跳到主要內容

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表
研究生： 羅曼斯
Matthias Roggmann
論文名稱： 估計脫歐公投對英國經濟的影響:來自合成控制法的證據
Estimating Brexit-effects on UK’s economic growth: A synthetic control approach
指導教授： 楊子霆
Yang, Tzu-Ting
口試委員: 連賢明
Lien, Hsien-Ming
楊睿中
Yang, Jui-Chung
學位類別： 碩士
Master
系所名稱： 社會科學學院 - 應用經濟與社會發展英語碩士學位學程(IMES)
International Master's Program of Applied Economics and Social Development(IMES)
論文出版年： 2020
畢業學年度： 108
語文別： 英文
論文頁數： 68
中文關鍵詞： 英國脫歐 、英國 、歐洲聯盟 、合成控制法 、經濟增長 、國內生產總值
外文關鍵詞： Brexit, UK, EU, Synthetic control method, Economic growth, GDP
DOI URL： http://doi.org/10.6814/NCCU202001491
相關次數： 點閱：132  下載：0 
分享至:
查詢本校圖書館目錄 查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統 勘誤回報

    • This paper analyzes if the decision by the British electorate to leave the European Union had causal
    effects on the UK’s economic growth, in particular on the UK’s GDP growth rate as well as the growth rate of different economic sectors. By assuming that Brexit fulfils the conditions of a natural experiment, the synthetic control method is applied, which compares the British GDP growth with a weighted average of countries with similar GDP growth over time. Results imply that Brexit
    caused losses in accumulated GDP growth between 5.64% and 8.11% by the end of 2019. A decomposition into individual economic sectors could show, that this output gap is largely caused by a 21.45% loss within the financial and insurance activities. The results hold valid for several
    sensitivity and robustness checks and are in accordance with economic theory as well as previous empirical findings. Thereby, this paper contributes to the academic literature by quantifying post-Brexit effects for the British economy and by delivering further evidence about the disadvantages of leaving international trade agreements.

    1 Introduction 1
    2 Background of Brexit 3
    ...2.1 A timeline of Brexit 3
    ...2.2 Analysis of the Brexit referendum 4
    3 Literature review 8
    ...3.1 Brexit from a macroeconomic perspective 8
    ...3.2 Brexit as a natural experiment 10
    ...3.3 Empirical findings of Brexit-effects 11
    4 Methodology 13
    ...4.1 Data source 13
    ...4.2 Variables: Description, treatment assignment & distribution 13
    ...4.3 Empirical approach: The synthetic control method 16
    5 Synthetic control results 19
    ...5.1 Brexit-effects on overall economy (GDP) 19
    ......5.1.1 Main Results - GDP (unrestricted sample) 19
    ......5.1.2 Main results - GDP (restricted sample) 22
    ......5.1.3 Robustness checks - GDP (restricted sample) 24
    ...5.2 Brexit-effects on service sector growth 27
    ......5.2.1 Main results - service sector28
    ......5.2.2 Robustness checks - service sector 29
    ......5.2.3 Main results - service sector decomposition 31
    ......5.2.4 Robustness checks - financial & insurance activities 35
    ...5.3 Brexit-effects on other sectors 37
    6 Conclusion 40
    ...6.1 Summary of findings 40
    ...6.2 Contributions & limitations 42
    ...6.3 Future outlook on Brexit research 43
    References 44
    A Appendix – Graphs 46
    B Appendix – Tables 49

    Abadie, A., Diamond, A., and Hainmueller, J. (2010). Synthetic control methods for comparative case studies: Estimating the effect of California’s tobacco control program. Journal of the American Statistical Association, 105(490):493–505.
    Abadie, A., Diamond, A., and Hainmueller, J. (2011). Synth: An R package for synthetic control methods in comparative case studies. Journal of Statistical Software, 42(13).
    Abadie, A., Diamond, A., and Hainmueller, J. (2015). Comparative politics and the synthetic control method. American Journal of Political Science, 59(2):495–510.
    Abadie, A. and Gardeazabal, J. (2003). The economic costs of conflict: A case study of the Basque Country. American Economic Review, 93(1):113–132.
    Becker, S. O., Fetzer, T., and Novy, D. (2017). Who voted for Brexit? A comprehensive districtlevel analysis. Economic Policy, 32(92):601–650.
    Belke, A., Dubova, I., and Osowski, T. (2018). Policy uncertainty and international financial markets: The case of Brexit. Applied Economics, 50(34-35):3752–3770.
    Bertelsmann Stiftung (2015). Costs and benefits of a United Kingdom exit from the European Union.
    Bhambra, G. K. (2017). Brexit, Trump, and ‘methodological whiteness’: On the misrecognition of race and class. The British Journal of Sociology, 68:214–232.
    Bloom, N. (2009). The impact of uncertainty shocks. Econometrica, 77(3):623–685.
    Born, B., M¨uller, G. J., Schularick, M., and Sedl´aˇcek, P. (2019). The costs of economic nationalism:
    Evidence from the Brexit experiment. The Economic Journal, 129(623):2722–2744.
    Botosaru, I. and Ferman, B. (2019). On the role of covariates in the synthetic control method. The
    Econometrics Journal, 22(2):117–130.
    Bouoiyour, J. and Selmi, R. (2018). Are UK industries resilient in dealing with uncertainty? The case of Brexit. The European Journal of Comparative Economics, 15(2):277–292.
    Breinlich, H., Leromain, E., Novy, D., and Sampson, T. (2020). Voting with their money: Brexit and outward investment by UK firms. European Economic Review, 124:103400.
    Campos, N. F., Coricelli, F., and Moretti, L. (2014). Economic growth and political integration:
    Estimating the benefits from membership in the European Union using the synthetic counterfactuals method. IZA Discussion Paper, No. 8162.
    DiNardo, J. (2010). Natural experiments and quasi-natural experiments. In Microeconometrics, pages 139–153. Springer.
    Douch, M., Edwards, T. H., and Soegaard, C. (2018). The trade effects of the Brexit announcement shock. Warwick Economics Research Papers, 1176.

    Fetzer, T. (2019). Did austerity cause Brexit? American Economic Review, 109(11):3849–86.
    Greater London Authority (2018). EU Referendum Results. Online available at:
    https://data.gov.uk/dataset/be2f2aec-11d8-4bfe-9800-649e5b8ec044/eu-referendum-results.
    (accessed: 2020/06/03).
    HM Government (2016). HM treasury analysis: The long-term economic impact of EU membership and the alternatives.
    Hughes, C. (2019). It’s the EU immigrants stupid! UKIP’s core-issue and populist rhetoric on the road to Brexit. European Journal of Communication, 34(3):248–266.
    IMF (2016). United Kingdom. Selected issues. IMF Country Report No. 16/169.
    Inglehart, R. F. and Norris, P. (2016). Trump, Brexit, and the rise of populism: Economic have-nots and cultural backlash. HKS Working Paper No. RWP16-026.
    Kaul, A., Kl¨oßner, S., Pfeifer, G., and Schieler, M. (2015). Synthetic control methods: Never use all pre-intervention outcomes together with covariates. Munich Personal RePEc Archive.
    Leyland, C. (2019). Old words, new words, EU words: Brexit and the OED. Online available at:
    https://public.oed.com/blog/brexit-and-the-oed/. (accessed: 2020/06/03).
    McClelland, R. and Gault, S. (2017). The synthetic control method as a tool to understand state policy. Washington, DC: Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center.
    Minford, P. (2016). Brexit and trade: What are the options? The Economy after Brexit, pages 13–15.
    OECD (2016). The consequences of Brexit: A taxing decision. OECD Economic Policy Paper No. 16.
    Oxford Economics (2016). Assessing the economic implications of Brexit.
    PwC (2016). Leaving the EU: Implications for the UK economy.
    Saia, A. (2017). Choosing the open sea: The cost to the UK of staying out of the Euro. Journal of International Economics, 108:82–98.
    Serwicka, I. and Tamberi, N. (2018). Not backing Britain: FDI inflows since the Brexit referendum. UK Trade Policy Observatory Briefing Paper, 23.
    Welfens, P. J. (2017). An accidental Brexit: New EU and transatlantic economic perspectives. Springer.

    無法下載圖示 此全文未授權公開
    QR CODE
    :::