Financial Contagion of the Russian Economy: Intersectoral Aspect

The study’s relevance is due to the need to identify the scale and channels of the spread of crises in the economy based on the use of the financial contagion methodology. Understanding the mechanism of spreading financial contagion from one industry to another can help develop anti-crisis measures and ensure stable economic indicators. The purpose of the study is to assess the intersectoral financial contagion in the Russian economy during the spread of the coronacrisis, as well as to correlate the estimates obtained with the actual incidence of COVID‑19 in the Russian Federation. The novelty of the research lies in the development of the methodology of financial contagion and its use in relation to sectors of the Russian economy, where they are considered transmitters and/or receivers of financial contagion. The methodology of advanced correlation analysis was used — the Forbes-Rigobon sliding test was implemented, which made it possible to assess the scale and intensity of financial contagion in the Russian economy. We used high-frequency data on 8 MICEX industry indices and on the incidence of COVID‑19 in the period 2020–2021. The result was quantitative assessments of financial contagion, which showed that such industries as metallurgy, oil and gas sector, consumer sector, electric power industry had the highest susceptibility to financial contagion. Telecommunications, the financial sector, chemicals and petrochemicals, and transport have demonstrated resistance to the pandemic shock. The most powerful transmitters of financial contagion were the electric power industry, metallurgy, transport, and the financial sector. In general, the financial contagion in 2020–2021 between the sectors of the Russian economy spread unevenly, in some cases and in certain periods, the ups and downs of financial infectivity went in parallel with the ups and downs of the real incidence of COVID‑19. The main conclusion was that during the pandemic, financial contagion spread with varying intensity, and individual industries manifested themselves either as receivers or transmitters of financial contagion. At the same time, there was no large-scale financial infection of the sectors of the Russian economy.

1. Rustamov E. Financial crises: Sources, manifestations, consequences. Voprosy ekonomiki. 2012;(4):46–66. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.32609/0042–8736–2012–4–46–66

2. Chudik A., Fratzscher M. Identifying the global transmission of the 2007–2009 financial crisis in a GVAR model. European Economic Review. 2011;55(3):325–339. DOI: 10.1016/j.euroecorev.2010.12.003

3. Morales L., Andreosso-O’Callaghan B. The global financial crisis: World market or regional contagion effects? International Review of Economics & Finance. 2014;29:108–131. DOI: 10.1016/j.iref.2013.05.010

4. Jokipii T., Lucey B. Contagion and interdependence: Measuring CEE banking sector co-movements. Economic Systems. 2007;31(1):71–96. DOI: 10.1016/j.ecosys.2006.05.001

5. Alexakis C., Pappas V. Sectoral dynamics of financial contagion in Europe — the cases of the recent crises episodes. Economic Modelling. 2018;73:222–239. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2018.03.018

6. Pal D., Mitra S.K. Correlation dynamics of crude oil with agricultural commodities: A comparison between energy and food crops. Economic Modelling. 2019;82:453–466. DOI: 10.1016/j.econmod.2019.05.017

7. Ji Q., Bouri E., Roubaud D., Shahzad S.J.H. Risk spillover between energy and agricultural markets: A dependence-switching CoVaR-copula model. Energy Economics. 2018;75:14–27. DOI: 10.1016/j.eneco.2018.08.015

8. Zhu B., Lin R., Deng Y., Chen P., Chevallier J. Intersectoral systemic risk spillovers between energy and agriculture under the financial and COVID 19 crises. Economic Modelling. 2021;105:105651. DOI: 10.1016/j. econmod.2021.105651

9. Anufriev M., Panchenko V. Connecting the dots: Econometric methods for uncovering networks with an application to the Australian financial institutions. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2015;61(S 2): S 241-S 255. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2015.08.034

10. Fijorek K., Jurkowska A., Jonek-Kowalska I. Financial contagion between the financial and the mining industries — empirical evidence based on the symmetric and asymmetric CoVaR approach. Resources Policy. 2021;70:101965. DOI: 10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101965

11. Cingano F., Manaresi F., Sette E. Does credit crunch investment down? New evidence on the real effects of the bank-lending channel. The Review of Financial Studies. 2016;29(10):2737–2773. DOI: 10.1093/rfs/hhw040

12. Silva T.C., da Silva Alexandre M., Tabak B.M. Bank lending and systemic risk: A financial-real sector network approach with feedback. Journal of Financial Stability. 2018;38:98–118. DOI: 10.1016/j.jfs.2017.08.006

13. Nguyen L. X.D., Mateut S., Chevapatrakul T. Business-linkage volatility spillovers between US industries. Journal of Banking & Finance. 2020;111:105699. DOI: 10.1016/j.jbankfin.2019.105699

14. Zhang W., Zhuang X., Wang J., Lu Y. Connectedness and systemic risk spillovers analysis of Chinese sectors based on tail risk network. The North American Journal of Economics and Finance. 2020;54:101248. DOI: 10.1016/j.najef.2020.101248

15. Forbes K. J., Rigobon R. No contagion, only interdependence: Measuring stock market comovements. The Journal of Finance. 2002;57(5):2223–2261. DOI: 10.1111/0022–1082.00494

16. Siginevich D. A. Petrochemical industry in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic. Innovatsii i investitsii = Innovation & Investment. 2020;(7):234–238. (In Russ.).

17. Drobyshevskaya L. N., Churbanova A. S. Impact of the pandemic on the telecommunications companies’ fi nancial results. Ekonomika i biznes: teoriya i praktika = E conomy and Business: Theory and Practice. 2020;(10– 1):104–108. (In Russ.). DOI: 10.24411/2411–0450–2020–10776