{"references": ["J. D. Hamilton and M. A. Flavin, \"On the limitations of government borrowing: a framework for empirical testing,\" The American Economic Review, vol. 76, no. 4, pp.808-819, 1986.", "B. Trehan and C. E. Walsh (1991), \"Testing intertemporal budget constraints: theory and application to U.S. federal budget and current account deficits,\" Journal of Money, Credit and Banking, vol. 23, pp. 206-223, 1991.", "C. E. Quintos, \"Sustainability of the deficit process with structural shifts,\" Journal of Business and Economic Statistics, vo. 13, no. 4, pp.409-417.", "L. R. Lima, W. P. Gaglianone, and R. M. B. Sampaio (2008), \"Debt ceiling and fiscal sustainability in Brazil: a quantile autoregression approach,\" Journal of Development Economic, vol. 86, pp. 313-335, 2008.", "H. Bohn, \"Are stationary and cointegration are really necessary for the intertemporal budget constraint,\" Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 54, pp. 1837-1847, 2007.", "S. Ahmed and J. H. Rogers, \"Government budget deficits and trade deficit: are present value constraints sustained in long-term data?\" Journal of Monetary Economics, vol. 36, pp. 351-374, 1995.", "J. E. Payne , H. Mohammadi , and M. Cak , \"Turkish budget deficit sustainability and the revenue-expenditure nexus ,\" Applied Economics, vol. 40, no. 7, pp. 823-830, 2008.", "L. Sarno, \"The behavior of US public debt: a nonlinear perspective,\" Economics Letters, vol. 74, no. 1, pp. 119-125, 2001.", "G. Chortareas, G. Kapetanios, and M. Uctum, \"A nonlinear approach to public finance sustainability in Latin America,\" Working Paper, no. 486, University of London Queen Mary Economics, 2003.\n[10]\tP. Arestis, A. Cipollini, and B. Fattouh, \"Threshold effects in the U.S. budget deficit\" Economic Inquiry, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 214-222, 2004.\n[11]\tC.-J. Huang and Y.-H. Ho, \"Fiscal deficit sustainability in China: nonlinear evidence\", in Business Strategies and Technological Innovations for Sustainable Development: Creating Global Prosperity for Humanity, N. Delener et al., Eds. Global Business and Technology Association, 2009, pp. 520-527.\n[12]\tD. A. Dickey and W. A. Fuller, \"Likelihood ratio statistics for autoregressive time series with a unit root\", Econometrica, vol. 49, pp. 1057-72, 1981.\n[13]\tP.C.B. Phillips and P. Perron, \"Testing for unit roots in tme series regression,\" Biometrika, vol. 75, pp. 423-470, 1988.\n[14]\tD. Kwiatkowski, P. Phillips, P. Schmidt, and Y. Shin. 1992, \"Testing the null hypothesis of stationarity against the alternative of a unit root: how sure are we that economic time series have a unit root?\" Journal of Econometrics, vol. 54, pp. 159-178, 1992.\n[15]\tM. Caner and B. Hansen, \"Threshold autoregression with a unit root,\" Econometrica, vol. 69, no. 6, pp. 1555-1596, 2001.\n[16]\tF. Jawadi and R. M. Sousa, \"Structural breaks and nonlinearity in US and UK public debt,\" Working Paper, University of Minho, 2012."]}

This study examines whether the Taiwan’s public debt is sustainable utilizing an unrestricted two-regime threshold autoregressive (TAR) model with an autoregressive unit root. The empirical results show that Taiwan’s public debt appears as a nonlinear series and is stationary in regime 1 but not in regime 2. This result implies that while Taiwan’s public debt was mostly sustainable over the 1996 to 2013 period examined in the study, it may no longer be sustainable in the most recent two years as the public debt ratio has increased cumulatively to 3.618%.