Integration of Pakistan's stock market with the stock markets of top ten developed economies
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This study examines the integration of Pakistan's Stock Market with the stock markets of the top ten largest economies in the world-USA, China, Japan, Germany, the UK, India, France, Italy, Brazil, and Canada-from January 2015 to October 2020. To examine long- and short run integration, this study employed Johansen and Juselius co-integration and pair-wise Granger causality tests. In the long run, the results indicated that Pakistan's Stock Market is not integrated with these markets. This implies that the market is more attractive in portfolio diversification for international investors, and vice versa. In the short run, the results revealed that, except for China, Pakistan's stock market integrates with the remaining nine markets. However, Pakistan's stock market exhibits a bidirectional relationship with the USA, Japan, Germany, the UK, and France in the lead-lag relationship. However, its relationship with India, Italy, Brazil, and Canada is unidirectional, with Pakistan's stock market leading, while these markets are following. For Pakistani investors, China is the optimal market, and vice versa. Importantly, our findings help policymakers to comprehend Pakistan's dynamic relationship with its trading partners. To the best of our knowledge, no prior study has employed advanced techniques to address the time-varying correlation among the selected markets. By determining Pakistan's stock market integration with its trading partners, this study aimed to fill this empirical literature gap.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".