# Analysis of the Resilience of Balance of Payments Using Comprehensive Evaluation

Authors: Shixin Fan; Ying Liu
Journal: Journal of Mathematics
 (2022)

---

## Abstract

Globalization has brought increased attention to the balance of payments situation from a variety of countries. The traditional method of measuring balance of payments may not be applicable in certain situations. This paper draws on the idea of economic resilience, uses the transmission mechanism of balance of payments imbalance, and establishes a system of balance of payments imbalance resilience to provide a complement to the traditional measure. In this article, we establish a system of balance of payments resilience and ensure its reasonableness and effectiveness. The main conclusions are as follows: (1) balance of payments resilience score can be used as a reference and early warning indicator of a country’s balance of payments situation and improves the measurement of balance of payments. (2) Improving the country’s unemployment rate and boosting adjusted net savings will significantly upgrade the balance of payments situation. Improving foreign capital adequacy and foreign exchange market conditions is more beneficial for improving the country’s rank of resilience score.


---

## Body

## 1. Introduction

Politics, economy, and culture of countries around the globe are becoming increasingly intertwined through globalization and international trade. In such a situation, various countries use the balance of payments (BOP) to measure their gains and losses in international trade. A stable BOP gives a country a competitive edge in international transactions and vice versa. It is common to use the current account balance for the purpose of measuring the BOP internationally [1], and the bounds of the imbalance were set at 5% of GDP [2]. This type of BOP measurement method, however, has some negative aspects. The BOP closely relates to the level of economic development in a country. Having a moderate and stable current account surplus is conducive to a country’s economic development, whereas a deficit, especially a large deficit, is strongly unfavorable. We examine the latest data from some countries and find that it conflicts with the above.


## 2. Literature Review

The literature review of this paper is divided into three parts: (1) we briefly describe the BOP theory and traditional methods of measuring the imbalance. (2) We describe the idea of economic resilience. This article uses this to establish an index system. (3) The rationale for the selection of the BOP imbalance resilience indicators is introduced using the foundation for the selection of the indicators, which is the core portion of the literature review.


### 2.1. Balance of Payments Theory and Traditional Imbalance Measurement Methods

It should be noted that the BOP does not emphasize the accounts in which the deficit is incurred. According to the sixth edition ofBalance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual (BPM6) [3], autonomous transactions are recorded in the current account and capital account, whereas financial accounts have both records, and it is not easy to distinguish between them within the account. As a result, current and capital account deficits should be given greater attention when correcting BOP imbalances. Measures of imbalances have focussed on current accounts and relative deficits in recent years. The most popular method of calculating BOP balance is to utilize the current account balance [1]. The current account is more indicative of the supply and demand situation in the foreign currency market than the capital account [4], and recent Western research has concentrated on current account imbalances [5]. A BOP imbalance exists in industrial nations with a current account balance to GDP ratio of higher than 5%. [2]. As a boundary of imbalance, many international organizations and summits use 5%.To sum up, the current BOP measure is based on the ratio of current account balance to GDP with 5% as the alert line for imbalance. We consider the use of a single indicator and a fixed alert line to be inappropriate and not helpful in explaining some economic phenomena. Thus, this article constructs an indicator system for the resilience of BOP imbalances, thereby supplementing the existing imbalance measurement methods.


### 2.2. Economic Resilience

Economic resilience is a relatively new field that involves disciplines such as development economics and regional economics. Holling [6] first proposed the concept of resilience to describe the ability of ecosystems to recover after trauma. Through decades of development, resilience has gradually included ecology, engineering, and economics. In this paper, we adopt the concept of economic resilience in macroeconomics, which describes a country’s ability to recover after an external shock to its economy [7]. Briguglio et al. [8] succeeded in developing a system of indicators for estimating economic resilience by looking at four areas: macroeconomic stability, micro market efficiency, better economic governance, and social development. Those areas reflect not only the ability of an economy to resist external shocks, but also the severity of an economic recession resulting from external shocks. As a result, the indicators selected should satisfy two requirements in this paper: (1) This indicator can be used to judge a country’s capacity to resist BOP imbalances and its economic strength. (2) Indices will change when a country’s BOP imbalances are unbearably high, reflecting the loss and vulnerability of its economy.


### 2.3. Literature on Unbalanced Resilience System Construction Indicators

In this section, we discuss the criteria that are relevant to resilience indicators selection. Indicators should meet both requirements of Section2.2 and have literature support. We have finally generated a path of BOP imbalances transmission, containing indicators of resilience.


#### 2.3.1. The Impact of BOP Imbalances on the Domestic Economy

BOP changes may directly impact a country’s foreign currency exchange market [9]. The foreign currency reserves, the foreign investment, the exchange rate, and the BOP all interact, according to Lu [10]. The BOP will have an influence on international commerce and investment in addition to foreign money. Foreign direct investment is linked to foreign currency reserves, which in turn is linked to the BOP [11]. Sun [1] and Chen [12] determined that a country’s BOP situation is linked to its international trade competitiveness and that the terms of trade index may be used to quantify that competitiveness. As a result, we may deduce that BOP variations have a first-order impact on the foreign exchange and international trade markets and that the BOP limited growth model serves as a link to the domestic economy.The BOP constrained growth model argues that BOP affects the growth of the domestic economy, especially GDP, through foreign trade and foreign exchange markets. This model, first proposed by Thirlwall [13], considers the impact of BOP on economic growth (GDP). Thirlwall concluded that failure to achieve BOP equilibrium inhibited a country’s economic growth, and Thirlwall and Hussain [14] optimized the model to require fewer constraints. Kvedaras et al. [15] analyze new empirical data to demonstrate the current applicability of the model, which means that it is reasonable to apply the model theory in this paper. Scholars have also applied the model to various countries, concluding that the terms of trade index, real interest rate, exchange rate, and other indicators can be affected by the BOP, and using the model to limit GDP growth.In addition to affecting GDP growth, foreign exchange reserves and exchange rate movements also have an impact on inflation [16]. Li and Ren [17] found that BOP can affect the quality of economic growth by affecting domestic macroeconomic stability; that is, BOP affects macroeconomic stability indicators, such as inflation and employment. The BOP can also reach deep within the macroeconomy and have an impact on fiscal conditions, real interest rates, and economic growth rates [18].Thus, we can conclude that the BOP affects the foreign exchange rate, foreign trade, domestic economic growth, macroeconomic stability, and other macroeconomic indicators. Some indicators, such as fiscal policy and exchange rate, also affect the BOP.


#### 2.3.2. BOP and Quality of Economic Growth

As clarified above (according to Section2.3.1), BOP can influence the quality of economic development by affecting the foreign exchange market and the foreign trade market. The quality of economic development itself can be a measure of the economic strength and the ability to resist imbalances, which is precisely what indicators need.Liu et al. [19] concluded that BOP is conducive to improving the quality of a country’s economic growth. Kong et al. [20] conducted research on the relationship between the foreign openness and the quality of economic growth in a changing exchange rate environment from 1994 to 2018 and established a system for measuring the quality of economic growth, the indicators of which could be used to select indicators to construct resilience of BOP. Long and Ji [21] studied the GPI of Chinese provinces and optimized the measure of GPI. The GPI is highly sensitive to the welfare of people and can be used to complement quality of economic growth.Thus, we can conclude that indicators such as industrialization level, technical efficiency, TFP growth rates, research expenditures, environmental depletion, and poverty measure will also be added to the system of BOP imbalances resilience indicators.


#### 2.3.3. BOP Crisis Theory and Events

The BOP crisis is a special case of imbalance. By studying the theoretical model of the BOP crisis and the economic variables affected by the crisis, we can choose resilience indicators from another perspective.Krugman [22] proposed the first generation of BOP crisis model, arguing that when a country’s money supply exceeds its money demand for a long period of time, foreign exchange reserves will continue to fall and currency speculators will attack at some point to disintegrate the fixed exchange rate system, causing the country’s currency to devalue and the economy to collapse. Obstfeld [23] proposed a second-generation model of BOP crises, noting that when domestic macroeconomics is weak, currency speculation leads governments to abandon fixed exchange rate regimes on their own initiative, which triggers a chain reaction. Third-generation BOP crisis models are more inclined to examine the financial sector, which is called “capital item crisis theory.”Sen [24] optimizes the first generation of the BOP model to make the model’s predicted timing of BOP crises more reasonable. Wang [25] examined the third-generation BOP crisis model and concluded that the crisis would result in a significant currency depreciation, which would have a negative impact on macroeconomic stability, and a sharp drop in real investment, which would have a negative impact on the real economy. According to Yin and Li [11], the crisis will result in a massive fiscal deficit. Wang [25] explores the causes of contagions associated with the three BOP crises that have occurred, such as inflation and fiscal conditions.Studies of this type generally confirm the transmission path of the BOP imbalances derived from Sections2.3.1 and 2.3.2 from a different angle. As a result, the transmission path obtained in this article will be more reliable.The paper ultimately briefly describes this component as the transmission path of BOP imbalances, as described below. BOP imbalances will impact the foreign exchange market, resulting in changes in exchange rates, foreign exchange reserves, and foreign investment. As a result of the abovementioned market changes, the imbalance will further affect domestic macroeconomic growth and stability, as well as inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth rate, which can affect quality of economic growth. Table1 shows the final results of the election of the BOP imbalance resilience system indicators.Table 1
Resilience system construction indicators.
TypeAbbreviationNamePositive/negativeData sourceDirect economic impactreerReal effective exchange ratePositiveIMFttiTerms of trade indexPositiveIMFferaForeign exchange reserve adequacyPositiveIMFftdForeign trade dependencyPositiveWBfdin/gdpForeign direct investment to GDP ratioPositiveWBEconomic development leveldrDeficit ratePositiveIMFti/gdpTotal investment to GDPPositiveIMFEconomic stabilityircInflation rate of changeNegativeIMFirInflation rateNegativeIMFuUnemploymentNegativeIMFgdpcGDP growth ratePositiveIMFQuality of economic growthansAdjusted net savingsPositiveWBiav/gdpIndustrial value added to GDPPositiveWBnipcNational income per capitaPositiveWBtfpcTotal factor productivity of changePositivePWTwtfpcWelfare-related total factor productivity of changePositivePWTDirect economic impact refers to the direct impact of the bop on foreign exchange and foreign capital markets. IMF: International Monetary Fund. WB: World Bank. PWT: Penn World Table.


### 2.4. Summary of the Literature Review

Globally, the ratio of current account deficits to GDP is commonly used rather than large deficits in BOP theory. Using a fixed value as a warning line for imbalances is internationally common, but it also has some disadvantages. Thus, this paper draws on the idea of economic resilience in the macroeconomic field and summarizes two requirements for the selection of imbalance resilience indicators, on the basis of which the transmission path of BOP imbalance is derived to provide reference for the establishment of the resilience system in the next section.


## 2.1. Balance of Payments Theory and Traditional Imbalance Measurement Methods

It should be noted that the BOP does not emphasize the accounts in which the deficit is incurred. According to the sixth edition ofBalance of Payments and International Investment Position Manual (BPM6) [3], autonomous transactions are recorded in the current account and capital account, whereas financial accounts have both records, and it is not easy to distinguish between them within the account. As a result, current and capital account deficits should be given greater attention when correcting BOP imbalances. Measures of imbalances have focussed on current accounts and relative deficits in recent years. The most popular method of calculating BOP balance is to utilize the current account balance [1]. The current account is more indicative of the supply and demand situation in the foreign currency market than the capital account [4], and recent Western research has concentrated on current account imbalances [5]. A BOP imbalance exists in industrial nations with a current account balance to GDP ratio of higher than 5%. [2]. As a boundary of imbalance, many international organizations and summits use 5%.To sum up, the current BOP measure is based on the ratio of current account balance to GDP with 5% as the alert line for imbalance. We consider the use of a single indicator and a fixed alert line to be inappropriate and not helpful in explaining some economic phenomena. Thus, this article constructs an indicator system for the resilience of BOP imbalances, thereby supplementing the existing imbalance measurement methods.


## 2.2. Economic Resilience

Economic resilience is a relatively new field that involves disciplines such as development economics and regional economics. Holling [6] first proposed the concept of resilience to describe the ability of ecosystems to recover after trauma. Through decades of development, resilience has gradually included ecology, engineering, and economics. In this paper, we adopt the concept of economic resilience in macroeconomics, which describes a country’s ability to recover after an external shock to its economy [7]. Briguglio et al. [8] succeeded in developing a system of indicators for estimating economic resilience by looking at four areas: macroeconomic stability, micro market efficiency, better economic governance, and social development. Those areas reflect not only the ability of an economy to resist external shocks, but also the severity of an economic recession resulting from external shocks. As a result, the indicators selected should satisfy two requirements in this paper: (1) This indicator can be used to judge a country’s capacity to resist BOP imbalances and its economic strength. (2) Indices will change when a country’s BOP imbalances are unbearably high, reflecting the loss and vulnerability of its economy.


## 2.3. Literature on Unbalanced Resilience System Construction Indicators

In this section, we discuss the criteria that are relevant to resilience indicators selection. Indicators should meet both requirements of Section2.2 and have literature support. We have finally generated a path of BOP imbalances transmission, containing indicators of resilience.


### 2.3.1. The Impact of BOP Imbalances on the Domestic Economy

BOP changes may directly impact a country’s foreign currency exchange market [9]. The foreign currency reserves, the foreign investment, the exchange rate, and the BOP all interact, according to Lu [10]. The BOP will have an influence on international commerce and investment in addition to foreign money. Foreign direct investment is linked to foreign currency reserves, which in turn is linked to the BOP [11]. Sun [1] and Chen [12] determined that a country’s BOP situation is linked to its international trade competitiveness and that the terms of trade index may be used to quantify that competitiveness. As a result, we may deduce that BOP variations have a first-order impact on the foreign exchange and international trade markets and that the BOP limited growth model serves as a link to the domestic economy.The BOP constrained growth model argues that BOP affects the growth of the domestic economy, especially GDP, through foreign trade and foreign exchange markets. This model, first proposed by Thirlwall [13], considers the impact of BOP on economic growth (GDP). Thirlwall concluded that failure to achieve BOP equilibrium inhibited a country’s economic growth, and Thirlwall and Hussain [14] optimized the model to require fewer constraints. Kvedaras et al. [15] analyze new empirical data to demonstrate the current applicability of the model, which means that it is reasonable to apply the model theory in this paper. Scholars have also applied the model to various countries, concluding that the terms of trade index, real interest rate, exchange rate, and other indicators can be affected by the BOP, and using the model to limit GDP growth.In addition to affecting GDP growth, foreign exchange reserves and exchange rate movements also have an impact on inflation [16]. Li and Ren [17] found that BOP can affect the quality of economic growth by affecting domestic macroeconomic stability; that is, BOP affects macroeconomic stability indicators, such as inflation and employment. The BOP can also reach deep within the macroeconomy and have an impact on fiscal conditions, real interest rates, and economic growth rates [18].Thus, we can conclude that the BOP affects the foreign exchange rate, foreign trade, domestic economic growth, macroeconomic stability, and other macroeconomic indicators. Some indicators, such as fiscal policy and exchange rate, also affect the BOP.


### 2.3.2. BOP and Quality of Economic Growth

As clarified above (according to Section2.3.1), BOP can influence the quality of economic development by affecting the foreign exchange market and the foreign trade market. The quality of economic development itself can be a measure of the economic strength and the ability to resist imbalances, which is precisely what indicators need.Liu et al. [19] concluded that BOP is conducive to improving the quality of a country’s economic growth. Kong et al. [20] conducted research on the relationship between the foreign openness and the quality of economic growth in a changing exchange rate environment from 1994 to 2018 and established a system for measuring the quality of economic growth, the indicators of which could be used to select indicators to construct resilience of BOP. Long and Ji [21] studied the GPI of Chinese provinces and optimized the measure of GPI. The GPI is highly sensitive to the welfare of people and can be used to complement quality of economic growth.Thus, we can conclude that indicators such as industrialization level, technical efficiency, TFP growth rates, research expenditures, environmental depletion, and poverty measure will also be added to the system of BOP imbalances resilience indicators.


### 2.3.3. BOP Crisis Theory and Events

The BOP crisis is a special case of imbalance. By studying the theoretical model of the BOP crisis and the economic variables affected by the crisis, we can choose resilience indicators from another perspective.Krugman [22] proposed the first generation of BOP crisis model, arguing that when a country’s money supply exceeds its money demand for a long period of time, foreign exchange reserves will continue to fall and currency speculators will attack at some point to disintegrate the fixed exchange rate system, causing the country’s currency to devalue and the economy to collapse. Obstfeld [23] proposed a second-generation model of BOP crises, noting that when domestic macroeconomics is weak, currency speculation leads governments to abandon fixed exchange rate regimes on their own initiative, which triggers a chain reaction. Third-generation BOP crisis models are more inclined to examine the financial sector, which is called “capital item crisis theory.”Sen [24] optimizes the first generation of the BOP model to make the model’s predicted timing of BOP crises more reasonable. Wang [25] examined the third-generation BOP crisis model and concluded that the crisis would result in a significant currency depreciation, which would have a negative impact on macroeconomic stability, and a sharp drop in real investment, which would have a negative impact on the real economy. According to Yin and Li [11], the crisis will result in a massive fiscal deficit. Wang [25] explores the causes of contagions associated with the three BOP crises that have occurred, such as inflation and fiscal conditions.Studies of this type generally confirm the transmission path of the BOP imbalances derived from Sections2.3.1 and 2.3.2 from a different angle. As a result, the transmission path obtained in this article will be more reliable.The paper ultimately briefly describes this component as the transmission path of BOP imbalances, as described below. BOP imbalances will impact the foreign exchange market, resulting in changes in exchange rates, foreign exchange reserves, and foreign investment. As a result of the abovementioned market changes, the imbalance will further affect domestic macroeconomic growth and stability, as well as inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth rate, which can affect quality of economic growth. Table1 shows the final results of the election of the BOP imbalance resilience system indicators.Table 1
Resilience system construction indicators.
TypeAbbreviationNamePositive/negativeData sourceDirect economic impactreerReal effective exchange ratePositiveIMFttiTerms of trade indexPositiveIMFferaForeign exchange reserve adequacyPositiveIMFftdForeign trade dependencyPositiveWBfdin/gdpForeign direct investment to GDP ratioPositiveWBEconomic development leveldrDeficit ratePositiveIMFti/gdpTotal investment to GDPPositiveIMFEconomic stabilityircInflation rate of changeNegativeIMFirInflation rateNegativeIMFuUnemploymentNegativeIMFgdpcGDP growth ratePositiveIMFQuality of economic growthansAdjusted net savingsPositiveWBiav/gdpIndustrial value added to GDPPositiveWBnipcNational income per capitaPositiveWBtfpcTotal factor productivity of changePositivePWTwtfpcWelfare-related total factor productivity of changePositivePWTDirect economic impact refers to the direct impact of the bop on foreign exchange and foreign capital markets. IMF: International Monetary Fund. WB: World Bank. PWT: Penn World Table.


## 2.3.1. The Impact of BOP Imbalances on the Domestic Economy

BOP changes may directly impact a country’s foreign currency exchange market [9]. The foreign currency reserves, the foreign investment, the exchange rate, and the BOP all interact, according to Lu [10]. The BOP will have an influence on international commerce and investment in addition to foreign money. Foreign direct investment is linked to foreign currency reserves, which in turn is linked to the BOP [11]. Sun [1] and Chen [12] determined that a country’s BOP situation is linked to its international trade competitiveness and that the terms of trade index may be used to quantify that competitiveness. As a result, we may deduce that BOP variations have a first-order impact on the foreign exchange and international trade markets and that the BOP limited growth model serves as a link to the domestic economy.The BOP constrained growth model argues that BOP affects the growth of the domestic economy, especially GDP, through foreign trade and foreign exchange markets. This model, first proposed by Thirlwall [13], considers the impact of BOP on economic growth (GDP). Thirlwall concluded that failure to achieve BOP equilibrium inhibited a country’s economic growth, and Thirlwall and Hussain [14] optimized the model to require fewer constraints. Kvedaras et al. [15] analyze new empirical data to demonstrate the current applicability of the model, which means that it is reasonable to apply the model theory in this paper. Scholars have also applied the model to various countries, concluding that the terms of trade index, real interest rate, exchange rate, and other indicators can be affected by the BOP, and using the model to limit GDP growth.In addition to affecting GDP growth, foreign exchange reserves and exchange rate movements also have an impact on inflation [16]. Li and Ren [17] found that BOP can affect the quality of economic growth by affecting domestic macroeconomic stability; that is, BOP affects macroeconomic stability indicators, such as inflation and employment. The BOP can also reach deep within the macroeconomy and have an impact on fiscal conditions, real interest rates, and economic growth rates [18].Thus, we can conclude that the BOP affects the foreign exchange rate, foreign trade, domestic economic growth, macroeconomic stability, and other macroeconomic indicators. Some indicators, such as fiscal policy and exchange rate, also affect the BOP.


## 2.3.2. BOP and Quality of Economic Growth

As clarified above (according to Section2.3.1), BOP can influence the quality of economic development by affecting the foreign exchange market and the foreign trade market. The quality of economic development itself can be a measure of the economic strength and the ability to resist imbalances, which is precisely what indicators need.Liu et al. [19] concluded that BOP is conducive to improving the quality of a country’s economic growth. Kong et al. [20] conducted research on the relationship between the foreign openness and the quality of economic growth in a changing exchange rate environment from 1994 to 2018 and established a system for measuring the quality of economic growth, the indicators of which could be used to select indicators to construct resilience of BOP. Long and Ji [21] studied the GPI of Chinese provinces and optimized the measure of GPI. The GPI is highly sensitive to the welfare of people and can be used to complement quality of economic growth.Thus, we can conclude that indicators such as industrialization level, technical efficiency, TFP growth rates, research expenditures, environmental depletion, and poverty measure will also be added to the system of BOP imbalances resilience indicators.


## 2.3.3. BOP Crisis Theory and Events

The BOP crisis is a special case of imbalance. By studying the theoretical model of the BOP crisis and the economic variables affected by the crisis, we can choose resilience indicators from another perspective.Krugman [22] proposed the first generation of BOP crisis model, arguing that when a country’s money supply exceeds its money demand for a long period of time, foreign exchange reserves will continue to fall and currency speculators will attack at some point to disintegrate the fixed exchange rate system, causing the country’s currency to devalue and the economy to collapse. Obstfeld [23] proposed a second-generation model of BOP crises, noting that when domestic macroeconomics is weak, currency speculation leads governments to abandon fixed exchange rate regimes on their own initiative, which triggers a chain reaction. Third-generation BOP crisis models are more inclined to examine the financial sector, which is called “capital item crisis theory.”Sen [24] optimizes the first generation of the BOP model to make the model’s predicted timing of BOP crises more reasonable. Wang [25] examined the third-generation BOP crisis model and concluded that the crisis would result in a significant currency depreciation, which would have a negative impact on macroeconomic stability, and a sharp drop in real investment, which would have a negative impact on the real economy. According to Yin and Li [11], the crisis will result in a massive fiscal deficit. Wang [25] explores the causes of contagions associated with the three BOP crises that have occurred, such as inflation and fiscal conditions.Studies of this type generally confirm the transmission path of the BOP imbalances derived from Sections2.3.1 and 2.3.2 from a different angle. As a result, the transmission path obtained in this article will be more reliable.The paper ultimately briefly describes this component as the transmission path of BOP imbalances, as described below. BOP imbalances will impact the foreign exchange market, resulting in changes in exchange rates, foreign exchange reserves, and foreign investment. As a result of the abovementioned market changes, the imbalance will further affect domestic macroeconomic growth and stability, as well as inflation, unemployment, and GDP growth rate, which can affect quality of economic growth. Table1 shows the final results of the election of the BOP imbalance resilience system indicators.Table 1
Resilience system construction indicators.
TypeAbbreviationNamePositive/negativeData sourceDirect economic impactreerReal effective exchange ratePositiveIMFttiTerms of trade indexPositiveIMFferaForeign exchange reserve adequacyPositiveIMFftdForeign trade dependencyPositiveWBfdin/gdpForeign direct investment to GDP ratioPositiveWBEconomic development leveldrDeficit ratePositiveIMFti/gdpTotal investment to GDPPositiveIMFEconomic stabilityircInflation rate of changeNegativeIMFirInflation rateNegativeIMFuUnemploymentNegativeIMFgdpcGDP growth ratePositiveIMFQuality of economic growthansAdjusted net savingsPositiveWBiav/gdpIndustrial value added to GDPPositiveWBnipcNational income per capitaPositiveWBtfpcTotal factor productivity of changePositivePWTwtfpcWelfare-related total factor productivity of changePositivePWTDirect economic impact refers to the direct impact of the bop on foreign exchange and foreign capital markets. IMF: International Monetary Fund. WB: World Bank. PWT: Penn World Table.


## 2.4. Summary of the Literature Review

Globally, the ratio of current account deficits to GDP is commonly used rather than large deficits in BOP theory. Using a fixed value as a warning line for imbalances is internationally common, but it also has some disadvantages. Thus, this paper draws on the idea of economic resilience in the macroeconomic field and summarizes two requirements for the selection of imbalance resilience indicators, on the basis of which the transmission path of BOP imbalance is derived to provide reference for the establishment of the resilience system in the next section.


## 3. Methodology and Data Resources

### 3.1. Indicator System Construction Method

This article’s index system will calculate the BOP resilience score and weighting factors between the basic indicator and resilience score. Thus, the chosen method can express the resilience system in a formula, and the weight coefficients also have economic significance. The gray box-based model cannot give the weight coefficient, so this article does not use this type. Thus, this paper constructs the resilience system using the two-stage weighting evaluation method based on minimum variance. The method first calculates objective weights to the indicators and calculates a resilience score for each year, followed by a time weighting to obtain the total score.


### 3.2. Data Description

This section introduces the countries, period of time, indicators, and sources of the data.We began the analysis with Russian Federation’s establishment in 1992 and ended it in 2019, making a 28-year-period total. Among them, 2010 is the base year for the relative indicators, so 27 years of data are included in the analysis.The article aims to analyze as many countries as possible, but for the reliability of the results, the countries included in the analysis must meet the data requirements. The missing value boundary is set at 10%; if a country has more than 3 missing values for an indicator, the country is not selected for analysis, and if only a few countries meet the missing value boundary for an indicator, the indicator is discarded. Table1 shows the BOP imbalance resilience indicators selected in this article. Table 2 and Figure 1 show the countries that participated in the analysis.Table 2
Countries participating in the analysis.
Geographic continentsCountry codeCountry nameGeographic continentsCountry codeCountry nameEuropeCHESwitzerlandAsiaCHNChinaCYPCyprusJPNJapanDEUGermanyMYSMalaysiaDNKDenmarkPHLPhilippinesESPSpainSGPSingaporeFINFinlandINDIndiaFRAFranceAmericaCHLChileGBRUnited KingdomCOLColombiaGRCGreeceCRICosta RicaHUNHungaryDOMDominican RepublicITAItalyMEXMexicoNLDNetherlandsPRYParaguayNORNorwayCANCanadaPOLPolandUSAUnited StatesPRTPortugalAfricaMARMoroccoROURomaniaTUNTunisiaSVKSlovak RepublicZAFSouth AfricaSWESwedenOceaniaAUSAustraliaRUSRussian FederationFigure 1
Geographical distribution of participating countries.As shown in Figure1, many African countries did not participate in the analysis, mainly due to data acquisition limitations.


## 3.1. Indicator System Construction Method

This article’s index system will calculate the BOP resilience score and weighting factors between the basic indicator and resilience score. Thus, the chosen method can express the resilience system in a formula, and the weight coefficients also have economic significance. The gray box-based model cannot give the weight coefficient, so this article does not use this type. Thus, this paper constructs the resilience system using the two-stage weighting evaluation method based on minimum variance. The method first calculates objective weights to the indicators and calculates a resilience score for each year, followed by a time weighting to obtain the total score.


## 3.2. Data Description

This section introduces the countries, period of time, indicators, and sources of the data.We began the analysis with Russian Federation’s establishment in 1992 and ended it in 2019, making a 28-year-period total. Among them, 2010 is the base year for the relative indicators, so 27 years of data are included in the analysis.The article aims to analyze as many countries as possible, but for the reliability of the results, the countries included in the analysis must meet the data requirements. The missing value boundary is set at 10%; if a country has more than 3 missing values for an indicator, the country is not selected for analysis, and if only a few countries meet the missing value boundary for an indicator, the indicator is discarded. Table1 shows the BOP imbalance resilience indicators selected in this article. Table 2 and Figure 1 show the countries that participated in the analysis.Table 2
Countries participating in the analysis.
Geographic continentsCountry codeCountry nameGeographic continentsCountry codeCountry nameEuropeCHESwitzerlandAsiaCHNChinaCYPCyprusJPNJapanDEUGermanyMYSMalaysiaDNKDenmarkPHLPhilippinesESPSpainSGPSingaporeFINFinlandINDIndiaFRAFranceAmericaCHLChileGBRUnited KingdomCOLColombiaGRCGreeceCRICosta RicaHUNHungaryDOMDominican RepublicITAItalyMEXMexicoNLDNetherlandsPRYParaguayNORNorwayCANCanadaPOLPolandUSAUnited StatesPRTPortugalAfricaMARMoroccoROURomaniaTUNTunisiaSVKSlovak RepublicZAFSouth AfricaSWESwedenOceaniaAUSAustraliaRUSRussian FederationFigure 1
Geographical distribution of participating countries.As shown in Figure1, many African countries did not participate in the analysis, mainly due to data acquisition limitations.


## 4. Resilience System Results and Reasonableness Analysis and Improvement

### 4.1. BOP Resilience Results

In this part, the initial weights are first obtained from the entropy value method, the panel data of the resilience scores for each year are obtained using the initial weights, the initial values of the secondary weights are obtained, and the secondary weights are further obtained. Next, the panel score data are weighted by the secondary weights to obtain the final total score of each country, and the initial indicator weights are weighted to obtain the reference weights of the indicators.


#### 4.1.1. Resilience Scores for Each Country by Year

In this paper, we calculated panel data of resilience scores for 37 countries between 1992 and 2019 by entropy method and also calculated the indicators weights for each year. Figures2 and 3 show the results of the resilience scores and the indicator weights, respectively.Figure 2
Resilience scores by country by year.Figure 3
Distribution of indicator weights.As shown in Figure2, F refers to the resilience score; Figures 2(a), 2(c), and 2(e) show the resilience scores by scatter plots, where the size of the scatter points shows the level of resilience; and Figures 2(b), 2(d), and 2(e) are the kernel density distribution of resilience scores, which is another way of showing the score more visually. We can see visually that countries such as Switzerland (CHE), China (CHN), and Singapore (SGP) have significantly higher resilience scores than other countries, whereas countries like the United States and the United Kingdom are not performing so well.Figure3 shows the kernel density distribution of the weights of each indicator, from which it can be seen that most of the indicator weights are relatively concentrated, but the distribution of fdin/gdp is more dispersed, and its change over 27 years is large. fdin/gdp, fera, and ftd, which have relatively large weights, will make the resilience score more differentiated.


#### 4.1.2. Time Weights and Final Total Score

Calculate the initial and final weights at first. In this paper, we present multiple nondimensionalization methods for weight distance data, and the obtained clustering and separation years were all 2001 and 2018. Table3 shows the time weights of the initial and final weights.Table 3
Time weights.
yearInitial weightsFinal weightsYearInitial weightsFinal weights19920.035783020060.0328830.04021219930.036586020070.0322810.04338619940.0383720.00211620080.0323620.04656119950.0395520.00529120090.0362530.04973519960.0417620.00846620110.0347540.0529119970.0416490.0116420120.0381640.05608519980.0422680.01481520130.0394840.05925919990.0460030.01798920140.0359730.06243420000.0504840.02116420150.0388080.06560920010.0599820.02433920160.0314670.06878320020.0508230.02751320170.0282170.07195820030.041050.030688201800.07513220040.0331530.03386220190.0270620.07830720050.0348250.037037Then, using time weighting, reweigh the panel data of resilience scores for each year and calculate the final score. Figure4 shows the final resilience score, where the F refers to the resilience score (the F in Figures 5–7 also refers to the resilience score). The resilience score of each country has now been calculated.Figure 4
Final resilience scores for each country.Figure 5
Resilience scores in BOP crisis.
(a)(b)(c)Figure 6
Country resilience scores during the financial crisis.Figure 7
China and US resilience score.


### 4.2. Reasonableness Analysis for Resilience

In this section, we consider the reasonableness of BOP resilience indicators system in three ways: (1) The indicators selected meet the theoretical requirements of the resilience system. (2) There should be a correlation between resilience score and BOP. (3) The resilience score at key points needs to be consistent with history.


#### 4.2.1. The Reasonableness of Indicators Selection

The indicators underlying the construction of the resilience system are all involved in the transmission path of BOP imbalance and meet the two requirements for the selection of indicators (according to Section2.3). Additionally, the indicator data are obtained from the international organization database after a strict evaluation of missing values and outliers is performed. Countries and indicators with inadequate data are excluded.


#### 4.2.2. Resilience Score and BOP Correlation

The BOP imbalance resilience score should be correlated with the ratio of current account balance to GDP. This is because a country with low resilience will face greater difficulty recovering from a severe shock to its BOP. Similarly, the larger the deficit in a country’s current account balance to GDP ratio is, the more the economy suffers, leading to a lower resilience score. In this article, we use the Granger causality test of panel data to see whether the above relationship exists.The method was proposed by Clive Granger in 1969 and is based on the following idea: ifx is a cause of y, but y is not a cause of x, then past values of x can help predict future values of y, but past values of y cannot help predict future values of x. Consider the time series model below:(1)yt=γ+∑m=1pαmyt−m+∑m=1pβmxt−m+εt.In (1), p is the lag order, and the null hypothesis tested is(2)H0:β1=β2=…=βp=0.The null hypothesis indicates that the past value ofx does not predict the future value of y. If the H0 is rejected, then x becomes the “Granger factor” of y. Changing x and y in (2), we can test whether y is a Granger factor of x. The following models can be applied to panel data:(3)yit=γ+∑m=1pαmyi,t−m+∑m=1pβmxi,t−m+ui+εit.In (3), ui is the heterogeneity of individual i. For dynamic panel models, differenced GMM and system GMM are used for estimation. There are two assumptions when estimating the model. The first is that the cross-section coefficients are the same. The panel data is regarded as stacked data, and a Granger causality test is conducted similarly to that performed on time series data. The second is that coefficients of cross sections are different, and each section member is subjected to the Granger causality test. In this paper, causality tests of up to 6th order were conducted for both assumptions.The Granger causality test requires that the panel data are stationary. Table4 demonstrates the results of the panel unit root test.Table 4
Panel unit root test results.
MethodStatisticProb.∗∗Cross sectionsObsNull: unit root (assumes common unit root process)Levin, Lin & Chu t∗−3.261460.000637956Null: unit root (assumes individual unit root process)Im, Pesaran and ShinW-stat−4.152040.000037956ADF—Fisher Chi-square119.6540.000637956PP—Fisher Chi-square115.8080.001437962Two asterisks mean that the results are significant at the 0.05 significance level.The results of all four tests are significant, and it can be concluded that the panel data do not have unit roots. Table5 shows the results of Granger causality tests under two assumptions.Table 5
Results of Granger’s causality test.
Fixed coefficientLag orderNull hypothesisW-stat.Zbar-stat.Prob.1CA does not Granger cause F25.51785.00E − 07F does not Granger cause CA18.35780.000022CA does not Granger cause F11.53100.00001F does not Granger cause CA9.329770.00013CA does not Granger cause F7.093660.0001F does not Granger cause CA6.355040.00034CA does not Granger cause F4.548260.0012F does not Granger cause CA4.829550.00075CA does not Granger cause F4.104090.0011F does not Granger cause CA4.038560.00136CA does not Granger cause F3.916460.0007F does not Granger cause CA3.702410.0012UnfixedcoefficientLag orderNull hypothesisW‐stat.Zbar-stat.Prob.1CA does not homogeneously cause F1.491941.447780.1477F does not homogeneously cause CA2.215104.087010.000042CA does not homogeneously cause F2.785401.378820.168F does not homogeneously cause CA3.284742.601330.00933CA does not homogeneously cause F3.998531.114520.2651F does not homogeneously cause CA4.139981.377920.16824CA does not homogeneously cause F5.746971.574320.1154F does not homogeneously cause CA5.898681.795410.07265CA does not homogeneously cause F7.108031.109410.2673F does not homogeneously cause CA7.014051.004830.3156CA does not homogeneously cause F9.015830.772390.4399F does not homogeneously cause CA9.124420.854950.3926In Table5, CA refers to the ratio of BOP current account balance to GDP ratio, and F is the resilience score. There is significant evidence that BOP current account balance to GDP ratio and resilience score are causally correlated in the fixed coefficient model. The resilience scores of orders 1, 2, and 4 in the variable coefficient model are the cause of BOP current account balance. Based on the results, it can be shown that the two are causal and that the resilience score correlates with theoretical expectation.


#### 4.2.3. Historical Consistency of Time Points

At the time of the event, BOP imbalance resilience score calculated in this article should fluctuate and trend accordingly. This section analyzes BOP crisis events, financial crisis events (the financial crisis will damage the country’s economy [26, 27], which will affect BOP resilience), and individual country cases.First is the BOP crisis event. There was the European Monetary System Crisis in 1994–95, the Latin American Debt Crisis in 1995–97, and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis (actually BOP crisis) during the period covered by this article. These crises relate to the countries involved in the study of this paper as shown in Table6. Germany and Russia are among the countries affected by the Asian Financial Crisis, so they are also included in the analysis.Table 6
Countries involved in BOP crisis.
YearCountryEuropean Monetary System Crisis1992-1993Germany, Spain, Finland, France, UK, Greece, Italy, Portugal, SwedenLatin American Debt Crisis1994-1995MexicoAsian Financial Crisis1997Germany, Malaysia, Philippines, Russian FederationFigure5 illustrates the resilience scores of the countries involved in the crisis events.In Figure5, the green shading in Figure 5(a) is the time period of the European Monetary System Crisis, the orange shading is the time period of the Asian Financial Crisis, and Figures 5(b) and 5(c) show their scores specifically, respectively. The countries involved in the European Monetary System Crisis underwent a significant decline in resilience scores starting in 1992, bottoming out in 1994 or 1995 before slowly recovering. Mexico, which is in the midst of a Latin American Debt Crisis, had the same trend. In the Asian Financial Crisis, Russia and Malaysia also experienced a decline in their resilience scores in 1997. Thus, the reflection of the resilience score at BOP crisis is in line with realistic expectations.The next step is to analyze the resilience score during the financial crisis.The research period of this paper starts from 1992, so this section examines the international financial crisis in 2007–2011. At the end of our study time period, the high foreign exchange reserves of China and Switzerland may have financial crisis risk [28]. However, this phenomenon is not universal, so it will not be analyzed further.The crisis (2007–2011) was not prompted by BOP imbalances, but the outburst of the crisis has resulted in huge losses, and thus the resilience score should also trend in the same direction. Figure6 illustrates the change in resilience scores during the financial crisis.Based on the scores, we can see that most countries had their lowest scores in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Such a score result is consistent with the perception of reality.Finally, we assess China’s and America’s BOP resilience separately. Figure7 shows the resilience scores of the two countries.In the aftermath of the international financial crisis, the resilience scores of both China and the US trended sharply downward and then upward, with the difference that China’s resilience score eventually remained the same as it was before 2007, while the US rarely returned to its previous level. The above scores are consistent with the US focus on its BOP deficit in recent years.


### 4.3. Improvement of Resilience System

As a result of the limitation of the method for establishing a system, in this paper we propose to use a more appropriate method for determining the importance of resilience system construction indicators.


#### 4.3.1. Limitations in the Construction of the Resilience System

Min–max normalization is particularly sensitive to outliers; if one indicator has a very minor outlier, all other nations’ indicators will be near to 0.99. As a result, the indicator’s range of fluctuation will be limited. As a consequence, the indicator’s weight in the entropy approach will be quite minimal. However, the outlier, not the indication, is to blame for this outcome. The meaning of the indicator weights derived by the entropy technique, in addition to data sensitivity, is “distinctness,” which does not entirely match “importance.” With a greater weight, the difference between nations in this indicator widens, whereas a lower weight narrows the gap between countries, implying that countries get similar (rather than lower) ratings in this indicator. As a result, the indicator’s weight can merely mean that it is more distinct, not that it is more significant or useful in a BOP context. As a result, we choose to utilize the random forest approach to assess the relevance of the indicators and interpret them in conjunction with the weights in this study.The following is a brief description of the random forest importance score. Random forest method is one of the ensemble methods of decision trees. A decision tree is essentially a collection of judgments, and the input samples are judged layer by layer to form one node of the tree, through which the input space is divided into different regions, and the child nodes continue to divide the regions to get many subregions. The same layer’s input and output (leaf nodes) do not overlap, and the final leaf nodes correspond to the areas, so the input and output (leaf nodes) are the same. Ensemble trees are created by combining the outcomes of numerous smaller decision trees and then voting on each class’s findings (classification issue) or calculating the mean (regression problem). Although each tree makes errors, making judgments as a group increases accuracy while avoiding the issue of out-of-sample prediction. Each decision tree is given a feature importance score, i.e., the importance of the input variable in making a decision in the tree, with a value between 0 and 1, where 0 means that the variable does not contribute to the decision and 1 indicates a perfect prediction of the target value. In this paper, feature importance is used as a complement to the indicator weights.Figure8 shows the results of the indicator importance scores. The time-adjusted importance is the result of weighting the importance scores using the weights above (Table 3).Figure 8
Importance of indicators.It can be seen that the importance of the annual average does not change much from the time-adjusted importance, which means that the importance of the indicators is more stable across years compared to the indicator weights, which has a complementary effect. We can conclude that the unemployment rate and adjusted net savings are more important, while net foreign direct investment to GDP ratio, foreign reserve adequacy, and foreign trade dependence are better at distinguishing between countries’ resilience scores.


## 4.1. BOP Resilience Results

In this part, the initial weights are first obtained from the entropy value method, the panel data of the resilience scores for each year are obtained using the initial weights, the initial values of the secondary weights are obtained, and the secondary weights are further obtained. Next, the panel score data are weighted by the secondary weights to obtain the final total score of each country, and the initial indicator weights are weighted to obtain the reference weights of the indicators.


### 4.1.1. Resilience Scores for Each Country by Year

In this paper, we calculated panel data of resilience scores for 37 countries between 1992 and 2019 by entropy method and also calculated the indicators weights for each year. Figures2 and 3 show the results of the resilience scores and the indicator weights, respectively.Figure 2
Resilience scores by country by year.Figure 3
Distribution of indicator weights.As shown in Figure2, F refers to the resilience score; Figures 2(a), 2(c), and 2(e) show the resilience scores by scatter plots, where the size of the scatter points shows the level of resilience; and Figures 2(b), 2(d), and 2(e) are the kernel density distribution of resilience scores, which is another way of showing the score more visually. We can see visually that countries such as Switzerland (CHE), China (CHN), and Singapore (SGP) have significantly higher resilience scores than other countries, whereas countries like the United States and the United Kingdom are not performing so well.Figure3 shows the kernel density distribution of the weights of each indicator, from which it can be seen that most of the indicator weights are relatively concentrated, but the distribution of fdin/gdp is more dispersed, and its change over 27 years is large. fdin/gdp, fera, and ftd, which have relatively large weights, will make the resilience score more differentiated.


### 4.1.2. Time Weights and Final Total Score

Calculate the initial and final weights at first. In this paper, we present multiple nondimensionalization methods for weight distance data, and the obtained clustering and separation years were all 2001 and 2018. Table3 shows the time weights of the initial and final weights.Table 3
Time weights.
yearInitial weightsFinal weightsYearInitial weightsFinal weights19920.035783020060.0328830.04021219930.036586020070.0322810.04338619940.0383720.00211620080.0323620.04656119950.0395520.00529120090.0362530.04973519960.0417620.00846620110.0347540.0529119970.0416490.0116420120.0381640.05608519980.0422680.01481520130.0394840.05925919990.0460030.01798920140.0359730.06243420000.0504840.02116420150.0388080.06560920010.0599820.02433920160.0314670.06878320020.0508230.02751320170.0282170.07195820030.041050.030688201800.07513220040.0331530.03386220190.0270620.07830720050.0348250.037037Then, using time weighting, reweigh the panel data of resilience scores for each year and calculate the final score. Figure4 shows the final resilience score, where the F refers to the resilience score (the F in Figures 5–7 also refers to the resilience score). The resilience score of each country has now been calculated.Figure 4
Final resilience scores for each country.Figure 5
Resilience scores in BOP crisis.
(a)(b)(c)Figure 6
Country resilience scores during the financial crisis.Figure 7
China and US resilience score.


## 4.1.1. Resilience Scores for Each Country by Year

In this paper, we calculated panel data of resilience scores for 37 countries between 1992 and 2019 by entropy method and also calculated the indicators weights for each year. Figures2 and 3 show the results of the resilience scores and the indicator weights, respectively.Figure 2
Resilience scores by country by year.Figure 3
Distribution of indicator weights.As shown in Figure2, F refers to the resilience score; Figures 2(a), 2(c), and 2(e) show the resilience scores by scatter plots, where the size of the scatter points shows the level of resilience; and Figures 2(b), 2(d), and 2(e) are the kernel density distribution of resilience scores, which is another way of showing the score more visually. We can see visually that countries such as Switzerland (CHE), China (CHN), and Singapore (SGP) have significantly higher resilience scores than other countries, whereas countries like the United States and the United Kingdom are not performing so well.Figure3 shows the kernel density distribution of the weights of each indicator, from which it can be seen that most of the indicator weights are relatively concentrated, but the distribution of fdin/gdp is more dispersed, and its change over 27 years is large. fdin/gdp, fera, and ftd, which have relatively large weights, will make the resilience score more differentiated.


## 4.1.2. Time Weights and Final Total Score

Calculate the initial and final weights at first. In this paper, we present multiple nondimensionalization methods for weight distance data, and the obtained clustering and separation years were all 2001 and 2018. Table3 shows the time weights of the initial and final weights.Table 3
Time weights.
yearInitial weightsFinal weightsYearInitial weightsFinal weights19920.035783020060.0328830.04021219930.036586020070.0322810.04338619940.0383720.00211620080.0323620.04656119950.0395520.00529120090.0362530.04973519960.0417620.00846620110.0347540.0529119970.0416490.0116420120.0381640.05608519980.0422680.01481520130.0394840.05925919990.0460030.01798920140.0359730.06243420000.0504840.02116420150.0388080.06560920010.0599820.02433920160.0314670.06878320020.0508230.02751320170.0282170.07195820030.041050.030688201800.07513220040.0331530.03386220190.0270620.07830720050.0348250.037037Then, using time weighting, reweigh the panel data of resilience scores for each year and calculate the final score. Figure4 shows the final resilience score, where the F refers to the resilience score (the F in Figures 5–7 also refers to the resilience score). The resilience score of each country has now been calculated.Figure 4
Final resilience scores for each country.Figure 5
Resilience scores in BOP crisis.
(a)(b)(c)Figure 6
Country resilience scores during the financial crisis.Figure 7
China and US resilience score.


## 4.2. Reasonableness Analysis for Resilience

In this section, we consider the reasonableness of BOP resilience indicators system in three ways: (1) The indicators selected meet the theoretical requirements of the resilience system. (2) There should be a correlation between resilience score and BOP. (3) The resilience score at key points needs to be consistent with history.


### 4.2.1. The Reasonableness of Indicators Selection

The indicators underlying the construction of the resilience system are all involved in the transmission path of BOP imbalance and meet the two requirements for the selection of indicators (according to Section2.3). Additionally, the indicator data are obtained from the international organization database after a strict evaluation of missing values and outliers is performed. Countries and indicators with inadequate data are excluded.


### 4.2.2. Resilience Score and BOP Correlation

The BOP imbalance resilience score should be correlated with the ratio of current account balance to GDP. This is because a country with low resilience will face greater difficulty recovering from a severe shock to its BOP. Similarly, the larger the deficit in a country’s current account balance to GDP ratio is, the more the economy suffers, leading to a lower resilience score. In this article, we use the Granger causality test of panel data to see whether the above relationship exists.The method was proposed by Clive Granger in 1969 and is based on the following idea: ifx is a cause of y, but y is not a cause of x, then past values of x can help predict future values of y, but past values of y cannot help predict future values of x. Consider the time series model below:(1)yt=γ+∑m=1pαmyt−m+∑m=1pβmxt−m+εt.In (1), p is the lag order, and the null hypothesis tested is(2)H0:β1=β2=…=βp=0.The null hypothesis indicates that the past value ofx does not predict the future value of y. If the H0 is rejected, then x becomes the “Granger factor” of y. Changing x and y in (2), we can test whether y is a Granger factor of x. The following models can be applied to panel data:(3)yit=γ+∑m=1pαmyi,t−m+∑m=1pβmxi,t−m+ui+εit.In (3), ui is the heterogeneity of individual i. For dynamic panel models, differenced GMM and system GMM are used for estimation. There are two assumptions when estimating the model. The first is that the cross-section coefficients are the same. The panel data is regarded as stacked data, and a Granger causality test is conducted similarly to that performed on time series data. The second is that coefficients of cross sections are different, and each section member is subjected to the Granger causality test. In this paper, causality tests of up to 6th order were conducted for both assumptions.The Granger causality test requires that the panel data are stationary. Table4 demonstrates the results of the panel unit root test.Table 4
Panel unit root test results.
MethodStatisticProb.∗∗Cross sectionsObsNull: unit root (assumes common unit root process)Levin, Lin & Chu t∗−3.261460.000637956Null: unit root (assumes individual unit root process)Im, Pesaran and ShinW-stat−4.152040.000037956ADF—Fisher Chi-square119.6540.000637956PP—Fisher Chi-square115.8080.001437962Two asterisks mean that the results are significant at the 0.05 significance level.The results of all four tests are significant, and it can be concluded that the panel data do not have unit roots. Table5 shows the results of Granger causality tests under two assumptions.Table 5
Results of Granger’s causality test.
Fixed coefficientLag orderNull hypothesisW-stat.Zbar-stat.Prob.1CA does not Granger cause F25.51785.00E − 07F does not Granger cause CA18.35780.000022CA does not Granger cause F11.53100.00001F does not Granger cause CA9.329770.00013CA does not Granger cause F7.093660.0001F does not Granger cause CA6.355040.00034CA does not Granger cause F4.548260.0012F does not Granger cause CA4.829550.00075CA does not Granger cause F4.104090.0011F does not Granger cause CA4.038560.00136CA does not Granger cause F3.916460.0007F does not Granger cause CA3.702410.0012UnfixedcoefficientLag orderNull hypothesisW‐stat.Zbar-stat.Prob.1CA does not homogeneously cause F1.491941.447780.1477F does not homogeneously cause CA2.215104.087010.000042CA does not homogeneously cause F2.785401.378820.168F does not homogeneously cause CA3.284742.601330.00933CA does not homogeneously cause F3.998531.114520.2651F does not homogeneously cause CA4.139981.377920.16824CA does not homogeneously cause F5.746971.574320.1154F does not homogeneously cause CA5.898681.795410.07265CA does not homogeneously cause F7.108031.109410.2673F does not homogeneously cause CA7.014051.004830.3156CA does not homogeneously cause F9.015830.772390.4399F does not homogeneously cause CA9.124420.854950.3926In Table5, CA refers to the ratio of BOP current account balance to GDP ratio, and F is the resilience score. There is significant evidence that BOP current account balance to GDP ratio and resilience score are causally correlated in the fixed coefficient model. The resilience scores of orders 1, 2, and 4 in the variable coefficient model are the cause of BOP current account balance. Based on the results, it can be shown that the two are causal and that the resilience score correlates with theoretical expectation.


### 4.2.3. Historical Consistency of Time Points

At the time of the event, BOP imbalance resilience score calculated in this article should fluctuate and trend accordingly. This section analyzes BOP crisis events, financial crisis events (the financial crisis will damage the country’s economy [26, 27], which will affect BOP resilience), and individual country cases.First is the BOP crisis event. There was the European Monetary System Crisis in 1994–95, the Latin American Debt Crisis in 1995–97, and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis (actually BOP crisis) during the period covered by this article. These crises relate to the countries involved in the study of this paper as shown in Table6. Germany and Russia are among the countries affected by the Asian Financial Crisis, so they are also included in the analysis.Table 6
Countries involved in BOP crisis.
YearCountryEuropean Monetary System Crisis1992-1993Germany, Spain, Finland, France, UK, Greece, Italy, Portugal, SwedenLatin American Debt Crisis1994-1995MexicoAsian Financial Crisis1997Germany, Malaysia, Philippines, Russian FederationFigure5 illustrates the resilience scores of the countries involved in the crisis events.In Figure5, the green shading in Figure 5(a) is the time period of the European Monetary System Crisis, the orange shading is the time period of the Asian Financial Crisis, and Figures 5(b) and 5(c) show their scores specifically, respectively. The countries involved in the European Monetary System Crisis underwent a significant decline in resilience scores starting in 1992, bottoming out in 1994 or 1995 before slowly recovering. Mexico, which is in the midst of a Latin American Debt Crisis, had the same trend. In the Asian Financial Crisis, Russia and Malaysia also experienced a decline in their resilience scores in 1997. Thus, the reflection of the resilience score at BOP crisis is in line with realistic expectations.The next step is to analyze the resilience score during the financial crisis.The research period of this paper starts from 1992, so this section examines the international financial crisis in 2007–2011. At the end of our study time period, the high foreign exchange reserves of China and Switzerland may have financial crisis risk [28]. However, this phenomenon is not universal, so it will not be analyzed further.The crisis (2007–2011) was not prompted by BOP imbalances, but the outburst of the crisis has resulted in huge losses, and thus the resilience score should also trend in the same direction. Figure6 illustrates the change in resilience scores during the financial crisis.Based on the scores, we can see that most countries had their lowest scores in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Such a score result is consistent with the perception of reality.Finally, we assess China’s and America’s BOP resilience separately. Figure7 shows the resilience scores of the two countries.In the aftermath of the international financial crisis, the resilience scores of both China and the US trended sharply downward and then upward, with the difference that China’s resilience score eventually remained the same as it was before 2007, while the US rarely returned to its previous level. The above scores are consistent with the US focus on its BOP deficit in recent years.


## 4.2.1. The Reasonableness of Indicators Selection

The indicators underlying the construction of the resilience system are all involved in the transmission path of BOP imbalance and meet the two requirements for the selection of indicators (according to Section2.3). Additionally, the indicator data are obtained from the international organization database after a strict evaluation of missing values and outliers is performed. Countries and indicators with inadequate data are excluded.


## 4.2.2. Resilience Score and BOP Correlation

The BOP imbalance resilience score should be correlated with the ratio of current account balance to GDP. This is because a country with low resilience will face greater difficulty recovering from a severe shock to its BOP. Similarly, the larger the deficit in a country’s current account balance to GDP ratio is, the more the economy suffers, leading to a lower resilience score. In this article, we use the Granger causality test of panel data to see whether the above relationship exists.The method was proposed by Clive Granger in 1969 and is based on the following idea: ifx is a cause of y, but y is not a cause of x, then past values of x can help predict future values of y, but past values of y cannot help predict future values of x. Consider the time series model below:(1)yt=γ+∑m=1pαmyt−m+∑m=1pβmxt−m+εt.In (1), p is the lag order, and the null hypothesis tested is(2)H0:β1=β2=…=βp=0.The null hypothesis indicates that the past value ofx does not predict the future value of y. If the H0 is rejected, then x becomes the “Granger factor” of y. Changing x and y in (2), we can test whether y is a Granger factor of x. The following models can be applied to panel data:(3)yit=γ+∑m=1pαmyi,t−m+∑m=1pβmxi,t−m+ui+εit.In (3), ui is the heterogeneity of individual i. For dynamic panel models, differenced GMM and system GMM are used for estimation. There are two assumptions when estimating the model. The first is that the cross-section coefficients are the same. The panel data is regarded as stacked data, and a Granger causality test is conducted similarly to that performed on time series data. The second is that coefficients of cross sections are different, and each section member is subjected to the Granger causality test. In this paper, causality tests of up to 6th order were conducted for both assumptions.The Granger causality test requires that the panel data are stationary. Table4 demonstrates the results of the panel unit root test.Table 4
Panel unit root test results.
MethodStatisticProb.∗∗Cross sectionsObsNull: unit root (assumes common unit root process)Levin, Lin & Chu t∗−3.261460.000637956Null: unit root (assumes individual unit root process)Im, Pesaran and ShinW-stat−4.152040.000037956ADF—Fisher Chi-square119.6540.000637956PP—Fisher Chi-square115.8080.001437962Two asterisks mean that the results are significant at the 0.05 significance level.The results of all four tests are significant, and it can be concluded that the panel data do not have unit roots. Table5 shows the results of Granger causality tests under two assumptions.Table 5
Results of Granger’s causality test.
Fixed coefficientLag orderNull hypothesisW-stat.Zbar-stat.Prob.1CA does not Granger cause F25.51785.00E − 07F does not Granger cause CA18.35780.000022CA does not Granger cause F11.53100.00001F does not Granger cause CA9.329770.00013CA does not Granger cause F7.093660.0001F does not Granger cause CA6.355040.00034CA does not Granger cause F4.548260.0012F does not Granger cause CA4.829550.00075CA does not Granger cause F4.104090.0011F does not Granger cause CA4.038560.00136CA does not Granger cause F3.916460.0007F does not Granger cause CA3.702410.0012UnfixedcoefficientLag orderNull hypothesisW‐stat.Zbar-stat.Prob.1CA does not homogeneously cause F1.491941.447780.1477F does not homogeneously cause CA2.215104.087010.000042CA does not homogeneously cause F2.785401.378820.168F does not homogeneously cause CA3.284742.601330.00933CA does not homogeneously cause F3.998531.114520.2651F does not homogeneously cause CA4.139981.377920.16824CA does not homogeneously cause F5.746971.574320.1154F does not homogeneously cause CA5.898681.795410.07265CA does not homogeneously cause F7.108031.109410.2673F does not homogeneously cause CA7.014051.004830.3156CA does not homogeneously cause F9.015830.772390.4399F does not homogeneously cause CA9.124420.854950.3926In Table5, CA refers to the ratio of BOP current account balance to GDP ratio, and F is the resilience score. There is significant evidence that BOP current account balance to GDP ratio and resilience score are causally correlated in the fixed coefficient model. The resilience scores of orders 1, 2, and 4 in the variable coefficient model are the cause of BOP current account balance. Based on the results, it can be shown that the two are causal and that the resilience score correlates with theoretical expectation.


## 4.2.3. Historical Consistency of Time Points

At the time of the event, BOP imbalance resilience score calculated in this article should fluctuate and trend accordingly. This section analyzes BOP crisis events, financial crisis events (the financial crisis will damage the country’s economy [26, 27], which will affect BOP resilience), and individual country cases.First is the BOP crisis event. There was the European Monetary System Crisis in 1994–95, the Latin American Debt Crisis in 1995–97, and the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis (actually BOP crisis) during the period covered by this article. These crises relate to the countries involved in the study of this paper as shown in Table6. Germany and Russia are among the countries affected by the Asian Financial Crisis, so they are also included in the analysis.Table 6
Countries involved in BOP crisis.
YearCountryEuropean Monetary System Crisis1992-1993Germany, Spain, Finland, France, UK, Greece, Italy, Portugal, SwedenLatin American Debt Crisis1994-1995MexicoAsian Financial Crisis1997Germany, Malaysia, Philippines, Russian FederationFigure5 illustrates the resilience scores of the countries involved in the crisis events.In Figure5, the green shading in Figure 5(a) is the time period of the European Monetary System Crisis, the orange shading is the time period of the Asian Financial Crisis, and Figures 5(b) and 5(c) show their scores specifically, respectively. The countries involved in the European Monetary System Crisis underwent a significant decline in resilience scores starting in 1992, bottoming out in 1994 or 1995 before slowly recovering. Mexico, which is in the midst of a Latin American Debt Crisis, had the same trend. In the Asian Financial Crisis, Russia and Malaysia also experienced a decline in their resilience scores in 1997. Thus, the reflection of the resilience score at BOP crisis is in line with realistic expectations.The next step is to analyze the resilience score during the financial crisis.The research period of this paper starts from 1992, so this section examines the international financial crisis in 2007–2011. At the end of our study time period, the high foreign exchange reserves of China and Switzerland may have financial crisis risk [28]. However, this phenomenon is not universal, so it will not be analyzed further.The crisis (2007–2011) was not prompted by BOP imbalances, but the outburst of the crisis has resulted in huge losses, and thus the resilience score should also trend in the same direction. Figure6 illustrates the change in resilience scores during the financial crisis.Based on the scores, we can see that most countries had their lowest scores in 2007 and 2009, respectively. Such a score result is consistent with the perception of reality.Finally, we assess China’s and America’s BOP resilience separately. Figure7 shows the resilience scores of the two countries.In the aftermath of the international financial crisis, the resilience scores of both China and the US trended sharply downward and then upward, with the difference that China’s resilience score eventually remained the same as it was before 2007, while the US rarely returned to its previous level. The above scores are consistent with the US focus on its BOP deficit in recent years.


## 4.3. Improvement of Resilience System

As a result of the limitation of the method for establishing a system, in this paper we propose to use a more appropriate method for determining the importance of resilience system construction indicators.


### 4.3.1. Limitations in the Construction of the Resilience System

Min–max normalization is particularly sensitive to outliers; if one indicator has a very minor outlier, all other nations’ indicators will be near to 0.99. As a result, the indicator’s range of fluctuation will be limited. As a consequence, the indicator’s weight in the entropy approach will be quite minimal. However, the outlier, not the indication, is to blame for this outcome. The meaning of the indicator weights derived by the entropy technique, in addition to data sensitivity, is “distinctness,” which does not entirely match “importance.” With a greater weight, the difference between nations in this indicator widens, whereas a lower weight narrows the gap between countries, implying that countries get similar (rather than lower) ratings in this indicator. As a result, the indicator’s weight can merely mean that it is more distinct, not that it is more significant or useful in a BOP context. As a result, we choose to utilize the random forest approach to assess the relevance of the indicators and interpret them in conjunction with the weights in this study.The following is a brief description of the random forest importance score. Random forest method is one of the ensemble methods of decision trees. A decision tree is essentially a collection of judgments, and the input samples are judged layer by layer to form one node of the tree, through which the input space is divided into different regions, and the child nodes continue to divide the regions to get many subregions. The same layer’s input and output (leaf nodes) do not overlap, and the final leaf nodes correspond to the areas, so the input and output (leaf nodes) are the same. Ensemble trees are created by combining the outcomes of numerous smaller decision trees and then voting on each class’s findings (classification issue) or calculating the mean (regression problem). Although each tree makes errors, making judgments as a group increases accuracy while avoiding the issue of out-of-sample prediction. Each decision tree is given a feature importance score, i.e., the importance of the input variable in making a decision in the tree, with a value between 0 and 1, where 0 means that the variable does not contribute to the decision and 1 indicates a perfect prediction of the target value. In this paper, feature importance is used as a complement to the indicator weights.Figure8 shows the results of the indicator importance scores. The time-adjusted importance is the result of weighting the importance scores using the weights above (Table 3).Figure 8
Importance of indicators.It can be seen that the importance of the annual average does not change much from the time-adjusted importance, which means that the importance of the indicators is more stable across years compared to the indicator weights, which has a complementary effect. We can conclude that the unemployment rate and adjusted net savings are more important, while net foreign direct investment to GDP ratio, foreign reserve adequacy, and foreign trade dependence are better at distinguishing between countries’ resilience scores.


## 4.3.1. Limitations in the Construction of the Resilience System

Min–max normalization is particularly sensitive to outliers; if one indicator has a very minor outlier, all other nations’ indicators will be near to 0.99. As a result, the indicator’s range of fluctuation will be limited. As a consequence, the indicator’s weight in the entropy approach will be quite minimal. However, the outlier, not the indication, is to blame for this outcome. The meaning of the indicator weights derived by the entropy technique, in addition to data sensitivity, is “distinctness,” which does not entirely match “importance.” With a greater weight, the difference between nations in this indicator widens, whereas a lower weight narrows the gap between countries, implying that countries get similar (rather than lower) ratings in this indicator. As a result, the indicator’s weight can merely mean that it is more distinct, not that it is more significant or useful in a BOP context. As a result, we choose to utilize the random forest approach to assess the relevance of the indicators and interpret them in conjunction with the weights in this study.The following is a brief description of the random forest importance score. Random forest method is one of the ensemble methods of decision trees. A decision tree is essentially a collection of judgments, and the input samples are judged layer by layer to form one node of the tree, through which the input space is divided into different regions, and the child nodes continue to divide the regions to get many subregions. The same layer’s input and output (leaf nodes) do not overlap, and the final leaf nodes correspond to the areas, so the input and output (leaf nodes) are the same. Ensemble trees are created by combining the outcomes of numerous smaller decision trees and then voting on each class’s findings (classification issue) or calculating the mean (regression problem). Although each tree makes errors, making judgments as a group increases accuracy while avoiding the issue of out-of-sample prediction. Each decision tree is given a feature importance score, i.e., the importance of the input variable in making a decision in the tree, with a value between 0 and 1, where 0 means that the variable does not contribute to the decision and 1 indicates a perfect prediction of the target value. In this paper, feature importance is used as a complement to the indicator weights.Figure8 shows the results of the indicator importance scores. The time-adjusted importance is the result of weighting the importance scores using the weights above (Table 3).Figure 8
Importance of indicators.It can be seen that the importance of the annual average does not change much from the time-adjusted importance, which means that the importance of the indicators is more stable across years compared to the indicator weights, which has a complementary effect. We can conclude that the unemployment rate and adjusted net savings are more important, while net foreign direct investment to GDP ratio, foreign reserve adequacy, and foreign trade dependence are better at distinguishing between countries’ resilience scores.


## 5. Conclusion

### 5.1. Establishing a System for BOP Imbalance Resilience

This paper draws on the idea of economic resilience and establishes a BOP imbalance resilience score system based on the transmission mechanism of BOP imbalance to measure a country’s ability to tolerate BOP imbalance.The indicator system has been proven to be reasonable in the selection of indicators and the relevance of the result data, and its changes are consistent with historical events and can provide a complement to the traditional measure of BOP imbalance.


### 5.2. Adjustment of the Balance of Payments

The analysis in this paper concludes that a country that wants to change its disadvantaged BOP position should improve unemployment and increase adjusted net savings, and if it wants to change its resilience ranking among the countries researched, it should improve the net foreign direct investment to GDP ratio, foreign exchange reserve adequacy, and foreign trade dependence.


### 5.3. The Complementary Effect of Resilience

BOP resilience can provide complementary analysis for countries with surpluses and deficits and can be used as a reference and early warning indicator for BOP position. When the surplus or deficit performance and the resilience score are both good, it is more reliable to conclude that the country is in a positive BOP position.Introducing categorical variables for further analysis, Asia and Africa have slightly higher resilience scores than Europe and America, and high-development countries perform better than very high-development countries. Asia and Africa are more sensitive to whether they are reserve currency issuers, while in Europe and America, whether they are capital exporters has a greater impact on the score.


## 5.1. Establishing a System for BOP Imbalance Resilience

This paper draws on the idea of economic resilience and establishes a BOP imbalance resilience score system based on the transmission mechanism of BOP imbalance to measure a country’s ability to tolerate BOP imbalance.The indicator system has been proven to be reasonable in the selection of indicators and the relevance of the result data, and its changes are consistent with historical events and can provide a complement to the traditional measure of BOP imbalance.


## 5.2. Adjustment of the Balance of Payments

The analysis in this paper concludes that a country that wants to change its disadvantaged BOP position should improve unemployment and increase adjusted net savings, and if it wants to change its resilience ranking among the countries researched, it should improve the net foreign direct investment to GDP ratio, foreign exchange reserve adequacy, and foreign trade dependence.


## 5.3. The Complementary Effect of Resilience

BOP resilience can provide complementary analysis for countries with surpluses and deficits and can be used as a reference and early warning indicator for BOP position. When the surplus or deficit performance and the resilience score are both good, it is more reliable to conclude that the country is in a positive BOP position.Introducing categorical variables for further analysis, Asia and Africa have slightly higher resilience scores than Europe and America, and high-development countries perform better than very high-development countries. Asia and Africa are more sensitive to whether they are reserve currency issuers, while in Europe and America, whether they are capital exporters has a greater impact on the score.



---

*Source: 4620492-2022-02-04.xml*