Download Free Macroeconomic Volatility After Trade And Capital Account Liberalization Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Macroeconomic Volatility After Trade And Capital Account Liberalization and write the review.

What are the equilibrium effects of trade and capital liberalization on consumption smoothing? This question is addressed by studying the response to productivity shocks in a baseline two country, two goods, incomplete market model, where foreign borrowing is secured by collateral. The paper shows that international financial integration, modeled by relaxing a borrowing constraint a la Kiyotaki in the domestic country, worsens consumption smoothing; international trade integration, modeled by a reduction of non linear iceberg transportation costs, improves it. As a measure of consumption smoothing, the analysis uses the ratio between the simulated standard deviation of consumption growth and the simulated standard deviation of output growth. These results are qualitatively consistent with the empirical evidence provided by Kose, Prasad and Terrones (2003).
This paper examines the impact of international financial integration on macroeconomic volatility in a large group of industrial and developing economies over the period 1960-99. We report two major results: First, while the volatility of output growth has, on average, declined in the 1990s relative to the three preceding decades, we also document that, on average, the volatility of consumption growth relative to that of income growth has increased for more financially integrated developing economies in the 1990s. Second, increasing financial openness is associated with rising relative volatility of consumption, but only up to a certain threshold. The benefits of financial integration in terms of improved risk-sharing and consumption-smoothing possibilities appear to accrue only beyond this threshold.
The deregulation of domestic financial markets and the capital account in developing countries has frequently been associated with financial turmoil and macro volatility. The book analyzes the experiences of several countries, drawing implications for building development-friendly domestic and international financial architectures.
There is growing dissatisfaction with the economic policies advocated by the IMF and other international financial institutions - policies that have often resulted in stagnating growth, crises, and recessions for client countries. This book presents an alternative to "Washington Consensus" neo-liberal economic policies by showing that both macro-economic and liberalization policy must be sensitive to the particular circumstances of developing countries. One-size-fits-all policy prescriptions are likely to fail given the vast differences between countries. This book discusses how alternative approaches to economic policy can better serve developing countries both in ordinary times and in times of crisis.
Financial globalization has increased dramatically over the past three decades, particularly for advanced economies, while emerging market and developing countries experienced more moderate increases. Divergences across countries stem from different capital control regimes, and factors such as institutional quality and domestic financial development. Although, in principle, financial globalization should enhance international risk sharing, reduce macroeconomic volatility, and foster economic growth, in practice its effects are less clear-cut. This paper envisages a gradual and orderly sequencing of external financial liberalization and complementary reforms in macroeconomic policy framework as essential components of a successful liberalization strategy.
This paper recounts Chile’s experience with capital account policies since the 1990s. We present how two external shocks were confronted under very different macroeconomic and capital account frameworks. We show that during the 1997-98 Asian-LTCM-Russia crisis, a closed capital account and relatively rigid exchange rate severely constrained the monetary policy response to the shock, aggravating the fall in domestic demand. During the 2008-09 crisis, a full-fledged inflation targeting framework allowed the authorities to implement a significant countercyclical response. We argue that domestic stability considerations lay behind the policy regime switch toward capital account liberalization from 1999 onwards.
This paper examines the distributional impact of capital account liberalization. Using panel data for 149 countries from 1970 to 2010, we find that, on average, capital account liberalization reforms increase inequality and reduce the labor share of income in the short and medium term. We also find that the level of financial development and the occurrence of crises play a key role in shaping the response of inequality to capital account liberalization reforms.
"Writings on the macroeconomic impact of capital account liberalization find few, if any, robust effects of liberalization on real variables. In contrast to the prevailing wisdom, I argue that the textbook theory of liberalization holds up quite well to a critical reading of this literature. The lion's share of papers that find no effect of liberalization on real variables tell us nothing about the empirical validity of the theory, because they do not really test it. This paper explains why it is that most studies do not really address the theory they set out to test. It also discusses what is necessary to test the theory and examines papers that have done so. Studies that actually test the theory show that liberalization has significant effects on the cost of capital, investment, and economic growth"--National Bureau of Economic Research web site.
The influential work of Ramey and Ramey (1995) highlighted an empirical relationship that has now come to be regarded as conventional wisdom-that output volatility and growth are negatively correlated. We reexamine this relationship in the context of globalization-a term typically used to describe the phenomenon of growing international trade and financial integration that has intensified since the mid-1980s. Using a comprehensive new data set, we document that, while the basic negative association between growth and volatility has been preserved during the 1990s, both trade and financial integration significantly weaken this negative relationship. Specifically, we find that, in a regression of growth on volatility and other controls, the estimated coefficient on the interaction between volatility and trade integration is significantly positive. We find a similar, although less significant, result for the interaction of financial integration with volatility.
Capital market liberalization has been a key battle in the debate on globalization for much of the previous two decades. Many developing countries, often at the behest of international financial institutions such as the IMF, opened their capital accounts and liberalized their domestic financial markets as part of the wave of liberalization that characterized the 1980s and 1990s and in doing so exposed their economies to increased risk and volatility. Now with even the IMF acknowledging the risks inherent in capital market liberalization, the central intellectual battle over the effects of capital market liberalization has for the most part ended. Though this new understanding of the consequences of capital market liberalization is reshaping many policy discussions among academics and international institutions, ideological and vested interests remain. Critical policy debates also remain, such as how much government should intervene and what tools are available. Although capital market liberalization might not produce the promised benefits, many economists and policymakers still worry about the costs of intervention. Do these costs exceed the benefits? What are the best kinds of interventions, under what circumstances? To answer these questions, we have to understand why capital market liberalization has failed to enhance growth, why it has resulted in greater instability, why the poor appear to have borne the greatest burden, and why the advocates of capital market liberalization were so wrong. Bringing together some of the leading researchers and practitioners in the field, this volume provides an analysis of both the risks associated with capital market liberalization and the alternative policy options available to enhance macroeconomic management.