IMPACT OF GLOBAL FINANCIAL CRISIS ON BUSINESS CYCLES IN DEVELOPING ASIA AND THE

DECOUPLING HYPOTHESIS

ABSTRACT
The global financial meltdown which was initiated by US based subprime lending market has led to the global financial crisis and the
consequent economic crisis in the developed economies. Given the mammoth size of the crisis in the advanced economies some economists
have started comparing it with the great depression of 1930s. There was a widespread optimism that the growth in the developing and
emerging economies of East Asia would be decoupled from the difficulties that have pervaded the developed economies and the region
would continue to move ahead as an autonomous growth pole. The present paper evaluates the impact of global financial crisis of 2008 on
business cycles of major developing Asian economies by computing cyclical variation in their time series data. It reveals that the global
financial crisis of 2008 has led the decline in the growth rate of the developing Asian countries and hence refutes the decoupling
hypothesis. Moreover a very high rate of negative cyclical variation observed in the export figures of developing Asian economies in the
year 2009 implies that the high level of global integration of these economies proves to be the major setback to the decoupling hypothesis.

KEY WORDS: decoupling hypothesis, economic crisis, global financial crisis, business cycles.

INTRODUCTION
After many years of impressive growth the world economy has experienced an equally important downturn that started in the third
quarter of year 2008. The crisis was initiated by the financial meltdown in the US based sub prime lending market which later on led to the
global financial crisis and the consequent economic crisis in the developed world. Initially many economists were optimistic that the
growth in the developing and emerging economies of East Asia would be decoupled from the difficulties faced by the developed
economies and the region would continue to move ahead as an autonomous growth pole. Such a view of number of economists was
based on ample researches that have talked about some sort of decoupling of these emerging economies from the industrial world. Kose
et. al (2008) observed that though there was substantial convergence of business cycles among the industrial economies and among
Emerging Market Economies, but there has also been a concomitant divergence or decoupling of business cycles between these two
groups of countries during the globalization period. They further suggested that even the existence of large spillover effects across
financial markets need not necessarily imply real spillovers of similar magnitude. Rather the changing relative importance of global factors
and group specific factors must be considered relevant in assessing the likely impact of such spillover effects. Pula and Peltonen (2009)
though could not find any evidence of decoupling, but has calculated that emerging Asia is less “coupled” with the rest of the world than
what is suggested by trade data. Fidrmuc and Korhonen (2009) have shown that in the last two decades the business cycles in the large
emerging Asian economies and the developed economies have been quite different. Many developed countries have shown low or even
negative dynamic correlations with China and India for the traditional business cycles which support the decoupling hypothesis. However
their study has also argued that the increased co-movement of business cycles post 2008 crisis has at least represented a temporary
setback to the decoupling hypothesis. Dooley and Hutchison (2009) also found evidence on decoupling–recoupling hypothesis as they
have observed that emerging markets which were largely insulated and decoupled from the developments in U.S. financial markets from
early 2007 to summer 2008 have later on responded very strongly to the deteriorating situation in the U.S. financial system and the real
economy. Kim et al (2009) also found that real economic interdependence between emerging Asia and major industrial countries have
also increased significantly in the post 1997-98 Asian financial crisis period, suggesting recoupling rather than decoupling in the recent
years. (Boorman, 2009) opined that the explosion of global trade – the major force in the rapid growth of many emerging economies over
the last few decades together with the ever increasing integration of financial markets has in fact increased the coupling of these
economies with the industrial world. Walti (2010) has also found that there is no decoupling of business cycles in the emerging economies
and the advanced economies in the recent years. Rather their study has found that the degree of business cycle interdependence has
become stronger. Thus as observed in number of researches the decoupling hypothesis was short lived and soon proved superfluous.
When the global crisis intensified it spread to the developing economies through current and capital accounts of balance of payments. The
high level global integration of many developing economies and dependence on export led growth proved the major negatives.
Consequentially, the region could not avoid a significant drop in growth. Growth even fell in the countries like China which have
responded aggressively to the crisis. India too, could not remain immune to such global economic shock. The present paper evaluates the
impact of Global financial crisis of 2008 on such developing economies and attempts to determine the decoupling status of such
economies with major advanced economies.

OBJECTIVES OF THE RESEARCH

The present paper aims to achieve the following objectives:
1. To find the impact of global financial crisis on growth rate of developing Asia.
2. To find the impact of global financial crisis on the inflation in developing Asia.
3. To find the impact of global financial crisis on the exports and imports of goods and services of developing Asian economies.
4. To find the impact of global financial crisis on the currencies exchange rate of developing Asia.
5. To find the impact of global financial crisis on the FDI and the FPI inflows to the developing Asian countries.

DATA AND METHODOLOGY

The study analyses the impact of global financial crisis of 2008 on seven major developing economies of Asia, namely, China, India,
Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand and Vietnam. For the purpose of the study the data source used is the International Financial
Statistics (IFS) of International Monetary Fund. The present paper finds the impact of global financial crisis of 2008 on developing Asia by
doing the time series analysis. To achieve first four objectives the study has used the relative cyclical residual method and identified the
cyclical variation in the time series data. For this purpose firstly, the data on different economic variables was collected using the IFS for

1
the years 2003 to 2009. Secondly, the trend values for the respective years were obtained using the exponential trend equation. Thirdly,
the yearly data as a percentage of yearly trend values was computed and then the deviation of these figures from 100 is measured to
know the cyclical variation in the time series data. Finally, ‘t’ test is applied to establish the significance of cyclical variation. It is important
to mention here that the seasonal variation never incorporates into annual data. Further the irregular component of time series is ignored
as it is relatively small as well as unpredictable.

RESULTS AND ANALYSIS

The results and analysis section is divided into five parts which corresponds to the five objectives of the present research paper.

IMPACT ON ECONOMIC GROWTH

The impact of 2008 financial crisis on developing Asia’s economic growth is assessed by evaluating the impact of such crisis on real GDP
growth rate and the share prices. Table 1 (Figure 1) shows the impact of global financial and economic crisis on the developing Asia’s Real
GDP growth rate. In 2009, the developing Asian economies have observed a negative cyclical variation of 2.1 percentage points on average
basis in their Real GDP growth rate which is found significant at 95 % level. Further, the growth was worst hit in Thailand and Malaysia i.e.
4.4 percent and 4.2 percent respectively. India’s growth suffered only 1.2 percentage points. Moreover it is important to mention here
that in year 2009 real GDP growth rate was hit negatively in all the seven selected developing Asian economies. Table 1 also reveals that
the cyclical impact on real GDP growth rate had peaked out in year 2007 when the developing Asia’s real GDP growth observed a positive
cyclical variation of 1.7 percentage points. Figure 1 shows that the Thailand and Malaysia proved to be the most volatile economies in this
economic cycle whereas Indonesia proved itself to be the most stable economy. India had shown moderate stability in its real GDP growth
rate. In nutshell, a statistically significant negative cyclical variation in 2009 real GDP data implies that the global financial crisis of 2008 has
led the downturn in the business cycles of developing Asian economies and hence rejects the decoupling hypothesis.

Table 1: Developing Asia’s Real GDP growth rate (% variation from trend values)
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CHINA 0.5 -0.8 -1.0 0.0 2.4 0.6 -1.6
INDIA 0.0 -1.0 -0.1 0.9 1.6 -0.1 -1.2
INDONESIA 0.3 -0.3 -0.2 -0.4 0.3 0.6 -0.4
MALAYSIA -1.8 -0.1 0.2 1.1 2.6 2.3 -4.2
PHILIPPINES -0.3 0.5 -0.1 -0.7 0.7 1.0 -0.9
THAILAND -2.3 -0.2 0.4 2.0 3.0 1.6 -4.4
VIETNAM -0.7 -0.5 0.2 0.8 1.6 0.4 -1.8
AVERAGE -0.6 -0.3 -0.1 0.5 1.7 0.9 -2.1
STD. DEV. 1.1 0.5 0.5 0.9 1.0 0.8 1.6
4.56 2.93 3.46
t VALUE 1.54 1.87 0.52 1.51
** * *
* Significant at 95% level, ** Significant at 99% Level

Table 2 analyses the impact of global financial crisis on the developing Asia’s share prices. It shows that the yearly average share prices in
developing Asia had negatively deviated from the secular trend figures by 17.1 and 13.1 percentage points for year 2008 and 2009
respectively. Figure 2 shows that the cyclical impact on share prices had peaked out in year 2007 when the share prices in developing Asia
had deviated positively by 52.3 percentage points from their secular trend values. Again it is worth mentioning here that all the developing
Asian economies witnessed positive cyclical variation in their share prices in 2007 and the same has turned negative for all of these
economies in year 2009.

Table 2: Developing Asia’s Share Prices (% variation from trend values)

YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CHINA 19.1 0.9 -33.4 -20.3 76.4 8.0 -17.8
INDIA -10.9 -12.8 3.6 27.9 58.7 -34.7 -6.3

2
 INDONESIA† -16.3 1.6 -2.7 24.5 56.1 -36.5 -2.2
MALAYSIA -8.1 2.4 0.5 -1.9 23.9 0.2 -13.1
PHILIPPINES 17.7 -20.1 -3.8 -5.2 36.0 -14.2 N.A.
THAILAND -19.6 7.6 9.3 10.8 15.0 0.4 -17.2
VIETNAM† -27.2 -12.5 -5.7 93.5 100.2 -42.8 -24.8
AVERAGE -6.5 -4.7 -4.6 18.5 52.3 -17.1 -13.6
STD. DEV. 18.1 10.3 13.7 37.2 30.0 20.8 8.3
4.6 4.3
t VALUE 0.90 1.20 0.90 1.30 2.20
** **
† For Indonesia and Vietnam share prices are year- end share prices. For others it is yearly average share prices.

IMPACT ON INFLATION
Table 3 shows the impact of global financial crisis of 2008 on inflation figures in developing Asia. It is revealed that in 2009 the cyclical
variation has led an average decline of 4.6 percentage points in developing Asia’s inflation figure (significant at 99% level). However India
witnessed only a meager 1 percent point decline in inflation as a result of cyclical variation. Further the table shows that in year 2008,
developing Asia has witnessed a very high positive cyclical variation in inflation, that is, 4.5 percentage points on average basis (significant
at 95% level). Perhaps this was the one important reason that had hampered the developing Asia’s performance in this period. Figure 3
shows that the cyclical variation component in inflation was higher for almost all the developing Asian economies. India is the only country
where inflation was relatively less impacted by cyclical component.

Table 3: Developing Asia WPI (% variation from trend values)

YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CHINA -2.7 1.0 0.9 0.8 0.6 4.2 -4.6
INDIA -0.4 0.7 0.1 -0.5 -1.0 2.1 -1.0
INDONESIA 3.5 -2.6 -1.7 -2.0 -1.5 8.9 -3.9
MALAYSIA -2.1 -0.7 0.5 1.6 1.7 6.2 -6.7
PHILIPPINES -6.1 -0.4 2.9 8.3 1.9 0.5 -6.3
THAILAND -1.6 -1.2 1.5 2.2 -0.7 5.0 -4.9
AVERAGE† -1.6 -0.5 0.7 1.7 0.2 4.5 -4.6
STD. DEV. 3.1 1.3 1.5 3.6 1.4 3.0 2.0
5.5
t VALUE 1.2 1.0 1.2 1.2 0.3 3.7 *
**
Significant at 95% level, ** Significant at 99% Level
† Excluding Vietnam as the WPI data for Vietnam was not available.

3
 Fig u r e 3: De ve lo p in g A s ia's WP I
(% v ariation from trend v alues )

10

5
% v a ria tion

0
2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
-5

-10
C HINA INDIA INDONES IA
MA L A Y S IA PHIL IPPINES THA IL A ND
A V ER A G E

IMPACT ON EXPORT AND IMPORT OF GOODS AND SERVICES

Table 4 shows that in year 2009 the developing Asia’s export of goods and services were knocked down by a negative cyclical variation of
17.5 percentage points on average basis (significant at 99 %). The table also shows that exports from India and China were the worst hit as
these countries have observed a negative cyclical variation of 20.9 percent and 21.7 percent respectively in their export figures. Further it
is revealed that the cyclical impact on developing Asia’s exports of goods and services peaked out in year 2008 when it witnessed a
positive cyclical impact of 11.3 percent points (significant at 99% level). Figure 4 reveal that broadly the export of goods and services from
all the developing Asian economies were hit in line with the average figure. Moreover it also shows that the cyclical component had played
a great role in the export of goods and services from developing Asia in the study period.

Table 4: Developing Asia Export of Goods & Services (% variation from trend values)
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CHINA -12.0 -1.4 4.3 9.6 14.8 12.1 -21.7
INDIA -12.0 -1.6 6.8 9.0 10.6 13.5 -20.9
INDONESIA -7.2 -2.2 4.2 6.0 6.2 11.3 -15.4
MALAYSIA -9.5 0.4 2.8 6.2 9.3 11.6 -17.4
PHILIPPINES -6.4 -1.9 -2.8 8.9 15.5 7.0 -16.7
THAILAND -6.7 0.0 0.2 4.3 9.3 10.8 -15.3
VIETNAM -7.1 0.6 1.5 4.1 5.7 12.9 -15.1
AVERAGE -8.7 -0.9 2.4 6.9 10.2 11.3 -17.5
STD. DEV. 2.4 1.2 3.1 2.3 3.8 2.1 2.7
9.40 7.90 7.10 14.30
t VALUE 2.00 2.00 17.00 **
** ** ** **
* Significant at 95% level, ** Significant at 99% Level

F ig u r e 4: De ve lo p in g A s ia's Ex p o r t o f G o o d s & S e r vic e s

(% v ariation from trend v alues )

20
15
% v a r ia tio n

10
5
0
-5 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
-10
-15
-20
-25
C HINA INDIA INDONES IA
MA L A Y S IA PHIL IPPINES THA IL A ND
V IETNA M A V ER A G E

Table 5 shows that like exports the imports of developing Asian economies has observed a similar impact as a result of global crisis. In
2009, the cyclical variation had reduced the imports of goods and services of developing Asian economies by 17.9 percent points
(significant at 99% level). It also reveal that the impact of cyclical variation on imports had also peaked in year 2008 when the average

4
imports from developing Asia observed a positive cyclical variation of 14.3 percent points (significant at 99% level). Figure 5 shows that
that the import of goods and services of all these developing economies were affected in line with the average figure.

Table 5: Developing Asia Import of Goods & Services (% var iation from trend values)
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CHINA -10.4 3.0 2.9 4.9 8.3 9.8 -15.6
INDIA -12.3 -1.3 9.2 7.8 6.7 15.4 -20.4
INDONESIA -10.3 -1.1 11.2 1.7 2.8 19.4 -18.8
MALAYSIA -10.5 1.0 2.6 6.6 11.6 10.1 -17.8
PHILIPPINES -5.2 -2.4 -0.3 5.1 10.0 11.7 -16.1
THAILAND -11.8 -1.2 8.9 7.1 5.4 17.3 -20.4
VIETNAM -3.2 0.2 -2.7 -2.5 11.2 16.6 -16.3
AVERAGE -9.1 -0.2 4.6 4.4 8.0 14.3 -17.9
STD. DEV. 3.5 1.8 5.3 3.6 3.3 3.8 2.0
6.90 3.20 6.50 10.00 23.50
t VALUE 0.30 2.30
** * ** ** **
* Significant at 95% level, ** Significant at 99% Level

F ig u r e 5: De v e lo p in g A s ia's Im p o r t o f G o o d s & S e r vic e s

(% v a riation from trend v alues )

25
20
15
% v a r ia tio n

10
5
0
-5 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
-10
-15
-20
-25
C HINA INDIA INDONE S IA
MA L A Y S IA PHIL IPPINES THA IL A ND
V IETNA M A V ER A G E

IMPACT ON CURRENCY EXCHANGE RATE

Table 6 reveals that in the year 2009, cyclical movement has caused an average depreciation of 3.5 percent points in developing Asia
currencies versus USD (significant at 95 % level). Indian rupee had suffered the most followed by Philippines as a result of cyclical
movement, whereas China was the only country whose currency has rather appreciated against USD in this crisis period. Figure 6 show
that Indian rupee has been the most volatile currency against USD in this period. Further it is also revealed that the cyclical variation in the
developing Asian currencies had peaked out in year 2007.

Table 6: Developing Asia Yearly Average Exchange Rate versus USD (% variation from trend values)
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
CHINA -3.5 0.0 2.6 3.4 2.3 -3.2 -1.3
INDIA 3.4 0.7 -1.9 0.9 -7.8 -2.9 8.2
INDONESIA -1.4 0.3 6.3 -2.1 -4.6 -1.2 3.3
MALAYSIA -1.3 0.8 2.5 1.4 -3.0 -3.9 3.7
PHILIPPINES -3.9 3.1 5.1 1.6 -5.2 -5.5 5.4
THAILAND -1.1 -0.3 3.7 1.6 -3.7 -3.3 3.5
VIETNAM 0.4 0.6 0.0 -0.5 -1.1 -1.3 2.0
AVERAGE -1.1 0.7 2.6 0.9 -3.3 -3.0 3.5
STD. DEV. 2.5 1.1 2.8 1.8 3.2 1.5 2.9
2.7 5.4 3.2
t VALUE 1.1 1.7 2.4 1.4
* ** *
* Significant at 95% level, ** Significant at 99% Level

5
IMPACT ON FOREIGN DIRECT INVESTMENT (FDI) AND FOREIGN PORTFOLIO INVESTMENT (FPI) INFLOWS
Since the FDI and FPI inflows fluctuate widely over the years it was neither appropriate, nor possible to identify the secular trend in the FDI
inflows. Thus to find the impact of global crisis on FDI and FPI inflows, the figures for the year 2008 and 2009 were compared with the
average figures of year 2003 to 2007.

IMPACT ON FDI INFLOWS

Table 7 shows the impact of global financial crisis on FDI inflows to developing Asian economies. It reveals that the average FDI inflows to
developing Asian economies were nearly double (up 101 percent, significant at 95% level) in year 2008 as compared to the average of
2003 to 2007. However these FDI inflows came down drastically in year 2009. Compared to the average of 2003 to 2007 these inflows
were only higher by 36 percent points and off course were lesser than year 2008. India had not suffered much as far as the impact of crisis
on FDI inflows is concerned. Malaysia and Thailand suffered the most on account of FDI inflows.

Table 7: FDI Inflows to Developing Asia (in Million USDs)

FDI FDI
Average
Inflows in Inflows in
FDI
2008 (% 2009 (%
Inflows
Deviation Deviation
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 in Million
from from
USD
Average of Average of
(2003 to
2003- 2003-
2007)
2007) 2007)
CHINA 47077 54937 79127 78095 138413 147791 78193 79530 86 -2
INDIA 4323 5771 7606 20336 25483 41315 34577 12704 225 172
INDONESIA -597 1896 8336 4914 6928 9318 4877 4296 117 14
MALAYSIA 2473 4624 3966 6076 8590 7376 1387 5146 43 -73
PHILIPPINES 491 688 1854 2921 2916 1544 1948 1774 -13 10
THAILAND 5232 5860 8055 9453 11324 8531 4976 7985 7 -38
VIETNAM 1450 1610 1954 2400 6700 9579 7600 2823 239 169
AVERAGE   101 36
STD. DEV.  100 97
2.5
t VALUE  0.9
*
* Significant at 95% level

IMPACT ON FPI INFLOWS

Table 8 shows the impact of global financial crisis on FPI inflows to developing Asian countries. It clearly shows that huge money was
withdrawn by the FIIs from these developing economies to face the mammoth crisis in their home country. When developing Asia was put
together it was a clear cut case of negative FPI flows in year 2008. However in average percentage terms flows to developing Asia had
fallen to one third of the average flows from year 2003 to 2007. Malaysia was worst hit both in absolute terms as well as in percentage
terms. India was the second badly hit economy in year 2008 in terms of FPI inflows. China and Indonesia were the only two developing
Asian economies which have observed a positive FPI flows. The table further shows that the FPI flows to these countries were mixed in
year 2009. In absolute terms all of these countries observed positive FPI flows. China received the highest FPI inflows followed by India and
Indonesia. When compared with the average inflows to these countries from year 2003 to 2007, Indonesia performed best on account of
FPI inflows in year 2009 followed by India.

6
 Table 8: FPI Inflows to Developing Asia (in Million USDs)
Portfolio Portfolio
Average Inflows in 2008 Inflows in 2009
YEAR 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 (2003 to (% Deviation (% Deviation
2007) from Average from Average of
of 2003-2007) 2003-2007)
CHINA 8444 13203 21224 42861 20996 9910 28804 21346 -54 35
INDIA 8216 9054 12151 9509 32863 -15029 21112 14359 -205 47
INDONESIA 2251 4056 5270 6107 9981 3059 10480 5533 -45 89
MALAYSIA 1174 8675 -2985 5557 9320 -21083 6048 4348 -585 39
PHILIPPINES 1381 288 3446 6144 3922 -4417 2331 3036 -245 -23
THAILAND 851 1856 7070 5714 2899 -2561 2343 3678 -170 -36
VIETNAM n.a. n.a. 865 1313 6243 -578 128 2807 -121 -95
AVERAGE   -203 8
STD. DEV.  184 63
2.9
t VALUE  0.3
*
* Significant at 95% level

CONCLUSIONS
The analysis of cyclical variation in time series data reveals that the global financial crisis of 2008 has definitely dented the growth in
developing Asian countries and hence refutes the decoupling hypothesis. It happened primarily because of the contraction of global
business which has caused a substantial decline in the exports of goods and services from the developing Asian countries. The huge
outflow of foreign funds from the equity markets of these countries and a decline in the FDI inflows has also aggravated the problem by
initiating rapid falls in these economies currency exchange rate against the US Dollar. The study also found that the present crisis has
largely checked the high rates of inflation that has prevailed in most of these economies in the pre crisis period. Thus besides the global
financial and economic reasons, the higher domestic inflation in these economies seem to be another important reason that had led the
decline in the growth of these economies.

REFERENCES

(i) Dooley, Michael and Hutchison, Michael (2009), “Transmission of the U.S. Subprime Crisis to Emerging Markets: Evidence
on the Decoupling-Recoupling Hypothesis”, NBER Working Paper No. 15120. viewed on Jan. 17, 2012,
http://www.nber.org/papers/w15120.pdf

(ii) Gabor Pula and Tuomas A. Peltonen (2009), “Has Emerging Asia Decoupled? An Analysis of Production and Trade Linkages
Using the Asian International Input-Output Table”, European Central Bank Working Paper Series No. 993, viewed on June
9, 2011, http://www.ecb.int/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp993.pdf

(iii) Jack Boorman (2009), “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Emerging Market Economies: The Transmission Mechanism,
Policy Response and Lessons”, Discussion Draft of Global Meeting of the Emerging Markets Forum, Mumbai, India,
June23, 2009, viewed on June 9, 2011, http://www.osservatoriocrisi.it/docs/archivio/altri/OERARC76.pdf

(iv) Kose, M. Ayhan, Christopher Otrok, and Eswar S. Parsad, “Global Business Cycles: Convergence or Decoupling?” NBER
Working Paper No. 14292, viewed on June 10, 2011, http://www.nber.org/papers/w14292

(v) Kim, S., J.-W. Lee, and C. Y. Park (2009), “Emerging Asia: Decoupling or Recoupling,” ADB Working Paper Series on
Regional Economic Integration No. 31, viewed on June 9, 2011,
http://www.aric.adb.org/pdf/workingpaper/WP31_Decoupling_or_Recoupling.pdf

(vi) Fidrmuc, Jarko and Korhonen, likka, “The Impact of the Global Financial Crisis on Business Cycles in Asian Emerging
Economies,” Journal of Asian Economics, Vol. 21, Issue 3, pp. 293-303.

(vii) Sébastien Wälti (2010), “No decoupling, more interdependence: business cycle comovements between
advanced and emerging economies”, MPRA Paper No. 20869, viewed on June 9, 2011,
http://www.mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/20869

(viii) Morris G. and Daniel X. (2009), “The Impact of the Financial Crisis on Emerging Asia”, Working Paper, 09-11, Peterson
Institute of International Economics.