The impact of global oil prices and some factors on the Qatari GDP for the period 2003Q1–2023Q4

Mhamed Radhi Jafaar1, Adel Salam Kashcool2
1 College of Administration and Economics, Kerbala University, Россия
2 College of Administration and Economics, Wasit University

Статья в журнале

Вопросы инновационной экономики (РИНЦ, ВАК)
опубликовать статью | оформить подписку

Том 14, Номер 3 (Июль-сентябрь 2024)

Цитировать:
Mhamed Radhi Jafaar, Adel Salam Kashcool The impact of global oil prices and some factors on the Qatari GDP for the period 2003Q1–2023Q4 // Вопросы инновационной экономики. – 2024. – Том 14. – № 3. – С. 959-976. – doi: 10.18334/vinec.14.3.121285.

Эта статья проиндексирована РИНЦ, см. https://elibrary.ru/item.asp?id=69925484

Аннотация:
The Qatari economy is among the emerging Arab and Gulf economies in the region, especially since it has some characteristics as an emerging economy and has a presence in international forums in terms of its embrace of Arab and international football championships and its interest in the tourism, education, information technology and entrepreneurship sectors. All that was mentioned gave The economy has increased momentum, as it has been noted that it has recorded clear growth rates and development leaps compared to some other Gulf economies. Despite the small area of the State of Qatar, it has been able to emulate developed countries in many ways. ، The results of the research showed that there are no long-term complementary relationships, but rather short-term complementary relationships between the variables studied, which are each of the gross domestic product, oil exports, oil production, and natural gas reserves, as well as global oil prices. The gross domestic product took a position as a dependent variable, and the other variables are influencing variables. The results of the research showed that there is agreement with the basic assumptions of economic theory in terms of natural gas reserves and the rest of the other variables and their impact on the gross domestic product, up and down. The ARDL methodology was chosen as an appropriate methodology for the nature and reality of the variables studied for the Qatari economy, and it was tested with pre- and post-tests and testing the strength of the model. Estimated ، Among the pre-tests are the graph test and the unit root tests, and then the zigzag on choosing the appropriate model, i.e. the appropriate slowdowns for each of the variables under study, and then the zigzag on the post-tests, which are the limits tests and the integration parameter tests, and then the tests of non-stationarity of homogeneity of variance and non-stationarity of homogeneity. The variance of the estimated model, all of which show the safety of the estimated model from possible statistical and measurement problems. The research also concluded with tests of the cumulative sum and its squares.

Ключевые слова: Qatari economy, international oil prices, natural gas reserves, ARDL, homoscedasticity

JEL-классификация: C01, C22, C32, Q31, O53



The importance of research

The importance of the research stems from the fact that the impact of international oil prices and some factors on the Qatari GDP has a significant impact on the Qatari economy, negatively or positively, as in the event of a rise in global oil prices, it gives a positive signal for an improvement in the GDP in Qatar.

The research problem

Although the State of Qatar occupies an advanced position in the world in gas production, as well as being ranked first in the Arab countries in gas production, it is also an oil-producing state that produces and exports oil, and this means an increase in the state’s public revenues through which it covers public expenses. Completely and successfully, the availability of such revenues helps the Qatari state develop its infrastructure so that it becomes prosperous for the Qatari economic reality.

The Hypothesis research

The research hypothesis is based on the vision that “the rise in global oil prices leads to increases in oil imports and thus an increase in the Qatari gross domestic product.”

Research objective

Standard analysis of world oil prices, oil exports, oil production, and analysis of the country’s gross domestic product using quantitative methods according to the assumptions of economic theory.

Research methodology and structure:

The researcher relied on the standard approach adopted in studies of the impact of international oil prices and some factors on the Qatari gross domestic product

This is done by analyzing the available data about the research problem and the purpose of its study.

the introduction

The rentier characteristic is one of the most important features that characterize the Arab Gulf economies, given that they possess a source of rentier revenues, natural resources, and reserves, and the Qatari economy is one of these economies. In general, the aforementioned economies can be classified into two types. The first is that some Gulf economies were able to record remarkable development leaps, such as the economy. Saudi Arabia, Qatar, and the UAE compared to the second type, which are economies that still depend mainly on revenues generated from the oil sector, and it can be said that these economies revolve in a vicious circle of rentierism.، However, the Qatari economy was able, in record periods, to record clear developments in local and even international arenas, at the level of sporting activities and events, and hosting international tournaments and the World Cup. Despite Qatar’s small area, it enjoys latent natural resources, in addition to the huge oil and natural gas reserves, which can be developed. The oil and natural gas industry came gradually since the discovery of these resources in the middle of the twentieth century, as the state was able, through strategic plans, to diversify its sources of income as well as maintain the sustainability of these wealth and natural resources, as they are not only for the current generation, but also to preserve the share of future generations in them.، Diversification strategies include other multiple sectors, such as education, tourism, and the use of advanced technology. Qatar’s adoption of successful development and economic policies enhances the advanced reality of the economy, especially as it now seeks to stimulate entrepreneurship and innovation cycles, as well as assigning and supporting areas of research and development not only on the local scene, but also on the international arena. Regional and international.

Data

The World Bank data is considered the main source of our data in the current research, but this data has been divided into quarterly or quarterly data, which is a statistical procedure that is used to enhance the sample size and work to increase it according to standard frameworks in order to obtain logical and realistic estimates, avoid falling, and solve regression or Pseudo integration between the research variables studied, and the GDP variable was used as a dependent variable, while the oil exports variable OIL_EXP, oil production OIL_PRO, and the world oil prices variable W_OIL_PRI are exogenous variables. Thus, it can be said that the relationship of the dependent variable to the independent variables is a multiple regression relationship, and the studied time series extended from one quarter The first for the year 2003 to the fourth quarter of 2023 as follows:

Table (1) World oil prices, oil exports, oil production, natural gas for Qatar (2023Q4 - 2003Q1)/dollar

Year
GDP
GAS_RESERVE
OIL_EXP
OIL_PRO
W_OIL_PRI
Year
GDP
GAS_RESERVE
OIL_EXP
OIL_PRO
W_OIL_PRI
2003Q1
21464.38
25783.00
27733.75
704.03
26.14
2013Q3
200077.34
24400.00
20371.09
722.22
104.87
2003Q2
22652.63
25783.00
30321.25
716.22
26.20
2013Q4
202226.41
24400.00
19801.16
717.53
103.07
2003Q3
24128.13
25783.00
32693.75
727.09
26.81
2014Q1
211535.81
24415.78
18111.00
716.03
106.07
2003Q4
25890.88
25783.00
34851.25
736.66
27.97
2014Q2
210161.19
24409.47
17521.00
708.72
101.63
2004Q1
27940.88
25783.00
36793.75
744.91
29.68
2014Q3
205537.69
24396.84
17106.00
699.34
94.85
2004Q2
30278.13
25783.00
38521.25
751.84
31.95
2014Q4
197665.31
24377.91
16866.00
687.91
85.72
2004Q3
32902.63
25783.00
40033.75
757.47
34.77
2015Q1
173034.84
24356.41
17196.16
661.44
62.86
2004Q4
35814.38
25783.00
41331.25
761.78
38.15
2015Q2
164068.41
24323.34
17148.09
651.06
53.61
2005Q1
39175.88
25805.97
41427.81
757.59
44.02
2015Q3
157256.78
24282.47
17116.97
643.81
46.57
2005Q2
42597.13
25796.78
42689.69
762.16
47.72
2015Q4
152599.97
24233.78
17102.78
639.69
41.76
2005Q3
46240.63
25778.41
44130.94
768.28
51.20
2016Q1
152457.66
24155.56
17085.53
652.13
41.26
2005Q4
50106.38
25750.84
45751.56
775.97
54.46
2016Q2
151166.59
24099.94
17113.22
648.88
40.04
2006Q1
54362.81
25668.16
47171.88
788.19
57.80
2016Q3
151086.47
24045.19
17165.84
643.38
40.19
2006Q2
58605.69
25640.59
49303.13
797.81
60.49
2016Q4
152217.28
23991.31
17243.41
635.63
41.71
2006Q3
63003.44
25622.22
51765.63
807.81
62.85
2017Q1
155575.59
23923.00
17558.25
-229.37
47.14
2006Q4
67556.06
25613.03
54559.38
818.19
64.86
2017Q2
158721.66
23877.00
17600.75
100.38
50.41
2007Q1
70037.00
25662.56
58312.34
837.06
62.64
2017Q3
162672.03
23838.00
17583.25
769.88
54.03
2007Q2
75790.00
25651.94
61517.41
844.94
65.53
2017Q4
167426.72
23806.00
17505.75
1779.13
58.02
2007Q3
82588.50
25630.69
64802.53
849.94
69.63
2018Q1
179559.00
23771.94
17108.72
5656.72
66.78
2007Q4
90432.50
25598.81
68167.72
852.06
74.96
2018Q2
183293.00
23757.56
17015.03
6334.03
69.73
2008Q1
110221.69
25518.81
72041.56
860.84
93.77
2018Q3
185202.00
23753.81
16965.16
6339.66
71.28
2008Q2
115796.81
25480.69
75395.44
853.41
96.61
2018Q4
185286.00
23760.69
16959.09
5673.59
71.43
2008Q3
118057.56
25446.94
78657.94
839.28
95.76
2019Q1
182888.13
23818.50
16603.72
1829.91
69.53
2008Q4
117003.94
25417.56
81829.06
818.47
91.22
2019Q2
179584.88
23830.50
16842.53
822.84
67.14
2009Q1
97350.63
25415.38
72058.34
757.06
65.99
2019Q3
174719.38
23837.00
17282.41
146.47
63.60
2009Q2
95782.38
25385.63
80186.91
736.44
60.86
2019Q4
168291.63
23838.00
17923.34
-199.22
58.92
2009Q3
97013.88
25351.13
93364.28
722.69
58.82
2020Q1
145908.50
23829.59
19761.28
599.84
40.93
2009Q4
101045.13
25311.88
111590.47
715.81
59.89
2020Q2
142113.50
23821.16
20405.97
589.91
38.83
2010Q1
112480.34
25253.50
158893.75
732.84
70.02
2020Q3
142513.50
23808.78
20853.34
585.03
40.45
2010Q2
120269.41
25210.50
177606.25
732.91
74.90
2020Q4
147108.50
23792.47
21103.41
585.22
45.80
2010Q3
129016.53
25168.50
191756.25
733.03
80.50
2021Q1
171715.38
23731.13
20667.56
601.88
66.94
2010Q4
138721.72
25127.50
201343.75
733.22
86.82
2021Q2
178373.63
23723.38
20718.44
607.63
74.90
2011Q1
155466.69
25163.44
226556.25
733.47
99.58
2021Q3
182900.13
23728.13
20767.44
613.88
81.76
2011Q2
164655.31
25094.06
218943.75
733.78
105.03
2021Q4
185294.88
23745.38
20814.56
620.63
87.51
2011Q3
172369.31
24995.31
198693.75
734.16
108.91
2022Q1
178886.47
23803.72
20855.59
626.78
94.18
2011Q4
178608.69
24867.19
165806.25
734.59
111.21
2022Q2
179686.28
23834.53
20900.66
634.97
96.91
2012Q1
180806.41
24537.81
60224.84
737.44
109.01
2022Q3
181022.91
23866.41
20945.53
644.09
97.72
2012Q2
185123.34
24419.69
26084.91
737.06
109.33
2022Q4
182896.34
23899.34
20990.22
654.16
96.62
2012Q3
188992.47
24340.94
3330.03
735.81
109.24
2023Q1
185306.59
23933.34
21034.72
665.16
93.60
2012Q4
192413.78
24301.56
-8039.78
733.69
108.74
2023Q2
188253.66
23968.41
21079.03
677.09
88.66
2013Q1
194954.78
24400.00
20925.78
729.91
107.57
2023Q3
191737.53
24004.53
21123.16
689.97
81.80
2013Q2
197653.47
24400.00
20745.97
726.34
106.37
2023Q4
195758.22
24041.72
21167.09
703.78
73.03
Source: www.albankaldawli.org

Pretests

Therefore, to determine the appropriate details for the lighting reality, the research must have some control over its statistical indicators and determine them. We begin this group by testing the wind histogram [8, GERASKIN, Petr; FANTAZZINI, 2020]. First, unit root tests [1, Ayman Al-Aashoush2017] Secondly, of course, unit root tests are divided into two parts, the first is the expanded Dickey-Fuller test [14, Sahab Al-Samadi; Ahmed Malawi,2015] The second is the Phillips-Perron test [6, Farid Al-Jaouni; Ahmed Al-Ali; Alaa Abdullah Al-Dheeb,2013] For the unit root, after this stage we can choose the optimal methodology that matches the nature and sample of the research, as follows:

A- Chart

It appears from Chart (1) that all variables suffer from the problem of instability [10, KAN, Man Shan; TAN, Andy CC; MATHEW, Joseph ,2015] And stillness, some of them suffer from the problem of trend over time, and others suffer from the average, as in the following diagrams:

Chart (1): International oil prices, oil exports, oil production, natural gas for Qatar

Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

B-Unit root tests( 15 SCHWERT, G. William,2002 )

Unit root tests are classified as pre-tests to choose the appropriate model for the nature and methodology of the study and the research variables. Here two unit root tests were used, the first test is the expanded Dickey-Fuller test. [5, CANER, Mehmet; HANSEN, Bruce,2001] The other test is the Phillips-Perron test [3, BREITUNG, Jörg; FRANSES, Philip Hans,1998] We notice from the following table and the resulting results that all variables did not stabilize at the level because their probability value exceeds 5%, except for the oil production variable, Feller which stabilized at the level of 5%. Therefore, the first difference must be taken for these variables, and indeed the first difference was taken for them and they stabilized at The one% level at all, and successively, the research data and its variables were tested and subjected to the expanded Dickey-Feller unit root test, which showed consistency in terms of results with the Philips-Perron test. In general, the test results indicate that all the research variables did not stabilize at the level because they came with a probability of more than 5%. With the exception of the oil production variable, the first difference was also taken and the results were included in the following table:

Table 2: Unit root tests for the expanded Dickey- and Phelps-Perron

UNIT ROOT TEST TABLE (PP)
At Level


GAS_RESERVE
GDP
OIL_EXP
OIL_PRO
W_OIL_PRI
With Constant
t-Statistic
-1.1954
-1.7472
-2.0839
-3.4392
-2.3450
Prob.
0.6732
0.4040
0.2517
0.0123
0.1606

n0
n0
n0
**
n0
With Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-0.4040
-1.6176
-2.3555
-3.4459
-2.2159
Prob.
0.9859
0.7777
0.3998
0.0523
0.4744

n0
n0
n0
*
n0
Without Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-2.2586
0.8332
-1.5496
-2.6352
-0.3510
Prob.
0.0239
0.8892
0.1133
0.0089
0.5556

**
n0
n0
***
n0







At First Difference


d(GAS_RESERVE)
d(GDP)
d(OIL_EXP)
d(OIL_PRO)
d(W_OIL_PRI)
With Constant
t-Statistic
-4.3189
-4.7574
-4.7585
-5.9849
-4.4936
Prob.
0.0008
0.0002
0.0002
0.0000
0.0004

***
***
***
***
***
With Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-4.4273
-4.8064
-4.7398
-5.9513
-4.5364
Prob.
0.0035
0.0010
0.0013
0.0000
0.0025

***
***
***
***
***
Without Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-3.9776
-4.4911
-4.7871
-6.0192
-4.5124
Prob.
0.0001
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000
0.0000

***
***
***
***
***
UNIT ROOT TEST TABLE (ADF)
At Level


GAS_RESERVE
GDP
OIL_EXP
OIL_PRO
W_OIL_PRI
With Constant
t-Statistic
-1.5555
-1.9902
-1.8827
-2.7702
-2.8119
Prob.
0.5004
0.2905
0.3386
0.0675
0.0612

n0
n0
n0
*
*
With Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-0.6009
-1.9664
-2.4856
-2.8545
-2.7015
Prob.
0.9761
0.6096
0.3343
0.1833
0.2390

n0
n0
n0
n0
n0
Without Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-1.3299
0.5489
-1.2699
-1.3912
-0.4442
Prob.
0.1685
0.8325
0.1864
0.1514
0.5192

n0
n0
n0
n0
n0
At First Difference


d(GAS_RESERVE)
d(GDP)
d(OIL_EXP)
d(OIL_PRO)
d(W_OIL_PRI)
With Constant
t-Statistic
-2.5061
-2.3849
-2.8200
-3.4958
-5.1470
Prob.
0.1179
0.1495
0.0603
0.0108
0.0000

n0
n0
*
**
***
With Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-2.8078
-2.5687
-2.8203
-3.4797
-5.2049
Prob.
0.1991
0.2956
0.1949
0.0491
0.0003

n0
n0
n0
**
***
Without Constant & Trend
t-Statistic
-2.1583
-2.0170
-2.8394
-3.5230
-5.1499
Prob.
0.0306
0.0425
0.0051
0.0006
0.0000

**
**
***
***
***
Notes: (*)Significant at the 10%; (**)Significant at the 5%; (***) Significant at the 1%. and (no) Not Significant
Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

Methodology

By following stability tests according to the Graphs test for each of the world oil prices, oil exports, oil and natural gas production, as well as the unit root tests, expanded Died-Feller and Phelps-Perron, in accordance with the results of the graph, it is most likely observed that the variables will not stabilize at the level except for one variable, which is oil production. This makes it necessary for us to choose the appropriate methodology for this type of quiescence. It can be said that this type of quiescence, in which the levels of stability are distributed between the level and the first difference, is compatible with the autoregressive methodology for slow distributed gaps. ARDL [17, SARI, Ramazan; EWING, Bradley T.; SOYTAS, Ugur,2008] The model can be written in its general form [12, PINN, Stan Lee Shun,2011] As follows:

Yt=a0+a1yt-1+a2yt-2+---+apyt-p+B0Xt+B1Xt-1+B2Xt-2+---+BqXt-q+ Ƹt

whereas

Yt= variable

Xt= independent variable 123 ----- n

T = time

aO,aI,a2,-----,ap=Historical coefficients of change

Bo,B1,B2,----,Bg= independent time variation coefficients

Ƹt=random error

Top of Form

whereas

Y t=dependent variable

Xt=the independent variable

T=time

ao,a1,a2,----,ap=time delay coefficients of the dependent variable

BO,B!,B2,----,Bq=time delay coefficients of the independent variable

Ƹt=random error

It is worth noting that the distributed lag autoregressive methodology is consistent with the nature of the study variables and that it is compatible with variables whose levels of rest range between the level and the first difference. This methodology is based on two basic pillars: the first is testing the limits. [18, TANEJA, Sanjay, et,2023] Bound test، The second is the integration parameter [16, SHAHBAZ, Muhammad; RAHMAN, Mohammad Mafizur,2010] Co-integration Equation It must be negative and significant at the same time. The test results are listed in the following table:

Table 3: Methodology ARDL

Selected Model: ARDL(2, 0, 0, 0, 2)





Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.*










GDP(-1)
1.719947
0.095743
17.96417
0.0000
GDP(-2)
-0.766991
0.100138
-7.659360
0.0000
GAS_RESERVE
-2.504387
1.454982
-1.721250
0.0894
OIL_EXP
0.006270
0.006188
1.013209
0.3143
OIL_PRO
0.030843
0.213859
0.144221
0.8857
W_OIL_PRI
1004.002
47.96905
20.93019
0.0000
W_OIL_PRI(-1)
-1785.345
123.3245
-14.47680
0.0000
W_OIL_PRI(-2)
848.7911
107.3489
7.906845
0.0000
C
63605.07
37431.98
1.699217
0.0935










R-squared
0.998628
Mean dependent var
139329.8
Adjusted R-squared
0.998478
S.D. dependent var
55008.47
S.E. of regression
2146.245
Akaike info criterion
18.28408
Sum squared resid
3.36E+08
Schwarz criterion
18.54823
Log likelihood
-740.6473
Hannan-Quinn criter.
18.39013
F-statistic
6642.008
Durbin-Watson stat
2.188741
Prob(F-statistic)
0.000000













*Note: p-values and any subsequent tests do not account for model
selection.


Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

Posttests

Firstly: AKAIKE INFORMATION CRITERIA TEST [ 9, HU, Shuhua. Akaike ,2007] There is no doubt that we cannot go beyond the Akaike test (longitudinal wave), which is at the forefront of these tests, and the nature of this test is based on comparison with the best 20 models in terms of statistical and measurement characteristics, and the model proposed by (2 ,0,0,0,2) ARDL is the best, and this indicates that the GDP has two slowdowns and no slowdown for the natural gas variable, oil exports, and oil production, and two slowdowns for global oil prices, as follows::

Scheme (2) Akaik test

Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

secondly: ARDL BOUND TEST

The results of the analysis of the bounds test for the ARDL methodology showed that there is no long-term balanced relationship between the independent research variables and the dependent variable, which is the gross domestic product, since the value of F-CALCU, which is 1.8, is less than all the upper and lower limits for the significance levels of 1%, 5%, 10%, and 2. 5%. Therefore, it can be said that there is no long-term balanced relationship between the research variables mentioned above, as in the following table:

Schedule (4) ARDL BOUND TEST

Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

Third: ARDL LOUNG RUN COINTEGRATION (11 NKORO, Emeka, et,2016 ) The cointegration equation shows the complementary relationships between external variables and the GDP. This relationship showed that there is a negative relationship between the natural gas reserves variable and the GDP, which is somewhat smooth and logical because an increase in storage in a variable or an increase in natural gas will negatively affect Gross Domestic Product (GDP) is one of the sources of financing that the State of Qatar relies on mainly through the export of natural gas to Europe. And vice versa, if this reserve is reduced, it will be reflected positively on the GDP, which is a logical economic relationship. As for the other variables, which are both oil exports and oil production, as well as global oil prices, they have a direct impact on the GDP index, and they are relationships at the core of the region. Economic because when it increases, this will lead to an increase in the gross domestic product by the amount or parameter value of the variables mentioned as below:

Fourthly: Coint-Equation

The parameter of the cointegration equation must be negative and significant at the same time. The ARDL error correction test showed this by being negative and significant, meaning that its probability value is less than 5%. The error correction parameter indicates that the line can be corrected by about 1.42, that is, approximately within six months. As below or as in the following table:

Table (5) Error correction parameter

ARDL Error Correction Regression










ECM Regression
Case 2: Restricted Constant and No Trend










Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.










D(GDP(-1))
0.766991
0.075435
10.16754
0.0000
D(W_OIL_PRI)
1004.002
41.74583
24.05034
0.0000
D(W_OIL_PRI(-1))
-848.7911
83.42350
-10.17448
0.0000
CointEq(-1)*
-0.047045
0.013711
-3.431274
0.0010










R-squared
0.920181
Mean dependent var
2111.044
Adjusted R-squared
0.917111
S.D. dependent var
7211.821
S.E. of regression
2076.316
Akaike info criterion
18.16213
Sum squared resid
3.36E+08
Schwarz criterion
18.27953
Log likelihood
-740.6473
Hannan-Quinn criter.
18.20926
Durbin-Watson stat
2.188741













* p-value incompatible with t-Bounds distribution.










F-Bounds Test
Null Hypothesis: No levels relationship










Test Statistic
Value
Signif.
I(0)
I(1)










F-statistic
1.836486
10%
2.2
3.09
k
4
5%
2.56
3.49


2.5%
2.88
3.87


1%
3.29
4.37















Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

Fifth: LM Test [2,BALTAGI, Badi H.; JUNG, Byoung Cheol; SONG, Seuck Heun, 2010] The Breusch-Godfrey serial correlation test shows that the selected model does not suffer from the problem of serial correlation between random residuals, since the probability value for both F-CALCL and Chi-Square is greater than 5%, as in the following table:

Schedule (6) Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test

Breusch-Godfrey Serial Correlation LM Test:






F-statistic
1.181600
Prob. F(2,71)
0.3127
Obs*R-squared
2.641411
Prob. Chi-Square(2)
0.2669















Test Equation:



Dependent Variable: RESID


Method: ARDL



Date: 08/29/23 Time: 09:40


Sample: 2003Q3 2023Q4


Included observations: 82


Presample missing value lagged residuals set to zero.










Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.










GDP(-1)
0.153880
0.175547
0.876572
0.3837
GDP(-2)
-0.157647
0.178697
-0.882206
0.3806
GAS_RESERVE
-0.392586
1.474181
-0.266308
0.7908
OIL_EXP
-0.000500
0.006216
-0.080399
0.9361
OIL_PRO
-0.030340
0.214260
-0.141602
0.8878
W_OIL_PRI
-3.653701
47.94016
-0.076214
0.9395
W_OIL_PRI(-1)
-144.5867
184.4450
-0.783901
0.4357
W_OIL_PRI(-2)
142.8111
170.3930
0.838128
0.4048
C
10384.84
37963.55
0.273548
0.7852
RESID(-1)
-0.269535
0.214919
-1.254123
0.2139
RESID(-2)
-0.006458
0.162301
-0.039790
0.9684










R-squared
0.032212
Mean dependent var
3.80E-11
Adjusted R-squared
-0.104096
S.D. dependent var
2037.503
S.E. of regression
2140.926
Akaike info criterion
18.30012
Sum squared resid
3.25E+08
Schwarz criterion
18.62297
Log likelihood
-739.3048
Hannan-Quinn criter.
18.42974
F-statistic
0.236320
Durbin-Watson stat
1.942534
Prob(F-statistic)
0.991535













Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

Sixth: Homogeneity of variance test

The test shows non-stationarity of homogeneity of variance Heteroskedasticity Test [7, GLEJSER, Herbert,1969] The selected model does not suffer from this problem, but rather it is characterized by stable homogeneity of variance Homoscedasticity [4, BUCHINSKY, Moshe,1998] being that F-CALCL و Chi-Square It is 5% as in the following table:

Schedule (7) Heteroskedasticity Test

Heteroskedasticity Test: Breusch-Pagan-Godfrey
Null hypothesis: Homoskedasticity











F-statistic
1.779202
Prob. F(8,73)
0.0950
Obs*R-squared
13.37966
Prob. Chi-Square(8)
0.0994
Scaled explained SS
72.15275
Prob. Chi-Square(8)
0.0000















Test Equation:



Dependent Variable: RESID^2


Method: Least Squares


Date: 08/29/23 Time: 09:40


Sample: 2003Q3 2023Q4


Included observations: 82












Variable
Coefficient
Std. Error
t-Statistic
Prob.










C
2.16E+08
2.56E+08
0.846068
0.4003
GDP(-1)
-1636.570
654.2908
-2.501288
0.0146
GDP(-2)
1515.265
684.3230
2.214254
0.0299
GAS_RESERVE
-8602.274
9943.073
-0.865152
0.3898
OIL_EXP
-8.903868
42.28985
-0.210544
0.8338
OIL_PRO
-758.7691
1461.475
-0.519180
0.6052
W_OIL_PRI
207854.3
327811.6
0.634066
0.5280
W_OIL_PRI(-1)
1541190.
842776.7
1.828706
0.0715
W_OIL_PRI(-2)
-1472417.
733602.4
-2.007106
0.0484










R-squared
0.163167
Mean dependent var
4100791.
Adjusted R-squared
0.071459
S.D. dependent var
15220954
S.E. of regression
14667039
Akaike info criterion
35.94336
Sum squared resid
1.57E+16
Schwarz criterion
36.20751
Log likelihood
-1464.678
Hannan-Quinn criter.
36.04941
F-statistic
1.779202
Durbin-Watson stat
1.805915
Prob(F-statistic)
0.095044













Seventh: Testing the cumulative sum and its squares [13, PLOBERGER, Werner; KRÄMER, Walter ,1990]

The cumulative sum test indicates that the behavior of the studied series is normal and does not suffer from distortions, as it proceeds within the two critical limits, with a significance level of 5%, and this is a good indicator. As for the cumulative sum squares index, it shows a violation of the critical limits in the path of the phenomenon, and this is the result of a number of causes. Among them, there may be a distortion in the data of one of the model variables, or some of these data may be estimated, unreal, or illogical, or we may attribute this to other reasons that cannot be limited to this point, but in general, the parameters of the estimated model are good and have shown agreement. With economic logic, the model in its comprehensive form does not suffer from statistical or measurement problems and has passed all these tests successfully, as shown below:

Scheme (3) Cumulative Sum Test

Scheme (4) Cumulative Sum of Squares Test



Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0

Source: Outputs of the statistical program Eviews 12.0
Eighth: Discussing the results

The variation in the stationarity of the studied variables and their distribution between the level and the first difference, their stationarity at the first difference, and the variables not exceeding the second difference led to the choice of the autoregressive methodology for slowed and distributed gaps (ARDL), and the optimal slowdown was chosen as follows (2, 0, 0, 0, 2), that is, two slowdowns. For the dependent variable, which is the gross domestic product, and without slowing down for the independent variables, which are, respectively, natural gas reserves, oil exports, and oil production, in addition to two slowdowns for global oil prices.، This set of slowdowns was chosen according to a scientific methodology based in its interpretation on the Akaike criterion, which is considered the ideal standard for recording the lowest values ​​of the parameters of the estimated model. As the Akaike test shows, the model that we mentioned previously was chosen from among 20 estimated models, and for different slowdowns. As for With post-tests, starting with the limits test, which showed us that there are no long-term complementary relationships between external variables and GDP, since the value of F-CALCL is less than the minimum limits for all levels: 1%, 5%, 2.5%, 10%, as it reached 1.84.، The same is true for the error correction parameter, which has proven its quality, and it is a parameter with a negative value and a significance at the same time, as in Table (5). In addition to the post-tests, the LM test is considered an autocorrelation test for random residuals, which states that there is no problem of autocorrelation between random residuals. The fact that the probability value exceeds 5%, as is the case with the non-stationarity of homogeneity test, which shows that there is no problem of non-stationarity of homogeneity of variance. Rather, the model is in a state of constant homoscedasticity for the same previous reason. The post-tests were concluded by testing the cumulative sum and the squares of the cumulative sum.، If the first test shows normal behavior for the path of the phenomenon and its estimated model, the second test shows that there is a deviation in the path of the estimated phenomenon because the path of the phenomenon has recorded a departure from the two critical limits. Some of the reasons for this have been mentioned above..


Источники:

1. Ayman Al-Aashoush Unit root tests for panel data (first generation tests) applied to a sample of developing countries // Tishreen University Journal-Economic and Legal Sciences Series. – 2017.
2. Baltagi Badi H., Jung Byoung Cheol, Song Seuck Heun Testing for heteroskedasticity and serial correlation in a random effects panel data model // Journal of Econometrics. – 2010.
3. Breitung Jörg, Franses Philip Hans On Phillips–Perron-type tests for seasonal unit roots // Econometric Theory. – 1998.
4. Buchinsky Moshe Recent advances in quantile regression models: a practical guideline for empirical research // Journal of human resources. – 1998.
5. Caner Mehmet, Hansen Bruce E. Threshold autoregression with a unit root // Econometrica. – 2001.
6. Farid Al-Jaouni, Ahmed Al-Ali, Alaa Abdullah Al-Dheeb Analysis of the relationship between the general budget and the trade balance using the method of cointegration and causality, an applied study on the Syrian economy during the period 1990-2009 // Tishreen University Journal-Economic and Legal Sciences Series. – 2013.
7. Glejser Herbert A new test for heteroskedasticity // Journal of the American Statistical Association. – 1969.
8. Geraskin Petr, Fantazzini Dean Everything you always wanted to know about log-periodic power laws for bubble modeling but were afraid to ask. New Facets of Economic Complexity in Modern Financial Markets. , 2020.
9. Hu Shuhua Akaike information criterion. / Center for Research in Scientific Computation., 2007.
10. Kan Man Shan, Tan Andy C.C., Mathew Joseph A review on prognostic techniques for non-stationary and non-linear rotating systems // Mechanical Systems and Signal Processing. – 2015.
11. Nkoro Emeka, et al. Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) cointegration technique: application and interpretation // Journal of Statistical and Econometric methods. – 2016.
12. Pinn Stan Lee Shun, et al. Empirical analysis of employment and foreign direct investment in Malaysia: An ARDL bounds testing approach to cointegration // Advances in Management and Applied Economics. – 2011.
13. Ploberger Werner, Krämer Walter The local power of the CUSUM And CUSUM of squares tests // Econometric Theory. – 1990.
14. Sahab Al-Samadi, Ahmed Malawi The impact of government taxes on the performance of the Amman Stock Exchange: an autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) model. , 2015.
15. Schwert G. William Tests for unit roots: A Monte Carlo investigation // Journal of Business & Economic Statistics. – 2002.
16. Shahbaz Muhammad, Rahman Mohammad Mafizur Foreign capital inflows-growth nexus and role of domestic financial sector: an ARDL co-integration approach for Pakistan // Journal of Economic Research. – 2010.
17. Sari Ramazan, Ewing Bradley T., Soytas Ugur The relationship between disaggregate energy consumption and industrial production in the United States: an ARDL approach // Energy Economics. – 2008.
18. Taneja Sanjay, et al. India’s total natural resource rents (NRR) and GDP: An augmented autoregressive distributed lag (ARDL) bound test // Journal of Risk and Financial Management. – 2023.

Страница обновлена: 30.09.2024 в 22:23:22