Article Sidebar

Submitted
March 14, 2025
Accepted
September 12, 2025
Published
October 28, 2025
Download
Full text PDF
Statistic
Read Counter : 209 Download : 221

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Main Article Content

Abstract

Purpose ― This paper examines the impact of major uncertainty indices and global uncertainty on the volume of Sukuk issuance in Türkiye.
Method — The NARDL method is applied to determine the short- and long-term relationships between Türkiye's sukuk issuance and global uncertainty and financial stress indices, capturing both symmetric and asymmetric dimensions.
Findings — Although a symmetric relationship exists between Global Economic Policy Uncertainty (GEPU) and Sukuk issuance, the Financial Stress Index (FSI) has no long-term impact on Sukuk issuance. During periods of global uncertainty, sukuk issuances increase, whereas in conditions of less uncertainty, they fall. There is an inverse relationship between Geopolitical Risk (GPR) and Sukuk issuance. Since all factors affect sukuk issuance in the short run, GEPU has the highest impact. Decreases in the GEPU index positively affect sukuk securities and increase their issuance volumes. Therefore, GPR and GEPU indices have asymmetric effects on sukuk issuances in the short and long term.
Implication — Evidence suggests that sukuk is more resilient to crises than its conventional equivalents. Sukuks are strategically crucial for portfolios and provide sufficient assurance to reduce risk.
Originality — No study has assessed how global financial distress and uncertainty influence Türkiye's sukuk issuance. This study differs from previous studies by focusing on sukuk issuance volumes rather than sukuk yields.

Keywords

Sukuk Issuance Financial Stress Index Global Economic Policy Uncertainty NARDL

Article Details

License

Copyright (c) 2025 Ender Baykut

Creative Commons License

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:

  1. Authors retain copyright and grant the journal right of first publication with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License that allows others to share the work with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
  2. Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g., post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
  3. Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g., in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).

Creative Commons License

Economic Journal of Emerging Markets by Center for Economic Studies, Universitas Islam Indonesia is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.

How to Cite
Baykut, E. (2025). Do global uncertainties and financial distress impact Sukuk issuance?. Economic Journal of Emerging Markets, 17(2), 111–123. https://doi.org/10.20885/ejem.vol17.iss2.art1
Download Citation
Endnote/Zotero/Mendeley (RIS)
BibTeX

References

  1. Ajmi, A. N., Hammoudeh, S., Nguyen, D. K., & Sarafrazi, S. (2014). How strong are the causal relationships between Islamic stock markets and conventional financial systems? Evidence from linear and nonlinear tests. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 28, 213–227. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2013.11.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2013.11.004
  2. Al-Raeai, A. M., Zainol, Z., & Abdul Rahim, A. K. (2019). The influence of macroeconomic factors and political risk on the sukuk market development in selected GCC countries: a panel data analysis. Jurnal Ekonomi Malaysia, 53(2), 199–211. http://dx.doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2019-5302-15 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17576/JEM-2019-5302-15
  3. Al-Yahyaee, K. H., Mensi, W., Rehman, M. U., Vo, X. V., & Kang, S. H. (2020). Do Islamic stocks outperform conventional stock sectors during normal and crisis periods? Extreme co-movements and portfolio management analysis. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 62, 101385. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101385 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2020.101385
  4. Asutay, M., & Hakim, A. (2018). Exploring international economic integration through sukuk market connectivity: A network perspective. Research in International Business and Finance, 46, 77–94. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.10.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ribaf.2017.10.003
  5. Baker, S. R., Bloom, N., & Davis, S. J. (2016). Measuring economic policy uncertainty. The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 131(4), 1593–1636. https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw024 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/qje/qjw024
  6. Balcilar, M., Bonato, M., Demirer, R., & Gupta, R. (2018). Geopolitical risks and stock market dynamics of the BRICS. Economic Systems, 42(2), 295–306. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2017.05.008 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecosys.2017.05.008
  7. Balcılar, M., Demirer, R., & Hammoudeh, S. (2015). Global risk exposures and industry diversification with Shariah-compliant equity sectors. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 35, 499–520. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2015.09.002 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2015.09.002
  8. Balli, F., Billah, M., Balli, H. O., & Gregory-Allen, R. (2020). Economic uncertainties, macroeconomic announcements and sukuk spreads. Applied Economics, 52(35), 3748–3769. https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1721424 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/00036846.2020.1721424
  9. Bhuiyan, R. A., Rahman, M. P., Saiti, B., & Mat Ghani, G. (2018). Financial integration between sukuk and bond indices of emerging markets: Insights from wavelet coherence and multivariate-GARCH analysis. Borsa Istanbul Review, 18(3), 218–230. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2017.11.006 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2017.11.006
  10. Billah, M., Alam, M. R., & Hoque, M. E. (2024). Global uncertainty and the spillover of tail risk between green and Islamic markets: A time-frequency domain approach with portfolio implications. International Review of Economics & Finance, 92, 1416–1433. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.02.081 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.02.081
  11. Billah, M., Elsayed, A. H., & Hadhri, S. (2023). Asymmetric relationship between green bonds and Sukuk markets: The role of global risk factors. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 83, 101728. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2022.101728 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2022.101728
  12. Billah, M., Hadhri, S., Balli, F., & Sahabuddin, M. (2024). Exploring the dynamic links, implications for hedging and investment strategies between Sukuk and commodity market volatility: Evidence from country level analysis. International Review of Economics & Finance, 93, 350–371. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.03.011 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iref.2024.03.011
  13. Billah, S. M., & Adnan, N. (2024). Navigating environmental concerns and geopolitical risks: A study on green sukuk and Islamic equities amid climate crisis and the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Energy Strategy Reviews, 53, 101372. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101372 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.esr.2024.101372
  14. Billah, S. M., Kapar, B., Hassan, M. K., Pezzo, L., & Rabbani, M. R. (2024). Tail-risk connectedness between sukuk and conventional bond markets and their determinants: Evidence from a country-level analysis. Borsa Istanbul Review, 24(1), 137–163. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2023.11.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2023.11.005
  15. Boukhatem, J. (2022). How does financial risk affect sukuk market development? Empirical evidence from ARDL approach. Heliyon, 8(5), e09453. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09453 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2022.e09453
  16. Bouri, E., Demirer, R., Gupta, R., & Marfatia, H. A. (2019). Geopolitical Risks and Movements in Islamic Bond and Equity Markets: A Note. Defence and Peace Economics, 30(3), 367–379. https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2018.1424613 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/10242694.2018.1424613
  17. Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2018). Measuring geopolitical risk. International Finance Discussion Papers, 2018.0(1222), 1–66. https://doi.org/10.17016/ifdp.2018.1222 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17016/ifdp.2018.1222
  18. Caldara, D., & Iacoviello, M. (2022). Measuring geopolitical risk. American Economic Review, 112(4), 1194–1225. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20201131 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.20191823
  19. Godil, D. I., Sarwat, S., Sharif, A., & Jermsittiparsert, K. (2020). How oil prices, gold prices, uncertainty and risk impact Islamic and conventional stocks? Empirical evidence from QARDL technique. Resources Policy, 66, 101638. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101638 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resourpol.2020.101638
  20. Göksu, S. (2024). Do Increases and Decreases in Non-renewable Energy Consumption Have the Same Effect on Growth in Türkiye? TT - Türkiye’de Yenilenemeyen Enerji Tüketimindeki Artış ve Azalışların Ekonomik Büyüme Üzerindeki Etkisi Aynı Mıdır? Sosyoekonomi, 32(60), 51–71. https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.02.03 DOI: https://doi.org/10.17233/sosyoekonomi.2024.02.03
  21. Gubareva, M., Sokolova, T., Umar, Z., & Vo, X. V. (2024). Sukuk liquidity and creditworthiness during COVID-19. The Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance, 94, 88–92. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2024.01.001 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.qref.2024.01.001
  22. Hasan, M. B., Hassan, M. K., & Alhomaidi, A. (2023). How do sectoral Islamic equity markets react to geopolitical risk, economic policy uncertainty, and oil price shocks? The Journal of Economic Asymmetries, 28, e00333. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2023.e00333 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jeca.2023.e00333
  23. Hasan, M. B., Hassan, M. K., Rashid, M. M., & Alhenawi, Y. (2021). Are safe haven assets really safe during the 2008 global financial crisis and COVID-19 pandemic? Global Finance Journal, 50, 100668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2021.100668 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gfj.2021.100668
  24. Illing, M., & Liu, Y. (2003). An index of financial stress for canada. https://doi.org/10.34989/SWP-2003-14
  25. Jatmiko, W., Ebrahim, M. S., & Smaoui, H. (2023). Sukūk development and income inequality. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 88, 101852. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2023.101852 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2023.101852
  26. Kasal, S. (2023). What are the effects of financial stress on economic activity and government debt? An empirical examination in an emerging economy. Borsa Istanbul Review, 23(1), 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.10.007 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bir.2022.10.007
  27. Kenourgios, D., Naifar, N., & Dimitriou, D. (2016). Islamic financial markets and global crises: Contagion or decoupling? Economic Modelling, 57, 36–46. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.04.014 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.econmod.2016.04.014
  28. Mirza, A. R., & Sultana, N. (2020). Impact of economic factors on the Sukuk market development: An empirical analysis. International Journal of Islamic Economics and Governance, 1(1 SE-Articles), 65–83. https://ojs.mul.edu.pk/index.php/IJIEG/article/view/18
  29. Naifar, N. (2023). Sukuk returns dynamics under bullish and bearish market conditions: do COVID-19 related news and government measures matter? Applied Economics Letters, 30(7), 875–883. https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2022.2027860 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/13504851.2022.2027860
  30. Naifar, N., & Hammoudeh, S. (2016). Do global financial distress and uncertainties impact GCC and global sukuk return dynamics? Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 39, 57–69. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2016.05.016 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2016.05.016
  31. Naifar, N., Hammoudeh, S., & Al dohaiman, M. S. (2016). Dependence structure between sukuk (Islamic bonds) and stock market conditions: An empirical analysis with Archimedean copulas. Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 44, 148–165. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2016.05.003 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intfin.2016.05.003
  32. Naifar, N., Mroua, M., & Bahloul, S. (2017). Do regional and global uncertainty factors affect differently the conventional bonds and sukuk? New evidence. Pacific-Basin Finance Journal, 41, 65–74. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2016.12.004 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pacfin.2016.12.004
  33. Narayan, P. K., & Smyth, R. (2006). What determines migration flows from low‐income to high‐income countries? An empirical investigation of fiji–u. S. Migration 1972–2001. Contemporary Economic Policy, 24(2), 332–342. https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byj019 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/cep/byj019
  34. Pesaran, M. H., Shin, Y., & Smith, R. J. (2001). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of level relationships. Journal of Applied Econometrics, 16(3), 289–326. https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/jae.616
  35. Ratings, F. (2023). Global Sukuk Market Dashboard: 3Q23. Special Report. Fitch Ratings. Retrieved from https://www.fitchratings.com/research/islamic-finance/global-sukuk-market-dashboard-3q23-11-10-2023
  36. Said, A., & Grassa, R. (2013). The determinants of sukuk market development: Does macroeconomic factors influence the construction of certain structure of sukuk? Journal of Applied Finance & Banking, 3(5), 251–267.
  37. Sclip, A., Dreassi, A., Miani, S., & Paltrinieri, A. (2016). Dynamic correlations and volatility linkages between stocks and sukuk : Evidence from international markets. Review of Financial Economics, 31(1), 34–44. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2016.06.005 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rfe.2016.06.005
  38. Shin, Y., Yu, B., & Greenwood-Nimmo, M. (2014). Modelling asymmetric cointegration and dynamic multipliers in a nonlinear ARDL framework. In W. Horrace & R. Sickles (Eds.), The Festschrift in Honor of Peter Schmidt (pp. 281–314). Springer. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3__9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8008-3_9
  39. Syed, A. A., Kamal, M. A., & Tripathi, R. (2021). An empirical investigation of nuclear energy and environmental pollution nexus in India: fresh evidence using NARDL approach. Environmental Science and Pollution Research, 28(39), 54744–54755. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14365-9 DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-021-14365-9
  40. TKBB. (2025). Sukuk issuance of Türkiye. TKBB. Retrieved from https://www.tkbb.org.tr/veripetegi/7
No Related Submission Found