ArticlePloS one2022
Moderation analysis of exchange rate, tourism and economic growth in Asia.
Article in PloS one, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This study brings novelty to the tourism literature by re-examining the role of exchange rate in the tourism-growth nexus. It differs from previous tourism-led growth narrative to probe whether tourism exerts a positive effect on economic growth when the exchange rate is accounted for. Using a moderation modelling framework, instrumental variables general method of moments (IV-GMM) and quantile regression techniques in addition to real per capita GDP, tourism receipts and exchange rate, the study engages data on 44 Asian countries from 2010 to 2019. Results from the IV-GMM show that: (1) tourism exerts a positive effect on growth; (2) exchange rate depreciation hampers growth; (3) the interaction effect is positive but statistically not significant; and (4) results from EAP and SA samples are mixed. For the most part, constructive evidence from the quantile regression techniques reveals that the impact of tourism and exchange is significant at lower quantiles of 0.25 and 0.50 while the interaction effect is negative and statistically significant only for the SA sample. These are new contributions to the literature and policy recommendations are discussed.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.