What determines the share of non-resident public debt ownership? Evidence from Euro Area countries

Research Article
  • 25 Downloads

Abstract

This paper provides, for the first time, a detailed picture of the composition of public debt by type of holder (foreign vs. domestic) and type of holding institution for a set of 7 Euro Area countries between 1991Q1 and 2015Q4. In addition, it empirically inspects the determinants of nonresident public debt ownership, accounting for both domestic and external factors and paying special attention to the global financial crisis period. Using a previously unexplored dataset and by means of panel and country-specific time series regressions, we find that improved fiscal positions, systemic stress and financial volatility, a strong business cycle position, all increase share of public debt held by non-residents. Also, a higher share of monetary and financial institutions cross-border holdings of sovereign debt issued by the other Euro Area countries was correlated with higher share of public debt held by non-residents. Finally, results are robust to outliers inspection and other sensitivity checks.

Keywords

Sovereign debt Central bank Financial markets Monetary and financial institutions Europe 

JEL Classification

C22 E44 F34 G15 H63 

Notes

Acknowledgements

We thank an anonymous referee for useful comments and suggestions. The usual disclaimer applies. Any remaining errors are the author’s sole responsibility. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and do not reflect those of his employer.

References

  1. Afonso, A., Silva, J.: Determinants of nonresident government debt ownership. Appl Econ Lett 24(2), 107–112 (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Al-Eyd, A., Berkmen, S.P.: Fragmentation and monetary policy in the Euro Area. IMF Working Paper 13/208, Washington DC, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  3. Banerjee, A.: Panel data, unit roots and cointegration: an overview. Oxf Bull Econ Stat 61, 607–629 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Beber, A., Brandt, M., Kavajecz, K.: Flight-to-quality or flight-to-liquidity? Evidence from the Euro-Area bond market. Rev Financ Stud 22, 925–957 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Borio C., Disyatat P., Juselius M.: Rethinking potential output: embedding information about the financial cycle. BIS Working Papers, n.404 (2013)Google Scholar
  6. Cizkowicz, P., Rzonca, A., Trzeciakowski, R.: Windfall of low interest payments and fiscal sustainability in the Euro Area: analysis through panel fiscal reaction functions. Kyklos 68, 478–510 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Cotis J.P., Elmeskov J., Mourougane, A.: Estimates of potential output benefits and pitfalls from a policy perspective. In: Reichlin, L. (eds.) The Euro Area Business Cycle: Stylized Facts and Measurement Issues. London: CEPR (2004)Google Scholar
  8. De Grauwe, P.: The governance of a fragile eurozone. Aust Econ Rev 45(3), 255–268 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Della Corte, V., Federico, S.: Foreign holders of Italian government debt securities: new evidence. Banca d’Italia Working Paper Series No. 363 (2016)Google Scholar
  10. Denis C., Mc Morrow K., Roger W.: Production function approach to calculating potential growth and output gaps—estimates for the EU Member States and the US. ECFIN Economic Paper, n.176 (2002)Google Scholar
  11. Driffill, J.: Unconventional monetary policy in the euro zone. Open Econ Rev 27(2), 387–404 (2016)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. European Central Bank. Financial Integration in Europe, April. Frankfurt (2014)Google Scholar
  13. European Commission. European Economic Forecast, Autumn, pp. 34–36. Brussels (2012)Google Scholar
  14. Furceri, D., Jalles, J.T.: Determinants and effects of fiscal stabilization: new evidence from time varying estimates. IMF WP forthcoming (2016)Google Scholar
  15. Gerlach, S., Schulz, A., Wolff, G.: Banking and sovereign risk in the euro area. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 7833 (2010)Google Scholar
  16. Giorno C., Richardson P., Roseveare D., Van den Noord P.: Estimating potential output, output gaps and structural budget balances. OECD Economic Department Working Paper n.157 (1995)Google Scholar
  17. Granger, C., Newbold, P.: Spurious regressions in econometrics. J Econom 2, 111–120 (1974)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Holló, D., Kremer, M., Duca, M.L.: CISS—A Composite Indicator of Systemic Stress in the Financial System. Frankfurt: European Central Bank (2012)Google Scholar
  19. Im K.S., Pesaran M.H., Shin, Y.: Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels, mimeo. Department of Applied Economics, Cambridge University (1997). www.econ.cam.ac.uk/faculty/pesaran/
  20. IMF. Fiscal Monitor—Now is the Time: Fiscal Policies for Sustainable Growth, April. Washington, DC (2015)Google Scholar
  21. Maddala, G.S., Wu, S.: A comparative study of unit root tests with panel data and a new simple test. Oxf Bullet Econ Stat 61, 631–652 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Merler, S., Pisani-Ferry, J.: Who’s afraid of sovereign bonds. Bruegel Policy Contribution, 2012/02, February, Brussels, Belgium (2012)Google Scholar
  23. Mody, A.: From Bear Sterns to Anglo Irish: How eurozone sovereign spreads related to financial sector vulnerability. IMF Working Paper 09/108 (2009)Google Scholar
  24. Pesaran, M.H.: A simple panel unit root test in the presence of cross-section dependence. J Appl Econom 22, 265–312 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Reinhart, C.M., Rogoff, K.S.: Growth in a time of debt. Am Econ Rev 100, 573–578 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Whaley, R.: The investor fear gauge. J Portf Manag 26, 12–17 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Centre for Globalization and GovernanceNova School of Business and EconomicsLisbonPortugal
  2. 2.UECE – Research Unit on Complexity and EconomicsISEG Technical University of LisbonLisbonPortugal

Personalised recommendations