English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

This paper provides a comparative analysis of how the energy-sector stocks of 20 regional blocs (Americas, Australasia, BRIC, Southeast Asia, Scandinavia, Southern Europe, Far East, Europe, European Union, Emerging Europe, Asia, G7, G12, Economic and Monetary Union (EMU), CCARBNS, Latin America, North America, PIIGS, Asia-Pacific and NORCS) are connected from 5 July 1994 to 21 April 2020. It uses various techniques: Diebold and Yilmaz (2014)(DY 2014, hereafter) spillover indices and TVP-VAR, LASSO-VAR. Our main results are as follows: First, the DY approach results show that the biggest net contributor of volatility is the CCARBNS region, followed by the G12 and G7 regions, while the biggest receiver of volatility is the Southeast Asia region. Second, the TVP-VAR and LASSO-VAR results reveal that Scandinavia, Far East, and America’s regions are net receivers of energy shocks, with net transmitters being CCARBNS, G7, G12 and Emerging European regions. Third, during the 2007–2008 financial crisis and recent COVID-19 outbreak, energy stock market spillovers have reached unprecedented high levels. Fourth, the world policy uncertainty greatly influenced the magnitude of volatility spillovers across regional energy stock markets.

Connectedness and directional spillovers in energy sectors: international evidence