Financial Market Resilience in the GCC: Evidence from COVID-19 and the Russia–Ukraine Conflict
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Global financial markets have experienced significant volatility during crises, particularly COVID-19 and the Russia–Ukraine conflict, prompting questions about how regional markets respond to such shocks. Previous research highlights the influence of crises on stock market volatility, focusing on individual events or global markets, but less is known about the comparative dynamics within the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) markets. Our study investigated volatility and asymmetric behavior within GCC stock markets during both crises. Furthermore, the econometric model E-GARCH(1,1) was applied to the daily frequency data of financial stock market returns from 11 March 2020 to 31 July 2023. This study examined volatility fluctuation patterns and provides a comparative assessment of GCC stock markets’ behavior during crises. Our findings reveal varying degrees of market volatility across the region during the COVID-19 crisis, with Qatar and the UAE exhibiting the highest levels of volatility persistence. In contrast, the Russia–Ukraine conflict has had a distinct effect on GCC markets, with Oman exhibiting the highest volatility persistence and Kuwait having the lowest volatility persistence. This study provides significant insights for policymakers and investors in managing risk and enhancing market resilience during economic and geopolitical uncertainty.
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 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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 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".