




































Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

American Finance & Banking Review; Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
ISSN 2576-1226    E-ISSN 2576-1234 

Published by Centre for Research on Islamic Banking & Finance and Business, USA 
 

     17 
 

 

Nigeria’s Fiscal Performance: Exploring the Role of Exchange Rate 
 

 
 

Fisayo Fagbemi 
Independent Researcher, Nigeria 
E-mail: fisay4real@yahoo.com 

 
Olufemi Solomon Olatunde 

Graduate student of the Department of Economics 
Obafemi Awolowo University, Ile-Ife, Nigeria 

E-mail: olufemi.olatunde@gmail.com 
 
 
 
Abstract 
The paper offers empirical justifications for the instrumentality of external sector in influencing the fiscal position of a country 
through the exchange rate. In the study, ARDL bounds test approach to cointegration analysis is adopted to examine the long 
run and short run relationship between exchange rate and fiscal performance in Nigeria. The validity of the findings is based on 
time series data between 1981 and 2017. The emerging evidence reveals that the exchange rate movement has a substantial 
influence on the fiscal performance, as there exists a significant adverse relationship between exchange rate and fiscal deficit in 
the long run as well as in the short run, while the association between exchange rate and public debt is found to be significantly 
positive in both periods. Empirical elucidations posit that an appreciation of the exchange rate could lead to decreasing fiscal 
deficits. However, the exchange rate appreciation might not induce a reduction in public debt, as it could stimulate demand for 
loanable funds by the government, although such effect could be mitigated through strategic investment policy and subsidized 
funding schemes to aid domestic production. Given that fiscal performance is considerably driven or constrained by the exchange 
rate movement, the study suggests that developing a strategic framework for ensuring a realistic exchange rate and the mitigation 
of regular fluctuations or correcting inappropriate exchange rate is crucial. 
 
Keywords: Exchange rate, Fiscal deficit, Public debt, Fiscal performance, ARDL, Nigeria.  
 
1. Introduction 
Over the years, the significant role of the exchange rate in any economy has been pretty uniform. Many economic analysts widely 
emphasize that macroeconomic aggregates (such as inflation rate, fiscal deficits and economic growth) often trend with the 
exchange rate movement (Bacha, 1990; Miteza, 2006; Sek, Ooi, & Ismail, 2012). Exchange rate, which is the price of the 
domestic currency in relation to foreign currencies, directly influences domestic price level, trading activities, allocation of 
resources, real income and investment decision. While an increasing divergence in exchange rates can create “a complex scheme  
of implicit subsidies and distorting national accounting,” ensuring the stability of the exchange rates is critical for attaining 
substantial improvements in economic performance (Premium Times, 2018). The formidable bedrock of all macroeconomic 
variables is keeping the exchange rates stable. Hence, in most developing countries, including Nigeria, one of the most central 
measures of growth enhancement is the drive (policy initiatives) towards mitigating regular exchange rate fluctuations or 
correcting for its inappropriateness. 

Following the weak state of Nigeria’s economy between 1982 and 1985, various forms of floating regimes have been 
adopted since the introduction of the Structural Adjustment Programme (SAP) in 1986. Compared to the fixed/pegged regimes 
of 1960s to mid-1980s, floating exchange rate has been viewed to have a considerable salutary influence due to the 
responsiveness of the rates to the foreign exchange market (Nwankwo, 1980). The persistent depreciation and instability of the 
Naira exchange rate (Figure 1) necessitated the perennial efforts by the monetary authorities to stipulate the standard 
requirements for the economic and political conditions underpinning the structural evolution of the economy. Despite these 
policy stances, exchange rates have been frequently depreciating and unstable vis-à-vis the fledgling fiscal state, which has 
remained unabated. For instance, although slightly better than 2017 (2.8 %), Nigeria's consolidated fiscal balance recorded a 
deficit equal to 2.7 % of its nominal GDP in Dec 2018, while Nigeria's National Government Debt stood at 63.3 billion 
(USD) in Mar 2018 (CEIC, 2018).  



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

18 
                         
 

 
 

Figure 1. Trend of Monthly Average Official Exchange Rate of the Naira and Fiscal deficit (% of GDP) 
 

Source: Authors’ estimates based on data from Central Bank of Nigeria (CBN), 2018. 
 

In 2017, Nigeria’s fiscal deficit was put at 4.3%. This deteriorating fiscal position has been mainly ascribed to the 
increased Eurobond issuances which has led to the growth in the public debt stock between the first half of 2017 and the first 
half of 2018 (Proshare, 2018). Accordingly, ensuing arguments have pointed to the substantial role exchange rate plays in most 
developing economies, as some scholars stressed that there exists a relationship between the exchange rate movements and 
macroeconomic aggregates (Hausmann, Pritchett, & Rodrik, 2005; Rodrik, 2008). However, most of these studies center on the 
effect of exchange rate on economic growth, in spite of its potential influence on fiscal performance. Most studies on Nigeria 
also follow the same direction, as they largely espouse to the significance of floating exchange rate in the quest for sustainable 
growth (Akinlo & Odusola, 2003; Asher, 2012; Obansa, Okoroafor, Aluko, & Millicent, 2013). Limited consideration given to 
the relationship between exchange rate and public sector performance has given rise to the growing uncertainty and agitation on 
the tenability of any veritable link between these economic indicators regarding Nigeria. In a nutshell, addressing the question as 
to whether Nigerian fiscal performance is considerably driven or constrained by the exchange rate movement is critical for 
ascertaining the possibility of fiscal modification through such effect.       

The importance of sufficient empirical evidence on this crucial fiscal issue cannot be overemphasized. Hence, assessing 
the effect of exchange rate on fiscal performance exclusively in Nigeria’s context is paramount to identify whether it substantially 
influences the country’s fiscal position, which has been profoundly fundamental in public discourse. As a consequence, the 
study’s main objective is to examine the long –run and short run relationship between exchange rate and fiscal deficits in Nigeria 
using auto-regressive distributed lag (ARDL) bounds test approach to cointegration analysis with a view to offering a reasonable 
framework for ensuring a realistic exchange rate that could enhance fiscal sustainability.  

The rest of the paper is sectioned as follows: Section two centers on theoretical and empirical review. Section three 
deals with methodology. Section four contains the presentation and discussion of results, while the last section (five) gives  the 
concluding remarks.         
 
2. Literature Review 
2.1Theoretical Discussion 
Elucidations on the interplay between external sector and internal economic performance are based on divergent interrelated 
theories. For instance, Portfolio crowding –out hypothesis underscores the relationship between exchange rate and fiscal 
performance. This theory stresses that a huge budget deficit (public debt) incurred by the government will have direct effect on 
assets prices, and in turn lowers the level of aggregate demand in the economy (Friedman, 1978). On the other hand, in a closed 

-50

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

Fiscal deficit (% of GDP) Monthly Average Official Exchange Rate of the Naira



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

19 
                         
 

economy, this hypothesis could mean a significant positive association between budget deficits and real interest rates. In Fleming 
(1962); Mundell (1961) studies, both assert that in a flexible exchange rate regime system, a fiscal policy framework funded 
through a huge debt obligation is completely crowded-out in an open economy operating under static exchange rate expectation 
that is usually accompanied with fixed asset prices. In contrast, following Barro (1974), the taxpayers’ expectation will usually 
alter the level of savings. This implies that if the taxpayers perceive that current deficits ought to be paid through future taxes, 
their savings will be increased by an amount equal to the current value of next generation (future) tax liabilities due to present 
deficits1. In view of the branch linked to political issues, it is posited that given the inflationary implication for the fiscal 
authority, fiscal discipline can be better promoted by flexible regimes (Tornell & Velasco, 1994). The inter-temporal 
distribution of the costs associated with regimes often accounts for the difference in fiscal behavior.  

Following the Balance of Payments restrained growth model, Thirlwall (1979) opines that the growth rate of any 
economy is constrained by the balance of Payments, as no country can grow faster than the consistent level of the Balance of 
Payments equilibrium, unless it can fund ever-increasing deficits, which is commonly perceived to be somewhat difficult. The 
model is anchored on the assumption that the long-term effect of export performance and import behavior on the economy 
shapes growth rate. Corroborating this assertion, Ferreira, Canuto, and Lima (2003) argue that the main components of 
aggregate demand are export growth and investment growth in import substitution, which have a positive influence on the 
growth of GDP, as well as to neutralize Balance of Payments constraints, The relevance of this model is linked to the role of  
export performance and import level in Balance of Payments and exchange rates. Hence, the significant effect on the economy, 
and in particular macroeconomic stability. However, the antagonist of the theory states that it fails to take into account the fiscal 
gap, savings-investment gap and monetary implication of the Balance of Payments (Darku, 2013).     

In another way, Calvo, Izquierdo, and Talvi (2003) posit that heavily dollarized countries in terms of liabilities can be 
wrecked by the disturbances associated with abrupt stops that mostly accompanied by a substantial rise in the real exchange rate. 
They argue that this could turn seemingly sustainable fiscal and corporate sector states into unsustainable positions. Also, 
according to Hausmann and Panizza (2003), balance sheets can be exposed to grave risks connected with a positive feedback 
between large real exchange rate depreciations and perceptions of public debt or deficits by the exchange rate mismatches linked 
with liability dollarization. On the contrary, the crux of the argument is that explicit government liabilities have been centered on 
the currency composition. The point of emphasis is on the increasing expected fiscal vulnerability of the state (country) 
following the presence of external currency denominated liabilities that gives rise to the cost of debt service or an adverse real 
shock resulting to a real depreciation.  

 
2.2 Empirical Evidence 
In the wake of fledgling fiscal state in most developing economies, there has been burgeoning interest in identifying the 
relationship between exchange rate and fiscal performance in countries. Many scholars have evaluated the cause of fiscal 
outcomes in diverse ways, yet probable inconsistencies in policy measures across economies. Empirical evidence indicates that 
external debt and exchange rate crises are strongly related in emerging economies (Guyot, Lagoarde-Segot, & Neaime, 2014; 
Neaime & Gaysset, 2017; Neaime, Gaysset, & Badra, 2018). These studies mainly center on the impact of public debt on 
exchange rate. On the other hand, expositions on the link between fiscal deficit and external sector are mixed. In the work of 
Piersanti (2000) using the Granger-Sims causality technique, while focusing on seventeen OECD countries over the period 
1970-1997, indicates that external sector performance is adversely related with budget deficits. Studies that also support this line 
of argument are; Al-Khedair (1996); Islam (1998). However, based on the sample of developing countries with data between 
1950 and 1994, Khalid and Teo (1999), as measured by the current account deficit, establish that no relationship exists between 
fiscal deficit and external sector performance. Bachman (1992) findings are also consistent with this view. Further evidence on 
this mechanism remains unsettled (Kim & Roubini, 2008; Ravn, Schmitt-Grohé, & Uribe, 2012). 

The effect of real exchange rate on the aggregate output has been extensively explored. Mitchell and Pentecost (2001) 
using selected transition economies in the Central or Eastern European countries reveal that devaluations are contractionary in 
the long run as well as in the short run, while real appreciation could have a positive, adverse or neutral effect on output in 
different economies in the long run. In another study, devaluations are viewed to be contractionary in the long run (Miteza, 
2006). On the contrary, Bahmani-Oskooee and Kutan (2008) posit that the effect of real depreciation on output may be 
contractionary, expansionary or neutral in different countries in the short run whereas it has no long-term effect on the level of 
output. Bahmani-Oskooee and Miteza (2003) stress that the net effect of real depreciation on aggregate output is somewhat 
uncertain depending on the countries under study, sample periods, methodology employed, model specifications, and other 
factors. With the adoption of a model wherein the relationship of foreign public debt with budget deficit, current account 
deficit and exchange rate depreciation is empirically explored for Debt Trap Countries (DTC) and Non Debt Trap Countries 

                                                             
1 In the author’s further study, the underlying literature draws from the Barro (1990) model, in essence, the optimal size of the State is determined by Barro such 
that public spending that maximizes the rate of economic growth. The issue of budget deficit allocated to public expenditure is not taken into account in the 
simple growth model. Thus, it is intuitively crucial to propose a model that incorporates foreign sector destined to enhance fiscal performance. 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

20 
                         
 

(NDTC) of Asian pacific development countries, Alam and Taib (2013) reveal that external public debt are positively related 
with these variables. Nonetheless, in DTC and NDTC, the strength of the relationship varies. These studies focus on economies 
that have attributes that could be differed from Nigerian features. Thus, their findings might not be tenable in the country’s 
context.  

Working on the effect of exchange rate on debt, debt services and public debt management in Thailand, 
Patrawimolporn (2007), with the use of simple differentiation approach, shows that exchange rate volatility affects debt services. 
The author argument is premised on the assumption that a significant amount of debt services is saved when the exchange rate is 
adjusted. Regarding Nigeria, Ijeoma (2013), using linear regression model assesses the effect of debt variables (external debt 
stock and external debt service payment) on selected macroeconomic variables, including gross domestic product and gross 
capital formation. Findings confirm a significant association between Nigerian debt service payment and gross fixed capital 
formation, while exchange rate fluctuations have an influence on external debt shock, external debt service payment and 
economic growth.  By and large, most studies on internal – external economic performance nexus center on the effect of fiscal 
policy shocks or public spending on real exchange rates and the trade balance. Basically, they focus on the response of the real 
exchange rate to government spending (Monacelli & Perotti, 2010; Kim, 2015; Auerbach & Gorodnichenko, 2016).  

More specifically, Ubok-udom (1999) examines the issues surrounding the implementation of SAP in Nigeria 
between 1971 and 1995. The author posits that the efficacy of currency depreciation in producing desirable impacts is restricted 
by the peculiar features of Nigeria’s economy. In another study, David, Umeh and Ameh (2010) assess the effect of exchange 
rate fluctuations on Nigerian manufacturing industry using multiple regression technique.  They find an adverse correlation 
between exchange rate volatility and manufacturing sector performance. Other studies on Nigeria show that exchange rate has a 
strong influence on Gross Domestic Product (GDP) (Asher, 2012; Azeez, Kolapo & Ajayi, 2012; Obansa et al., 2013). 
However, with the use of error correction model (ECM), Adebiyi and Dauda (2009) argue that trade liberalization does not 
promote the growth of the industrial sector in Nigeria, neither enhances the stability of the exchange rate market over the period 
of 1970 to 2006. Also, Lawal, Atunde, Ahmed, and Asaleye. (2016) using the Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) indicate 
that exchange rate fluctuations have no effect on economic growth in the long run between 2003 and 2013. In light of these 
findings, systematic analysis on the effect of exchange rate on fiscal performance is limited in the context of Nigeria. Thus, this 
study is mainly driven by the scarcely reported empirical evidence coupled with the significance of offering comprehensive 
analysis essential for broadening the literature. 
 
3. Data and Methodology 
3.1 Data 
Underscoring the significance of the study’s objective, time series data spanning through 1981 to 2017 are employed. The 
choice of scope is basically shaped by the drive to cover the floating exchange rate regimes in Nigeria. In the study, two fiscal 
indicators (as dependent variables) are used: fiscal deficit (% of GDP) and public debt (% of GDP). While fiscal deficit is 
defined as the excess of public spending over fiscal revenue, public debt represents the ratio of a country’s public debt to its gross 
domestic product (GDP). Other variables (explanatory variables) used include: exchange rate, which is defined as the price of the 
domestic currency in relation to foreign currencies (in particular N/US$1.00); inflation rate, consumer prices (annual %), trade 
openness (the sum of exports and imports of goods and services measured as a share of GDP); and nominal GDP which 
represents the economic growth. Stemming from theoretical stance, in the process of linking exchange rate to fiscal performance , 
the inclusion of economic growth, inflation and trade openness are central (Thirlwall,1979; Tornell & Velasco, 1994; Miteza, 
2006). The data for the study were obtained from Central Bank of Nigeria and National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) Statistical 
Bulletin (2018). 
  
3.2 Methodology  
Following the work of Bacha (1990); Mwega, Mwangi, and Olewe-Ochilo (1994) on the theoretical link between 
macroeconomic and fiscal variables, the functional relationship between exchange rate and fiscal performance is specified as: 
 

 𝑍𝑡 = 𝑓(𝐸𝑋𝐻𝑡, 𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡, 𝐼𝑁𝐹𝑡,𝑇𝑅𝑃𝑡)                                                                                                                                       (1) 

 
Z represents fiscal performance (fiscal deficits and public debt) where t is the time period. EXH indicates the exchange 

rate. Economic growth is represented by GDP.  INF is defined as the inflation, while trade openness is given as TRP.  
With a view to avoid the problem of reverse causality and non-stationarity of variables, Autoregressive Distributed Lag 

(ARDL) model which is a dynamic framework is adopted. The key significance of this approach is that it can simultaneously 
account for long run and short run relationship within the same framework irrespective of  the order of integration of the 
variables, that is, whether there is combination of I(1) and I(0) or variables are I(1) or I(0). Moreover, the adoption of ARDL 
technique is influenced by its advantage over other estimation methods such as Engle and Granger (1987); Johansen and Juselius 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

21 
                         
 

(1990); Johansen (1991); Gregory and Hansen (1996) that are mainly applicable when the variables in the model are of the 
same order of integration, besides their requirement for large data size for ensuring the validity and robustness of results. Overall, 
ARDL procedure is suitable for small sample size, which implies that it can circumvent the problem of biasness that often arises 
from small sample size (Pesaran & Shin, 1997; Narayan, 2005). Hence, the ARDL model for the study is stated as: 
 

∆𝑙𝑛𝑍𝑡 =  𝛿𝑜 + ∑ 𝛿1

𝑝

𝑖=1

∆𝑙𝑛𝑍𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿2

𝑝

𝑖=0

∆𝐸𝑋𝐻𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿3∆𝑙𝑛

𝑝

𝑖=0

𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿4

𝑝

𝑖=0

∆𝐼𝑁𝐹𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿5

𝑝

𝑖=0

∆𝑙𝑛𝑇𝑅𝑃𝑡−𝑖

+  𝜃1𝑙𝑛𝑍𝑡−1 + 𝜃2𝐸𝑋𝐻𝑡−1 + 𝜃3𝑙𝑛𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−1 + 𝜃4𝐼𝑁𝐹𝑡−1 𝜃5𝑙𝑛 𝑇𝑅𝑃𝑡−1 + 𝜇𝑡                                 (2) 
 

The log of the variables is represented by 𝑙𝑛. 𝜇 is the white noise error while ∆ is defined as the difference operator.   
  

The cointegration relationship between the dependent variable (𝑍) and the explanatory variables can be traced by 

placing restriction on all estimated parameters of lagged level variables to be equal to zero. That is, null hypothesis; 𝐻𝑜 : 𝜃𝑖 = 0 

(where 𝑖 = 1, 2, ……., 5), against the alternative hypothesis: 𝐻1: 𝜃𝑖 ≠ 0. In this case, the null hypothesis implies that there is 
no long run relationship among the variables, whereas the alternative hypothesis states that there is existence of long run 
relationship among the variables. 

Decision rule: if the computed F – statistics is less than lower bound critical value, we do not reject the null hypothesis 
of no integration. But the null hypothesis is rejected, if computed F – statistics is greater than upper bound critical value; 
indicating that steady state equilibrium is said to exist among the estimated variables. However, if the computed value falls 
within the bound, the decision will be termed inconclusive. When there is presence of long run relationship among the variables, 
error correction representation is established (Pesaran, Shin, & Smith, 2001). Hence, the Eq. (2) in the ARDL form of the error 
correction model can be stated as:  

∆𝑙𝑛𝑍𝑡 =  𝛿𝑜 + ∑ 𝛿1

𝑝

𝑖=1

∆𝑙𝑛𝑍𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿2

𝑝

𝑖=0

∆𝐸𝑋𝐻𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿3∆𝑙𝑛

𝑝

𝑖=0

𝐺𝐷𝑃𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿4

𝑝

𝑖=0

∆𝐼𝑁𝐹𝑡−𝑖 + ∑ 𝛿5

𝑝

𝑖=0

∆𝑙𝑛𝑇𝑅𝑃𝑡−𝑖

+ 𝛾𝐸𝑅𝑡−1 +  𝜇𝑡                                                                                                                                     (3) 

Where 𝐸𝑅  represents the residuals that obtained from estimated Eq. (2), while 𝛾 is the speed of adjustment parameter. 

The parameter of error correction term (𝐸𝑅) in the model, after a short-run shock, implies the speed of adjustment back to 
long-run equilibrium.  
 
4. Empirical Results and Discussion 
It is worth mentioning that both Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and Phillip Peron (PP) are applied to ascertain the level of 
stationarity of the series. In Table 1, the results presented reveal that none of the estimated variables is found to be 1(2) or 
above. The order of integration is confirmed to be I (0) and I (1). This implies that Autoregressive Distributed Lag (ARDL) 
model is mostly applicable in this study. Thus, the computed F-statistic, based on Pesaran et al. (2001), is compared with upper 
and lower critical bounds as presented in Table 2. Accordingly, the null hypothesis of no cointegration with clear specification 
was rejected at 1% significant level in both models — (i) & (ii). The stability of the models is tested through Cumulative Sum 
of Recursive Residuals (CUSUM) and Cumulative Sum of Squares of Recursive Residuals (CUSUMSQ). In Figure 2, the test 
establishes that in each model, the ARDL model parameters are stable, as CUSUM and CUSUMSQ lie within the critical 
boundaries.  Other tests (diagnostic tests) were also checked for in order to ensure that the results obtained are valid and robust. 
In the study, model (i) represents the inclusion of fiscal deficit as fiscal performance indicator, whereas model (ii) is taken for 
public debt.         
 

Table 1. Augmented Dickey Fuller (ADF) and Phillips-Perron (PP) unit root test results 
 

Variable Augmented Dickey Fuller Phillips-Perron 

 Level First difference Level First difference 

Fiscal deficit -2.92 (0)* -3.38 (2)** -
2.99** 

-8.26*** 

Public debt -1.22 (1) -4.54 (0)*** -1.62 -4.54** 

Exchange rate 1.28 (1) -3.30 (0)** 1.83 -3.30** 

GDP -0.79 (0) -3.15 (0)** -0.64 -3.07** 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

22 
                         
 

Inflation -2.85 (0)* -3.71 (3)** -2.73 -9.40*** 

Trade openness -2.06 (2) -6.19 (0)*** -1.26 -6.23*** 

     ***, **, & * indicates the level of significance at 1%, 5% & 10% respectively. Figures in bracket  
represent lag length selected by AIC criterion. The PP length was selected by Newey-West Band Width. 
 

Table 2. Bounds F-tests for cointegration relationship 
 

Model F-
statistics 

Level of Significance Lower critical value 
 

Upper critical value 

   Asymptotic 
(n =1000) 

Finite 
Sample (n = 
35) 

Asymptotic (n 
=1000) 

Finite 
Sample (n 
= 35) 

 Model (i) 
(2, 2, 1, 0, 4) 

8.12*** 1% 
5% 
10% 

3.74 
2.86 
2.45 

4.59 
3.28 
2.70 

5.06 
4.01 
3.52 

6.37 
4.63 
3.90 Model (ii) 

(4, 4, 1, 3, 4) 
12.95*** 

*** represents statistical significance at 1% level. 
 
Beginning with the main variable of interest, in Table 3, exchange rate is statistically significant and adversely related to 

fiscal deficits, suggesting that exchange rate has a strong influence on fiscal performance. The adverse relationship between 
exchange rate and fiscal deficits could mean that an appreciation of the domestic currency against the foreign currencies would 
lead to decreasing fiscal deficits, and thus strengthens the fiscal position in the long run. This relationship holds in the short run 
as well in the same model (i). The empirical postulation that macroeconomic aggregates (including fiscal performance) often 
trend with exchange rate movement is consolidated by these findings (Bacha, 1990; Sek et al., 2012). On the other hand, an 
appreciation of the exchange rate may not lead to a reduction in public debt, as exchange rate is found to be positively and 
significantly associated with public debt in the long run as well in the short run in model (ii). A plausible explanation for these 
findings is that when the exchange rate appreciates, it will cause the demand for the country’s produce (exports) in abroad to fall 
as they become more expensive in foreign countries. This could lead to a decrease in fiscal revenue. Hence, the government 
would need to borrow more to run its budget, which might turn seemingly sustainable fiscal and corporate sector states into 
unsustainable positions.  In contrast, a weaker exchange rate may cause the demand for loanable funds to reduce. These 
expositions are in line with the assertion of Calvo et al. (2003); Hausmann and Panizza (2003).  Regarding the effect of the 
economic growth, GDP is significant in the long run as well as in the short run in model (i), but it is only significant in the short 
run in model (ii). The insignificance in this context could be warranted by the constrained effect of pervasive injudicious use of 
economic resources in the public sector. Decreasing fiscal deficits and public debt reduction could be better enhanced when a 
sustained increase in GDP is properly channeled and efficiently utilized (Proshare, 2018). Moreover, in model (i) & (ii), the 
estimated parameters of inflation are positive and significant in the long run as well in the short run. These results marry up with 
the conjecture that high inflation usually increases the size of public spending, and in turn undermines the likelihood of reducing 
fiscal deficits (Talvi & Vegh, 2005). On the effect of trade openness, the estimated coefficients are significant in both long run 
and short run, but only significant in the short run in model (ii). This endorses the relevance of a liberal trade regime to enhance 
fiscal performance. Nonetheless, compared to import, the low level of export could account for the insignificance in the long 
run. It points to the fact that overdependence on import vis-à-vis weak domestic production may lead to sustained shortfalls in 
fiscal revenue, and as a consequence, poor fiscal performance.    

      
    Table 3. ARDL long run and short run estimates 
 

Variable Fiscal deficit 
Model (i) 

Public debt 
Model (ii) 

 Long run Short run Long run Short run 

Constant  -3.74** 
[-5.06] 

 1.60** 
[3.00] 

Exchange rate -0.09** 
[-2.43] 

-0.04*** 
[-5.37] 

0.06** 
[2.25] 

0.01*** 
[5.87] 

GDP 10.92** 
[2.44] 

12.11*** 
[6.38] 

-10.20 
[-1.14] 

-3.89** 
[-3.09] 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

23 
                         
 

Inflation 0.10** 
[2.14] 

0.21* 
[1.80] 

0.15* 
[1.73] 

0.02** 
[2.65] 

Trade openness -6.42** 
[-2.23] 

0.70* 
[1.88] 

8.23 
[1.25] 

0.66** 
[3.40] 

ER (-1)  -0.39*** 
[-4.89] 

 -0.31*** 
[-12.93] 

Diagnostic Tests     

D.W 2.03 2.15 

Ramsey reset test 0.12 0.84 

Normality test 0.20 0.19 

Serial correlation 0.25 0.72 

*, ** & *** indicate statistical significance at 10%, 5% and 1% respectively, whilst figures in (-) are t-values. 
 

Furthermore, the estimated parameters of the Error Correction Term (𝐸𝑅𝑡−1) depict the speed of adjustment of fiscal 
performance to shocks in exogenous variables across models. The negative sign and statistical significance of the estimated 
coefficients of Error Correction Term (ECT), in both model (i) & (ii), imply a stable process of adjustment to the long run 

equilibrium, and the respective values of the estimates confirm the validity of the error–correction term (𝐸𝑅𝑡−1). In general, 
ARDL procedure demonstrates that exchange rate has a strong effect on Nigerian fiscal performance. It is noted that the 
country’s fiscal position is vulnerable to exchange rate movement. The divergence in exchange rates could constrain fiscal 
measures, and thereby engendering resistance to the development of sustainable fiscal position.   
 
     
 
 
 
    
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

Model (i) — Fiscal deficit 

-15

-10

-5

0

5

10

15

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

CUSUM 5% Significance         

-0.4

0.0

0.4

0.8

1.2

1.6

2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016

CUSUM of Squares 5% Significance  

Model (ii) — Public debt 

-6

-4

-2

0

2

4

6

2016 2017

CUSUM 5% Significance            

0.0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1.0

1.2

1.4

1.6

2016 2017

CUSUM of Squares 5% Significance  

Figure 2. Cusum (Left) & Cusumsq (Right) 



Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

24 
                         
 

5. Concluding Remarks 
The paper offers empirical justifications for the instrumentality of external sector in influencing the fiscal position of a country 
through the exchange rate. In the study, ARDL procedure is adopted to examine the long run and short run relationship between 
exchange rate and fiscal performance in Nigeria. The validity of the findings is based on time series data between 1981 and 
2017. Given the main goal of the study, two fiscal measures are employed (fiscal deficit and public debt). The analysis is 
conducted with the use of different models on the respective fiscal indicators to ensure the validity and robustness of results or 
outcomes across specifications and in consistence with the theoretical postulations.  

The emerging evidence arising from the findings reveals that, in Nigeria’s context, the exchange rate movement has a 
substantial influence on the fiscal performance. The key conclusion reached is that there exists a significant adverse relationship 
between exchange rate and fiscal deficit in the long run as well as in short run, while the association between exchange rate and 
public debt is found to be significantly positive in both periods. The empirical elucidations suggest that an appreciation of the 
exchange rate could result to decreasing fiscal deficits, and thus engenders improved fiscal position in the long run. However, the 
exchange rate appreciation might not induce a reduction in public debt, as such could lead to a significant decrease in demand 
for the country’s produce (exports) in abroad. This may have negative effect on the fiscal revenue, and in turn stimulates demand 
for loanable funds by the government, although such effect could be mitigated through strategic investment policy and 
subsidized funding schemes to boost domestic production.  

In a nutshell, further evidence posits that decreasing fiscal deficits and public debt reduction could be better enhanced 
when a sustained increase in GDP is properly channeled and judiciously utilized. On the other hand, continued overdependence 
on import vis-à-vis weak domestic production may lead to sustained shortfalls in fiscal revenue, and thus undermines fiscal 
performance potential. Following the assertion that fiscal performance is considerably driven or constrained by the exchange rate 
movement, developing a strategic framework for ensuring a realistic exchange rate and the mitigation of regular fluctuations or 
correcting inappropriate exchange rate is crucial. 
 
References    
Adebiyi, M.A & Dauda, R.O. (2009). Trade liberalization policy and industrialization growth performance in Nigeria: An 

error correction mechanism technique. Being a paper presented at the 45th annual conference of the Nigerian 
economic Society, 24th to 26th August, Central Bank of Nigeria new building auditorium. Abuja. 

A. E. Akinlo & Odusola, A.F. (2003). Assessing the impact of Nigeria's naira depreciation on output and inflation. Applied 
Economics, Taylor & Francis Journals, 35(6), 691-703.  

Alam, N. & Taib, F. (2013). An investigation of the relationship of external public debt with budget deficit, current account 
deficit and exchange rate depreciation in debt trap and non-debt trap countries. European Scientific Journal, 9(22), 
144-158. 

Al-Khedair, S. I. (1996). The  impact  of  the  budget  deficit  on  key  macroeconomic  variables  in  the  major  industrial 
countries. Ph.D. Dissertation, Florida Atlantic University. 

Asher O.J. (2012). The impact of exchange rate fluctuation on the Nigeria economic growth (1980 – 2010). Unpublished B.sc 
Thesis of Caritas University Emene, Enugu State, Nigeria. 

Auerbach, A. J. & Gorodnichenko, Y. (2016). Effects of fiscal shocks in a globalized world. IMF Economic Review, 64(1), 
177–215. 

Azeez, B.A., Kolapo, F.T. & Ajayi, L.B. (2012). Effect of exchange rate volatility on macroeconomic performance in Nigeria. 
Interdisciplinary Journal of Contemporary Research in Business, 4(1), 149-155. 

Bacha E. L. (1990). A three-gap model of foreign transfers and the GDP growth rate in developing countries. Journal of 
Development Economies, 32(2), 19-35. 

Bachman, D.D. (1992). Why is the US current account deficit so large? Evidence from vector autoregressions. Southern 
Economic Journal, 59(2), 232-40. 

Bahmani-Oskooee, M. & Kutan, A.M. (2008). Are devaluations contractionary in emerging economies of Eastern Europe? 
Economic Change and Restructuring, 41, 61–74. 

Bahmani-Oskooee, M. & Miteza, I. (2003). Are devaluations expansionary or contractionary? A Survey Article. Economic 
Issues, 8(2), 1–28. 

Barro, R. J., (1990). Government spending in a simple model of endogenous growth. Journal of Political Economy, 98(5), 
103-125. 

Barro, R.J. (1974). Are government bonds net wealth? Journal of Political Economy, 82(6), 1095-1117. 
Calvo, G. A., Izquierdo, A. & Talvi, E. (2003). Sudden stops, the real exchange rate, and fiscal sustainability: Argentina’s lesson. 

NBER Working Paper No. 9828. 
CEIC (2018). Global economic data, indicators, Charts & Forecasts. CEIC.  
Darku, C. (2013). The report: Ghana 2013. Oxford Business Group https://books.google.com.ng/books?isbn=190706589X.  

https://books.google.com.ng/books?isbn=190706589X


Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

25 
                         
 

David, U. & Ameh, A. (2010). The Effect of exchange rate fluctuations on Nigeria manufacturing sector. African Journal of 
Business Management, 4(14), 2994-2998. 

Engle, R.F. & Granger, C.J. (1987). Cointegration and error-correction-representation, estimation and testing. Econometrica, 
55, 251–278. 

Ferreira, A.L., Canuto, O. & Lima, G.T. (2003). Thirlwall ́s law and foreign capital in Brazil. Momento Economico, January–
February, 125, 18–29. 

Fleming, J.M. (1962). Domestic financial policies under fixed and under floating exchange rates. Staff Papers (International 
Monetary Fund), 9(3), 369-380. 

Gregory, A.W. & Hansen, B.E. (1996). Tests for cointegration in models with regime and trend shifts. Oxford Bulletin of 
Economics and Statistics, 58, 555–560. 

Guyot, A., Lagoarde-Segot, T. & Neaime, S. (2014). Foreign shocks and international cost of equity destabilization: Evidence 
from the MENA region. Emerging Markets Review, 18, 101-22. 

Hausmann, R. & Panizza, U. (2002). The mystery of original sin. Mimeo Kennedy School of Government. 
Hausmann, R., Pritchett, L. & Rodrik, D. (2005). Growth Accelerations. Journal of Economic Growth, 10(4), 303–29. 
Ijeoma, N.B. (2013). An empirical analysis of the impact of debt on the Nigerian economy. International Journal of Arts and 

Humanities, 2(7), 165-191. 
Islam, M.F. (1998). Brazil’s twin deficits: An empirical examination. Atlantic Economic Journal, 26 (2):121- 128. 
Johansen, S. (1991). Estimation and hypothesis testing of co-integration vectors in Gaussian vector autoregressive models. 

Econometrica, 59, 1551 – 1580. 
Johansen, S. & Juselius, K. (1990). Maximum likelihood estimation and inference on cointegration with application to the 

demand for money. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and Statistics, 52, 169 – 210. 
Khalid, A. M. & Teo, G.W. (1999). Causality tests of budget and current account deficits: Cross-country comparisons. 

Empirical Economics, 24 (3), 389-402. 
Kim, S. (2015). Country characteristics and the effects of government consumption shocks on the current account and real 

exchange rate. Journal of International Economics, 97(2), 436–447. 
Kim, S. & Roubini, N. (2008). Twin deficit or twin divergence? Fiscal policy, current account, and real exchange rate in the 

U.S. Journal of International Economics, 74(2), 362–383. 
Lawal A. I., Atunde, I.O., Ahmed, V. & Asaleye, A. (2016). Exchange rate fluctuation and the Nigeria economic growth. 

EuroEconomica, 35 (2): 124 – 138. 
Mitchell, A., & Pentecost, E.J. (2001).The Real Exchange Rate and the Output Response in Four Transition Economies: A 

Panel Data Study. In Exchange Rate Policies, Prices and Supply-Side Response. Edited by C. Papazoglou and E. J. 
Pentecost, 68–77. Houndmills: Palgrave Macmillan. 

Miteza, I. (2006). Devaluation and output in five transition economies: A panel cointegration approach of Poland, Hungary, 
Czech Republic, Slovakia and Romania, 1993–2000. Applied Econometrics and International Development, 6, 77–
86. 

Monacelli, T. & Perotti, R. (2010). Fiscal policy, the real exchange rate and traded goods. Economic Journal, 120 (544), 437–
461. 

Mundell, R.A. (1961). A theory of optimal currency areas. American Economic Review, 51, 509-517. 
Mwega F.M., Mwangi, N. & Olewe-Ochilo, F. (1994). Macroeconomic constraints and medium-term growth in Kenya: A 

three-gap analysis. African Journal of Economic Policy, 1 (3), 110-115. 
Narayan, P. (2005). The saving and investment nexus for China: Evidence from co-integration tests. Applied Economics, 37, 

1979-1990. 
Neaime, S. & Gaysset, I. (2017). Sustainability of macroeconomic policies in selected MENA countries: Post financial and debt 

crises. Research in International Business and Finance, 40(C):129-140. 
Neaime, S., Gaysset, I. & Badra, N. (2018). The Eurozone debt crisis: A Structural VAR Approach. Research in International 

Business and Finance, 43, 22-33. 
Nwankwo, G. O. (1980). The Nigerian financial system. London: Macmillan; New York: Africana Pub. Co. [distributor], 

1980, https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/30475303.  
Obansa, S.A., Okoroafor, O.D., Aluko, O.O. & Millicent, E. (2013). Perceived relationship between exchange rate, interest rate 

and economic growth in Nigeria: 1970-2010. American Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences, 1(3), 116-124. 
Patrawimolporn, P. (2007). Effect of exchange rate on debt, debt services and public debt management in Thailand in the 

1980s. Asian Economic Journal, 5(3), 339-355. 
Pesaran, H. & Shin, Y. (1997). An autoregressive distributed lag modeling approach to co-integration analysis. University of 

Cambridge, England.  

https://trove.nla.gov.au/version/30475303


Copyright © CC-BY-NC 2020, CRIBFB | AMFBR 

 

www.cribfb.com/journal/index.php/amfbr                             American Finance & Banking Review                               Vol. 5, No. 1; 2020 
 

26 
                         
 

Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y. & Smith, R.J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of 
Applied Econometrics, 16, 289-326. 

Piersanti (2000). Impact of the budget deficit on key macroeconomic variables in the major industrial countries. The Florida 
Atlantic University Libraries. 

Premium Times (2018). Nigeria’s fiscal deficit may widen in 2018 – World Bank. Premium Times (November 26, 2018) 
Proshare (2018). Driving effective fiscal spending in Nigeria as a part of fiscal consolidation. Proshare Economy (August 17, 

2018). 
Ravn, M. O., Schmitt-Grohé, S. & Uribe, M. (2012). Consumption, government spending, and the real exchange rate. Journal 

of Monetary Economics, 59(3), 215–234. 
Rodrik, D. (2008). The real exchange rate and economic growth. Brookings papers on economic activity, 39 (2):365-439. 
Sek, S. K., Ooi, C.P. & Ismail, M.T. (2012). Investigating the relationship between exchange rate and inflation targeting. 

Applied Mathematical Sciences, 6(32), 1571–1583. 
Thirlwall, A. P. (1979). The balance of payments constraint as an explanation of international growth rate differences. Banca 

Nazionale del Lavoro Quarterly Review, 32(128), 45–53. 
Tornell, A. Y. & Velasco, A. (1994). Fiscal policy and the choice of exchange rate regime. Inter-American Development Bank 

working paper No.303. 
Ubok-Udom, E.U. (1999). Currency depreciation and domestic output growth in Nigeria: 1971-1995. The Nigerian Journal 

of Economics and Social studies, 41(1), 31-44. 
 
 
 
 
Copyrights  
Copyright for this article is retained by the author(s), with first publication rights granted to the journal. This is an open-access 
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution license 
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). 
 
 
 
 


