Tag Archives: China

Assigned Readings: Dec. 30, 2013

Leave a reply

In the run-up to the financial crisis the world economy was characterized by large and growing current-account imbalances. Since the onset of the crisis, China and the U.S. have rebalanced. As a share of GDP, their current-account imbalances are now less than half their pre-crisis levels. For China, the reduction in its current-account surplus post-crisis suggests a structural change. Panel regressions for a sample of almost 100 countries over the thirty-year period 1983-2013 confirm that the relationship between current-account balances and economic variables such as performance, structure, wealth and the exchange rate changed in important ways after the financial crisis.

I discuss how the unconventional monetary policy measures implemented over the past several years – quantitative and credit easing, and forward guidance – can be analysed in the context of conventional models of asset prices, with particular reference to exchange rates. I then discuss alternative approaches to interpreting the effects of such policies, and review the empirical evidence. Finally, I examine the ramifications for thinking about the impact on exchange rates and asset prices of emerging market economies. I conclude that although the implementation of unconventional monetary policy measures may introduce more volatility into global markets, in general it will support global rebalancing by encouraging the revaluation of emerging market currencies.

We study the long-run relationship between public debt and growth in a large panel of countries. Our analysis takes particular note of theoretical arguments and data considerations in modeling the debt-growth relationship as heterogeneous across countries. We investigate the issue of nonlinearities (debt thresholds) in both the cross-country and within-country dimensions, employing novel methods and diagnostics from the time-series literature adapted for use in the panel. We find some support for a nonlinear relationship between debt and long-run growth across countries, but no evidence for common debt thresholds within countries over time.

  • Atish R. Ghosh, Mahvash S. Qureshi, Juk Il Kim and Juan Zalduendo. “Surges.” Journal of International Economics, forthcoming.

This paper examines when and why capital sometimes surges to emerging market economies (EMEs). Using data on net capital flows for 56 EMEs over 1980−2011, we find that global factors, including US interest rates and investor risk aversion act as “gatekeepers” that determine when surges of capital to EMEs will occur. Whether a particular EME receives a surge, and the magnitude of that surge, however, are largely related to domestic factors such as its external financing need, capital account openness, and exchange rate regime. Differentiating between surges driven by exceptional behavior of asset flows (repatriation of foreign assets by domestic residents) from those driven by exceptional behavior of liability flows (nonresident investments into the country), shows the latter to be relatively more sensitive to global factors and contagion.

In bilateral and multilateral surveillance, countries are often urged to consider alternative policies that would result in superior outcomes for the country itself and, perhaps serendipitously, for the world economy. While it is possible that policy makers in the country do not fully recognize the benefits of proposed alternative policies, it is also possible that the existing policies are the best that they can deliver, given their various constraints, including political. In order for the policy makers to be able and willing to implement the better policies some quid pro quo may be required—such as a favorable policy adjustment in the recipients of the spillovers; identifying such mutually beneficial trades is the essence of international policy coordination. We see four general guideposts in terms of the search for globally desirable solutions. First, all parties need to identify the nature of spillovers from their policies and be open to making adjustments to enhance net positive spillovers in exchange for commensurate benefits from others; but second, with countries transparent about the spillovers as they see them, an honest broker is likely to be needed to scrutinize the different positions, given the inherent biases at the country level. Third, given the need for policy agendas to be multilaterally consistent, special scrutiny is needed when policies exacerbate global imbalances and currency misalignments; and fourth, by the same token, special scrutiny is also needed when one country’s policies has a perceptible adverse impact on financial-stability risks elsewhere.

Assigned Readings: November 14, 2013

Leave a reply

Taking a historical perspective of economic changes, this paper argues that muddling through crises-induced reforms characterizes well the evolutionary process of forming currency unions. The economic distortions facing the euro include structural challenges in the labor and product markets, and financial distortions. While both structural and financial distortions are costly and prevalent, they differ in fundamental ways. Financial distortions are moving at the speed of the Internet, and their welfare costs are determined more by the access to credit lines and leverage, than by the GDP of each country. In contrast, the structural distortions are moving at a slow pace relative to the financial distortions, and their effects are determined by inter-generational dynamics. These considerations suggest that the priority should be given to dealing with the financial distortions. A more perfect Eurozone is not assured without successfully muddling through painful periodic crises.

International financial linkages, particularly through global bank flows, generate important questions about the consequences for economic and financial stability, including the ability of countries to conduct autonomous monetary policy. I address the monetary autonomy issue in the context of the international policy trilemma: countries seek three typically desirable but jointly unattainable objectives: stable exchange rates, free international capital mobility, and monetary policy autonomy oriented toward and effective at achieving domestic goals. I argue that global banking entails some features that are distinct from broad issues of capital market openness captured in existing studies. In principal, if global banks with affiliates established in foreign markets can reduce frictions in international capital flows then the macroeconomic policy trilemma could bind tighter and interest rates will exhibit more co-movement across countries. However, if the information content and stickiness of the claims and services provided are enhanced relative to a benchmark alternative, then global banks can weaken the trilemma rather than enhance it. The result is a prediction of heterogeneous effects on monetary autonomy, tied to the business models of the global banks and whether countries are investment or funding locations for those banks. Empirical tests of the trilemma support this view that global bank effects are heterogeneous, and also that the primary drivers of monetary autonomy are exchange rate regimes.

We analyse global and euro area imbalances by focusing on China and Germany as large surplus and creditor countries. In the 2000s, domestic reforms in both countries expanded the effective labour force, restrained wages, shifted income towards profits and increased corporate saving. As a result, both economies’ current account surpluses widened before the global financial crisis, and that of Germany has proven more persistent as domestic investment has remained subdued.

In contrast to earlier recessions, the monetary regimes of many small economies have not changed in the aftermath of the global financial crisis. This is due in part to the fact that many small economies continue to use hard exchange rate fixes, a reasonably durable regime. However, most of the new stability is due to countries that float with an inflation target. Though a few have left to join the Eurozone, no country has yet abandoned an inflation targeting regime under duress. Inflation targeting now represents a serious alternative to a hard exchange rate fix for small economies seeking monetary stability. Are there important differences between the economic outcomes of the two stable regimes? I examine a panel of annual data from more than 170 countries from 2007 through 2012 and find that the macroeconomic and financial consequences of regime‐choice are surprisingly small. Consistent with the literature, business cycles, capital flows, and other phenomena for hard fixers have been similar to those for inflation targeters during the Global Financial Crisis and its aftermath.

  • Much has been done since 2010 to reduce macroeconomic imbalances in the Euro Area periphery and to bolster economic and financial integration at the EU level
  • Stronger exports may now be stabilizing output after two years of contraction, but headwinds remain with fiscal adjustment continuing and bank lending constrained
  • Market sentiment, underpinned by OMT, has improved with better economic news
  • Challenges remain, however, including the need to restore full bond market access for Portugal as well as Ireland and agree further financing and relief for Greece
  • Italy remains at risk over the longer term, with a return to durable growth requiring deeper structural reforms that political divisions are likely to impede
  • Progress mutualizing sovereign and bank liabilities looks likely to remain limited, leaving Euro Area members vulnerable to renewed weakness in market sentiment

Strategic Retreat or Tactical Pause?

Leave a reply

Several recent analyses of financial globalization offer different perspectives on whether the recent contraction in capital flows represents a cyclical decline or a long-term reversal. On the one hand, the expansion of gross financial flows in the last decade among upper-income countries will not continue at the same pace. But the development of financial markets in emerging markets will increase capital flows within that group of countries as well as draw funds from the advanced economies.

Richard Dobbs and Susan Lund of the McKinsey Global Institute note that cross-border flows are more than 60% below the pre-crisis peak. They attribute the decline to a “dramatic reversal of European financial integration” as European banks curtail their lending activities. They also draw attention to “a retrenchment of global banking” due to a reassessment by banks of their foreign activities in light of new capital requirements and regulations. Dobbs and Lund are concerned that too strong a reversal will result in a segregated global financial system.

Greg Ip of The Economist also writes about a reversal of financial integration for a similar set of reasons. Bankers are shrinking their balance sheets while regulators seek to shield their domestic financial markets from foreign shocks. In addition, Ip draws attention to the renewed interest in the use of capital controls to lower volatility. The IMF now includes controls as a tool that policymakers can use to manage the risks associated with surges of capital flows. But like Dobbs and Lund, Ip is concerned about financial fragmentation, and urges financial regulators to cooperate in order to achieve common standards.

The authors of the World Bank’s Capital for the Future: Saving and Investment in an Interdependent World, on the other hand, draw attention to developing countries and emerging markets as both a source and destination of capital flows. These countries are likely to account for an increasing share of gross capital flows, which will be driven (p. 125)  “…by more rapid economic growth and lower population aging in developing countries than in advanced countries, as well as by developing countries’ relatively greater scope for increasing openness and strengthening financial sector institutions.” They see evidence of this trend prior to the global financial crisis, as the share of gross capital inflows to developing countries rose from 4 percent of the total in 2000 to 11 percent in 2007.

Foreign direct investment accounted for most of these inflows, although bank loans have also increased. While portfolio flows have constituted a relatively small share of inflows to these countries, the authors of Capital for the Future believe that in the future a larger proportion will flow through the capital markets. Ultimately, they claim (p. 131), there will be “developing-country convergence with advanced economies in terms of their composition of their capital inflows.” Policymakers can expedite the transition to more portfolio flows through the development of domestic financial markets and their regulatory structure.

China will play a major role in any increase in capital flows to emerging economies. Foreign exchange reserves have been the traditional form of asset accumulation in that country. Tamim Bayoumi and Franziska Ohnsorge of the IMF use a portfolio allocation model to speculate about the effects of the liberalization of capital regulations by the Chinese authorities on the private sector. They infer from their estimates that (p. 14) “capital account liberalization may be followed by a stock adjustment of Chinese assets abroad on the order of 15-25 percent of GDP and a smaller stock adjustment for foreign assets in China on the order of 2-10 percent of GDP.” The acquisition of foreign stocks and bonds by Chinese investors who would seek to diversify their portfolios could offset any continued increase in FDI inflows. The IMF economists contrast this forecast with one for India, which they believe would have more balanced flows following capital account deregulation because of smaller asset holdings by Indian investors and hence a more restricted scope for diversification.

These scenarios for the future of financial globalization need not contradict each other. On the one hand, bank lending in the U.S. and Europe is likely to be limited as governments enact new regulations and Europe continues to deal with its debt crisis. But investors in those countries may look to the emerging and “frontier” markets for higher returns based on their growth, while increased income in the emerging markets will drive a demand for liquid financial instruments that will spill over into foreign markets. In addition, firms in those countries will look to expand their operations in other developing economies through investments. Financial flows may follow a new course, but will not be contained for long.

Reality and Illusion

2 Replies

U.S. Senators and Representatives have urged President Obama to place the issue of currency manipulation on the agenda for the negotiations for the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade pact (see here). The lawmakers claim that China and Japan manipulate their exchange rates in order to boost exports at the expense of U.S. firms. In the current political environment, this may be the only issue on which there is bipartisan agreement.

The charge that China manipulates its exchange rate is less relevant today than it was several years ago. The Chinese currency has appreciated against the dollar since 2005, although the pace of this rise has moderated. Moreover, the Chinese have made clear that they will not accept linking exchange rates to trade talks. Blaming the Japanese for currency manipulation revives memories of the 1970s and 1980s when concerns about Japan’s economic might were common. The subsequent decline in Japan’s relative fortunes might give pause to those who fear Chinese predominance.

The fall in the value of the yen is due to “Abenomics,” the economic policies introduced by Japan’s Prime Minister Shinzo Abe after his election in December 2012 to stimulate the Japanese economy. These include aggressive monetary expansion by the Bank of Japan, which raised its inflation target to 2% and promised to double the size of the monetary base over a two-year period. Not surprisingly, this has led to a 25% depreciation of the yen against the dollar.

The U.S. lawmakers are responding to those developments. But they should be careful in their finger-pointing. The Federal Reserve’s Quantitative Easing 1, 2 and 3, which were implemented to stimulate the U.S. economy, led to charges of “currency wars” by foreign finance ministers. Barry Eichengreen, however, has pointed out that these policies were not implemented to depreciate the dollar but to stimulate the U.S. economy, and will have positive externalities for other nations. This differs from intervention in the foreign currency market undertaken to keep an exchange rate undervalued to boost exports. Bergsten and Gagnon claim that more than 20 countries manipulate their economies in this manner.

There is another interesting aspect of the U.S criticism. The prices of Japanese goods in the U.S. are determined by the real exchange rate, i.e., the nominal rate adjusted by the U.S. and Japanese price levels. Japanese prices have fallen in recent years, which by itself would result in a depreciation of the yen’s real exchange rate. The five-year averages of the annual rates of change in the Japanese and U.S. GDP deflators show this trend very clearly:

% GDP Deflator Japan U.S.
1998-2002 -1.06 1.78
2003-2007 -1.27 2.87
2008-2012 -1.34 1.78

The causes of Japanese deflation have been the subject of much research (and dispute): see, for example, here and here. Ito and Mishkin hold the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy largely responsible for the fall in prices during this period. The increase in the Bank of Japan’s targeted inflation rate is intended to break that trend.

But why didn’t U.S. officials criticize this aspect of Japanese monetary policy? Perhaps because the yen was appreciating in nominal terms, which partly offset the cumulative impact of the decline in Japanese prices on U.S.-Japanese trade (and was hardly evidence of a currency manipulator). But this may also be an example of the “money illusion” that exists with respect to exchange rates. Observers often overlook the distinction of real and nominal rates. The impact of Chinese inflation on the real exchange value of its currency, for example, is usually ignored or not understood (but see here). U.S. policymakers who confuse the two should not be surprised when their indignation is not met with a respectful response.

Assigned Readings: September 3, 2013

Leave a reply

This paper assesses the implications of Chinese capital account liberalization for capital flows. Stylized facts from capital account liberalization in advanced and large emerging market economies illustrate that capital account liberalization has historically generated large gross capital in- and outflows, but the direction of net flows has depended on many factors. An econometric portfolio allocation model finds that capital controls significantly dampen cross-border portfolio asset holdings. The model also suggests that capital account liberalization in China may trigger net portfolio outflows as large domestic savings seek to diversify abroad.

Has the unprecedented financial globalization of recent years changed the behavior of capital flows across countries? Using a newly constructed database of gross and net capital flows since 1980 for a sample of nearly 150 countries, this paper finds that private capital flows are typically volatile for all countries, advanced or emerging, across all points in time. This holds true across most types of flows, including bank, portfolio debt, and equity flows. Advanced economies enjoy a greater substitutability between types of inflows, and complementarity between gross inflows and outflows, than do emerging markets, which reduces the volatility of their total net inflows despite higher volatility of the components. Capital flows also exhibit low persistence, across all economies and across most types of flows. Inflows tend to rise temporarily when global financing conditions are relatively easy. These findings suggest that fickle capital flows are an unavoidable fact of life to which policymakers across all countries need to continue to manage and adapt.

There is a global financial cycle in capital flows, asset prices and in credit growth. This cycle co‐moves with the VIX, a measure of uncertainty and risk aversion of the markets. Asset markets in countries with more credit inflows are more sensitive to the global cycle. The global financial cycle is not aligned with countries’ specific macroeconomic conditions. Symptoms can go from benign to large asset price bubbles and excess credit creation, which are among the best predictors of financial crises. A VAR analysis suggests that one of the determinants of the global financial cycle is monetary policy in the centre country, which affects leverage of global banks, capital flows and credit growth in the international financial system. Whenever capital is freely mobile, the global financial cycle constrains national monetary policies regardless of the exchange rate regime.

For the past few decades, international macroeconomics has postulated the “trilemma”: with free capital mobility, independent monetary policies are feasible if and only if exchange rates are floating. The global financial cycle transforms the trilemma into a “dilemma” or an “irreconcilable duo”: independent monetary policies are possible if and only if the capital account is managed.

So should policy restrict capital mobility? Gains to international capital flows have proved elusive whether in calibrated models or in the data. Large gross flows disrupt asset markets and financial intermediation, so the costs may be very large. To deal with the global financial cycle and the “dilemma”, we have the following policy options: ( a) targeted capital controls; (b) acting on one of the sources of the financial cycle itself, the monetary policy of the Fed and other main central banks; (c) acting on the transmission channel cyclically by limiting credit growth and leverage during the upturn of the cycle, using national macroprudential policies; (d) acting on the transmission channel structurally by imposing stricter limits on leverage for all financial intermediaries. We argue for a convex combination of (a), (c) and (d).