This paper presents a theoretical and empirical analysis of policies aimed at setting a more depreciated level of the real exchange rate. An intertemporal optimizing model suggests that, in the absence of changes in fiscal policy, a more depreciated level of the real exchange can only be attained temporarily. This can be achieved by means of higher inflation and/or higher real interest rates, depending on the degree of capital mobility. Evidence for Brazil, Chile, and Colombia supports the model’s prediction that undervalued real exchange rates are associated with higher inflation.
Government spending on infrastructure has recently increased sharply in many emerging-market economies. This paper examines the mechanism through which public infrastructure spending affects the dynamics of the real exchange rate. Using a two-sector dependent open economy model with intersectoral adjustment costs, we show that government spending generates a non-monotonic U-shaped adjustment path for the real exchange rate with sharp intertemporal trade-offs. The effect of government spending on the real exchange rate depends critically on (i) the composition of public spending, (ii) the underlying financing policy, (iii) the intensity of private capital in production, and (iv) the relative productivity of public infrastructure. In deriving these results, the model also identifies conditions under which the predictions of the neoclassical open economy model can be reconciled with empirical regularities, namely the intertemporal relationship between government spending, private consumption, and the real exchange rate.
How successful is PPP, and its extension in the monetary model, as a measure of the equilibrium exchange rate? What are the determinants and dynamics of equilibrium real exchange rates? How can misalignments be measured, and what are their causes? What are the effects of specific policies upon the equilibrium exchange rate? The answers to these questions are important to academic theorists, policymakers, international bankers and investment fund managers. This volume encompasses all of the competing views of equilibrium exchange rate determination, from PPP, through other reduced form models, to the macroeconomic balance approach. This volume is essentially empirical: what do we know about exchange rates? The different econometric and theoretical approaches taken by the various authors in this volume lead to mutually consistent conclusions. This consistency gives us confidence that significant progress has been made in understanding what are the fundamental determinants of exchange rates and what are the forces operating to bring them back in line with the fundamentals.
This article analyzes the theory of equilibrium real exchange rates and defines misalignment as a deviation of the real exchange rate (RER) from its equilibrium level. The role of macroeconomic policies is then analyzed under three alternative nominal exchange rate regimes: predetermined nominal exchange rates; floating nominal rates; and dual or black market nominal exchange rates. This discussion points out how inconsistent macroeconomic policies often lead to real exchange rate misalignment. Corrective measures, including nominal devaluation and several alternative approaches, are then evaluated.
This paper examines the relationship between fiscal policy and the current account, drawing on a larger country sample than in previous studies and using panel regressions, vector autoregressions, and an analysis of large fiscal and external adjustments. On average, a strengthening in the fiscal balance by 1 percentage point of GDP is associated with a current account improvement of 0.2–0.3 percentage point of GDP. This association is as strong in emerging and low-income countries as it is in advanced economies; and significantly higher when output is above potential.
Economists writing on flexible exchange rates in the 1960s foresaw neither the magnitude nor the persistence of the changes in real exchange rates that have occurred in the last fifteen years. Unexpectedly large movements in relative prices have lead to sharp changes in exports and imports, disrupting normal trading relations and causing shifts in employment and output. Many of the largest changes are not equilibrium adjustments to real disturbances but represent instead sustained departures from long-run equilibrium levels, with real exchange rates remaining "misaligned" for years at a time. Contributors to Misalignment of Exchange Rates address a series of questions about misalignment. Several papers investigate the causes of misalignment and the extent to which observed movements in real exchange rates can be attributed to misalignment. These studies are conducted both empirically, through the experiences of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and the countries of the European Monetary System, and theoretically, through models of imperfect competition. Attention is then turned to the effects of misalignment, especially on employment and production, and to detailed estimates of the effects of changes in exchange rates on several industries, including the U.S. auto industry. In response to the contention that there is significant "hysteresis" in the adjustment of employment and production to changes in exchange rates, contributors also attempt to determine whether the effects of misalignment can be reversed once exchange rates return to earlier levels. Finally, the issue of how to avoid—or at least control—misalignment through macroeconomic policy is confronted.
We contribute to the intense debate on the real effects of fiscal stimuli by showing that the impact of government expenditure shocks depends crucially on key country characteristics, such as the level of development, exchange rate regime, openness to trade, and public indebtedness. Based on a novel quarterly dataset of government expenditure in 44 countries, we find that (i) the output effect of an increase in government consumption is larger in industrial than in developing countries, (ii) the fisscal multiplier is relatively large in economies operating under predetermined exchange rate but zero in economies operating under flexible exchange rates; (iii) fiscal multipliers in open economies are lower than in closed economies and (iv) fiscal multipliers in high-debt countries are also zero.
This book contains the papers, comments, and the discussion at a conference on "Flexible Exchange Rates and Stabilization Policy", held at Saltsjobaden, Stockholm, August 26–27, 1975. The papers integrate the flexible exchange rates theory with macro theory and stabilization policy analysis. .
Volatile exchange rates and how to manage them are a contentious topic whenever economic policymakers gather in international meetings. This book examines the broad parameters of exchange rate policy in light of both high-powered theory and real-world experience. What are the costs and benefits of flexible versus fixed exchange rates? How much of a role should the exchange rate play in monetary policy? Why don't volatile exchange rates destabilize inflation and output? The principal finding of this book is that using monetary policy to fight exchange rate volatility, including through the adoption of a fixed exchange rate regime, leads to greater volatility of employment, output, and inflation. In other words, the "cure" for exchange rate volatility is worse than the disease. This finding is demonstrated in economic models, in historical case studies, and in statistical analysis of the data. The book devotes considerable attention to understanding the reasons why volatile exchange rates do not destabilize inflation and output. The book concludes that many countries would benefit from allowing greater flexibility of their exchange rates in order to target monetary policy at stabilization of their domestic economies. Few, if any, countries would benefit from a move in the opposite direction.
Recently, monetary authorities have increasingly focused on implementing policies to ensure price stability and strengthen central bank independence. Simultaneously, in the fiscal area, market development has allowed public debt managers to focus more on cost minimization. This “divorce” of monetary and debt management functions in no way lessens the need for effective coordination of monetary and fiscal policy if overall economic performance is to be optimized and maintained in the long term. This paper analyzes these issues based on a review of the relevant literature and of country experiences from an institutional and operational perspective.
