Money-Based vs. Exchange-Rate-Based Stabilization: Is There Room for Political Opportunism?
In response to high and chronic inflation, countries have adopted different stabilization policies. However, the extent to which these stabilization programs were designed for political motives is not clear. Because exchange-rate-based stabilizations (ERBS) create an initial consumption boom followed by a contraction, whereas money-based stabilizations generate a consumption bust followed by a recovery, policymakers may take into account the timing of elections when determining the nominal anchor for stabilization. This paper finds strong evidence that the choice of nominal anchor depends on elections, implying the existence of political opportunism. ERBS are, on average, launched before elections, whereas MBS are set after them. IMF Staff Papers (2007) 54, 385–417. doi:10.1057/palgrave.imfsp.9450008
If 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.
As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to look for a different version under "Related research" (further below) or search for a different version of it.
Volume (Year): 54 (2007)
Issue (Month): 2 (June)
|Contact details of provider:|| Web page: http://www.palgrave-journals.com/|
|Order Information:||Web: http://www.springer.com/economics/journal/41308/PS2|
When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:pal:imfstp:v:54:y:2007:i:2:p:385-417. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.
For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: (Sonal Shukla)or (Rebekah McClure)
If references are entirely missing, you can add them using this form.