1 Голоса «за»0 Голоса «против»

Просмотров: 1.1K34 стр.Tourism Econometric, Chukiat Chaiboonsri, Thailand

Dec 06, 2008

© Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

PDF, TXT или читайте онлайн в Scribd

Tourism Econometric, Chukiat Chaiboonsri, Thailand

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

Просмотров: 1.1K

Tourism Econometric, Chukiat Chaiboonsri, Thailand

Attribution Non-Commercial (BY-NC)

- time series
- Mk0004 Solved Assignment
- Do przeczytania exam 3 IVaR
- interactionalqualityFenstermacher
- INVESTIGATING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE HOST COUNTRY: THE CASE OF NORWAY
- Phillips Curve
- Lecture 08 - Non Parametric SE-Nice
- Project MR
- A Comprehensive Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intension of Private Commercial Bank Employees’ in Bangladesh
- 2012 Year End Summary of the Las Vegas Residential Market
- Unit-3[1].pdf
- 6-2002Cooray
- Berry-Esseen Theorems for Quadratic Forms of Gaussian Stationary Processes
- DSP Practical
- 02 Whole
- 24-25
- 51-310-1-PB
- Section A
- Econometric Projek Lithem
- Correlation Models for Shadow Fading Simulation

Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 34

Chukiat Chaiboonsri

Received a scholarship from the Indian Government study Ph.D. (Economics)

at Bangalore University from 2005-2010.

chukiat1973@yahoo.com

N. Rangaswamy Ph.D.

Professor & Chairman , Department of Economics, Bangalore University, Bangalore

Economics Department

Bangalore University

Date: October 5, 2006

Paper ID. 393

Paper Title: VECM Model and Modeling International Tourism Demand in

Thailand

Authors:

Chukiat Chaiboonsri

Parsert Chaitip

N Rangaswomy

We are pleased to inform you that your paper has been reviewed by the review

panel and has been accepted for presentation at the APIEMS 2006 conference.

You may also receive comments and feedback from the reviewer. At least one

author should register by October 15, 2006. The paper with final corrections in

Microsoft Word file format should be submitted as soon as possible but no later

than October 31, 2006. The registration form is attached. We have received

over 450 abstracts from 26 countries and we are looking forward to an exciting

conference. Thank you for your participation and we are looking forward to

seeing you in Bangkok

.

Best Wishes,

Voratas Kachitvichyanukul

APIEMS 2006 Conference Program Chair

A

Preface

Department of Economics at Bangalore University. He is both my professor

and adviser at Bangalore University for the period from 2005 to 2010. And I

would like to thanks ICCR scholarship (India government organization) that

gave funds to me for study a Ph.D.(Economics) at Bangalore University during

the same period. This working paper is a part of the study for my Ph.D. course

at Bangalore University and some part of this paper has been presented by me

in Thai conference namely both Applied Mathematics and Statistics

Conference 2006 at Long beach Garden Hotel and Spa, Muang Pattaya,

Pattaya Province, Thailand from 24-26 May 2006 and APIEMS 2006

Conference at AIT . The meeting was established by the Department of

Mathematics and Statistic Thammasat University, Statistic Researching

Organization, Data Management Organization, Bio-statistic Organization and

Statistical Association of Thailand. Furthermore my grateful thanks to my

father, my mother, my wife and my relative for their help and support in every

way. This working paper was edited by Macus Vigilante, lecturer at Payap

University, Chiang Mai . So I would like to thanks you and I hope that you can

help me on my next paper. Finally my special thanks to God because He

blesses me in every day when I walk with Him.

Chukiat Chaiboonsri

1/06/2006

B

Contents

Page

Preface A

Contents B

Tables C

Abstract 1

1. Introduction 2

2. Research Aim and Objective 3

3. Study area in this research 3

4. The methodology and research Framework

4.1 The back ground concept of International Tourism Demand Model 4

4.2 Unit-Root Tests 6

4.2.1 DF-Test, ADF Test (1979) 6

4.2.2 Phillips-Perron Test (PP-Test:1987,1988) 7

4.2.3 The KPSS-Test (1992) 7

4.2.4 The DF-GLS Test (1996) 9

4.2.5 The ERS Point Optimal Test 9

4.2.6 The Ng and Perron (NP-test:2001) 11

4.3 Cointegration and Vector Error Correction Mechanism 12

5. The results of the research

5.1 The results of the Unit-Root Test 16

5.2 The results of the analysis of Modeling International 17

Tourism Demand in Thailand

5.2.1 The results of the analysis of Modeling 17

International Tourism Demand in

Thailand as in long-run from VAR Model

5.2.2 The results of the analysis of Modeling International 19

Tourism Demand in Thailand as in long-run

from VECM Model

5.2.3 The results of the analysis of Modeling International 21

Tourism Demand in Thailand as in Short-term dynamics

base on VECM Model

6. The conclusions of research and policy recommendations 23

Bibliography 26

C

Tables

Page

2. Table 2: No. of international tourists and revenue from tourists 2

of Thailand

3. Table 1.1: Results of Unit Root Test base on 6 test methods for all 16

variables

4. Table 1.2: Results of Unit Root Test base on 6 test methods for all 17

variables after first or second differencing

5. Table 1.3: Results of the long-run relationship in international 18

tourism demand of Thailand based on

the Johansen and Juselius (1990) methodology

(coefficients(β′) from VAR Model)

6. Table 1.4 : Results of the long-run relationship in international 20

tourism demand of Thailand base on

Johansen & Juselius (1990) methodology

(coefficients(β′) from VECM model)

7. Table 1.5 : Vector error correction estimates of modeling international 22

tourism demand in Thailand (short-term dynamics)

8. Table 1.6 : Results of the short-term dynamics in international 23

tourism demand of Thailand base on VECM model

(residual based diagnostic tests on VECM model)

VECM Model and Modeling International Tourism

Demand in Thailand*

Chukiat Chaiboonsri,

Candidate in the Indian Government Ph.D. (Economics) program

at Bangalore University, 2005-2010.

chukiat1973@yahoo.com

Assoc, Prof. DR. in Faculty of Economics, Chiang Mai University, Chiang Mai .

N. Rangaswamy Ph.D.

Professor & Chairman , Department of Economics, Bangalore University, Bangalore

Abstract

international expenditure of tourists to Thailand with Economic variables such

as the number of international tourist arrivals, GDP, price of goods and

services, transportation costs, and exchange rate risk for the period 1997(Q1)-

2005(Q2). The cointegration techniques based on Johansen and Juselius (1990)

and VECM Model were used to find the long-run and short-term dynamic

relationships of the international tourist demand model in Thailand. The paper

used six full standard test methods for unit roots namely ADF-Test (1979), PP-

Test (1987,1988), KPSS-Test (1992), DF-GLS Test (1996), ERS Point Optimal

Test and Ng and Perron (2001). The VECM Model has not previously been

used to estimate tourism demand models in short-term dynamics. The long-run

results indicate that growth in income (GDP) and the number of international

tourist arrivals from Thailand’s major tourist source markets has both positive

and negative impacts on international expenditure on tourists in Thailand while

mostly both transportation cost and real exchange rate or exchange risk have a

negative impact on international expenditure of tourists arriving in Thailand.

The short-term dynamic results indicate that it was in some ways similar and

dissimilar to the results for the long-run. Mostly the findings are consistent with

economics theory and the implication of the model may be used for policy

making.

-------------------------------------

*

This paper has been presented by me namely APIEMS 2006 Conference at AIT Bangkok , Thailand

1. Introduction

International tourism business entered an interesting period for many

countries in Asia between 1997-1998 (many Asian countries including

Thailand experienced an economic crisis during this time: Lim(2003)) . Since

1997, the Asian region has faced an economic crisis which was due to

Thailand's policy of liberalization of its international currency called BIBF in

1993 (Kriangsak, 1998). This policy resulted in a huge inflow of loans to

Thailand as follows: (1) 193.2 billion baht in 1992, (2) 253.4 billion baht in

1993, and (3) 202.4 billion baht in 1994. Most of these loans flowed into the

minor business sector such as the stock market and real estate leading to un-

productivity and unemployment. Thus, the balance of trade in Thailand was

continuous deficits because Thai products could not compete in the word

market (Bank of Thailand, 1994). In addition to this, Thailand applied an

international policy of fixing the value of its exchange rate which was

incongruent with the real value of the US dollar (Chukiat, 2003) which made

imports much greater than exports. This again contributed to continuous

deficits and an imbalance of trade. The imbalance of trade, unfeasible

international currency policy, inflow of capital to un-productive business

sectors, all contributed to the economic crisis in 1997. As a consequence,

Thailand took out a huge loan of 17.2 billion US dollars from the International

Monetary Fund (IMF) in the form of a Stand-by Arrangement to help its

economy. The crisis that stared in Thailand also affected its neighbors such as

the Philippines, Indonesia, Singapore and South Korea (Lim and McAleer,

2001). Another effect of the economic crisis in 1997 was a decrease in

Thailand's GDP from 1997 to 2001 as can be seen in the table below ( table 1.1).

Year GDP

(million baht)

1997 3,073,615

1998 2,749,684

1999 2,871,980

2000 3,008,662

2001 3,072,925

(Source: National Economic and social Development Board of Thailand)

(millions) (million baht)

1997 7.22 220

1998 7.76 242

1999 8.58 253

2000 9.51 285

2001 10.06 299

(Source: Thailand’s Tourism Organization)

Despite the economic crisis, however, the effect on the tourism industry of

Thailand was positive because of the increasing number of foreign tourists

coming to Thailand who brought in a lot of revenue to country(see table 1.2).

It is therefore concluded from this study that the international tourism industry

in Thailand was not affected by the economic crisis. For a long time now,

economists have tried to understand the international tourist consumer behavior

when travelling to various countries around the world through the demand

model. For example Barry and O’Hagan (1972): the demand of British tourists

travelling to Ireland; Jud, G.D. and Joseph, H. (1974): the demand of

international tourists going to Latin American; Uysal and Crompton (1984): the

demand of international tourists going to Turkey; Summary (1987): the demand

of intentional tourists going to Kenya; Kulendran, N. (1996): the demand of

international tourist going to Australia; Lim C. and M. McAleer (2000): the

demand of international tourists going to Australia; Durbarry (2002): the

demand of international tourists (French tourists) going to the UK, Spain and

Italy. As well as Paresh Kumar and Narayan (2004) and Resina Katafono and

Aruna Gounder (2004): the demand of international tourists going to Fiji.

Based on much literature and articles, the aim of this paper is to find out the

international tourist consumer behavior in coming to Thailand by demand

model during the period of 1997-2005. When understood, the results of this

consumer behavior will be useful in developing the international tourism

industry in Thailand.

This research project had the aims and objectives of finding out how may

factors affect the international tourist's expenditure when coming to Thailand in

both the long-run and short-run. In particular, this research used the VECM

Model for estimating the short-term dynamics because this method had not

previously been used to estimate tourism demand. And to uses the international

tourism demand function to explain the consumer behavior of international

tourist’s expenditure on arrival in Thailand.

The scope of this research was the period 1997(Q1) -2005(Q2) and most of

the data was secondary. For the analysis of international tourist demand for

Thailand, the following seven countries were chosen: Malaysia, China,

England, Germany, France, America and Canada. Most of these countries were

sources of significant tourism income to Thailand during this period (Source:

Thailand’s Tourism Organization). The variables used in this research were

economic variables such as the expenditure of international tourists in Thailand,

the number of international tourist arrivals in Thailand, the GDP of the

countries of origin of international tourists arriving in Thailand, the world price

of kerosene-type jet fuel, the relative price of Thailand with the country of

origin of international tourists caming to Thailand and both the real exchange

rate and the exchange rate risk of Thailand with the country of origin of

tourists.

4.1 The background concept of International Tourism Demand

Model

The concept of theory has been used in international tourist demand

since 1950 but the estimation of international tourist demand by the

econometric method was first used by Artus (1972). After that a lot of research

on international tourist demand functions used the econometric method.

Researchers who used this method are Archer (1976), Crouch (1994), Walsh

(1996), Lim (1997), Inclair (1998), Lise & Tol (2002), McAleer (2001,2003),

and Resina & Aruna (2004). Growth in international tourism is closely aligned

to economic variables which at a microeconomic level influence the

consumer’s decision to undertake overseas travel. Empirical research on

international tourism demand has overwhelmingly been based on aggregate

time series data which permits estimation of income and price elasticity on

inbound tourism (See Lim (1997) and McAleer (2003)). A simple origin-

destination demand model for international tourism can be written as: (equation

number (1A))

Defined

Yt = is a measure of income of the tourist-generating or origin

country at time t ;

TCt = is a measure of transportation costs from the origin to

destination country at time t ;

Pt = is a measure of tourism price of goods and services at time t ;

And assume that (+ Yt), (-TCt), (- Pt) and explain that when income at

time t is increasing then the demand for international tourism is increasing

together. When a measure of transportation costs from the origin to destination

country at time t is increasing then the demand for international tourism is

decreasing. And when a measure of tourism price of goods and services is

increasing then the demand for international tourism is decreasing. And the

equation (1A) can be expressed in log-linear (or logarithmic) [equation number

(2A)] .

+ φln Dt -1 + θln CPt + u t ----------- (2A)

where

demand) from the origin to destination country at time t ;

ln Yt = logarithm of real GDP in country of origin at time t ;

lnF1t = logarithm of real round-trip coach economy airfares in

Neutral Units of construction (NUC) between original

country and destination country at time t ;

lnF2t = logarithm of real round-trip coach economy airfares in

country of origin currency between country of origin and

destination country at time t ;

ln RPt = logarithm of relative prices (or CPI of destination country

/CPI of country of origin) at time t ;

lnERt = logarithm of exchange rate (country of origin per

destination country) at time t ;

lnRERt = logarithm of real exchange rate [or CPI (destination

country)/CPI (country of origin)*1/ER] at time t ;

ln CPt = logarithm of competitive prices [using CPI (destination

country) /(other destination country)]

u t = independently distributed random error term, with zero

mean and constant variance at time t ;

0<φ< 1, θ > 0 (Substitutes) and θ < 0(complements)

Tourism Demand in Thailand ” modified from equation (2A) as well as can be

written as equation (3A) .

+ θln(RERt) + ρ(SDRt)+ u t ----------- (3A)

where

of origin (each of the seven countries) to destination

country

(Thailand) at time t ;

ln D1t = logarithm of quarterly tourist arrivals from the country of

origin (each of the seven countries) to destination country

(Thailand) at time t ;

ln GDPt = logarithm of real GDP of the country of origin (each of the

seven countries) at time t ;

lnPOt = logarithm of price of jet fuel at time t ;

ln RPt = logarithm of relative prices (or CPI of thedestination

country: (Thailand) /CPI of the country of origin:

(each of the seven countries) at time t ;

lnRERt = logarithm of real exchange rate [ or CPI(Thailand)

/CPI (each of the seven countries)*1/ER] at time t ;

SDRt = standard deviations of exchange rates

(country of origin (each of the seven countries) per

destination country (Thailand)) at time t ;

u t = independently distributed random error term, with

zero mean and constant variance at time t ;

SDRt = exchange rate risk;

β > 0, γ < 0, δ < 0, θ< 0, ρ < 0, α > 0;

This research tested the stationarity of all variables used in the

International Tourism Demand Model by standard tests for unit roots. Such as

the ADF-Test (1979), PP-Test (1987,1988), KPSS-Test (1992), DF-GLS Test

(1996), the ERS Point Optimal Test and Ng and Perron (2001).

The DF-Test uses three equation for unit root test in Yt and Yt is time

series data.

DYt = β t + αYt-1 + Ut ------- (2B) [ Intercept Term ]

DYt = β 1 + β t + αYt-1 + Ut -------- (3B) [ Intercept + Trend ]

Where

=1))

or I(d) = I(0) otherwise rejected null hypothesis is that α = (ρ - 1) = 0 or [ ρ = 1

] because if α has a statistics significance at any level then α ≠ 0 (ρ ≠ 1).

if α < Mackinnon statistics conclusion that time series data is non-

stationary or I(d) = I(d) as well as accepted null hypothesis is that α = (ρ - 1) =

0 or [ ρ = 1 ] because if α has not a statistics significance at any level then

α = 0 (ρ = 1).

The ADF-Test was used for unit root test when found that higher order

autocorrelation in time series data. Before using the ADF-Test, dw should be

checked with statistics from DF-Test equation (2B) and (3B).

When added term (ßi Σmi=1∆Yt-i) in equation (4B) then t-statistics value of

α before Yt-1 to be change as well as all t-statistics value of them to be change

too. So ADF-Test corrects for higher order serial correlation by adding lagged

differenced terms on the right-hand side. The hypothesis test for unit root in

time series data by ADF-Test method as for the DF-test method and same

conclusion about time series data are stationary or non-stationary.

This test method for unit root was developed by Phillips and Perron

(1988) and they proposed a nonparametric method for controlling for higher-

order serial correlation in time series data.

the AR(1) regression to account for the serial correlation in equation (5B). The

correction is nonparametric since it uses an estimate of the spectrum of

equation (5B) at frequency zero that is robust to heteroskedasticity and

autocorrelation of unknown form.

where

consistent estimation

γj = coefficient from AR(1) in equation (5B)

ε* t ε* t- j = error term received from equation (5B)

q = floor(4 (T/100)2/9 ), [ q is the truncation lag ]

And the PP-Test (tpp) has a t-statistic is computed as equation (8B) as well

as where tb , sb are the t-statistics and standard error of (β t) received from

regress in equation (5B) and s* is the standard error received from regress in

same equation.

where

PP-Test (tpp) =[(γ01/2 tb) / (W )]–[(W 2 - γ0 ) T sb / (2 W s*)] --(8B)

The asymptotic distribution of the PP-Test (tpp) is the same as the ADF-

Test. And the hypotheses to be tested are follow up:

H1 : time series data is stationary

data is stationary otherwise rejected the null hypothesis is that non-stationary

data.

if PP-Test (tpp) < Mackinnon statistics then conclude that time

series data is non-stationary as well as accepted null hypothesis.

The KPSS-Test for unit root test was produced by Kwiatkowski, Phillips,

Schmidt and Shin (1992). And the KPSS statistic is based on the residuals from

the OLS regression of Yt on the exogenous variables X t (See equation (9B))

and X t is a random walk :Xt = Xt-1 + ε t .

Yt = Xt + ε t ------- (9B)

where

X t : Xt = a 0 + b0 t + ε t [ intercept and trend ]

X t : Xt = a 0 + ε t [ intercept ]

ε t : is a stationary random error

Yt : is data test stationary or non-stationary

residual ε t from equation (9B) as well as take this residual to calculate in the

KPSS statistic (See equation (10B)).

where

St = Σti = 1 εi , t = 1,2,…., T

s2 (L) = T-1 ΣTt = 1 ε2t + 2 T-1 ΣLs = L w(S,L) ΣTt = s+1ε tε t- s

w(S,L) = is an optional weighting function corresponding to the

choice of a spectral window.

w(S,L) = 1- s / (L +1) in estimation (See Newey and west, 1987 :

and Kwiatkowski al.,1992, for more details).

L = the number of truncation (lags) is chosen

The KPSS-test method test for unit root has the hypothesis to be tested are

H0 (null hypothesis) and H1 .

H1 : time series is non-stationary

table as rejected H0 or rejected null hypothesis and accepted H1 then conclusion

that Yt is non-stationary.

if KPSS-statistics < Quantities of distribution of KPSS statistics

table and accepted H0 or rejected H1 then conclusion that Yt is stationary.

This test suggested by Elliott, Rothenberg, Stock (1996) and the DF-GLS

Test is performed by testing the hypothesis a 0 = 0 (ρ =1, a 0 = (ρ - 1) in

equation (11B) to be start for this test (because PP-Test and ADF-Test have low

power for unit root test and conclude that tests for unit root need to be

developed (DeJong et al(1992)) as well as Madala and Kim (1998) suggested

that DF-GLS Test is a one method that higher power for unit root test).

well as where (B *0 , B *1t) are obtained by regressing y* on z* . And where y*

= [ y1, (1- α*L)y2,…., (1- α*L)yT ] as well as z* = [ z1, (1- α*L)z2,…., (1-

α*L)zT ] .

Where

L = the lag operator

α* = 1+c*/ T , c* = -7 : in the model with drift, c* = 13.5 : in

the linear trend case

z* = (1,t)

to show below that :

H1 : a 0 ≠ 0 : [time series data is stationary ]

if a 0 > Critical values for the DF-GLS Test for a model with linear

trend (Elliott et al.1996) and rejected H0 or rejected null hypothesis as well as

conclusion that time series data is stationary or I(d) = I(0) .

if a 0 < Critical values for the DF-GLS Test for a model with linear

trend (Elliott et al.1996) and accepted H0 or accepted null hypothesis as well as

conclusion that time series data is non-stationary or I(d) = I(d) .

4.2.5 The ERS Point Optimal Test

The ERS Point Optimal Test is based on quasi-differencing regression in

equation (12B). When a time series has an unknown mean or linear trend and

this method to start from equation (12B).

where

- ε t : error term that is independently and identically

distributed

- yt : is time series data are tested

- xt : contain a constant only or both a constant and time

trend

- δ (a) : the coefficient to be estimated in equation (12B)

- a : a* = 1-7/T when xt contains a constant

- a : a* = 1-13.5/T when xt contains a constant and

time trend

The P(T) statistics was used in ERS Point Optimal Test for unit root test in time

series data and show it below that : (See equation 12B)

where

f0 = is a frequency zero spectrum estimation

or

f0 = ΣT-1j =-(T- 1) γ* (j) . k(j/t),

j = the j-th sample autocorvariance of the ε t

t = a truncation lag in the covariance weighting

γ* (j) = ΣTt = j+1(ε tε t- j)/ T, T = the number of observation

k = a kernel function (for detail see Eview 5.1 (2004))

and where

Parzen : k(x) = [1-6x2 +6|x|3 if 0 < or = |x| < or = (1/2)

2(1- |x|3) if (1/2) < |x| < or = 1

0 otherwise ]

Quadratic spectral : k(x)

- cos(6 px / 5))

The null hypothesis of ERS Point Optimal Test for unit root test in time

series data can show below that :

H1 : α = a*: [ time series data is stationary ]

if P(T) statistics > Critical values for ERS test statistic are

computed by interpolating the simulation result provided by ERS (1996,table

1,p.825) for T = {50, 100, 200, ∞} then accepted H0 : α = 1 : [ time

series data is non-stationary ] and said that time series data is non-stationary.

if P(T) statistics < Critical values for ERS test statistic are computed

by interpolating the simulation result provided by ERS (1996,table 1,p.825) for

T = {50, 100, 200, ∞} then accepted H1 : α = a*: [ time series data is

stationary ] and said that time series data is stationary (perception : the ERS –

Test was used to test unit root for time series data have big simple size at least

more than 50 observations).

Ng and Perron(2001) developed from four test statistics based on the

GLS detrended data Yd t and these test statistics are modified forms of Philips

and Perron Za and Zt statistics, Bhargava(1986) R1 statistic and the ERS Point

Optimal statistic. This method to start by first define term follow that : (See

equation 14B).

statistics were used to test for unit root in time series data : MZda, MZdt, MSBd

and MPdt).

where

MZdt = MZda . MSBd

MSBd = (k / f0)1/2

and

MPdt = { (c*2 k – c*T-1(Yd t)2) / f0 if xt = 1 or z* = 1,

(c*2 k + (1-c*)T-1(Yd t)2) / f0 if xt = (1,t) or z* = (1,t) }

where

c* = { -7 if xt = 1 or z* = 1, -13.5 if xt = (1,t) or

z* = (1,t) }

f0 = ΣT-1j =-(T- 1) γ* (j) . k(j/t),

j = the j-th sample autocorvariance of the ε t

t = a truncation lag in the covariance weighting

γ (j) = ΣTt = j+1(ε tε t- j)/ T, T = the number of observation

*

or

f0 = kernel- based sum-of-covariance estimator, and

autoregressive spectral density estimators

The null hypothesis of Ng and Perron(2001) Test for unit root test in time

series data can show below that :

H1 : is time series data is stationary

of Ng and Perron((2001),table 1) then accepted H0 : [ time series data is

non-stationary ] and said that time series data is non-stationary.

if MZda, MZdt, MSBd,MPdt statistics < Critical values

of Ng and Perron((2001),table 1) then rejected H0 : [ time series data is

non-stationary ] one other hand accepted H1 : [ time series data is stationary ]

and said that time series data is stationary.

model)

Engle and Granger (1987) pointed out that a linear combination of two

variables or more variables are nonstaionary series may be stationary. If such a

stationary, or I(0), linear combination exists, the stationary linear combination

is called the cointegratting equation and may be interpreted as long-run

equilibrium relationship between equation. The problems with Engle-Granger

two step procedure in co-integration approach. For example if assumed that

Economic theory can guide in determining the dependent and the independent

variable, like in the consumption function (equation number (1C)).

But if equation (1C) has three variables (Y, W, Z) then these are three

possible long run relationships then can show equation numbers (2C), (3C) and

(4C).

Yt = α0 + α1Wt + α2Zt + ut -------------- (2C)

Zt = β0 + β1Yt + β2Wt + ut -------------- (3C)

Wt = γ0 + γ1Wt + γ2Zt + ut -------------- (4C)

variables and these weaknesses limit applicability of the this approach. To

introduce a technique that consider co-integration not only between pairs of

variables, but also in a system this technique is the ML approach of Johansen

and Juselius (1990). The Johansen and Juselius approach start at model Zt

unrestricted vector auto-regression (VAR) involving up to K-lags of Zt

:(equation number (5C))

Equation (5C) has been expressed in first differenced form and it is convenient

to rewrite the equation (5C) to be (6C) as well as described below.

where

Π = -(I - A1 - …. - Ai)

Π = αβ′ and α is adjustment coefficients of disequilibrium

and β is Co-integrating vectors(and αβ ′ to be found).

This way of specifying the system contains information on both the short-

and long-run adjustment to changes in Zt (∆Zt) and rewriting (6C) as :

(equation number (7C)).

separately on the right-hand side of (7C) . That is, the vectors R 0 t and R k t are

obtained from :(equation number (8C) and number (9C))

Zt-k = T1 ∆Zt-1 + …… + Tk-1∆Zt-k+1 + Rkt ---- (9C)

:(equation number (10C))

The maximum likelihood estimate of β is obtained as the eigenvectors

corresponding to the r largest eigenvalues from solving the number (11C).

Which gives the n eigenvalues λ^1> λ^2 >…….> λ^n and the

corresponding eigenvectors ν^ = (ν^1 >,…….,> ν^n). Those r elements in ν^

which determine the linear combinations of stationary relationships can be

denoted β ^ =(ν^1 >,…….,> ν^r), that is, these are the cointegration vectors. The

VECM model has been develop by Hendry (1995) and he used the Johansen-

Juselius (JJ) methodology to study long-run relationship among M1, the price

level, output and interest rate in Canada. The VECM modelling procedure form

can be written and it begins by defining an unrestricted vector autoregression

(VAR) involving up to k-lags as well as can show below that : (See equation

(12C))

correction components as follow equation (13C) as well as this equation was

called that VECM models.

where

∆Zt = difference term of variables were used in the VECM models

Γj∆Zt-j = the vector autoregressive(VAR) component in first

difference

Π Zt-p = error-correction components

C = vector of constant is an (n x 1)

ε1 = vector of white noise error terms

Γj = an (n x n) matrix for short term adjustment coefficients

among variables with k-1 number of lags

Π = αβ′ (the value of αβ′ to be found), Π = an (n x n) matrix

where

adjustment coefficient of the error correction

mechanism.

β′ = an (n x r) matrix of cointegrating vectors

represents up to r cointegrating relationship in the

multivariate model which represent long-run

steady solutions.

The simply of VECM model can rewrite based on concept of this research

follow by equation (14C) and this equation described below.

∆Xt = +Γ(L)∆Xt + DZt + αβ′ Xt-1 + ε1 ----- (15C)

where

∆Xt = [ differencing in all variables were used in model]

Zt = [constant term, dummies variable and other variables ]

Γ(L) = Matrix of parameters for n order lags process

ε1 = error term of equation

Π = αβ′ [ to be found ] and where

α = speed of adjustment to equilibrium

β′ = cointegrating vector in long-run

ln(RPt), ln(RERt), (SDRt)]′

∆Xt = [∆ln(Expdt), ∆ln(D1t), ∆ln(GDPt), ∆ln(POt), ∆ln(RPt),

∆ln(RERt), ∆(SDRt)]′

The simply of VECM model can rewrite based on concept of this research

follow by equation (16C) again and this equation described below.

∆ln(Expdt) ∆ln(Expdt)

∆ln(D1t) ∆ln(D1t)

∆ln(GDPt) ∆ln(GDPt)

∆ln(POt) = + Γ(L) ∆ln(POt) DZt + αβ′ Xt-1 + ε1 ----- (16C)

∆ln(RPt) ∆ln(RPt)

∆ln(RERt) ∆ln(RERt)

∆(SDRt) ∆(SDRt)

where

DZt = [constant term ]

Γ(L) = Matrix of parameters for n order lags process

ε1 = error term of equation

Π = αβ′ [ to be found and where

α = speed of adjustment to equilibrium

β′ = cointegrating vector in long-run

And the simply of VECM model in short–term dynamics was used in this

research can be rewrite as equation (17C) as well as descried below.

∆ln(Expdt) ∆ln(Expdt)

∆ln(D1t) ∆ln(D1t)

∆ln(GDPt) ∆ln(GDPt)

∆ln(POt) = + Γ(L) ∆ln(POt) + DZt + λα + ε1 ----- (17C)

∆ln(RPt) ∆ln(RPt)

∆ln(RERt) ∆ln(RERt)

∆(SDRt) ∆(SDRt)

where

Γ(L) = Matrix of parameters for n order lags process

ε1 = error term of equation

α = speed of adjustment to equilibrium

λ = coefficient of speed of adjustment to equilibrium

5.1 The results of Unit-Root Test

This paper determined the order of integration of the variables by 6

standard methods test for unit root - ADF-Test (1979), PP-Test (1987,1988),

KPSS-Test (1992), DF-GLS Test (1996), ERS Point Optimal Test and Ng &

Perron (2001). And if variable are integrated of the same order than apply the

Johansen-Juselius (1990) maximum likelihood method of obtain the number of

cointegrating vector(S) for long-run and use VECM model for short-term

dynamics. The results of the unit root tests based on 6 standard methods are

shown in table 1.1. All variables were used in international tourism demand

model of Thailand were integrated of order (d) except that both the GDP of

Malaysia and the RER of China were integrated to the order (0).

Table 1.1: Results of Unit Root Test base on 6 test methods for all

variables

Expd I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d)

D1 I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d)

GDP I(0) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d)

Po I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d)

RP I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d)

RER I(d) I(0) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d)

SDR I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d) I(d)

From: computation

both GDP of Malaysia and RER of China) were used in this model as well as

the order of integrated in all variables changed. The results of unit root test

based on 6 methods after first differencing or second differencing are shown in

table1.2.

Table 1.2: Results of Unit Root Test base on 6 test methods for all

variables after first or second differencing

Expd I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1)

D1 I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1)

GDP I(0) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1)

Po I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1)

RP I(1) I(2) I(1) I(2) I(2) I(2) I(2)

RER I(1) I(0) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1)

SDR I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1) I(1)

From : computed

international tourism demand model of Thailand were integrated of order (1)

except the RP of China, the RP German, the RP of France, the RP of America

and the RP of Canada were integrated of order (2).

in Thailand

5.2.1 The results of the analysis of Modeling International Tourism

Demand in Thailand as in long-run from VAR Model

Estimates of long-run cointegrating vectors of modeling

international tourism demand in Thailand are given in table 1.3 and this method

was based on Johansen and Juselius (1990) as well as the method derived from

VAR model concept. In Malaysia as the long-run cointegrating vectors

suggested, ln(RPt) has a positive impact on international tourist expenditure in

Thailand or impact on tourism demand in Thailand except ln(Dt-1), ln(POt),

ln(RERt) and ln(SDRt) have a negative impact on this model. The results imply

that in long-run when ln(RPt) increases 1% then Malaysia’s tourists spending

on goods and services in Thailand increases by 19.38%. Otherwise when ln(Dt-

1), ln(POt), ln(RERt) and ln(SDRt) increase by 1% then Malaysian tourist

spending on goods and services in Thailand decreases by 1.71%, 0.68%, 3.75%

and 0.43%. In China as long-run cointegrating vectors suggested, ln(Dt-1),

ln(GDPt) and ln(SDRt) have a positive impact on international tourist’s

expenditure in Thailand or impact on tourism demand in Thailand. Otherwise

both ln(POt) and ln(RERt) have negative impacts on this model. The results

imply that in the long-run when ln(Dt-1), ln(GDPt) and ln(SDRt) increase by 1%

then Chinese tourists spending on goods and services in Thailand increases by

5.82%, 8.61% and 10.75%. Otherwise when both ln(POt) and ln(RERt) increase

by 1% then Chinese tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand

decreases by 2.63% and 16.72%.

of Thailand based on the Johansen and Juselius (1990)

methodology

(coefficients(β′) from VAR Model).

Malaysia -1.71 - -0.68 19.38 -3.75 -0.43

China 5.82 8.61 -2.63 - -16.72 10.75

England -6.14 6.02 -0.15 -3.83 -3.19 -0.13

German -3.96 -0.02 0.08 - -0.12 -0.32

France -5.34 6.86 -1.17 - 0.17 -0.55

America 3.14 -0.81 -0.42 - 2.14 0.33

Canada -59.35 104.44 -4.60 - 22.17 -1.94

From : computation

ln(POt), ln(RPt), ln(RERt) and ln(SDRt) have a negative impact on international

tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact on tourism demand in Thailand.

Otherwise ln(GDPt) has a positive impact on this model. The results imply that

in the long-run when ln(Dt-1), ln(POt), ln(RPt), ln(RERt) and ln(SDRt) increase

by 1% then English tourists spending on goods and services in Thailand

decreases by 6.14%, 0.15%, 3.83%, 3.19% and 0.13%. Otherwise when

ln(GDPt) increases by 1% then English tourist spending on goods and services

in Thailand increases by 6.02%. In Germany as long-run cointegrating vectors

suggested, ln(Dt-1), ln(GDPt), ln(RERt) and ln(SDRt) have negative impacts on

international tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact on international tourism

demand model. Otherwise ln(POt) has a positive impact on this model. The

results imply that in long-run when ln(Dt-1), ln(GDPt), ln(RERt) and ln(SDRt)

increase by 1% then German tourist spending on goods and services in

Thailand decreasing 3.96%, 0.02%, 0.12% and 0.32%. Otherwise when

ln(POt) increases by 1% then German tourist spending on goods and services in

Thailand increases by 0.08%. In France, as the long-run cointegrating vectors

suggested, ln(Dt-1), ln(POt), and ln(SDRt) have negative impacts on

international tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact on the international

tourism demand model. Otherwise both ln(GDPt) and ln(RERt) have positive

impacts on this model. The results imply that in the long-run when ln(Dt-1),

ln(POt), and ln(SDRt) increase by 1% then French tourist spending on goods

and services in Thailand decreases by 5.34%, 1.17% and 0.55%. Otherwise

when both ln(GDPt) and ln(RERt) increase by 1% French tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand increases by 6.86% and 0.17%. In America as

the long-run cointegrating vectors suggested, ln(Dt-1), ln(RERt), ln(SDRt) have

positive impacts on international tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact on

the international tourism demand model. Otherwise both ln(GDPt) and ln(POt)

have negative impacts on this model. The results imply that in the long-run

when ln(Dt-1), ln(RERt), ln(SDRt) increase by 1% then American tourist

spending on goods and services in Thailand increases by 3.14%, 2.14% and

0.33%. Otherwise when both ln(GDPt) and ln(POt) increases by 1% then

American tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand decreases 0.81%

and 0.42%. And finally for Canada, as the long-run cointegrating vectors

suggested, ln(Dt-1), ln(POt), and ln(SDRt) have a negative impact on

international tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact on the international

tourist demand model. Otherwise both ln(GDPt) and ln(RERt) have positive

impacts on this model. The results imply that in long-run when ln(Dt-1), ln(POt),

and ln(SDRt) increase by 1% then Canadian tourist spending on goods and

services in Thailand decreases by 59.35%, 4.60% and 1.94%. Otherwise when

both ln(GDPt) and ln(RERt) increase by 1% then Canadian tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand increases by 104.44% and 22.17%.

Demand

in Thailand as in long-run from VECM Model

Estimates of long-run cointegrating vectors of modeling international

tourism demand in Thailand are given in table 1.4 and this method was based

on Johansen and Juselius (1990) as well as the method derived from the VECM

model concept. In Malaysia as the long-run cointegrating vectors suggested,

ln(RPt-1) has a positive impact on international tourism expenditure in Thailand

or impact on tourism demand in Thailand, but ln(Dt-1), ln(POt-1), ln(RERt-1) and

ln(SDRt-1) have a negative impact on this model. The results imply that in the

long-run when ln(RPt-1) increase by 1% then Malaysian tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand increases by 31.19%. Otherwise when ln(Dt-1),

ln(POt-1), ln(RERt-1) and ln(SDRt-1) increase by 1% then Malaysian tourist

spending on goods and services in Thailand decreases by 2.04%, 0.97%, 5.72%

and 1.40%. In China, as the long-run cointegrating vectors suggested, ln(GDPt-

1) has a positive impact on international tourist expenditure in Thailand or

impact on tourist demand in Thailand. Otherwise ln(Dt-1), ln(POt-1) and

ln(SDRt-1) have a negative impact on this model. The results imply that in the

long-run when ln(GDPt-1) increase by 1% then Chinese tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand increases by 0.97%. Otherwise when ln(Dt-1),

ln(POt-1) and ln(SDRt-1) increase by 1% then Chinese tourist spending on goods

and services in Thailand decreases by 1.07%, 0.26% and 0.46%. In England as

the long-run cointegrating vectors suggested, ln(Dt-1), ln(POt-1), ln(RPt-1),

ln(RERt-1) and ln(SDRt-1) have negative impacts on international tourist

expenditure in Thailand or impact on the tourisms demand in Thailand.

Otherwise ln(GDPt-1) has a positive impact on this model. The results imply

that in the long-run when ln(Dt-1), ln(POt-1), ln(RPt-1), ln(RERt-1) and ln(SDRt-1)

increase by 1% then English tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand

decreases by 5.07%, 0.53%, 1.90%, 3.53% and 0.09%. Otherwise when

ln(GDPt-1) increases by 1% then English tourist spending on goods and services

in Thailand increases by 6.45%.

of Thailand base on Johansen & Juselius (1990) methodology

(coefficients(β′) from VECM model).

From : computation

Variables Malaysia China England German France America Canada

ln(Expdt-1) 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00

ln(Dt-1) -2.04*** -1.07*** -5.07*** -2.01*** 2.27*** 0.31 18.35***

(-9.39) (-8.32) (-33.01) (-25.67) (5.27) (1.65) (7.06)

ln(GDPt-1) - 0.97*** 6.45*** 1.96*** 1.11 1.80*** -77.04***

(9.14) (34.97) (3.87) (0.94) (4.63) (-8.25)

ln(POt-1) -0.97*** -0.26*** -0.53*** -0.10*** -0.35*** -0.28*** 2.43***

(-10.95) (-3.05) (-24.30) (-3.11) (-2.18) (-2.80) (2.03)

ln(RPt-1) 31.19*** - -1.90*** - - - -

(6.36) (-5.07)

ln(RERt-1) -5.72*** 0.38 -3.53*** 0.24*** 0.40*** 3.14*** -52.12***

(-8.71) (1.22) (-30.86) (5.68) (5.00) (12.76) (-6.01)

ln(SDRt-1) -1.40*** -0.46** -0.09*** -0.17*** 1.00*** -0.03 -2.49***

(-2.80) (-1.92) (-14.73) (-9.93) (8.28) (-1.57) (-2.93)

C -7.21 -18.12 -18.27 -10.99 -49.27 -27.14 173.25

Figures in parenthesis are t-statistics (*** = Sig. at 99%, **= Sig. at 95%, * =Sig. at 90%).

ln(POt-1) and ln(SDRt-1) have a negative impact on international tourist

expenditure in Thailand or impact on the international tourism demand model.

Otherwise both ln(GDPt-1) and ln(RERt-1) have positive impacts on this model.

The results imply that in long-run when ln(Dt-1), ln(POt-1) and ln(SDRt-1)

increase by 1% then German tourist spending on goods and services in

Thailand decreases by 2.01%, 0.10% and 0.17%. Otherwise when both

ln(GDPt-1) and ln(RERt-1) increasing 1% then German tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand increases by 1.96% and 0.24%. In France as the

long-run cointegrating vectors suggested, ln(Dt-1), ln(RERt-1) and ln(SDRt-1)

have positive impacts on international tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact

on the international tourism demand model. Otherwise ln(POt-1) has a negative

impact on this model. The results imply that in the long-run when ln(Dt-1),

ln(RERt-1) and ln(SDRt-1) increases by 1% then French tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand increases by 2.27%, 0.40% and 1.00%.

Otherwise when ln(POt-1) increases by 1% then French tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand decreases by 0.35%. In America, as the long-

run cointegrating vectors suggested, both ln(GDPt-1) and ln(RERt-1) have

positive impacts on international tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact on

the international tourism demand model. Otherwise ln(POt-1) has a negative

impact on this model. The results imply that in long-run when both ln(GDPt-1)

and ln(RERt-1) increases 1% then Americatourist spending on goods and

services in Thailand increases by 1.80% and 3.14%. Otherwise when ln(POt-1)

increase by 1% then American tourist spending on goods and services in

Thailand decreases by 0.28%. And for Canada, as the long-run cointegrating

vectors suggested, both ln(Dt-1) and ln(POt-1) have positive impacts on

international tourist expenditure in Thailand or impact on the international

tourisms demand model. Otherwise ln(GDPt-1), ln(RERt) and SDRt have

negative impacts on this model.The results imply that in long-run when both

ln(Dt-1) and ln(POt-1) increase by 1% then Canadian tourist spending on goods

and services in Thailand increases 18.35% and 2.43%. Otherwise when

ln(GDPt-1), ln(RERt-1) and SDRt-1 increase by 1%, Canadian tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand decreases by 77.04%, 52.12% and 2.49%.

Thailand as in Short-term dynamics base on VECM model

Estimates of short-term dynamics base on VECM model are given in

table 1.5 and the method is based on Johansen and Juselius (1990) as well as

the method derived from VECM model concept. The results of short-term

dynamics indicate that D(lnD1(-2)) has a negative impact on international

tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand. The results imply that when

D(lnD1(-2)) of both America and Canada increases by 1% then American and

Canadian tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand decreases by

0.87% and 0.51%. The results of short-term dynamics indicate that D(lnPO(-1))

has a negative impact on international tourist spending on goods and services in

Thailand. The results imply that when D(lnPO(-1)) increases by 1% then

Malaysian tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand decreases by

1.26%. The results of short-term dynamics indicate that D(lnPO(-2)) has a

positive impact on international tourist spending on goods and services in

Thailand. The results imply that when D(lnPO(-2)) increase by 1% then

English tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand increases by 1.36%.

The results of short-term dynamics indicate that D(lnRP(-1)) has a negative

impact on international tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand. The

results imply that when D(lnRP(-1)) of Thailand increases by 1% then Chinese

tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand decreases by 1.46%. The

results of short-term dynamics indicate that D(lnRP(-2)) has a positive impact

on international tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand. The results

imply that when D(lnRP(-2)) of Thailand increases by 1% then Canadian

tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand increases by 0.59%. The

results of short-term dynamics indicate that D(lnRER(-1)) has a positive impact

on international tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand.

tourism demand in Thailand (short-term dynamics)

from :computed

Independent

Variables. Malaysia China England Germany France America Canada

α -0.503902 0.177159 0.309506** 1.203675* -0.528811** -0.608663** 0.003052

[-1.50568] [ 0.49380] [ 2.05065] [ 1.69457] [-2.01291] [-3.13838] [ 0.16009]

D(lnEXPD(-1)) -0.828076 0.110635 -0.307244 -0.308411 0.450043 0.489743 0.288242

[-1.17236] [ 0.08853] [-0.59252] [-0.29577] [ 0.58410] [ 1.32038] [ 0.84574]

D(lnEXPD(-2)) -0.556369 0.904250 -0.418149 0.396109 0.430390 0.355316 -0.494428

[-0.69160] [ 0.66984] [-0.81342] [ 0.35483] [ 0.51886] [ 0.96650] [-1.46423]

D(lnD1(-1)) 0.197669 -0.528634 0.964221 0.853267 0.321948 -0.214974 -0.349500

[ 0.28860] [-0.42086] [ 1.25351] [ 0.75856] [ 0.42000] [-0.55447] [-0.88466]

D(lnD1(-2)) 0.032269 -1.227923 0.070685 -0.700421 -0.486778 -0.873254** -0.512076*

[ 0.04553] [-0.90885] [ 0.09372] [-0.61896] [-0.58973] [-2.03963] [-1.60876]

D(lnPO(-1)) -1.263397* 0.065606 -0.261088 3.709406 3.252647 -5.394827 -1.820633

[-1.64247] [ 0.25960] [-0.32795] [ 0.32529] [ 0.51810] [-0.89653] [-0.38619]

D(lnPO(-2)) -0.547236 -0.001507 1.367009* 2.512136 1.600757 7.711938 3.713633

[-0.74783] [-0.00936] [ 1.86334] [ 0.21063] [ 0.24211] [ 1.28186] [ 0.64641]

D(lnRP(-1)) 11.94895 -1.463862** -0.004026 -0.073429 -0.387423 0.203022 -0.402430

[ 1.58516] [-2.28923] [-0.02315] [-0.15829] [-0.71947] [ 0.67736] [-1.12213]

D(lnRP(-2)) 12.40594 0.077742 0.088525 0.198464 0.577519 0.331117 0.599232*

[ 0.91885] [ 0.11450] [ 0.59344] [ 0.45751] [ 1.05318] [ 1.55740] [ 1.75046]

D(lnRER(-1)) -0.321530 -0.046788 2.305174 -0.141628 0.068781 1.239615* -0.793095

[-0.29249] [-0.07120] [ 0.70197] [-0.36247] [ 0.34376] [ 1.65458] [-0.99916]

D(lnRER(-2)) 0.553619 -0.219445 2.964084 -0.315900 0.181220 2.516507** 0.623563

[ 0.50009] [-0.32788] [ 0.88631] [-0.80100] [ 0.99065] [ 2.65153] [ 0.71973]

D(SDR(-1)) 0.007743 -0.248730 0.721391 0.100910 0.200690 0.061303* -0.090122

[ 0.01717] [-0.44762] [ 1.32857] [ 1.14271] [ 0.89539] [ 1.65205] [-1.15888]

D(SDR(-2)) -0.292970 0.143460 1.109990** 0.023297 0.054513 0.043176 0.031681

[-0.70150] [ 0.26668] [ 2.28353] [ 0.29196] [ 0.24468] [ 1.02261] [ 0.40065]

C 0.077968 0.061153 0.028771 -0.051234 -0.067775 0.030638 0.009392

[ 1.50114] [ 0.83523] [ 1.44193] [-0.53762] [-0.53545] [ 0.29972] [ 0.11661]

R-squared 0.427726 0.548354 0.893671 0.861416 0.633095 0.814481 0.922119

Adj. R-squared -0.009895 0.202978 0.787342 0.755440 0.352520 0.672614 0.862564

Sum sq. resids 0.841690 2.487204 0.118490 0.946312 1.609321 0.316707 0.341876

S.E. equation 0.222511 0.382500 0.088878 0.235935 0.307678 0.136491 0.141811

F-statistic 0.977390 1.587699 8.404763 8.128403 2.256423 5.741155 15.48330

Log likelihood 11.91103 -4.883262 42.30001 10.09504 1.864616 27.06128 25.87595

Akaike AIC 0.134773 1.218275 -1.696775 0.251933 0.782928 -0.842663 -0.766191

Schwarz SC 0.782380 1.865882 -0.956652 0.899540 1.430535 -0.195056 -0.118583

Mean dependent 0.019403 0.014946 0.027269 0.014747 -0.013304 0.012481 0.021047

S.D. dependent 0.221418 0.428446 0.192733 0.477090 0.382370 0.238547 0.382525

Figures in parenthesis are t-statistics (** = Sig. at 95%, *= Sig. at 90%).

The percent levels are 2.0 and 1.6 respectively.

The results imply that when D(lnRER(-1)) of Thailand with the America

dollar increase by 1% then American tourist spending on goods and services in

Thailand increases by 1.23%. The results of short-term dynamics indicate that

D(lnRER(-2)) has a positive impact on international tourist spending on goods

and services in Thailand. The results imply that when D(lnRER(-2)) of

Thailand with the America dollar increase by 1% then American tourist

spending on goods and services in Thailand increase by 2.51%. And finally, the

results of short-term dynamics indicate that D(SDR(-1)) has a positive impact

on international tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand. The results

imply that when the D(SDR(-1)) of Thailand with America dollar increases by

1% then American spending on goods and services in Thailand increases by

0.06%. Furthermore, the results of short-term dynamics indicate that D(SDR(-

2)) has a positive impact on international tourist spending on goods and

services in Thailand. The results imply that when D(SDR(-1)) of Thailand with

the pound sterling increases by 1% then English tourist spending on goods and

services in Thailand increases by 1.10%.

of Thailand base on VECM model (residual based diagnostic tests

on

VECM model).

From : computed

Diagnostic Test Malaysia China England Germany France America Canada

Autocorrelation

Test 40.47 35.13 35.81 40.37 37.63 38.33 33.42

LM(12) (0.27) (0.50) (0.92) (0.28) (0.39) (0.36) (0.56)

(P-value)

Normality Test

JB -Test 3.04 3.63 3.38 2.45 2.70 3.03 3.26

(P-value) (0.21) (0.16) (0.18) (0.24) (0.25) (0.21) (0.19)

Hetero

White –Test 554.56 542.50 - 552.38 555.03 554.25 550.97

(P-value) (0.39) (0.53) (0.41) (0.38) (0.39) (0.43)

correction model (See table 1.6). The models pass the Jarque-Bera normality

test, suggesting that the errors are normally distributed. There is no evidence of

autocorrelation in the disturbance of the error term (See value of L.M.-test in

the same table). The RESET test indicates that the every model is correctly

specified. The White-test suggest that the error is homoskedastic (except

England).

6. Conclusions and policy recommendations

This paper was motivated by the need for an empirical analysis of the

determinants of international tourist expenditure in Thailand from its seven

main source markets, Malaysia, China, England, Germany, France, America

and Canada. The cointegration techniques based on Johansen and Juselius

(1990) were used for an empirical analysis of determinants of international

tourist expenditure for the long-run in Thailand. And the Vector Error

Correction Mechanism (VECM) model was used for an empirical analysis of

determinants of international tourist expenditure for short-term dynamics in

Thailand. The economic variables used in this research were: expenditure of

international tourists to Thailand, the numbers of international tourists to

Thailand, the GDP of the countries of origin of international tourists, the world

price of kerosene-type jet fuel, the relative cost of Thailand with the cost of the

countries of origin of international tourists, and both the real exchange rate and

exchange rate risk of Thailand and the countries of origin of international

tourists to Thailand. Furthermore, this paper determined the order of integration

of the variables by six standard method tests for the unit root. Namely, the

ADF-Test (1979), PP-Test (1987,1988), KPSS-Test (1992), DF-GLS Test

(1996), ERS Point Optimal Test and Ng and Perron (2001).

There are four conclusions and recommendations that emerge from the

empirical analysis based on Johansen and Juselius (1990) (coefficients(β′) from

VECM model). First, a 1% increase in the number of international tourist

arrivals in Thailand (lag one period) in the long-run in the main source markets

of France and Canada leads to an increase in international tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand by 2.27% and 18.35%, respectively. Otherwise

a 1% increase in the number of international tourist arrivals in Thailand (lag

one period) in the long-run in main source markets, Malaysia, China, England

and German leads to a decrease in international tourist spending on goods and

services in Thailand by 2.04%, 1.07%, 5.07% and 2.01%, respectively. The

long-run results imply that tourists from both France and Canada like the goods

and services of Thailand much more than tourists from Malaysia, China,

England and Germany. If this can be generalized for future years, it suggests

the policy makers of Thailand should help producers in Thailand develop goods

and services for the satisfaction of international tourists, especially tourists

from Malaysia, China, England and Germany. Second, a 1% increase in income

(GDPt-1) in the long-run in the main source markets of China, England,

Germany and America leads to an increase in international tourist spending on

goods and services in Thailand by 0.97%, 6.45%, 1.96% and 1.80%,

respectively. Otherwise a 1 % increase in income (GDPt-1) in the long-run in

Canada leads to an decrease in international tourist spending on goods and

services in Thailand by 77.04%. If this can be generalized for future years, then

it suggests that the policy makers in Thailand should continue the development

of the Thai tourism industry. Third, a 1% increase in the cost of transportation

(world price of jet fuel) in the long-run leads to a reduction of spending on

goods and services in Thailand by tourists from the main source markets

(Malaysia, China, England, Germany, France and America) by 0.97%, 0.26%,

0.53%, 0.10%, 0.35% and 0.28% respectively. Otherwise a 1% increase in

transportation costs (world price of jet fuel) in the long-run leads to an increase

in spending on goods and services in Thailand by Canadian tourist by 2.43%. If

this can be generalized for future years, then it suggests that the policy makers

of Thailand should increase support for international low cost airlines or reduce

the cost for international airlines arriving in Thailand because the Thai

government can not control the price of jet fuel in future. Fourth, in the long-

run the exchange rate risk is an important determiner of international tourist

spending on goods and services and a 1% increase in the exchange rate risk of

Thailand against the currency of the major tourist markets of Malaysia, China,

England, Germany and Canada leads to a decrease in international tourist

spending on a goods and services in Thailand by 1.40%, 0.46%, 0.09%, 0.17%

and 2.49% respectively. This results is consistent with economic theory and it

suggests that the Reserve Bank of Thailand should be careful when using any

policy that impacts on Thai currency because when the Thai currency is very

both strong and risk, it not only negatively impacts on export goods and

services (Anderson and Garcia (1989), Pick (1990), Chukiat (2003)) but it also

decreases international tourist spending on goods and services in Thailand.

Bibliography

Windows and the Macintosh. California USA: Quantitative Micro

Software Irvine.

G.S. Maddala.(2002), Introduction to ECONOMETRICS Third Edition. India:

JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD.

Johansen, S and K. Juselius. (1990),“ Maximum Likelihood Estimation and

Inference on Cointegration: With Applications to the Demand for

Money”.Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, pp.169-210.

Soren Johansen .(1991), “ Estimation and Hypohtesis Testing of Co-integration

Vector Autoregresssive Models” Econometrica vol. 59, pp. 1551-1580.

Moses M. Sichei, Tewodros G. Gebreselasie and Olusegun A. Akanbi(2005).

“An Econometric Model of The Rand-Us Dollar Nominal Exchange

Rate ”. University of Pretoria working Paper 2005-14 Department of

Economics working paper series.

Sayera Youus(2005).“Exchange Market Pressure and Monetary Policy

”.Research Department, Bangladesh Bank working paper series: WP

0603.

Allison Zhou, Carl Bonham and Byron Gangnes.(2004) “ Identifying Long-run

Cointegrating Relations: An Application to the Hawaii Tourism Model

”. University of Hawaii Economic Research organization ; Research

paper No 2004/10.

Heng Chen, Bento J. Lobo and Wing-Keung Wong(2006). “Links between the

Indian, U.S. and Chinese stock markets”. Department of Economics,

National University of Singapore, working paper No.2003/3.

T.K. Jayaraman and Bert D.Ward(2003). “ Is Money multiplier relevant in

small, open economy empirical evidence from Fiji ”. Department of

Economics, University of the south pacific working paper No.2003/3.

Philipkostov and Johnlingard(2004). “ Regime-Switching Vector Error

Correction Model(VECM) analysis of U.K. meat Consumption ”.

Department of Agricultural and Food Economics, Queen’s University

Belfast, working paper.2004/1

Virender Kaul (2001). Tourism AND The Economy. HAR-ANAND

PUBLICATIONS PVT LTD D-9, Anand Niketan, New Delhi-110021.

Pran Seth (2005). Successful Tourism Management Fundamental of tourism.

Sterling Publishers Private Limited India.

Derick Boyd and Ron Smith (2003) . “ Monetary Policy, Central Banks and

Economic Performance in the Caribbean ”. Paper prepared for xxxv

annual Caribbean centre for monetary studies Conference, 24-28

Nov.2003.

Sena Eken, Abdourahmane Sarr, Jacques Bouhga and Jerome Vandenbussche

(2005). “ Morocco : Selected Issues ”. International Monetary Fund,

IMF Country Report No. 05/419.

Walter Engert and Scott Hendry (1998). “ Forecasting inflation with the M1-

VECM part two ”. Bank of Canada, working paper 98-6.

Hendry, D.F., (1995). “ Long-Run Demand for M1 ”. Bank of Canada working

paper 95-11.

Damodar N.Gujarati.(1995), Basic Econometrics Third Edition. Singapore:

McGRAW-HILL INTERNAIONAL EDITIONS Economics series.

Pesaran, M. H. and B. Pesaran.(1997), Working with Micorfit 4.0 : Interactive

Econometric Analysis, Oxford University Press .

Ellsworth.(2004), EViews User Guide version 5.1 Econometric Views for

Windows and the Macintosh. California USA: Quantitative

Micro Software Irvine.

G.S. Maddala.(2002), Introduction to ECONOMETRICS Third Edition. India :

JOHN WILEY & SONS, LTD.

William H. Greene.(2005) Econometric Analysis Fifth Edition. India : Pearson

Education,Inc.

Dickey, D.A., and Fuller, W.A .(1979), “ Distribution for the Estimates for

Auto Regressive Time series with a Unit Root .”, Journal of the

American Statistical Association, 74,pp. 427-431.

Johansen, S and K. Juselius. (1990),“ Maximum Likelihood Estimation and

Inference on Cointegration: With Applications to the Demand

for Money”.Oxford Bulletin of Economics and

Statistics, 52, pp.169-210.

Soren Johansen .(1991), “ Estimation and Hypohtesis Testing of Co-

integration Vector Autoregresssive Models” Econometrica

vol. 59, pp. 1551-1580.

Kwiatkowski, D.,Phillips, P.C.B.,Schmidt, P. and Shin, Y.(1992), “Testing

the Null Hypothesis of Stationarity against the Alternative of a

Unit Root : How sure are we that the Economics Time Series

Have a Unit Root ?. ”Journal of Econometrics, 54, pp.159-175.

Graham Elliott, Thomas J. Rothenberg, and James H. Stock.(1996), “ Efficient

Tests for an Autoregressive Unit Root.” Econometrica, 64, 4,

pp. 813-836.

Mary Walsh.(1996), “Demand analysis in Irish tourism .”, Journal of the

Statistical and Social Inquiry Society of Ireland,Vol.

XXVII,Part IV.

Mackinnon, J.G.(1996), “ Numerical Distribution Function for Unit Root and

Cointegration Tests . ” Journal of Applied Econometrics,11,

pp. 601-618.

Lim, C.(1997), “ An Econometric Classification and Review of International

Tourism Demand Models.” Tourism Economics, 3(1),

pp.69-81.

Lim C, McAleer M.(2000), “ A seasonal Analysis of Asia Tourist Arrivals to

Australia.” Applied Economics 32,pp.499-509 .

Ng, S., Perron, P.,(2001), “Lag Length Selection and Construction of Unit

Root Test with Good size and Power. ” Econometrics, 69,

pp.1519-1544.

Christine Lim and Michael McAleer.(2001), “ Modelling the determinants of

international tourism demand to Australia .” The Institute of

Social and Economic Research Osaka University,Discussion

Paper No. 532.

Lim C, McAleer M.(2001), “ Cointegration Analysis of Quarterly Tourism

Demand by Hong Kong and Singapore for Australia .”

Applied Economics 33,pp.1599-1619

Wietze Lise and Richard S. J. Tol.(2002) “Impact of climate on tourist

demand.” Climatic Change,55:pp 429-449.

Engle, R.F (2002), “ Dynamic conditional correlation: A new simple class of

multivariate GARCH models”, Journal of Business and Economic

statistics,20,pp.339-350.

Narayan, P.K.(2002), “ A Tourism Demand Model for Fiji, 1970-2000.”

Pacific Economic Bulletin, Volume 17, Number 2,pp.103-116.

Christine Lim and Michael McAleer. (2003), “ Modelling International Travel

Demand from Singapore to Australia .” Griffith University

and University of Western Australia, Discussion Paper.

Elliott .G .and M. Jansson .(2003), “Testing for Unit Roots with Stationary Co-

variates ” Journal of econometrics, 64, pp. 813-836.

George Kapetanios .(2003), “ a Note on Joint Estimation of Common Cycles

and Common Trends in Nonstationary Multivariate System.”

Queen Mary, University of London working paper No. 483.

Chukiat Chaiboonsri (2003),“ Analysis seek for equilibrium of long-run

relationship and the short-run relationship of factors affecting

the agricultural export of Thailand .” LSDC, Research paper

series 1.

Bazoumana Ouattara,(2004), “ Modelling the Long Run Determinants of

Private Investment in Senegal.” University of Nottingham Credit

Research paper No. 04/05.

Resian Katafono and Aruna Gounder.(2004), “ Modelling tourism demand in

Fiji.” Economics Department Reserve Bank of Fiji,

Working Paper No 1.

Pius Odunga and Henk Folmer (2004). “ Profiling tourists for balanced

Utilization of Tourism-Based Resources in Kenya”, NRM-

Natural Resources Management, Department of tourism, Moi

University.

Paresh Kumar Narayan.(2004). “ Fiji ’s tourism demand: the ARDL approach

to cointegration .” Tourism Economics,Vol10, No2, pp 193-206.

Chukiat Chaiboonsri.(2005), “Analysis of factors affecting the demand of Thai

wine by international tourists .” LSDC, Research

paper series 2.

Joao Ricardo Faria and Andre Varella Mollick .(2005), “ Is there a long-run

relationship between Tobin ’ s q and unemployment ?.” The

University of Texas Pan American working paper series,11.

PDF created with pdfFactory Pro trial version www.pdffactory.com

- time seriesЗагружено:David James
- Mk0004 Solved AssignmentЗагружено:Vijay Kumar
- Do przeczytania exam 3 IVaRЗагружено:Dominika Molenda
- interactionalqualityFenstermacherЗагружено:GeorgetownELP
- INVESTIGATING THE ECONOMIC IMPACT OF IMMIGRATION ON THE HOST COUNTRY: THE CASE OF NORWAYЗагружено:Elisha Lau
- Phillips CurveЗагружено:Rphdd
- Lecture 08 - Non Parametric SE-NiceЗагружено:Ashwini Nagesh
- Project MRЗагружено:sri1203
- A Comprehensive Relationship between Job Satisfaction and Turnover Intension of Private Commercial Bank Employees’ in BangladeshЗагружено:Ijsrnet Editorial
- 2012 Year End Summary of the Las Vegas Residential MarketЗагружено:John McClelland
- Unit-3[1].pdfЗагружено:Ahmed Salih
- 6-2002CoorayЗагружено:Mark Navene Francis
- Berry-Esseen Theorems for Quadratic Forms of Gaussian Stationary ProcessesЗагружено:mathtanja
- 02 WholeЗагружено:YeasminAkter
- 24-25Загружено:dr_kbsingh
- 51-310-1-PBЗагружено:Sharoze Mushtaq Murad
- DSP PracticalЗагружено:Abhishek Jain
- Section AЗагружено:Divyen Patel
- Econometric Projek LithemЗагружено:Wai Leong Edward Low
- Correlation Models for Shadow Fading SimulationЗагружено:Karthik Mohan K
- UntitledЗагружено:api-292954931
- Proposal of a Bio-speckle descriptor for computing machine take decisionsЗагружено:Fabio Vega
- 11 2014 January.pdfЗагружено:Lual Malueth Kucdit
- Health Human Capital and Economic DevelopmentЗагружено:Tariq Mahmnood Ali
- CFA 2 NotesЗагружено:EdmundSiau
- Evidence From IndiaЗагружено:BorisStephenSeguraMeza
- Reliability of Two Methods for Identifying the Postural Phase of Gait Initiation in Healthy and Post-stroke SubjectsЗагружено:barros6
- behavioural financeЗагружено:dkmaurya456
- Abstract exampleЗагружено:lolo
- DKE53_ch2.pdfЗагружено:Vinoth Nagaraj

- A Structural Equation Model_ Thailand's Intern Atonal Tourism Demand for Tourist Destination E-journal2008 1Загружено:chukiat
- A Structural Equation Model_ India 's Intern Atonal Tourism Demand for Tourist Destination E-journal2008 1Загружено:chukiat
- A Panel Unit Root and Panel Cointegration Test of the Modeling International Tourism Demand in India E-journal 2008 1Загружено:chukiat
- Time Series Forecasting International Tourism Arrival to Thailand 2006-2010 E-research IMFЗагружено:chukiat
- Thailand’s International Tourism Demand the ARDL Approach to Cointegration_e-research_IMFЗагружено:chukiat
- Modelling International Tourism Demand in Thailand E-research IMF PublishedЗагружено:chukiat

- contoh abstrak pada skripsi bahasa inggris dengan judul diaryЗагружено:Zones Randy Simatupang
- Basic Principles of GMЗагружено:Widiastuti Nur Farida
- Construction Materials Testing EquipmentЗагружено:Cooper Technology
- Peter Chomicki - Resume - Process Engineer.pdfЗагружено:Anonymous WJsC2ZkI4
- HAP45 ManualЗагружено:zampacaanas
- java lab.pdfЗагружено:Devesh Pandey
- Plant Design PageЗагружено:Tina Pie
- Conrad, Medicalization and ChidlbirthЗагружено:Diana Gregorová
- FInal Draft of the New Sets of Guidelines for the Registration of Medical Device Products, Edited 19June2014Загружено:Zainol Hafiz
- [D.F. Boesch, N.N. Rabalais] Long-term Environment(B-ok.org)Загружено:Quyền Lê
- 3.Commissioning of AN5116-06A Data Service (OLT)Загружено:Ravi Chaurasia
- How to Register and Subscribe a System to the Red Hat Customer Portal Using Red Hat Subscription-Manager - Red Hat Customer PortalЗагружено:Sunil Cruse
- Technical Manual_Modular SCREW ChillerЗагружено:Cesar Orlando Barria Vera
- The Objective Reasoning and The Convincing IslamЗагружено:api-3774644
- ANALYSIS OF ORGANIZATION COMMITMENT AND COMPETENCE TO JOB SATISFACTION AND ORGANIZATIONAL PERFORMANCE AT BEKASI CITY GOVERNMENT.Загружено:IJAR Journal
- Shifting Readership in Journalistic TranslationЗагружено:lixiaoxiu
- Fuzzy Logic and Hydrological ModelingЗагружено:jonasrichelieu
- PllЗагружено:api-3806773
- Civic Welfare Training ServiceЗагружено:Sam Reign
- The Running and Maintenance of Marine Machinery - J. Cowley.pdfЗагружено:SGk
- Manual Control Yuhai 1000MdbЗагружено:Hubert Vásquez Cueva
- Lecture on ETC and OPЗагружено:Sahir Sajad
- A “CONVERSATION” WITH RICHARD RORTYЗагружено:derory
- Total Physical ResponseЗагружено:Lalila Ziela
- CPU, GPU, TPU-Making Chips Smarter 2017-CACMЗагружено:Abhishek Dixit
- SNiP ChangesЗагружено:zzzsszzz666666669999
- Agent Manual 12.6.13Загружено:jlbonomini
- Cole e Durham_ Globalization and the Temporality of Children and YouthЗагружено:Chirley Mendes
- Tomahawk ManualЗагружено:Eric Bernales
- Kayfa Ta - Sternberg Press - January 2019Загружено:Artdata

## Гораздо больше, чем просто документы.

Откройте для себя все, что может предложить Scribd, включая книги и аудиокниги от крупных издательств.

Отменить можно в любой момент.