone SM, Ward MP, Christley RM et al (2011) The importance of location in contact networks: describing early epidemic
spread using spatial social network analysis. Prev Vet Med 102(3):185–195
Forbes KJ, Rigobon R (2002) No contagion, only interdependence: measuring stock market comovements. J Finance
57(5):2223–2261
Freeman LC (1977) A set of measures of centrality based on betweenness. Sociometry 40:35–41
Gatev E, Goetzmann WN, Rouwenhorst KG (2006) Pairs trading: performance of a relative-value arbitrage rule. Rev Financ
Stud 19(3):797–827
Gong C, Tang P, Wang Y (2019) Measuring the network connectedness of global stock markets. Physica A 535:122351
Gupta M, Abdelmaksoud A, Jafferany M, Lotti T, Sadoughifar R, Goldust M (2020) COVID-19 and economy. Dermatol Therapy
33(4):e13329
Gururaja BL, Ranjitha N (2022) Socio-economic impact of COVID-19 on the informal sector in India. Contemp Soc Sci
17(2):173–190
Haroon O, Rizvi SAR (2020) COVID-19: media coverage and financial markets behavior—a sectoral inquiry. J Behav Exp
Finance 27:100343
Hollander M, Wolfe DA (1973) Nonparametric statistical methods. Wiley, New York
Huang W, Wang H, Wei Y (2020) Mapping the illegal international ivory trading network to identify key hubs and smuggling
routes. EcoHealth 17(4):523–539
Huang W, Wang H, Qin H et al (2022a) Convolutional neural network forecasting of European Union allowances futures using
a novel unconstrained transformation method. Energy Econ 110:106049
Huang W, Wang H, Wang S (2022b) A pseudo principal component analysis method for multi-dimensional open-high-low-
close data in candlestick chart. Commun Stat Theory Methods 1–27
Iwanicz-Drozdowska M, Rogowicz K, Kurowski Ł et al (2021) Two decades of contagion effect on stock markets: which events
are more contagious? J Financ Stab 55:100907
Jackson JK (2021) Global economic effects of COVID-19. Congressional Research Service
Jin Y, Lin CY, Matsuo Y et al (2012) Mining dynamic social networks from public news articles for company value prediction.
Soc Netw Anal Min 2(3):217–228
Kim S, Shin EH (2002) A longitudinal analysis of globalization and regionalization in international trade: a social network
approach. Soc Forces 81(2):445–468
King MA, Wadhwani S (1990) Transmission of volatility between stock markets. Rev Financ Stud 3(1):5–33
Li B, Pi D (2018) Analysis of global stock index data during crisis period via complex network approach. PLoS ONE
13(7):e0200600
Liu XF, Tse CK (2012) Dynamics of network of global stock market. Account Finance Res 1(2):1–12
Lohmann G, Margulies DS, Horstmann A et al (2010) Eigenvector centrality mapping for analyzing connectivity patterns in
fMRI data of the human brain. PLoS ONE 5(4):e10232
McQueen G, Roley VV (1993) Stock prices, news, and business conditions. Rev Financ Stud 6(3):683–707
Memon BA, Yao H (2021) The impact of COVID-19 on the dynamic topology and network flow of world stock markets. J Open
Innov Technol Market Complex 7(4):241
Milovanska-Farrington S (2022) Job loss and food insecurity during the COVID-19 pandemic. J Econ Stud 50(2):300–323
Moghadam HE, Mohammadi T, Kashani MF et al (2019) Complex networks analysis in Iran stock market: the application of
centrality. Phys A 531:121800
Mudchanatongsuk S, Primbs JA, Wong W (2008) Optimal pairs trading: a stochastic control approach. In: 2008 American
control conference. IEEE, 2008, pp 1035–1039
Nobi A, Lee S, Kim DH et al (2014) Correlation and network topologies in global and local stock indices. Phys Lett A
378(34):2482–2489
Okorie DI, Lin B (2021) Stock markets and the COVID-19 fractal contagion effects. Financ Res Lett 38:101640
Omay T, Iren P (2019) Behavior of foreign investors in the Malaysian stock market in times of crisis: a nonlinear approach. J
Asian Econ 60:85–100
Press WH, Flannery BP, Teukolsky SA, Vetterling WT (1992) Numerical recipes in C. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge
Qiao H, Li Y, Xia Y (2015) Analysis of linkage effects among currency networks using REER data. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc
Roy RB, Sarkar UK (2011) Identifying influential stock indices from global stock markets: a social network analysis approach.
Procedia Comput Sci 5:442–449
Roy RB, Sarkar UK (2013) A social network approach to change detection in the interdependence structure of global stock
markets. Soc Netw Anal Min 3(3):269–283
Samitas A, Kampouris E, Polyzos S (2022) Covid-19 pandemic and spillover effects in stock markets: a financial network
approach. Int Rev Financ Anal 80:102005
Scott J (1988) Social network analysis. Sociology 22(1):109–127
Tang Y, Xiong JJ, Jia ZY et al (2018) Complexities in financial network topological dynamics: modeling of emerging and devel-
oped stock markets. Complexity 2018
Tang Y, Xiong JJ, Luo Y et al (2019) How do the global stock markets Influence one another? Evidence from finance big data
and granger causality directed network. Int J Electron Commer 23(1):85–109
Tao L, Hao Y, Yijie H et al (2017). K-line patterns’ predictive power analysis using the methods of similarity match and cluster-
ing. Math Probl Eng 2017
Tse CK, Liu J, Lau FCM (2010) A network perspective of the stock market. J Empir Finance 17(4):659–667
UNDP (2020) The social and economic impact of COVID-19 in the South Asian Pacific region. United Nations, New York City
Wen F, Yang X, Zhou WX (2019) Tail dependence networks of global stock markets. Int J Financ Econ 24(1):558–567
Yang P, Hou X (2022) Research on dynamic characteristics of stock market based on big data analysis. Discrete Dyn Nat Soc
2022
Yuan Y, Wang H, Jin X (2022) Pandemic-driven financial contagion and investor behavior: evidence from the COVID-19. Int
Rev Financ Anal 83:102315
Zhang D, Hu M, Ji Q (2020) Financial markets under the global pandemic of COVID-19. Finance Res Lett 36:101528
Publisher’s Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Complex Network Analysis of Global Stock Market Co-Movement During The COVID-19 Pandemic Based On Intraday Open-High-Low-Close Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complex Network Analysis of Global Stock Market Co-Movement During The COVID-19 Pandemic Based On Intraday Open-High-Low-Close Data

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Complex Network Analysis of Global Stock Market Co-Movement During The COVID-19 Pandemic Based On Intraday Open-High-Low-Close Data

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Huang et al.

Financial Innovation (2024) 10:7 Financial Innovation

RESEARCH Open Access

Complex network analysis of global stock

are interconnected, thus triggering the transnational co-movement of different stock

degree distribution of the OHLC data-based network has a 78.6% probability of

Fig. 1 Cumulative daily new COVID-19 cases by continent

Fig. 2 A graphical representation of OHLC data

the COVID-19 pandemic on 51 major stock markets based on dependence dynamics

Data and method

Table 1 Summary of selected stock price indices

Oceania Australia AS51 South America Brazil IBOVESPA

(o) (h) (l) (c)

(o∗) (l∗) (c∗) (l∗)

which is composed of n observations y ij ∈ R4 (i = 1, 2, . . . , n) corresponding to the stock

(1) For Y j ∈ R4n, define its sample mean as

(2) For any pair of Y j , Y k ∈ R4n, define their sample covariance as

(3) For Y j ∈ R4n, define its sample variance as

Then, the correlation coefficient of any pair of Y j , Y k ∈ R4n can be deduced by

H0 : rjk = 0 and H1 : rjk �= 0. (12)

Basic indicators of complex network

(1) Number of nodes (N): number of nodes in the network.

Complex network centrality analysis

Empirical analysis of global stock market complex network

Overall correlation analysis

Fig. 4 Overall correlation plots of global stock markets in different years

Table 2 FTSE’s stock market segmentation

1 The United States 1 Mexico 1 Croatia

2017 Overall 1658 (68.65%) 757 (31.35%)

Basic indicators of global stock market complex network

Power‑law distribution of degree centrality

The testing and characterization of power-law distributions are complicated because

Centrality analysis of the global stock market complex network

Fig. 7 Power-law distribution of return-based and OHLC data-based networks

Table 7 Stock price indices with significant changes in centrality ranking

Ireland – Down Down Bahrain – – –

1 South Africa 1 1 5 2 8 3 3.33 Developed Africa

2 Portugal 26 3 4 4 5 4 7.67 Emerging Europe

6 Norway 7 9 2 12 1 34 10.83 Developed Europe

28 France 24 24 30 35 26 26 27.50 Developed Europe

32 Spain 13 36 30 40 33 34 31.00 Developed Europe

54 Australia 43 62 53 58 54 48 53.00 Developed Oceania

1 The United Kingdom 6 1 2 1 1 8 3.17 Developed Europe

2 Portugal 9 4 4 5 7 3 5.33 Emerging Europe

6 South Africa 10 6 9 6 5 5 6.83 Developed Africa

26 Mexico 21 32 31 27 22 27 26.67 Emerging North America

31 India 24 31 37 26 31 42 31.83 Emerging Asia

53 Serbia 42 62 58 67 56 39 54.00 Frontier Europe

1 South Africa 1 1 5 3 8 4 3.67 Developed Africa

2 Portugal 25 3 2 4 6 2 7.00 Emerging Europe

6 Ireland 12 3 10 1 12 30 11.33 Developed Europe

29 Italy 7 38 27 24 21 51 28.00 Developed Europe

32 Japan 32 32 43 24 28 27 31.00 Developed Asia

55 Nigeria 65 50 61 49 50 59 55.67 Frontier Africa

1 Austria 17 4 3 24 3 9 10.00 Developed Europe

2 South Africa 3 1 10 14 40 18 14.33 Developed Africa

6 Thailand 35 5 9 45 18 16 21.33 Emerging Asia

28 Hungary 45 29 27 7 6 65 29.83 Emerging Europe

32 Croatia 15 43 61 4 52 20 32.50 Frontier Europe