Skip to main content
Have a personal or library account? Click to login
Causal Dynamics Between Tourism Receipts, Economic Growth, and Real Exchange Rate in Algeria’s Economy Between 1990 and 2019 Cover

Causal Dynamics Between Tourism Receipts, Economic Growth, and Real Exchange Rate in Algeria’s Economy Between 1990 and 2019

By:   
Open Access
|Dec 2022

Figures & Tables

Table 1:

Variables used in the study and their definition.

VariableCharacteristicDefinition
LNTOURThe logarithm of international tourism receiptsInternational tourism receipts (currency US$)
LNGDPGThe logarithm of gross domestic product (GDP) growthGDP growth (annual %)
LNREERThe logarithm of the real effective exchange rateReal effective exchange rate index (2010 = 100)

1 Source: The variables are related to Algeria, and all data are from the World Development Indicators’ Data Bank by the World Bank https://databank.worldbank.org/reports.aspx?source=world-development-indicators, except for LNTOUR (1990–1994, 2018, 2019) and LNGDPG (2019), which we obtained from the Algerian National Bureau of Statistics (www.ons.dz).

Table 2:

Descriptive statistics of the variables in the study.

LNGDPGLNTOURLNREER
M4.6319414.73177118.64382
Median4.635744.63768418.98015
Maximum4.6747145.39623519.98303
Minimum4.5839474.53562216.86003
SD0.0201510.1884001.056439
Probability0.6931890.0000010.225635
Sum138.9582141.9531559.3146
Observations303030

1 Source: Output of EViews 10 software.

Table 3:

Correlation of the variables in the study.

LNGDPGLNREERLNTOUR
LNGDPG1
LNREER−0.408298421
LNTOUR0.43076231−0.803115541

1 Source: Output of EViews 10 software.

Table 4:

Unit root test results.

LNGDPGLNREERLNTOUR
At levelADF test––3.16**–
PP test––4.49***–
At first differenceADF test–8.63***––5.73***
PP test–9.34***––5.73***
Order of integrationI(1)I(0)I(1)

1 Note: ADF = augmented Dickey–Fuller test; PP = Phillips–Perron test. Source: Output of EViews 10 software.

2 **Rejection of the null hypothesis at 5%.

3 ***Rejection of the null hypothesis at 10%.

Table 5:

Computed F statistic for cointegration tests—ARDL bounds tests.

] I(0)–I(1)]Conclusion
Lower–upper bound (10%)2.63–3.35Cointegration
Lower–upper bound (5%)3.10–3.87Cointegration
Lower–upper bound (1%)4.13–5.00Cointegration
DV: LNTOURF statistics4.44*
DV: LNGDPGF statistics2.25
DV: LNREERF statistics4.63
K2

1 Note: DV = dependent variable; K = the number of regressors included in the models.

2 *Statistically significant at 1%.

Table 6:

Long-term coefficients estimation with ARDL bounds test model.

ModelVariableCoefficientp-value
ARDLDependent variableLNTOUR
Independent variableLNREER−3.420.1545
LNGDPG37.530.1193
C138.670.2423
ARDLDependent variableLNGDPG
Independent variableLNREER0.0850.5482
LNTOUR0.01690.3703
C3.90.0008
ARDLDependent variableLNREER
Independent variableLNTOUR−0.050.4
LNGDPG−0.520.82
C8.030.45

1 Note: ARDL = autoregressive distributed lag.

Table 7:

Error correction representation of ARDL bounds test model.

ModelVariableCoefficientp-value
ARDLDependent variableLNTOUR
ΔLNREER0.0560.94
Independent variableΔLNREERt-11.07**0.0305
ECTt-1−0.263***0.002
ARDLDependent variableLNGDPG
ΔLNTOUR0.024***0.0032
ΔLNTOURt-1−0.017**0.0386
Independent variableΔLNREER−0.12***0.0044
ΔLNREERt-1−0.062***0.0043
ECTt-1−0.41***0.0043
ARDLDependent variableLNREER
ΔLNREERt-10.0530.63
Independent variableΔLNREERt-2−0.41***0.000
ECTt-1−0.25***0.0002

1 Note: ARDL = autoregressive distributed lag.

2 **Statistically significant at 5%.

3 ***Statistically significant at 1%.

Table 8:

VECM Granger causality analysis.

IV/DVLong-termShort-term
ΔLGDPGLNREERΔLNTOURECTt-1
ΔLGDPG–−0.25 (0.66)5.9* (0.07)−1.68*** (0.00)
LNREER−0.12*** (00092)–0.35 (0.43)−0.17*** (0.0002)
ΔLNTOUR0.01 (0.14)0.01 (0.71)–−0.98*** (0.00)
C−0.166 (0.12)0.79 (0.02)−1.58 (0.45)–
Observations272727–
R20.710.920.16–
DW1.781.831.96–
Fisher6.81*** (00003)48.70*** (0.00)1.57(0.22)–

1 Note: IV = independent variable; DV = dependent variable.

2 **Statistically significant at 5%.

3 ***Statistically significant at 1%.

Table 9:

Diagnostic tests.

Diagnostic testLM testARCH testRESET testNormality test
FTOUR(REER, GDPG)0.90.250.670.057
FGDPG(REER, TOUR)0.750.0660.790.45
FREER(TOUR, GDPG)0.380.550.90.44

1 Note: LM test = Breusch–Godfrey Lagrange multiplier test for residual serial correlation; ARCH test = autoregressive conditional heteroscedasticity test; RESET test = Ramsey’s test for functional misspecification; normality test = Jarque–Bera normality test.

Figure 1:

Model stability: Cumulative sum of recursive residuals (CUSUM). Source: Output of EViews 10 software.

Figure 2:

Model stability: Cumulative sum of squares of recursive residuals (CUSUM of squares). Source: Output of EViews 10 software.

DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/ejthr-2022-0005 | Journal eISSN: 2182-4924 | Journal ISSN: 2182-4916
Language: English
Page range: 1 - 11
Submitted on: Feb 4, 2020
Accepted on: Sep 16, 2020
Published on: Dec 31, 2022
Published by: Polytechnic Institute of Leiria
In partnership with: Paradigm Publishing Services
Publication frequency: 2 issues per year

© 2022 Bilal Louail, published by Polytechnic Institute of Leiria
This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.