1 / 14

Lecture 19 Interdependence & Coordination

Lecture 19 Interdependence & Coordination. International Interdependence Theory: Interdependence results from capital mobility , even with floating rates. Empirical estimates of cross-country effects. International Coordination The institutions of international cooperation

rob
Download Presentation

Lecture 19 Interdependence & Coordination

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Lecture 19 • Interdependence & Coordination • International Interdependence • Theory:Interdependence results from capital mobility, even with floating rates. • Empirical estimates of cross-country effects. • International Coordination • The institutions of international cooperation • Theory: Prisoners’ dilemma ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  2. Interdependence under floating exchange rates • (Revisited) • Two of the results derived previously • were too strong to be literally true: • When we first looked at the question, floating rates completely insulated countries from each other’s economies. But that was when KA=0 (=> CA =0). • Since then, capital mobility has changed things. • Indeed, US, euroland, Japan, UK, etc., are still correlated. • Under κ=, we found G leaked abroad 100%, through offsetting TD. No effect remained at home. • This overly strong result was a consequence of the assumption i= . ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  3. The restriction i = is in reality too strong, even for modern conditions of low barriers to international capital flows. • Reasons: • (1) i  i*, when investors are aware of likelihood of future exchange rate changes, • and • (2) i* is not exogenous, if domestic country is large in world financial markets (as are US & EU). • => Two-country model. • Implication: Effects of AD expansion are partly felt in domestic country, partly transmitted abroad through TD. • Why don’t floating rates insulate? Capital flows. ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  4. Two-country model with perfect capital mobility • For now, retain i=i*, but drop i* =<= domestic country is big enough to affect i*. • Fiscal expansion, shifting ISUS out, • thereby appreciating $ and worsening TB, • now also depreciates € and raises TB*. • So Y rises (crowding out < than 100% ), despite κ=∞, • Y* rises (international transmission), despite floating, • as i and i* rise in tandem. ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  5. US expansion drives up interest rates worldwide, because US is large in world financial markets. G↑ • €↓ • $↑ => Expansion is transmitted from US to Europe. ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  6. Transmission in practice. • In 12 large econometric models, on average: • US fiscal expansion -> • Multiplier  1.5 in US 1/ • and  ½ in EU & Japan. • US 4% monetary expansion -> • Effect on GDP  1% in US • and  0 in EU & Japan. • 1/Most relevant in recession with liquidity trap(US 2009-14).Multiplier islower under full employment (or under default risk, or in small open economies). ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  7. The econometric models agree that US fiscal expansion,via TBUS<0 and TB* >0, is transmitted positively to the rest of the world. G↑ ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  8. Similarly, a fiscal expansion in the rest of the OECD countriesvia TBRoW<0 and TBUS>0,is transmitted positively to the US. G↑ ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  9. More disagreement regarding international effects of monetary policy. A US monetary expansion, domestically, raises output & inflation. But the models divide regarding the effects on TB, TBRoWand YRoW. Reason: two effects go opposite directions. Y ↑ => TB↓, but $↓ => TB ↑ M↑ ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  10. Disagreement regarding international effects of monetary policy. A foreign monetary expansion raises output & inflation there. But the models divide regarding cross-border transmission. Reason: 2 effects go opposite directions.YRoW↑=>TBRoW↓, but €↓=> TBRoW↑ M↑ ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  11. International macroeconomic policy coordination • Institutions of coordination: • G8 Leaders Summit & G7 Finance Ministers • 1975 Rambouillet: ratified floating • 1978 Bonn: locomotive theory • 1985 Plaza: concerted intervention to depreciate $ • 2013 No currency war: Members agree won’t intervene. • BIS & Basel Committee on Banking Supervision • 1988 Basel Accord: set capital adequacy rules for intl. banks • 2007 Basel II: Gov.t bonds should not necessarily get 0 risk weight. • 2011 Basel III: Higher capital requirements. • G20 includes big emerging markets; • 2009 London: G20 replaced G7/G8, responded to global recession with simultaneous stimulus. • OECD for industrialized countries . • IMF for everyone (“Surveillance”). ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  12. Internationalpolicycoordination is an application of gametheory. In one game, the players choose their level of spending. Dilemma: Each is afraid to expand alone. Cooperation here means joint expansion. In another game, the players choose the monetary/fiscal mix. ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  13. A third game is what Brazilian Minister Guido Mantegahad in mind in 2010 when he warned of “Currency Wars.” ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

  14. Theories of Coordination ITF-220 Prof.J.Frankel

More Related