To devalue or not to devalue? How East European countries responded to the outflow of capital in 1997-99 and in 2008-09
AbstractIf there is a negative terms of trade or financial shock leading to the deterioration in the balance of payments, there are two basic options for a country that has limited foreign exchange reserves. First, a country can maintain a fixed exchange rate (or even a currency board) and wait until the reduction of foreign exchange reserves leads to the reduction of money supply: this will drive domestic prices down and stimulate exports, raise interest rates and stimulate the inflow of capital, and finally will correct the balance of payments. Second, the country can allow the devaluation of national currency – flexible exchange rate will automatically bring the balance of payments back into the equilibrium. Because national prices are less flexible than exchange rates, the first type of adjustment is associated with the greater reduction of output. The empirical evidence on East European countries and other transition economies for 1998-99 period (outflow of capital after the 1997 Asian and 1998 Russian currency crises and slowdown of output growth rates) suggests that the second type of policy response (devaluation) was associated with smaller loss of output than the first type (monetary contraction). 2008-09 developments provide additional evidence for this hypothesis.
Download InfoIf you experience problems downloading a file, check if you have the proper application to view it first. In case of further problems read the IDEAS help page. Note that these files are not on the IDEAS site. Please be patient as the files may be large.
Bibliographic InfoPaper provided by University Library of Munich, Germany in its series MPRA Paper with number 28112.
Date of creation: 2010
Date of revision:
Devaluation; capital account shocks; fixed and flexible exchange rates; macroeconomic response to shocks;
Other versions of this item:
- Vladimir Popov, 2011. "To devaluate or not to devalue? How East European countries responded to the outflow of capital in 1997-99 and in 2008-09," Working Papers w0154, Center for Economic and Financial Research (CEFIR).
- F42 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - International Policy Coordination and Transmission
- F32 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Current Account Adjustment; Short-term Capital Movements
- F41 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - Open Economy Macroeconomics
- F31 - International Economics - - International Finance - - - Foreign Exchange
- F43 - International Economics - - Macroeconomic Aspects of International Trade and Finance - - - Economic Growth of Open Economies
This paper has been announced in the following NEP Reports:
- NEP-ALL-2011-01-23 (All new papers)
- NEP-CIS-2011-01-23 (Confederation of Independent States)
- NEP-IFN-2011-01-23 (International Finance)
- NEP-MON-2011-01-23 (Monetary Economics)
- NEP-OPM-2011-01-23 (Open Economy Macroeconomic)
Please report citation or reference errors to , or , if you are the registered author of the cited work, log in to your RePEc Author Service profile, click on "citations" and make appropriate adjustments.:
- Andrew K. Rose & Charles Engel, 2000.
"Currency Unions and International Integration,"
NBER Working Papers
7872, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Andrew K. Rose & Eric van Wincoop, 2001. "National Money as a Barrier to International Trade: The Real Case for Currency Union," American Economic Review, American Economic Association, vol. 91(2), pages 386-390, May.
- Steve H. Hanke, 2003. "The Argentine Straw Man: A Response to Currency Board Critics," Cato Journal, Cato Journal, Cato Institute, vol. 23(1), pages 47-57, Spring/Su.
- Frankel, Jeffrey, 2008.
"The Estimated Effects of the Euro on Trade: Why Are They Below Historical Effects of Monetary Unions Among Smaller Countries?,"
Working Paper Series
rwp08-076, Harvard University, John F. Kennedy School of Government.
- Jeffrey A. Frankel, 2008. "The Estimated Effects of the Euro on Trade: Why Are They Below Historical Effects of Monetary Unions Among Smaller Countries?," NBER Working Papers 14542, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Eichengreen, Barry, 2001. "What problems can dollarization solve?," Journal of Policy Modeling, Elsevier, vol. 23(3), pages 267-277, April.
- Polterovich, Victor & Popov, Vladimir, 2003. "Accumulation of Foreign Exchange Reserves and Long Term Growth," MPRA Paper 20069, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Nadja Kamhi & Vivek H. Dehejia, 2006. "An Assessment of the Currency Board Regime in Bosnia and Herzegovina," Emerging Markets Finance and Trade, M.E. Sharpe, Inc., vol. 42(6), pages 46-58, December.
- Rose, Andrew K, 1999.
"One Money, One Market: Estimating the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade,"
CEPR Discussion Papers
2329, C.E.P.R. Discussion Papers.
- Rose, Andrew, 1999. "One Money, One Market: Estimating the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade," Seminar Papers 678, Stockholm University, Institute for International Economic Studies.
- Andrew K. Rose, 1999. "One Money, One Market: Estimating the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade," NBER Working Papers 7432, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
- Steve Hanke, 2002. "On dollarization and currency boards: Error and deception," Journal of Policy Reform, Taylor and Francis Journals, vol. 5(4), pages 203-222.
- Popov, Vladimir, 2011. "Why transition economies did worse than others in 2008-09 recession?," MPRA Paper 32388, University Library of Munich, Germany.
- Popov, Vladimir, 2013. "Economic Miracle of Post-Soviet Space: Why Uzbekistan Managed to Achieve What No Other Post-Soviet State Achieved," MPRA Paper 48723, University Library of Munich, Germany.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Ekkehart Schlicht).
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.