Economic integration and stock market linkages: Evidence from South Africa and BRIC

Gopane, Thabo J. Article Economic integration and stock market linkages: Evidence from South Africa and BRIC Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science Provided in Cooperation with: Universidad ESAN, Lima Suggested Citation: Gopane, Thabo J. (2023) : Economic integration and stock market linkages: Evidence from South Africa and BRIC, Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, ISSN 2218-0648, Emerald Publishing Limited, Bingley, Vol. 28, Iss. 56, pp. 237-256, https://doi.org/10.1108/JEFAS-11-2021-0232 This Version is available at: https://hdl.handle.net/10419/289681 Standard-Nutzungsbedingungen: Die Dokumente auf EconStor dürfen zu eigenen wissenschaftlichen Zwecken und zum Privatgebrauch gespeichert und kopiert werden. Sie dürfen die Dokumente nicht für öffentliche oder kommerzielle Zwecke vervielfältigen, öffentlich ausstellen, öffentlich zugänglich machen, vertreiben oder anderweitig nutzen. Sofern die Verfasser die Dokumente unter Open-Content-Lizenzen (insbesondere CC-Lizenzen) zur Verfügung gestellt haben sollten, gelten abweichend von diesen Nutzungsbedingungen die in der dort genannten Lizenz gewährten Nutzungsrechte. Terms of use: Documents in EconStor may be saved and copied for your personal and scholarly purposes. You are not to copy documents for public or commercial purposes, to exhibit the documents publicly, to make them publicly available on the internet, or to distribute or otherwise use the documents in public. If the documents have been made available under an Open Content Licence (especially Creative Commons Licences), you may exercise further usage rights as specified in the indicated licence. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ Economic integration and stock market linkages: evidence from South Africa and BRIC Thabo J. Gopane Department of Finance and Investment Management, University of Johannesburg, Johannesburg, South Africa Abstract Purpose –This study examines the impact of regional economic integration (REI) on stock market linkages in the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) economic bloc. In this type of study, the BRICS framework is an appealing empirical case, given its uncommon characteristics. For example, BRICS member states come from remote geographic locations (Africa, Asia, Europe and South America) and have contrasting socioeconomic profiles. Design/methodology/approach –An empirical design is framed from the perspective of bilateral trade between South Africa and BRIC. The author accepts trade intensity as a proxy of regional economic integration and then examines the resulting effect on the stock market co-movement within BRIC. The study applies a two-step econometric procedure of the BEKK-MGARCH and panel data models. Findings –Overall, bilateral trade, as a proxy of economic inwctegration, is associated with an increase in stock market integration. This positive relationship is particularly observed during episodes of surplus trade, and more interestingly, was initiated three years after BRICS’existence and continues to grow at an increasing rate. Practical implications –The study outcome should benefit international trade practitioners and global investors interested in portfolio diversification or concerned with risk spillovers. Originality/value –First, notwithstanding South Africa’s significant economic presence in the African continent, to the best of the author’s knowledge, this is the first study to empirically evaluate the BRICS economic integration on their stock market linkages from the perspective of South Africa. The value of this contribution is that further work may investigate the bidirectional spillover impact conveyed by South Africa’s trade interactions within the juxtaposition of Africa and BRICS economies. Second, given that research on REI and stock market integration has historically concentrated on mature regional blocs of Europe, Asia, South and North America, the current study advances knowledge while correcting the prevailing literature imbalance. Keywords BRICS, Bilateral trade, Economic integration, Stock market integration Paper type Research paper 1. Introduction History and economic rationale suggest that there are general benefits derived from regional economic blocs like the European Union, North American Free Trade Agreement, Community of Sahel–Saharan States and Southern African Development Community (SADC), to mention a few. Similarly, countries have long observed the socioeconomic advantages of global trade cooperation, such as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, which was replaced by the World Trade Organization in 1995. An inclusive empirical assessment is imperative to understand the nature and extent of beneficiation towards financial markets flowing from regional economic integration (REI). A textbook explanation says that the essence of economic integration is to create a conducive environment for Economic integration and stock market linkage 237 JEL Classification —F14, F15, F36, G15 © Thabo J. Gopane. Published in Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science. Published by Emerald Publishing Limited. This article is published under the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY 4.0) licence. Anyone may reproduce, distribute, translate and create derivative works of this article (for both commercial and non-commercial purposes), subject to full attribution to the original publication and authors. The full terms of this licence maybe seen at http://creativecommons. org/licences/by/4.0/legalcode The current issue and full text archive of this journal is available on Emerald Insight at: https://www.emerald.com/insight/2077-1886.htm Received 1 November 2021 Revised 22 February 2023 11 April 2023 Accepted 24 May 2023 Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science Vol. 28 No. 56, 2023 pp. 237-256 Emerald Publishing Limited 2077-1886 DOI 10.1108/JEFAS-11-2021-0232 cooperating countries to benefit from increased international trade, minimised tariffs, synergy for monetary policy and favourable markets’regulatory regimes (Carbaugh, 2018). A developing research stream that flows from this concerns the trade-alliance-induced economic integration with financial markets, which is the focus of the current study. Extant literature shows that economic integration and financial market linkages vary across economies based on integration structure (Kim et al., 2018) and financial development (Lahrech and Sylwester, 2013). Also, the effect of REI on financial markets differs according to emerging markets (Guesmi and Nguyen, 2011), economic aggregation of the national, industry, and the firm level (Fazio, 2007;Garcia-Herrero et al., 2009;Karim and Majid, 2010). Further, some economic blocs show a tendency of member states to trade outside their regions or display misaligned trade behaviours (Garc ıa-Herrero et al., 2009;Lombana et al., 2021). These studies reveal insightful characterisation of REI and financial integration. Unfortunately, the REI and financial integration nexus research tends to concentrate on economies with long histories of regional economic blocs like Asia, Europe, South America and North America. Another literature skewness is evident in the recent reviews that show separate or parallel research on economic integration (Upalat, 2022) and financial integration (Patel et al., 2022), with few exceptions (like Paramati et al., 2016;Song et al., 2021). The current study corrects the indicated research weaknesses by extending the empirical examination to the unique setting of economic integration in the BRICS regional bloc. In particular, the present study takes South Africa, located in the farthest south of the African continent, as a target market and investigates whether South Africa’s bilateral trade with BRIC impacts the economic bloc’s stock market co-movement. BRIC (Brazil, Russia, India and China) was formed in 2006 and was later joined by South Africa in 2010 to form BRICS. Unlike the set-up of many economic blocs, the member states of BRICS are situated in distant geographic areas (Africa, Asia, Europe and South America). This dispersed REI framework introduces a critical empirical case with a bearing on the stylised literature finding that countries’geographical proximity impacts stock market linkages (Asgharian et al., 2013;Fazio, 2007;Karim and Majid, 2010;Paramati et al., 2016). The author is unaware of a study with the same empirical objective as the current research. The rest of the paper is organised as follows: Section 2 reviews related literature. Section 3 explains the research methodology. Section 4 presents and interprets the results. Section 5 discusses the results, and Section 6 concludes the study. 2. Literature review 2.1 The BRICS regional economic bloc The need to understand the economic experience of South Africa in BRICS, coupled with ongoing innovation of the domestic stock market, the Johannesburg Stock Exchange (JSE), inspires the current research topic. Many innovative advancement emerged in the JSE in recent decades (the late 1990s to the 2020s). The JSE launched a significant acquisition programme that resulted in the takeover of the South African Futures Exchange (SAFEX) in 2001, followed by the Bond Exchange of South Africa (BESA) in 2009. Just before South Africa became a member of BRICS, the JSE installed an electronic clearing and settlement technology known as, Shares Transactions Totally Electronic (Strate) in 1997. Another innovation includes the collaboration of the JSE with the London Stock Exchange (LSE) to introduce a series of joint indices labelled FTSE/JSE since 2002. In 2003, the JSE introduced a stock-listing board exclusively for small and medium-sized firms called Alternative Exchange (AltX) and a special board for currency and interest rate markets, the Yield X. Although some of the changes occurred before BRICS, this fact is appropriately controlled in the empirical design and explained under the methodology section. JEFAS 28,56 238 Unlike many regional blocs, BRICS integrates with Africa’s prominent economy of South Africa. In this context, South Africa has a distinct and influential position in relation to the economies of the African continent. South Africa is a dual member of the Southern African Customs Union (SACU) and of a sixteen-country economic bloc, SADC, among other influential African organisations. Furthermore, in Africa, South Africa’s JSE (founded in 1887) is the largest and the second oldest after Egypt’s Stock Exchange (established in 1883). Given this background, it is probably not surprising that the literature (Agyei-Ampomah, 2011;Boamah, 2016) observes that African economies are segmented, with the exception of South Africa. Due to their geographic proximity and shared socioeconomic characteristics, studies on traditional blocs may be constrained to trace the unexplained variations in co-membership trade behaviour. Therefore, unconventional case studies such as BRICS should provide a different perspective from the data. 2.2 International trade, economic integration and stock market linkages Economists have long known the benefits of international trade. The James Steuart Mercantilism theory (Steuart, 1767) was a protectionist economic system that favoured trade surplus, in contrast with the free trade emphasis of Adam Smith’s proposition of an absolute advantage (Smith, 1776), in which a country was expected to maximise trade benefits by specialising in a product it is good at. Later, David Ricardo suggested a modification of the comparative advantage (Ricardo, 1817). Followed by the Swedish economists Eli Heckscher and Bertil Ohlin, who recommended the Factor Proportions theory (Ohlin, 1933), which contends that a country should be better off by producing and exporting products in which it has an abundance of production factors. The above theoretical paths show that the trade theory continues to evolve, but with a common question: How can a country maximise its benefits from international trade? The principle of regional economic integration has much value-add in this regard (Balassa, 2012) and much more than just decreasing tariff barriers. Different variations of regional economic integration include free trade areas, customs unions, common markets, economic unions, monetary unions and fiscal unions, inter alia. The benefits of REI manifest in a feedback recurrence at the industry level through favourable product prices and macroeconomic growth paths. 2.3 Hypothesis development H1. The hypothesis says that there exists an association between economic integration and stock market linkages within BRICS. The economic theory shows that international trade has an impact on domestic economies via knock-on effects that cascade from the firm level to the stock market. One of the objectives of capital budgeting theory in corporate finance is to determine the value of a firm using a stream of future cash flows, such as Gordon’s growth model (Gordon, 1959;Gordon and Shapiro, 1956). Specific case studies of stock market correlations with economic variables at the firm level (like, Huy et al., 2020) do not address the same problem as the literature stream of financial market integration but are informative. In the stock price valuation, the Gordon model measures the value of a firm by examining the expected dividends payable by a stockexchange listed company. The link between economic integration and the stock market is elaborated further in Soydemir (2000) and Asgharian et al. (2013) on how bilateral trade encourages synchronisation in business and its consequent impact on stock markets. H2. The hypothesis says that there is stock market integration between South Africa and BRICS. Economic integration and stock market linkage 239 The empirical design of the current study is to evaluate stock market integration within BRICS from the perspective of the South African trade relationship. In line with the economic theory discussed above, it is intuitive to expect an economic knock-on effect among bilateral trade, the aggregate economy and stock market activity. Consistent with prior works (Forbes and Chinn, 2004;Paramati et al., 2016;Song et al., 2021), the current study accepts bilateral trade as a proxy for economic integration. While the economic rationale provides the foundation for the link between REI and the stock market, the actual nature or behaviour of this relationship is subject to empirical examination. 3. Method Similar to Paramati et al. (2016) and Song et al. (2021), the study uses a two-stage econometric procedure. First, we use a multivariate BEKK–MGARCH model to estimate interlinked timevarying correlations between the South African stock market and each of the four BRIC countries, concurrently. From this, we save four sets of correlation series. In the second stage, the retrieved correlation time series is employed as a response variable in the next modelling stage. In the second stage, the panel data model is used to determine the effect of REI on stock market linkages. The benefit of using the BEKK–MGARCH system to compute dynamic correlations is to capture the potential spillovers in the BRICS-wide stock markets, which is valuable in measuring the extent of linkage. Mishra et al. (2022) employ the same model in a related application. 3.1 BEKK–MGARCH model The first of the two econometric models to be estimated is the BEKK–MGARCH (Engle and Kroner, 1995). In this study, our preference is the BEKK over the DCC version of the MGARCH model, even though the two models are assumed to be equally competent at lower dimensions. Nevertheless, some researchers insist that there are unanswered questions regarding the asymptotic theory of the DCC model. For instance, after reviewing the relevant literature, Caporin and McAleer (2012, p. 746) concluded that “...the proofs [of consistency and asymptotic normality] for DCC have typically been based on unstated regularity conditions. When the regularity conditions have been stated, they are untestable or irrelevant for the stated purposes”. We proceed with system (1) of vector-autoregressive, VAR(p) and BEKK–MGARCH (p, q) models in Equations (1a) and (1b): yt¼Πyt1þ ε t(1a) Ht¼CC’þA ε t1 ε 0 t1A0þBHt1B0(1b) In the VAR(p) system (1a), ytis a k31vector of stock returns from the stock market indices of BRICS, while Πis a k3kmatrix of parameters to be estimated. In Equation (1b),Cisk3k lower triangular matrix, while A and B are k3kcoefficient matrices to be computed. The disturbance term is assumed to be ε t∼Nð0;ΣtÞ, where Σtis the covariance matrix. 3.2 Panel data model The second and main econometric procedure of the study employs the panel data model, as presented in Equation (2). The objective of this model is to examine the core empirical question of whether REI has an impact on stock market linkages. ρ it ¼ α þβxit þδzit þγtþ μ iþeit;eit ∼iid0; σ 2(2) ∀i¼1;2;3;...N;and t ¼1;2;3;...;T JEFAS 28,56 240 The dimensions of the panel data model, N and T, are four (BRIC countries) and 300 (months), respectively. The definition of variables is as follows: ρ is the response variable of dynamic correlations between South Africa and each of the BRIC countries. That is, country iat time t. The vector, z, contains variables that proxy for REI of which trade intensity (trade) is key. The covariate trade is generally assumed to have a positive effect on stock market integration (Bracker et al., 1999;Paramati et al., 2016) due to possible national economic interaction and firm-level beneficiation. The variable trade is quantified in Equation (3) as: tradeit ¼git P 4 i git ∀i¼1;2;3;4;(3) where git is South Africa’s total trade (imports plus exports) from BRIC country iat time t. This means that the denominator in Equation (3) represents South Africa’s aggregate trade with the four BRIC countries. The other two variables are: a dummy variable, BRICSexist, which takes the value of zero before BRICS’existence and one otherwise, while the second variable, BRICSexp, captures the accumulation of BRICS experience measured as weighted age (or duration) of BRICS in years. The variable is also applied as an interaction of itself (squared). We use the weighting to capture the idea of relative influence in the South AfricanBRIC bilateral relationships. For this we conjecture that the ratio of each country’s distance (dit) from South Africa divided by the average distance of BRIC 1 nP n i ditaway from South Africa should be appropriate and quantified in Equation (4) as: BRICSexpit ¼dit 1 nP n i dit 3ageit (4) Distance on its own is known to negatively impact market integration owing to cost implications (Hooy and Goh, 2008). Therefore, this weighting has a moderating effect on the proxy for BRIC integration experience (BRICSexp). Considered together, the two variables, BRICSexp and its square, should answer the question of how the continued existence (or experience accumulation) of BRICS affects their stock market integration. In Equation (2),xis a set of control variables, namely, interest rate differential, volatility index (VIX) and geopolitical risk, which are summarised in Table A1 (in Appendix). The variable, interest rate differential (rate), is a common inclusion in market integration studies. It measures interest rate parity between markets with a potential impact on capital flow and should influence a firm’s profitability leading to positive effects on stock markets’co-movements (Bracker et al., 1999), assuming capital mobility and other things are constant. Dedicated studies on risk integration in global stock markets (Marfatia, 2017) and BRICSspecific works (Mroua and Trabelsi, 2020;Yildirim et al., 2022) have shown that risk spillover prevails in both short and long frequencies. In financial markets, VIX is a well-known measure of market risk based on the S&P500 option index and it gauges financial uncertainty, fear and/or stress. History has shown that “... emerging stock markets have become less segmented from world stock markets”(De Jong and De Roon, 2005, p. 583). In this regard, we use VIX as an attribute of global financial market risk and the literature (Carrieri et al., 2007) shows that the direction of the effect is not pre-defined. The regressor geopolitics is included to control for uncertainties emanating from changes in geographic political environments. This measure of political risk is a practical index that tracks the country political climate over time, based on newspaper reports (Caldara and Iacoviello, 2019). Higher and extreme sentiments of domestic political risk should have a Economic integration and stock market linkage 241 lower contribution to stock market co-movement. Therefore, a negative association is expected. The coefficients, α ,β,δ,γare model parameters to be estimated. The terms, γtand μ i are period and panel-fixed effects, respectively. 3.3 Data description The BRICS stock market indices used in the current study are Brazil’s Bolsa de Valores de S~ ao Paulo (BOVESPA), Russian Trading System (RTS), National Stock Exchange of India (NSE), China’s Shanghai Stock Exchange (SSE Composite) and the JSE’s All Share Index. The time horizon for the sample range was restricted by the shortest time series available, namely Russia’s Stock Market Index, which is only obtainable from 1995. Therefore, the datasets used in MGARCH and panel data models are monthly time series for the period October 1995 to September 2020 from several sources, which are summarised in Table A1 (in Appendix). Prior to estimating the econometric models of the study (Equations 1 and 2), it is important to preview the summary descriptive statistics of the regression time series. Therefore, it is useful to observe whether there is a preliminary discernible co-movement between the South African stock market and those of the BRIC countries. Figure 1 shows a historical graph of stock market price indices for South Africa against each of its BRICS counterparts. Overall, there is prima facie evidence of stock market correlation within BRICS. Also, apart from the gradual upward trend, the graphed series reflects a common response to significant structural changes such as the global financial crisis (2008–2009), European financial crisis (2012–2015) as well as COVID-19 (2019–2020). Figure 2 shows the impulse response function for the South African stock market (All Share Index) in relation to the aggregate stock market of BRIC countries (MSCI BRIC Index). The latter is published by Morgan Stanley Capital International (MSCI), and the index has 85% capitalisation of free-floating constituents in each country. The two graphs in Figure 2 0 50 100 150 200 250 STOCK PRICE INDEX Brazil Russia India Chian South Africa Source(s): Own elaboration Author’s graphics Figure 1. The historical trend line of BRICS stock market price indices JEFAS 28,56 242 show that there is a two-way shock response between South Africa and BRIC. Although the two graphs are not able to reveal the origin of the shocks, the information is suggestive enough that there is a bi-directional effect between the markets. However, it is interesting to observe from these graphs that shocks trigger market reactions in opposite directions. The response of the South African market is positive, while that of the BRIC is negative. In all cases, the full effect is maximised on the fifth month after the shock. Figures A1 and A2 (in Appendix) detail South African and BRIC response functions at country levels. In all cases, there is a bi-directional shock effect. 3.4 Pre-modelling and data-validation tests In this study, panel data unit root tests are used to confirm whether the time series is stationary, which will help avoid spurious and misleading regression results. There are several alternative test procedures that researchers may apply to assess stationarity. To select an appropriate panel unit root test, we consider what different test procedures say about four factors of the econometric theory: whether we have balanced panels, the relative magnitudes of N and T, the speed at which N and T approach infinity as well as the extent to which N and T are fixed. The asymptotic conditions of available test procedures include T→∞;Nfinite fg based on the test suggested by Choi (2001),orfT;N→seq ∞gby Breitung (2000),Breitung and Das (2005) and Hadri (2000) or f√N=T→0;or N=T→0gby Levin et al. (2002),orfN→∞;Tfixed gby Harris and Tzavalis (1999) and Im et al. (2003). The nature of our dataset is closer to the first two tests. The reason is that the size of the panel in our study is a fixed N of four BRIC countries, while T, the study horizon, is readily extendable considerably faster than BRIC membership. The relevant unit root test equation is given in Equation (5): ΔSit ¼ f iSit1þγiwit þX p j¼1 θijΔSitjþvit (5) ∀i¼1;2;3...N and t ¼1;2;3...T In Equation (5),Sit is the series to be tested, ΔSitjcaptures a set of augmented lags, while vit is the regression error term which is assumed to be stationary. The variable, wit, represents the panel means time-trend, and it takes the value of zero if none is included in the regression. The null hypothesis of the unit root test is H0: f i¼0 for all iagainst the alternative, H1<0:The test results of stationarity are presented in Table A2 (in Appendix) and explained next. 0.4 0.8 1.2 1.6 2.0 2.4 123456789101112 Response of ZAR to BRIC Impulse Response Function Shocks Res p onse Period in Mon t hs –50 0 50 100 150 123456789101112 Response of BRIC to ZAR Impulse Response Function Shocks Response Period in Mon t hs Source(s): Own elaboration Author’s graphics Figure 2. The shock response for South Africa and aggregate BRIC stock markets Economic integration and stock market linkage 243 3.5 Panel data model validation Prior to results’interpretation, it is important to address the model validation necessities. In this regard, a battery of tests is applied to confirm the model selection (among, pool vs fixed effects, fixed vs random effects and time effects), as well as to validate post-estimation model assumptions, which entails tests on heteroscedasticity, autocorrelation and cross-sectional dependence. Fixed vs random effects: The Hausman test (Hausman, 1978) is employed to choose the appropriate model between fixedand random effect models. The null hypothesis (H0) of the test is that the random effect model is preferred. The test output in Table A3 (row 2) confirms a rejection of H0at less than 1% level of significance in favour of the fixed effects model. Period effects: The purpose of this test is to verify whether the time-fixed effects should be included in the chosen fixed effect model. This test uses the F-statistical test. The null hypothesis is that all time effects are not relevant. The test results in Table A3 (row 3) reject H0leading to the conclusion that period effects are necessary in the panel data model. Cross-sectional dependence: Countries within a formalised regional economic bloc are expected to have some form of interdependence in the real world. Two tests by Breusch and Pagan (1979) and Persaran (2004) are used to examine whether there is cross-sectional dependence among the panels (the BRIC countries). The null hypothesis for both tests says that there is no cross-sectional dependence. Based on the test results in Table A3 (rows 4 and 5), we reject H0under both tests and conclude that the cross-sectional dependence is prevalent in this panel data model. Heteroscedasticity: A test of heteroscedasticity is well explained in mainstream econometrics textbooks (like Greene, 2000), and it is applied to inspect the assumption of homoscedasticity indicated in iid ∼ð0; σ 2Þ. The null hypothesis says that the assumption of homoscedasticity is not violated. According to the test results in Table A3 (row 6), we reject H0and conclude that heteroscedasticity is present in the panel data model. Autocorrelation test: To assess whether the econometric assumption of serial correlation is satisfied, we use the test designed by Born and Breitung (2016). Thenull hypothesis of the test is that there is no serial correlation in the panel regression model. In the light of test results in Table A3 (row 7), wereject H0and conclude that theassumption of no autocorrelation is violated. Residual normality: To investigate whether the model assumption of residual normality is sustained, we apply two tests (Shapiro and Wilk, 1965; Shapiro and Francia, 1972). The null hypothesis in both cases is that residuals are normal. Based on tests results reported in Table A3 (rows 8 and 9), we fail to reject H0in both tests at 1 and 5%, respectively. This means that the model residuals are fairly normal, and this fact is confirmed by the graphical illustration in Figures A3, and A4 (in Appendix). The overall finding of the post-estimation validation is that normality treatment is not indicated, whereas the same panel data model is afflicted with problems of heteroscedasticity, serial correlation and cross-sectional dependence. To address these issues collectively, we apply the Driscoll and Kraay (1998) robust standard errors using the xtscc program by Hoechle (2007, p. 282), who confirms that the Driscoll–Kraay “covariance matrix estimator ... produces heteroskedasticityand autocorrelation-consistent standard errors that are robust to general forms of spatial and temporal dependence”. Therefore, Table 1 presents the original OLS results in Model 1, while Model 2 is estimated with the Driscoll–Kraayrobuststandarderrors.The choice of the Driscoll–Kraay robust model over alternatives is based on two factors. First, the conventional solutions include Newey and West (1994) and cluster (Rogers, 1994) robust errors. While these traditional robust methods provide a successful control for both heteroscedasticity and autocorrelation simultaneously, they fallshort inaddressing the cross-sectional dependence problem, necessitating using the Driscoll–Kraay method to solve all problems. Secondly, in the currentstudy, the number of panels is very limited (only four BRIC countries), making thechoice of Rogers’cluster robust errors less effective. After using the Driscoll–Kraay robust standard errors, the results are indeed robust because the variables maintain their statistical significance. JEFAS 28,56 244 Hooy, C.W. and Goh, K.L. (2008), “Stock market integration across national boundaries: causes and impediments”,Capital Markets Review, Vol. 16 No. 1, pp. 13-26. Huy, D.T., Loan, B.T. and Anh, P.T. (2020), “Impact of selected factors on stock price: a case study of Vietcombank in Vietnam”,Entrepreneurship and Sustainability Issues,Vol.7No.4, pp. 2715-2730, doi: 10.9770/jesi.2020.7.4(10). Im, K.S., Pesaran, M.H. and Shin, Y. (2003), “Testing for unit roots in heterogeneous panels”,Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 115 No. 1, pp. 53-74, doi: 10.1016/S0304-4076(03)00092-7. Karim, B.A. and Majid, M.S.A. (2010), “Does trade matter for stock market integration?”,Studies in Economics and Finance, Vol. 27 No. 1, pp. 47-66, doi: 10.1108/10867371011022975. Kim, S.J., Moshirian, F. and Wu, E. (2018), “Dynamic stock market integration driven by the European monetary union: an empirical analysis”,inIn Information Spillovers and Market Integration in International Finance, pp. 305-368, doi: 10.1142/9789813223585_0010. Lahrech, A. and Sylwester, K. (2013), “The impact of NAFTA on North American stock market linkages”,North American Journal of Economics and Finance, Vol. 25, pp. 94-108, doi: 10.1016/j. najef.2013.04.001. Levin, A., Lin, C.F. and Chu, C.S.J. (2002), “Unit root tests in panel data: asymptotic and finite-sample properties”,Journal of Econometrics,Vol.108No.1,pp.1-24,doi:10.1016/S0304-4076(01)00098-7. Lombana, J., Palacios-Chac on, L.A., Salcedo, N.U. and Cabello-Cerna, A. (2021), “Pacific alliance facing crises: a trade perspective (1990–2020)”, in Cos ¸kun € Ozer, A. (Ed.), Impact of Global Issues on International Trade, IGI Global, pp. 37-65, doi: 10.4018/978-1-7998-8314-2.ch003. Marfatia, H.A. (2017), “A fresh look at the integration of risks in the international stock markets: a wavelet approach”,Review of Financial Economics, Vol. 34 No. 1, pp. 33-49, doi: 10.1016/j.rfe. 2017.07.003. Mishra, A.K., Agrawal, S. and Patwa, J.A. (2022), “Return and volatility spillover between India and leading Asian and global equity markets: an empirical analysis”,Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, Vol. 27 No. 54, pp. 294-312, doi: 10.1108/JEFAS-06-2021-0082. Mroua, M. and Trabelsi, L. (2020), “Causality and dynamic relationships between exchange rate and stock market indices in BRICS countries”,Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, Vol. 25 No. 50, doi: 10.1108/JEFAS-04-2019-0054. Newey, W.K. and West, K.D. (1994), “Automatic lag selection in covariance matrix estimation”,Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 61 No. 4, pp. 631-653, doi: 10.2307/2297912. Ohlin, B. (1933), Interregional and International Trade, Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA. Paramati, S.R., Roca, E. and Gupta, R. (2016), “Economic integration and stock market dynamic linkages: evidence in the context of Australia and Asia”,Applied Economics, Vol. 48 No. 44, pp. 4210-4226, doi: 10.1080/00036846.2016.1153794. Park, C.Y. (2013), “Asian capital market integration: theory and evidence”, ADB Economics Working Paper Series No. 351, Asian Development Bank, Manila, June. Patel, R., Goodell, J.W., Oriani, M.E., Paltrinieri, A. and Yarovaya, L. (2022), “A bibliometric review of financial market integration literature”,International Review of Financial Analysis, Vol. 80, doi: 10.1016/j.irfa.2022.102035. Pesaran, M.H. (2004), “General diagnostic tests for cross-section dependence in panels”, Cambridge Working Papers in Economics, No. 0435, Faculty of Economics, University of Cambridge. Piesse, J. and Hearn, B. (2002), “Equity market integration versus segmentation in three dominant markets of the Southern African Customs Union: cointegration and causality tests”,Applied Economics, Vol. 34 No. 14, pp. 1711-1722. Ricardo, D. (1817), On the Principles of Political Economy and Taxation, 2nd ed., John Murray, London. Rogers, W.H. (1994), “Regression standard errors in clustered samples”,Stata Technical Bulletin, Vol. 13, pp. 19-23, Stata Technical Bulletin Reprints, Vol. 3, pp. 88-94. Stata Press, College Station, TX. Economic integration and stock market linkage 251 Shapiro, S.S. and Francia, R.S. (1972), “An approximate analysis of variance test for normality”, Journal of the American Statistical Association, Vol. 67 No. 337, pp. 215-216. Shapiro, S.S. and Wilk, M.B. (1965), “An analysis of variance test for normality (complete samples)”, Biometrika, Vol. 52 Nos 3-4, pp. 591-611, doi: 10.1093/biomet/52.3-4.591. Sharma, G.D., Mahendru, M. and Singh, S. (2013), “Are the stock exchanges of emerging economies inter-linked? Evidence from BRICS”,Indian Journal of Finance, Vol. 7 No. 1, pp. 1-25. Smith, A. (1776), An Inquiry into the Nature and Causes of the Wealth of Nations, Strahan and Cadell, London. Song, Y., Huang, R., Paramati, S.R. and Zakari, A. (2021), “Does economic integration lead to financial market integration in the Asian region?”,Economic Analysis and Policy, Vol. 69, pp. 366-377, doi: 10.1016/j.eap.2020.12.003. Soydemir, G. (2000), “International transmission mechanism of stock market movements: evidence from emerging equity markets”,Journal of Forecasting, Vol. 19 No. 3, pp. 149-176, doi: 10.1002/ (SICI)1099-131X(200004)19:33.0.CO;2-C. Steuart, J. (1767), An Inquiry into the Principles of Political Economy: Being an Essay on the Science of Domestic Policy in Free Nations, Millar, London. Upalat, K. (2022), “Revisiting Asian economic integration: challenges and prospects”,Journal of the Asia Pacific Economy, Vol. 27 No. 2, pp. 199-222, doi: 10.1080/13547860.2020.1840493. Yildirim, H., Akdag, S. and Alola, A.A. (2022), “Is there a price bubble in the exchange rates of the developing countries? The case of BRICS and Turkey”,Journal of Economics, Finance and Administrative Science, Vol. 27 No. 54, pp. 247-261, doi: 10.1108/JEFAS-04-2021-0025. JEFAS 28,56 252 Appendix Variable Code Computation or type Explanation Source ρ Correlation MGARCH, Equation (1) The correlation of the log returns for South Africa and each of the BRIC countries (Brazil, Russia, India and China) Stock indices sourced from the OECD online database zTrade Equation (2) The extent of trade intensity between South Africa and each of the BRIC countries The Quantec database Surplusdeficit Dummy An indicator of trade surplus or deficit. Takes value 1 if at month t trade is surplus and zero if deficit The Quantec database BRICSexp Equation (4) BRIC age since establishment (or duration) weighted by South Africa-BRIC distance BRIC website BRIClead Scale The number of times that each country changed leaders in the past BRIC annual meetings – BRIC website BRICSexist Dummy Indicator variable taking a value of zero for the period before BRIC existence, and 1 from the establishment date onwards The BRIC website xRate Scale Short-term interest rate differential between South Africa and each of the BRIC countries Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis VIX Scale Volatility index based on the S&P500 option index Finance.yahoo.com Geopolitics Scale An index to measure countryspecific political risk based on newspaper-published events Caldara and Iacoviello (2019) Source(s): Author’s compilation No Variable Breitung (2000) Levin et al. (2002) Im et al. (2003) f i¼ ff i¼ ff i≠ f 1 Residuals 11.6964 12.5961 12.7310 (0.0000***) (0.0000***) (0.0000***) 2 Trade intensity 2.3765 2.982 7.5406 (0.0087***) (0.0014***) (0.0000***) 3 Interest rate differential 0.9032 5.0316 7.9342 (0.1832) (0.0000***) (0.0000***) 4 VIX 3.5622 5.6630 8.0845 (0.0002***) (0.0002***) (0.0000***) 5 Geopolitical risk 13.6369 9.6705 14.6616 (0.0000***) (0.0000***) (0.0000***) Note(s): ***1%, statistical significance. Equation (5) refers: f i 5 f means that a common autoregressive coefficient for all panels is assumed while f i ≠ f means panel-specific autoregressive coefficients are assumed Source(s): Author’s computations Table A1. Variables description Table A2. Stationarity model validation tests, H 0 : panels contain unit roots Economic integration and stock market linkage 253 No Null hypothesis Test procedure Distribution T-stat p-value Results 1H 0:u i 50, Common effects (pool) Panel regression F testðk1;n1Þ52.07 0.0000*** Reject H 0 2H 0 : Random effects model Hausman (1978) χ 2ðkÞ54.79 0.0000*** Reject H 0 3H 0 : Period effects are jointly zero Testparm F testðk1;n1Þ732.34 0.0000*** Reject H 0 4H 0 : No cross-sectional dependence xttest2, Breusch and Pagan (1979) χ 2ðkÞ322.27 0.0000*** Reject H 0 5H 0 : No cross-sectional dependence xcsd, Pesaran (2004) 11.84 0.0000*** Reject H 0 6H 0 : Homoscedasticity xttest3, Greene (2000) χ 2ðkÞ48.12 0.0000*** Reject H 0 7H 0 : No serial correlation up to order p Born and Breitung (2016) χ 2ðpÞ131.75 0.0000*** Reject H 0 8H 0 : residuals are normal Shapiro and Wilk (1965) W test 0.9974 0.0508** Fail to reject H 0 at 1% 9H 0 : residuals are normal Shapiro and Francia (1972) W0test 0.9973 0.0822* Fail to reject H 0 at 5% Note(s): *** 1%, ** 5% and *10% Source(s): Author’s computations –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 12345678 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 12345678 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 12345678 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 0.03 0.04 12345678 Impulse Response Function Shocks Response Period in Months Source(s): Author’s graphics Response of South Africa to Brazil Response of South Africa to India Response of South Africa to Russia Response of South Africa to India Table A3. Post-estimation model validation tests Figure A1. Shock responses of South Africa to one standard deviation innovations from individual BRIC countries JEFAS 28,56 254 –0.03 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.01 12345678 –0.03 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.01 0.02 12345678 0.00 0.01 0.02 12345678 –0.02 –0.01 0.00 0.01 12345678 ImpulseResponseFunction Shock Response Period in Months Response of Brazil to South Africa Response of Russia to South Africa Response of India to South Africa Response of China to South Africa Source(s): Author’s graphics Theoretical normality line Estimated empirical line 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Normal F[(res-m)/s] 0.00 0.25 0.50 0.75 1.00 Empirical P[i] = i/(N+1) Source(s): Author’s graphics Figure A2. Shock responses of individual BRIC countries to one standard deviation innovations from South Africa Figure A3. The Q-Q graph to assess normality of residuals series from the panel data model Economic integration and stock market linkage 255 Corresponding author Thabo J. Gopane can be contacted at: [email protected] For instructions on how to order reprints of this article, please visit our website: www.emeraldgrouppublishing.com/licensing/reprints.htm Or contact us for further details: [email protected] 0 1 2 3 4 Density –0.4 –0.2 0 0.2 0.4 e[country_id, t] Kernel density estimate Normal density kernel = epanechnikov, bandwidth = 0.0242 Kernel density estimate Source(s): Author’s graphics Figure A4. A bell-shaped graph to inspect normality in the residual series of the panel model JEFAS 28,56 256