| Literature DB >> 31597376 |
Faiza Manzoor1, Longbao Wei2, Muhammad Asif3, Muhammad Ziaul Haq4, Hafizur Rehman5.
Abstract
In the global economy, tourism is one of the most noticeable and growing sectors. Thissector plays an important role in boosting a nation's economy. An increase in tourism flow canbring positive economic outcomes to the nations, especially in gross domestic product (GDP) andemployment opportunities. In South Asian countries, the tourism industry is an engine ofeconomic development and GDP growth. This study investigates the impact of tourism onPakistan's economic growth and employment. The period under study was from 1990 to 2015. Tocheck whether the variables under study were stationary, augmented Dickey-Fuller andPhillips-Perron unit root tests were applied. A regression technique and Johansen cointegrationapproach were employed for the analysis of data. The key finding of this study shows that there isa positive and significant impact of tourism on Pakistan's economic growth as well as employmentsector and there is also a long-run relationship among the variables under study. This studysuggests that legislators should focus on the policies with special emphasis on the promotion oftourism due to its great potential throughout the country. Policy implications of this recent studyand future research suggestions are also mentioned.Entities:
Keywords: Pakistan; economic growth; employment; gross domestic product; sustainable tourism
Mesh:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31597376 PMCID: PMC6801594 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16193785
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Figure 1Source: World travel and tourism council, 2018. SOUTH ASIA: Total contribution of travel and tourism to GDP.
Figure 2Source: World travel and tourism council, 2018. SOUTH ASIA: Total contribution of travel and tourism to employment.
Variable descriptive statistics and correlation matrix.
| Variables | Mean | Std. Dev. | Min | Max | 1 | 2 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| EMP | 6.538 | 0.938 | 4.5 | 7.67 | 1 | ||
| GDP | 9.749 | 3.701 | 2.5 | 13.9 | 0.202 | 1 | |
| Tour_g | 11.78 | 0.999 | 10 | 13.8 | 0.392 * | 0.727 ** | 1 |
Note: EMP: Employment rate; GDP: Gross Domestic Product; Tour_g: Tourism growth; * Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level(2-tailed); ** Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).
Root test results of sequence level values.
| Variable | ADF Level | PP Level |
|---|---|---|
| GDP | −2.210278 | −2.450704 |
| EMP | −4.871852 | −4.922699 |
| Tour_g | −3.740363 | −3.793420 |
ADF: augmented Dickey–Fuller test; PP: Phillips–Perron test.
Root test results of the sequence first-order difference.
| Variable | ADF Level | PP Level |
|---|---|---|
| ΔGDP | −5.826917 (0.0004) | −5.903267 (0.0004) |
| ΔEMP | −10.34191 (0.000) | −14.01308 (0.000) |
| ΔTour_g | −9,125,041 (0.000) | −9.842097 (0.000) |
Note: null hypothesis rejected at 5% significance level.
Regression analysis of tourism growth and GDP.
| Dependent Variable: ΔGDP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | Prob. | |
| C | −21.95028 | 6.134822 | −3.577981 | 0.0015 |
| ΔTour_g | 2.690465 | 0.518887 | 5.185067 | 0.0000 |
| R-squared | 0.528348 | Durbin Watson | 1.330163 | |
| F-statistic | 26.88492 | Prob (F-statistic) | 0.000026 | |
Regression analysis of tourism growth and employment.
| Dependent Variable: ΔEMP | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Variable | Coefficient | Std. Error | Prob. | |
| C | 2.206832 | 2.083572 | 1.059158 | 0.3001 |
| ΔTour_g | 0.367638 | 0.17623 | 2.08613 | 0.0478 |
| R-squared | 0.153497 | Durbin Watson | 0.40489 | |
| F-statistic | 4.351938 | Prob (F-statistic) | 0.047768 | |
Johansen cointegration. Series: EMP, GDP, Tour_g Lags interval (in first differences): 1 to 4.
| Unrestricted Cointegration Rank Test (Trace) | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Hypothesized | Trace | 0.05 | ||
| No. of CE(s) | Eigenvalue | Statistic | Critical Value | Prob.** |
| None * | 0.974991 | 94.64275 | 29.79707 | 0.0000 |
| At most 1 * | 0.456825 | 17.18381 | 15.49471 | 0.0276 |
| At most 2 * | 0.187754 | 4.366994 | 3.841466 | 0.0366 |
| Trace test indicates 3 cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level | ||||
| * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level | ||||
| ** MacKinnon–Haug–Michelis (1999) | ||||
|
| ||||
| Hypothesized | Max-Eigen | 0.05 | ||
| No. of CE(s) | Eigenvalue | Statistic | Critical Value | Prob.** |
| None * | 0.974991 | 77.45894 | 21.13162 | 0.0000 |
| At most 1 | 0.456825 | 12.81681 | 14.26460 | 0.0836 |
| At most 2 * | 0.187754 | 4.366994 | 3.841466 | 0.0366 |
| Max-eigenvalue test indicates 1 cointegrating eqn(s) at the 0.05 level | ||||
| * denotes rejection of the hypothesis at the 0.05 level | ||||
| ** MacKinnon–Haug–Michelis (1999) | ||||
Source: Author’s calculation by using E-view 9. Eqn (equation), CE (cointegrating equation).