5 Abstract

This paper investigates the impact of real interest rate on national saving in five Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) of Indonesia, Malaysia, the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. We analyze impact real interest rate to nation saving for ASEAN starting 1991-2013. Through an analysis from Excel, real interest rate is found to have significant impact on national saving during different stage of economic. Extensions using a graph reveal the impact of real interest rate in ASEAN-5 and thus mainly reflect heightened concerns to national savings amid the Asian financial crisis and the global financial crisis.

Keywords: real interest rate, national saving, financial crisis

1.0 Introduction
The world’s average saving rate has been declining since the first oil shock and through the early 1990s. However this trend conceals a large and increasing dispersion of saving rates, particularly among developing countries. The large heterogeneity in saving behavior is associated to country and time differences in levels of development, growth performance, and fiscal and financial policies.
The level of real interest rates has once again become the focus of policy makers' concerned. To understanding the response of national saving to changes in interest rates is central to many issues in economic policy. For example, a reduction in the budget deficit would probably cause interest rates to decline. If personal saving declined as a result, the overall increase in national saving would be less than the reduction in the budget deficit.
Alternatively, monetary policy generally causes interest rates to rise. If personal saving increases as a result, the corresponding fall in consumer spending helps to slow the economy. As a final example, changes in the tax code can raise or lower the net-of-tax return to saving. The effect of these changes on the amount of saving may play an important role in tax policy making. The interest elasticity of saving is defined as the percent change in saving that results from a one percent change in the interest rate. There is disagreement among economists about both the sign and magnitude of this elasticity.
The life-cycle theory introduced that the net effect of the real interest rate on savings is ambiguous. The net effect of the real interest rate on savings can be decomposed into two effects. The substitution effect implies that a higher interest rate increases the current price of consumption relative to the future price, and thus affecting savings positively. The other effect, which is called the income effect, indicates that if the household is a net lender, an increase in the interest rate will increase lifetime income, and so increase consumption and reduce saving.
Therefore, it is expected that the interest rate will have a positive impact on savings ratio only when the substitution effect dominates the income effect. In developing countries where financial markets are still not well developed, substitution effect is expected to be much greater than income effect, and thus the real interest rate is likely to have a net positive impact on domestic savings. However, the complexity and distortions in both the real and the financial sides of the economy tend to reduce the benefits of an increase in interest rates, and thus the positive impact on nation savings may not be achieved.

2.0 Literature Review
Economic theory argues that saving is an increasing function of income. However, in macroeconomic context, saving like other economic variables, depend on a number of factors. Saving is expected to depend on the overall health of the economy represented by the growth of GDP because saving are closely related in the virtuous circle of “saving-investment-growth-saving”, and this process also depend on how savings are efficiently channeled into productive investment (Sayed, 2014). Moreover, expected interest rate is important to determinants of saving.
Interest rate is return on investment; investor will channel their investments from low interest rate to higher interest rate, because it provides incentive to foreign investors looking for higher return (Anna, 2012). Interest rates play an important role, not only in attracting capital inflow, but also in macroeconomic stabilization and determination of asset prices (Mohan et al., 2009). The inclusion of income and interest rate in savings functions needs no further explanation. However, the empirical evidence suggests that the higher the rate of economic growth the higher is the saving rate (Collins, 1989).
In addition, the link between real interest rates in the ASEAN member’s rates has strengthened considerably. We observed that variation in interest rates in Malaysia is mainly due to the disturbance Singapore, while the variation in real interest rate in Thailand (the Philippines) is largely due to disturbances in the Philippines (Thailand) market and the result s hold both in the short as well as the long horizons. This finding supports the notion that there is considerable economic integration in the ASEAN countries (Chan, 2002).
National savings also present resources available for investment to replace old factories and equipment and to buy more and better capital goods (2001). There is implication of an increase in national saving which is an increase in the current level of national saving allows for higher living standards during retirement, where living standard are measured by consumption level (Econtech, 2008). Saving is a way for individuals to defer consumption from the present to the future. By increasing saving levels, individuals are putting away more money now in order to fund a higher level of consumptions in the future.
The positive sign on the real interest rate is in accordance with the Mckinnon-Shaw hypothesis. On the other hand, for Thailand we obtained a negative impact of the realo interest rate on saving. Contrary to the result obtained by Fry (1978), the dependency ratio contributes positively to savings in the short-run hence inconsistent with the life-cycle hypothesis.
Saving behavior in the East Asian countries is of interest because of the following: first, the fast growing Asian countries generally have higher saving rates compared to the other region in the world. Asian saving ratios of 27.5% over 1982-1990 can be compared the saving ratio of 17.7% in Africa, 25.3% in Europe, and 23.1% in the Middle East (Fry, 1991). Although the savings behavior in developing countries has been extensively researched to identify the determinate of savings, the directions of causality are still unclear (see for example, Hussien & Thirlwall, 1999 and Edwards, 1996). Thus the sample of Asian countries provides an interesting cases study to examine the saving-growth nexus. Second, all these countries were successful in courting foreign capital.
According to the (Gavin, Hauamann and Talvi, 1997), higher growth rate precedes higher saving rather than the other way around and economic growth is the most powerful determinants of saving in the long run. Fry (1995) found that real interest rates had a positive significant effect on national savings by using a pooled cross-section time series data for fourteen Asian developing countries over the period 1961-1983. On the other hand, Giovannini (1983) using the sample from the same countries but covered a different sample periods, tried to reexamine Fry’s work. His study found that real interest rate elasticity on savings rate was significantly negative.
Mohan (2006) employed Granger causality tests to investigate the relationship between domestic savings and economic growth for various economies with different income levels. The uniqueness of this analysis lied in its formulation where it divided the countries under investigation into three categories, that is, low-middle income, upper-middle income and high-income countries. His results revealed that growth rate Granger caused the saving rate in 13 countries. However, the result was reversed for Indonesia and Singapore. On the other hand, five nations showed bidirectional causality.

3.0 Real Interest Rate and National Saving 3.1 Real Interest Rate The real interest rate is the rate of interest an investor expects to receive after allowing for inflation. It can be describe formally by the Fisher equation, which states that the real interest rate is approximately the nominal interest rate minus the inflation rate.

Real interest rate = nominal interest rate – inflation rate

The inflation rate will not be known in advance and it may turn out to be quite different from the real interest rate that was expected in advance. Borrowers hope to repay in cheaper money in the future, while lenders hope to collect on more expensive money. When lenders underestimate inflation and currency risks, then they will suffer a net reduction in buying power.

The real interest rate is used in various economic theories to explain such phenomena as the capital flight, business cycle and economic bubbles. When the real rate of interest is high, that is, demand for credit is high, then money will, all other things being equal, move from consumption to savings. Conversely, when the real rate of interest is low, demand will move from savings to investment and consumption.

Different economic theories, beginning with the work of Knut Wicksell have had different explanations of the effect of rising and falling real interest rates. Thus, international capital moves to markets that offer higher real rates of interest from markets that offer low or negative real rates of interest triggering speculation in equities, estates and exchange rates. Related to this concept is the idea of a "natural rate of interest", that is, the expected return on savings and capital invested.

3.2 National Saving
National savings is the sum of savings of private sector and the government. It consists of the saving by household, businesses, and all levels of government (federal, state, and local). For the economy as a whole, national saving is the portion of the nation’s income not used for private and public consumption. The sum of national saving and saving borrowed from abroad represents the total amount of resources available for investment, that is, the purchase of capital goods such as plant, equipment, software, houses, and inventories by businesses and governments.

Gross National Saving is a nation’s total income minus its consumption, which reflects resources available both to replace old, worn out capital goods and to expand the capital stock. The gross national savings ratio is gross savings as a percentage of GDP.

Y = S + C (Income is total of savings and consumption)
So, S = Y – C (Saving is income minus consumption)

The level of national saving has important implications for the economy; it provides a source of funds available for domestic investment, which in turn is a key driver of labor productivity and higher future living standards. In an economy open to trade and capital flows, the difference between the level of investment and saving in the economy is equal to the current account balance.

National saving provides the resources for investment that can boost productivity and lead to higher economic growth and future living standards. Investment in new capital is an important way to raise the productivity of the slowly growing workforce as the population ages. Greater economic growth from saving more now would make it easier for future workers to achieve a rising standard of living for themselves while also paying for the government’s commitments to the elderly.

3.3 Relationship between Real Interest Rate and National Saving
Generally, real interest rates are variables that affect national savings while the real interest rates are determined by nominal interest rates and inflation rate (). A highest real interest rate means higher of returns and lowest real interest rates mean that low of returns.
During inflation, the government will implement monetary policy by reducing the supply of money and increase interest rates to reduce aggregate expenditure. When aggregates expenditure declined would slow the growth of economic then inflation would be control. Conversely, in the case of deflation, the government will implement monetary policy of increasing the supply of money and lowering interest rates to increase aggregate expenditures. This situation will lead to economic growth and could control the problem of deflation. According to Keynes, the aggregate expenditure is thus the sum total of all the expenditures undertaken in the economy by the factors during a given time period. It refers to the expenditure incurred on consumer goods, planned investment and the expenditure made by the government in the economy. (AE = C+I+G). Investment and saving are related because the capital of investment mostly came from savings. The logic is that without bank deposits or savings, banks are not in a position to lend money for investment. Therefore, we can see that during inflation, implementation by government will cause national saving decrease and vice versa.
When the inflation rate is higher than the nominal interest rate () this means that real interest rates are negative and it brings negative returns will cause saver are not guaranteed. Thus, national savings decreased because the savings do not take advantage to saver and if it better to hold cash in hand. Conversely, when the inflation rate is lower than the interest rate (), this means that real interest rates rise and the savings of return or profit also increased. The savers confidently to saving will cause national savings increased. Therefore we can conclude that the relationship between real interest rates and national savings are positive.
4.0 Analysis of Data 4.1 Gross National Saving

Overview of economy ASEAN-5

The graph shows the values of gross national saving in term of US billion for five countries in ASEAN, which are Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Singapore and Thailand.
First of all, Indonesia recorded a highest value in gross national saving of US$280.19 billion in 2012 and the lowest value in gross national saving of US$21.13 billion in 1999. It had decreased extremely from US$ 65.07 billion to US$ 19.63 billion during the inflation in year 1997. However, during Global Financial Crisis, Indonesia shows an increase in national saving from US$ 139.49 billion in 2008 to US$ 180.81 billion in 2009 while the others countries had decline during that period.
During the 10-year period from 1991 to 2000, the national saving in Malaysia was in rise for 6 years, which is from 1991 to 1996. For the next 3 years (1997-1999), the national saving was in unstable situation due to Asian Financial Crisis and after recovery from the crisis. Malaysia recorded a highest value in gross national saving of US$100.81 billion in 2011 and the lowest value in gross national saving of US$14.11 billion in 1991.
In addition, the Philippines was achieved the highest values in 2013 with US$ 62.92 billion while in 1991 it was recorded with US$ 7.38 billion which was the lowest values of gross national saving. Generally, the Philippine national savings are low compared with other countries due to the total population of Philippine was only 9839 million people.
Besides that, Singapore is a country with stability economy and it had achieved the highest value of gross national saving with US$141.1 billion in 2013 and the lowest value of national saving (US$20.06 billion) in 1991 because the economy of Singapore was in improving during that period. Singapore also recorded the decreased in year 1997 (US$52.76 billion) to 1999 (US$41.77 billion) during inflation period but it is less serious among others countries.
Furthermore, Thailand recorded a gross national saving of US$ 32.97 billion in 2001 which is the lowest values while the highest values of gross national saving was US$ 110.79 billion in 2013. The overall of the value of gross national saving in five countries are increasing but decreased in year 1997 and 2008 because of Asian Financial Crisis and Global Financial Crisis respectively.

4.2 Real Interest Rate

Overview of economy ASEAN-5

This graph shows the real interest rate for five countries, which are Indonesia, Thailand, Philippines, Malaysia, and Singapore from 1991 to 2013. Refer to the graph, the highest real interest rate in Malaysia on 2009 (11.8%) and the lowest real interest rate on 2008 (-3.9%) due to the happened and recovered from Global Financial Crisis.
While for Indonesia, the real interest rate is the highest at 1992 (17.7%) and the lowest at 1998 (-24.6 %). The interest rate of Indonesia at 1998 is the lowest if compare with the others countries of ASEAN-5. At 1998 Indonesian economy has dramatically slowed down due to the current monetary policy by Indonesia government and control of IMF as the condition of received financial aid.
In addition, the real interest rate of Thailand record the highest than others countries at 1999 (13.6%). It is because Thailand obtained aid by IMF during the Asian Financial Crisis thus the economic growth rapidly. While, the lowest real interest rate at 2005 (1.2%) due to the case of Attack to United State of America on 11 September 2005.
Beside that, the real interest rate of Philippines is the highest at 1992 (10.7%) and the lowest at 1998 (-4.6 %). Philippine real interest rate not stable and significant fluctuate throughout all the years. Interest rate movements in the Philippines are affected generally by the inflation rate, fiscal policy stance, and intermediation cost which could impact the demand and supply for money.

Furthermore, Singapore is a country with stability economy with inflation rate not more than 4% which the standard growth of economic. Singapore recorded the highest real interest rate in year 1999 (10.1%) and the lowest real interest rate in 2007 (-0.5%). In the period from 2008 to 2009, the others countries has increase in real interest rate except Singapore shows a decline from 7% in 2008 to 1.8% in 2009.
The overall of the percentage of real interest rate in five countries are decreased during inflation period such as Asian Financial Crisis in 1998 and Global Financial Crisis in 2008. While after the crisis end, policy implement by the government of ASEAN-5 will increase the real interest rate and at the same time national saving also will increased.

4.3 The Impact of Real Interest Rate on National Savings

In 1991 to 1996, five countries were in rise of the value of gross national saving which are Singapore (US$20.06 billion to US$47.24 billion), Philippines (US$7.38 billion to US$14.47 billion), Thailand (US$34.54 billion to US$ 61.44 billion), Malaysia (US$14.11 billion to US$37.43 billion), and Indonesia (US$37.22 billion to US$63.16 billion).

In 1997-1998, there was happened Asian Financial Crisis. The Asian Financial Crisis started in Thailand with the financial collapse of the Thai baht after the Thai government was forced to float the baht due to lack of foreign currency to support its fixed exchange rate. At the time, Thailand had acquired a burden of foreign debt that made the country effectively bankrupt even before the collapse of its currency. After that, the crisis spread to the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia and Singapore.
Indonesia and Thailand were the countries most affected by the crisis due to received financial aid from IMF, which led to a high demand for US dollars while the countries own currency value; Rupiah and Baht have fallen extreme. Malaysia and the Philippines were also hurt by the slump while Singapore was less affected although suffered from a loss of demand and confidence throughout the region. As the financial crisis spread the economy of Singapore dipped into a short recession. The short duration and milder effect on its economy was credited to the active management by the government of Singapore.
The graph below shows the impact of real interest rate on gross national saving in 1997 until 1999. In this period, these five countries except Singapore have experienced a significant decline in real interest rate that had big impact to the gross national saving.

Among the countries in ASEAN-5, only Singapore shows an increase in real interest rate from 5.2% in 1997 to 8.9% during Asian Financial Crisis in 1998. This is because Singapore has been able to control the performance of a relatively healthy compared to other countries in Asia during and after the financial crisis. Singapore discretion in setting the exchange rate of its currency in order to prevent potential attacks speculative has avoided falling real interest rates. However, a close relationship and dependence of regional economies remained negative impact on the economy and lead to reduced national savings from US$ 52.76 billion in 1997 to US$ 41.77 billion in 1999.
On the other hand, the decline of real interest rate in Indonesia was the most significant among the countries of ASEAN-5, which from 8.2% in 1997 to -24.6% in 1998. Indonesia has received financial support from the IMF to revive the economy. However the IMF's condition that Indonesia should increase interest rates to prevent capital flowing out of the country. Bank Indonesia raised interest rates by Bank Indonesia certificates (SBI) to 30% in order to reduce inflation. However, all the banks facing liquidity difficulties have raised inflation in Indonesia from 12.6% in 1997 to 75.3% in 1998. This cause foreign investors to withdraw capital from Indonesia while company owned by the people of Indonesia under pressure to settle the debt immediately and attraction of capital by foreign investor therefore many reacted by buying dollars through selling rupiah. Thus, the gross national saving of Indonesia was decline significantly from US$65.07 billion to US$19.63 billion in 1998 because Indonesia’s government need to spend a lot of expenditure to rescue the worse economic.
During Asian Financial Crisis, the Philippines has been forced by the IMF to intervene heavily in maintaining the stability of the Philippine peso, therefore it must follow the command of the IMF to raise interest rates from 15% to 24% in just one day to deal with the problem of inflation, which reached an inflation rate of 22.4% in 1998. The decline in real interest rates was 9.5% in 1997 to -4.6% in 1998 caused the national savings of Philippines declined from US $ 14.51 billion to US $ 11.17 billion in 1998.
In July 1997, Malaysia attacked by rogue currency leading to overall sales in the stock market and forex market. KLSE index plummeted from 1,200 points to below 600 points, the ringgit declined by 50% from RM2.50 to RM4.10 per dollar. Prime Minister on 2 September 1998 decided to implement capital controls and fixed the ringgit at RM3.80 per US dollar. The government has taken steps to limit foreign borrowing and provide strict rules and regulations on the banking sector led to the country's banking sector is not adversely affected by the crisis. Besides, Malaysia lowering interest rates to inject liquidity of economy thus led to a decline of national savings from US $ 37.2 billion in 1997 to US $ 28.64 billion in 1998. Although the follow suffer the negative effects of the Asian financial crisis in 1997, but Malaysia was the quickest to recover from this crisis as reject the aid from IMF.
After the 1997 Asian Financial Crisis, economies in the region are working toward financial stability on financial supervision. Until 1999, ASEAN 5 attracted almost half of the total capital inflow by high real interest rates, which were attractive to foreign investors and saver looking for a high rate of return. As a result, the region's economies received a large inflow of money and experienced a dramatic run-up in asset prices. Besides, it also increased gross national savings between ASEAN 5 except Singapore. Only Singapore proved relatively insulated from the shock due to its size and geographical location between Malaysia and Indonesia. The value of gross national saving of Singapore was decline from US$44.46 billion in 1998 to US$41.77 billion in 1999.
In 2001, the September 11 attacks had a significant economic impact on United States and world markets which causing global stock markets to drop sharply. This resulted in the export market for ASEAN-5 fell and hurt the economy. For countries experiencing bad economy will affect real interest rates fall. The decline of real interest rate value affect gross national saving for Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore again except Philippines was rose up from US$12.65 billion in 2000 to US$15.13 billion in 2001. It could be due to the consumption of Philippines lower than other countries.

In 2008 the world economy faced its most dangerous crisis as know as Global Financial Crisis. The Global Financial Crisis was triggered by the eruption of the US subprime crisis and the subsequent liquidity and confidence crisis that has spread on a global scale.
The crisis is the result of both market and regulatory failures. The US subprime crisis was created by a prolonged period of abundant liquidity, excessive, imprudent lending in the subprime sector, lack of adequate prudential regulation over financial institutions and the bursting of the housing price bubble. The housing market in the United States suffered greatly as many homeowners who had taken out sub-prime loans found they were unable to meet their mortgage repayments. With a large number of borrowers defaulting on loans, banks were faced with a situation where the repossessed house and land was worth less on today’s market than the bank had loaned out originally. The banks had a liquidity crisis on their hands, and giving and obtaining home loans became increasingly difficult as the fallout from the sub-prime lending bubble burst.
Prior to the Global Financial Crisis in 2008, there are three countries showed the decline of the value of gross national saving which are Thailand (US$81.55 billion to US$77.89 billion), Malaysia (US$85.51 billion to US$62.57 billion), and Singapore (US$83.17 billion to US$80.38 billion) from 2008 to 2009 due to the worst worldwide economic and financial crisis since the Great Depression in 2009. It is because Thailand, Malaysia and Singapore are that countries most open to trade. With trade falling sharply around the world, economies particularly dependent on trade will suffered significant growth deficits as well. Thus, Malaysia, Thailand and Singapore are taking steps to inject economic by lower interest rates to boost economic growth. While, the national saving of Indonesia and Philippines had increased to US$ 180.81 billion and US$ 37.28 billion respectively in 2009. It is because the Philippines and Indonesia, with inflows of remittances from traditional large overseas workers increased national savings.
However the increase of national savings in Indonesia does not mean the country is not affected by the threat of the Global Financial Crisis. Actually, Indonesia faced most serious problems which inflation rate reached 18.1%. Thus, Indonesia government responded by matching policy during the Asian financial crisis by raising interest rates, which suggested by IMF and imposing monetary policy tightly. Indonesia is a country that is highly dependent on the flow of funds from foreign investors for economic development. Rising interest rates cause investors especially foreign investors to withdraw capital from the investment to Indonesia.

In 2010 – 2013, the only Thailand and Philippines showed the increasing consistently of the gross national saving in billion US dollar, from US$95.89 billion to US$110.79 billion, and from US$49.91 billion to US$62.91 billion respectively. While Indonesia was increased from US$236.65 billion to US$280.19 billion in 2012, decline by US$17.08 billion to US$263.11 billion in 2013. Malaysia also showed the increasing of the national saving from year 2010 to 2011 with US$81.48 billion to US$100.81 billion, decline to US$94.04 billion in 2013. The value of gross national saving in Singapore was rose up from US$110.02 billion in 2010 to US$137.36 billion in 2011, but decline by US$0.08 billion in 2012, and increased to US$137.28 billion in 2013.
Gross National Savings (% of GDP) for Singapore in year 2013 is 47.36 %. For many countries, the estimates of national saving are built up from national accounts data on gross domestic investment and from balance of payments-based data on net foreign investment. This makes Singapore No. 6 in world rankings according to Gross National Savings (% of GDP) in year 2014.

5.0 Conclusion
In conclusion, we can conclude that the federal monetary policy affects the nominal interest rate and this in turn directly affects national saving. When the nominal interest rate increase, investment has been reduced because of the high interest loans while real interest rate increased and it will increase national saving due to higher of returns. In this paper, we have attempted to answer the question of whether fiscal policy is an effective macroeconomic tool in influencing interest rate in the main five ASEAN countries. It is the counterpart to the role of monetary policy in influencing inflation.

The literature offers several explanations. Being small and highly open economies, Singapore, Malaysia, Thailand, and to a lesser extent the Philippines and Indonesia, are very susceptible to fiscal stimulus that leaks out through higher imports. Coupled with the adoption of a more flexible exchange rate regime especially after the Asian financial crisis, the leakage would have been greater. In addition, the combination of low financial depth and largely liberalized interest rate environment particularly in the Philippines and Indonesia facilitate the crowding out effects through greater upward pressures on interest rates. And when monetary policy accommodation is not forthcoming, the crowding out effects would be even larger.

More important, fiscal credibility characterized by a good track record of budget balances and low public debt level is key to policy effectiveness. Among the ASEAN5, many have run persistent budget deficits with the exception of Singapore. Their public debt levels may be considered as comfortable for developed countries, but not for developing countries epitomized by weak fiscal management and institutions, and a small tax base. The Philippines‘s fiscal weaknesses are well known and including Indonesia are two countries that have faced sovereign debt problems and restructured their debt. Thailand came close during the Asian financial crisis and Malaysia has shown signs of weaknesses.

References
Anna, (2012). "The impact of interest rates on foreign direct investment: A case study of the Zimbabwean economy (February 2009-June 2011).
Bijan B. Aghevli (1998). The Asian Crisis: Causes and Remedies. Article from IMF: June 1999, Volume 36, Number 2. Retrieved from http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/fandd/1999/06/aghevli.htm

Cecilia Kok. (2014). Moderate Outlook for Asean-5 Economies. Retrieved from http://www.thestar.com.my/Business/Business-News/2014/05/03/Moderate-outlook-for-Asean5-economies-Malaysia-may-be-the-only-country-in-the-region-to-see-growth-a/?style=biz.
Chan. (2002). Dynamic financial linkages among the Asia pacific economies: an empirical assessment of real interest parity condition at https://mpra.ub.uni- muenchen.de/34642/1/MPRA_paper_34642.pdf
Collins, S.M. (1989). Saving behavior in ten developing countries, Paper presented at the NBER Conference on Savings, Maui, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Econtech Pty Ltd. (2008). The Impact of Increased National Saving www.fsc.org.au/downloads/file/PublicationsFile/IFSAfinalupdate.pdf
Edwards, S. (1996).Why are Latin America;s savings rates so low ? An international comparative analysis. Journal of Development Economic, 51, 5-44.
Frank Columbus, (2007). Asian Economic and Political Issue Volume 12. New York: Publish by Nova Science Publishers, Inc.
Fry, M. 1995. Money, Interest and Banking in Economic Development, 2nd edition. London: Johns Hopkins Press Ltd.
Fry, M. J. (1978). Money and capital or financial deepening in economic development. Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, 10, 464-475.
Fry, M. J. (1991). Domestic resource mobilization in developing Asia: four policy issues. Asian Development Riview, 19, 15-39.
Gavin, M., Hauamann, R., & Talvi E. (1997). Saving behavior in Latin America: overview and policy issues. In R. Hausmann & H., Reisen (Eds.), Promoting savings in Latin America. Paris: Organization of Economic Corporation and Development and Inter-America Development Bank.
Giovannini, Alberto. 1983. The interest elasticity of savings in developing countries: The existing evidence. World Development 11(7): 601-607.
Hussien, K., & Thirlwall, A. (1999). Explaining differences in the domestic savings 25. Mohan, R. 2006. Causal relationship between saving and economic growth in countries with different income levels. Economics Bulletin 5: 1-12.
Mohan, Ramesh (2009). EXAMINING INTEREST RATE LINKAGES AMONG ASEAN-5, CHINA AND INDIA http://www.usc.es/economet/reviews/ijaeqs923.pdf
Pinchawee Rasmidatta (2011). The Relationship between Domestic Saving and Economic Growth and Convergence Hypothesis: Case Study of Thailand.
Sayed, A. E (2014). The effect of interest rate, inflation rate and GDP on national saving rate. Journal of Commerce & Management Perspective, 1,1-7
The global financial crisis is transmitted to Malaysia mainly through the financial and trade channels (James et al., 2008).

Appendix

Real Interest Rate (%) of Asean-5 in 1991-2013

Years | Malaysia(%) | Indonesia(%) | Thailand(%) | Philippines(%) | Singapore(%) | 1991 | 5.6 | 15.4 | 9.1 | 5.6 | 3 | 1992 | 7.6 | 17.7 | 7.3 | 10.7 | 4.9 | 1993 | 5.8 | 10.8 | 7.6 | 7.3 | 1.9 | 1994 | 4.6 | 9.3 | 5.4 | 4.6 | 2.1 | 1995 | 4.9 | 8.3 | 7.3 | 6.6 | 3 | 1996 | 6 | 9.5 | 9 | 6.7 | 4.7 | 1997 | 6.9 | 8.2 | 9.2 | 9.5 | 5.2 | 1998 | 3.4 | -24.6 | 4.7 | -4.6 | 8.9 | 1999 | 8.5 | 11.8 | 13.6 | 4.9 | 10.1 | 2000 | -1.1 | -1.7 | 6.4 | 4.9 | 2 | 2001 | 8.8 | 3.7 | 5.1 | 6.5 | 8.1 | 2002 | 3.3 | 12.3 | 6 | 4.8 | 6.7 | 2003 | 2.9 | 10.9 | 4.5 | 6.1 | 7.1 | 2004 | 0 | 5.1 | 2.3 | 4.3 | 1 | 2005 | -2.7 | -0.2 | 1.2 | 4.1 | 3 | 2006 | 2.4 | 1.7 | 2 | 4.6 | 3.5 | 2007 | 1.5 | 2.3 | 3.5 | 5.4 | -0.5 | 2008 | -3.9 | -3.9 | 3 | 1.1 | 7 | 2009 | 11.8 | 5.7 | 3.9 | 5.6 | 1.8 | 2010 | 0.8 | -1.7 | 2.2 | 3.3 | 5.4 | 2011 | -0.6 | 4.6 | 2.6 | 2.5 | 4.2 | 2012 | 4 | 7.8 | 5.7 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 2013 | 4.6 | 6.6 | 5.2 | 3.7 | 5.4 |

GDP of Asean-5 in 1991-2013

Years | Malaysia(In USD Billion ) | Indonesia(In USD Billion ) | Thailand(In USD Billion ) | Philippines(In USD Billion ) | Singapore(In USD Billion ) | 1991 | 49.13 | 128.17 | 98.23 | 45.42 | 45.47 | 1992 | 59.15 | 139.12 | 111.45 | 53 | 52.16 | 1993 | 66.89 | 158.01 | 125.01 | 54.37 | 60.64 | 1994 | 74.48 | 176.89 | 144.31 | 64.08 | 73.78 | 1995 | 88.83 | 202.13 | 168.02 | 74.12 | 87.89 | 1996 | 100.85 | 227.37 | 181.95 | 82.85 | 96.4 | 1997 | 100.17 | 215.75 | 150.89 | 82.34 | 100.16 | 1998 | 72.18 | 95.45 | 111.86 | 72.21 | 85.71 | 1999 | 79.15 | 140 | 122.63 | 83 | 86.29 | 2000 | 93.79 | 165.02 | 122.73 | 81.03 | 95.84 | 2001 | 92.78 | 160.45 | 115.54 | 76.26 | 89.29 | 2002 | 100.85 | 195.66 | 126.88 | 81.26 | 91.94 | 2003 | 110.2 | 234.77 | 142.64 | 83.91 | 97 | 2004 | 124.75 | 256.84 | 161.34 | 91.37 | 114.19 | 2005 | 143.53 | 285.87 | 176.35 | 103.07 | 127.42 | 2006 | 162.69 | 364.57 | 207.09 | 122.21 | 147.79 | 2007 | 193.55 | 432.22 | 246.98 | 149.36 | 179.98 | 2008 | 230.99 | 510.24 | 272.58 | 173.6 | 192.23 | 2009 | 202.25 | 539.58 | 263.71 | 168.33 | 192.41 | 2010 | 247.53 | 709.19 | 318.91 | 199.59 | 236.42 | 2011 | 289.59 | 845.93 | 345.67 | 224.14 | 274.07 | 2012 | 305.26 | 876.72 | 365.97 | 250.24 | 286.91 | 2013 | 313.16 | 868.35 | 387.25 | 272.07 | 297.94 |

Gross National Saving and Its % of GDP of Asean-5 in 1991-2013

Years | Indonesia(% of GDP) | In USD(Billion) | Thailand(% of GDP) | In USD(Billion) | Filipina(% of GDP) | In USD(Billion) | Malaysia(% of GDP) | In USD(Billion) | Singapore(% of GDP) | In USD(Billion) | 1991 | 29.04 | 37.22 | 35.17 | 34.54 | 16.26 | 7.38 | 28.74 | 14.11 | 44.13 | 20.06 | 1992 | 27.72 | 38.56 | 34.4 | 38.33 | 17.56 | 9.3 | 31.16 | 18.43 | 45.95 | 23.96 | 1993 | 28.16 | 44.49 | 34.98 | 43.72 | 16.6 | 9.02 | 34.07 | 22.78 | 43.37 | 26.29 | 1994 | 29.52 | 52.22 | 34.69 | 50.06 | 17.55 | 11.24 | 33.14 | 24.68 | 47.8 | 35.26 | 1995 | 28.88 | 58.37 | 34.07 | 57.24 | 16.07 | 11.91 | 34.06 | 30.25 | 49.67 | 43.65 | 1996 | 27.78 | 63.16 | 33.77 | 61.44 | 17.47 | 14.47 | 37.12 | 37.43 | 49.01 | 47.24 | 1997 | 30.16 | 65.07 | 32.85 | 49.56 | 17.62 | 14.51 | 37.14 | 37.2 | 52.68 | 52.76 | 1998 | 20.57 | 19.63 | 33.31 | 37.26 | 15.48 | 11.17 | 39.68 | 28.64 | 51.88 | 44.46 | 1999 | 15.09 | 21.13 | 30.66 | 37.59 | 15.49 | 12.85 | 38.07 | 30.13 | 48.41 | 41.77 | 2000 | 27.07 | 44.67 | 30.44 | 37.26 | 15.62 | 12.65 | 35.92 | 33.68 | 43.99 | 42.16 | 2001 | 26.84 | 43.06 | 28.53 | 32.97 | 19.85 | 15.13 | 32.25 | 29.92 | 39.55 | 35.31 | 2002 | 25.40 | 49.69 | 27.49 | 34.87 | 24.12 | 19.59 | 32.74 | 33.01 | 36.84 | 33.87 | 2003 | 29.05 | 68.2 | 28.32 | 40.39 | 23.32 | 19.56 | 34.75 | 38.29 | 38.99 | 37.82 | 2004 | 23.86 | 61.28 | 28.51 | 45.99 | 23.39 | 21.37 | 35.14 | 43.83 | 38.88 | 44.39 | 2005 | 24.05 | 68.75 | 27.11 | 47.8 | 23.47 | 24.19 | 34.99 | 50.22 | 41.4 | 52.75 | 2006 | 28.38 | 103.46 | 29.42 | 60.92 | 22.38 | 27.35 | 37.17 | 60.47 | 45.61 | 67.41 | 2007 | 27.35 | 118.21 | 32.78 | 80.96 | 22.1 | 33.01 | 37.47 | 72.52 | 48.12 | 86.61 | 2008 | 27.34 | 139.49 | 29.92 | 81.55 | 21.38 | 37.12 | 37.02 | 85.51 | 43.27 | 83.17 | 2009 | 33.51 | 180.81 | 29.54 | 77.89 | 22.15 | 37.28 | 30.94 | 62.57 | 41.78 | 80.38 | 2010 | 33.37 | 236.65 | 30.07 | 95.89 | 25.01 | 49.91 | 32.92 | 81.48 | 46.54 | 110.02 | 2011 | 33.11 | 280.08 | 29.2 | 100.93 | 22.99 | 51.52 | 34.81 | 100.81 | 50.12 | 137.36 | 2012 | 31.96 | 280.19 | 29.34 | 107.37 | 20.87 | 52.22 | 31.71 | 96.79 | 47.85 | 137.28 | 2013 | 30.30 | 263.11 | 28.61 | 110.79 | 23.13 | 62.92 | 30.03 | 94.04 | 47.36 | 141.1 |

Inflation Rate (%) of Asean-5 in 1991-2013

Years | Malaysia(%) | Indonesia(%) | Singapore(%) | Thailand(%) | Philippines(%) | 1991 | 3.6 | 8.8 | 4.4 | 5.7 | 16.5 | 1992 | 2.4 | 5.4 | 1.0 | 4.5 | 7.9 | 1993 | 4.0 | 8.9 | 3.4 | 3.3 | 6.8 | 1994 | 3.9 | 7.8 | 3.7 | 5.2 | 10.0 | 1995 | 3.6 | 9.7 | 3.3 | 5.6 | 7.6 | 1996 | 3.7 | 8.9 | 1.5 | 4.0 | 7.7 | 1997 | 3.5 | 12.6 | 1.0 | 4.1 | 6.2 | 1998 | 8.5 | 75.3 | -1.4 | 9.2 | 22.4 | 1999 | 0 | 14.2 | -3.9 | -4.0 | 6.6 | 2000 | 8.9 | 20.4 | 3.7 | 1.3 | 5.7 | 2001 | -1.6 | 14.3 | -2.2 | 2.1 | 5.5 | 2002 | 3.1 | 5.9 | -1.2 | 0.8 | 4.2 | 2003 | 3.3 | 5.5 | -1.7 | 1.3 | 3.2 | 2004 | 6.0 | 8.6 | 4.2 | 3.1 | 5.5 | 2005 | 8.9 | 14.3 | 2.2 | 4.5 | 5.8 | 2006 | 4.0 | 14.1 | 1.7 | 5.2 | 4.9 | 2007 | 4.9 | 11.3 | 5.9 | 3.5 | 3.1 | 2008 | 10.4 | 18.1 | -1.5 | 3.9 | 7.5 | 2009 | -6.0 | 8.3 | 3.5 | 1.9 | 2.8 | 2010 | 4,1 | 15.3 | 0 | 3.7 | 4.2 | 2011 | 5.6 | 7.5 | 1.2 | 4.2 | 4.0 | 2012 | 0.7 | 3.8 | 1.2 | 1.3 | 1.9 | 2013 | 0 | 4.7 | -0.1 | 1.7 | 2.0 |