Exchange Rate and Gross Domestic Saving Is There a Relation? Empirical Evidence from Egypt
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Given the significance of gross domestic savings in funding investments, reducing the burden of external debts, and servicing these debts on the current account balance, this study examined the degree of the long-term relationship between the exchange rate and gross domestic savings in Egypt from 1980 to 2022. The current account balance, fixed capital formation, exchange rate, and terms of trade were the four explanatory factors used in this study, while the dependent variable was gross domestic savings. Using Eviews 12’s vector error correction (VEC), the analysis discovered a statistically significant long-term relationship between gross domestic savings and the four explanatory variables. Additionally, it discovered a statistically significant inverse relationship between Egypt’s nominal exchange rate and gross domestic savings, showing that a one-unit increase in the exchange rate (the depreciation of the Egyptian pound) results in a 0.5863 drop in gross domestic savings as a percentage of GDP. This highlights the significance of exchange rate stability in Egypt as a way to boost gross domestic savings. A statistically significant positive relationship between the terms of trade index and gross domestic savings was also discovered by the study; for every unit rise in the terms of trade index, gross domestic savings as a percentage of GDP increased by 0.0872. However, the current account balance, fixed capital formation, and gross domestic savings as a proportion of GDP were found to be statistically inversely related. The study’s conclusions suggest that in order to boost Egypt’s gross domestic savings, it is critical to stabilize the country’s nominal exchange rate and focus on enhancing terms of trade.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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 source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), 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".