- International Monetary Fund
- Published Date:
- July 1984
The tables and charts in this Appendix provide the means to assess exchange rate variability over the period 1962–83, using a number of different measures of variability. Tables 4-7 provide information on month-to-month and quarter-to-quarter changes in nominal and real exchange rates, respectively. The figures cited are annual averages of absolute percentage changes in period average (i.e., monthly or quarterly) indices of effective exchange rates (Line am.x in the Fund’s International Financial Statistics) deflated where appropriate by indices of relative prices. For monthly series, the consumer price index was used as the deflator, while for the quarterly series, relative normalized unit labor costs were used. Tests were also run using other price indices to adjust for inflation; none of the results were sufficiently different from those reported here to warrant separate presentation. Table 8 presents information on the effective variation in exchange rates, defined as the weighted average of variability in bilateral (nominal) rates. It will be seen that trends in effective variation are similar to those in the variability of the effective exchange rate, but, as expected, the level of variability under this measure is somewhat greater.
Charts 7 and 8 show deviations of effective exchange rates from their medium-term trend, with the medium-term trend defined as a 19-quarter (or 57-month) moving average of the effective exchange rate (real or nominal). For periods for which calculation of the moving average requires exchange rate data extending beyond the end of 1983, the missing data are assumed to be equal to the average of the data available for the calculation. In Tables 9 and 10, changes in nominal and real effective exchange rates relative to their medium-term trend are set out. These figures are also annual averages of absolute percentage changes in period average indices.
Chart 7.Major Industrial Countries: Quarterly Real Effective Exchange Rates, 1961–83
Chart 8.Major Industrial Countries: Monthly Nominal Effective Exchange Rates, 1961–83
In a recent paper, Bergsten and Cline (1983) investigate the aggregate relationship between the growth of trade and output over the period 1961–81. Their basic purpose is to ascertain whether there are any residuals from this observed relationship in recent years that could be explained as a consequence of increasing protectionism. However, the results they obtain could equally be used to assess whether there was any observable adverse impact from growing exchange rate uncertainty. The estimated relationship is as follows:
= Annual rate of growth of OECD real non-oil imports
= Annual rate of growth of real GDP in OECD countries
Several points about this equation are noteworthy. First, it explains more than three fourths of the year-to-year variations in the rate of growth of imports in member countries of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), indicating that real income levels are by far the major determinant of overall trade levels. Second, the elasticity of trade growth with respect to real income growth is very high, above 3 in fact. This implies that an additional 1 percent of output growth in any year has typically been associated with an additional 3 percent of import growth. Third, the weak performance of trade in recent years is fully explained by the decline in the rate of growth of output. Chart 9 plots actual and predicted non-oil imports in OECD countries during the period 1962–81 on the basis of the relationship calculated by Bergsten and Cline (1983). As may be seen, there is no tendency for actual trade to fall below predicted levels in recent years. Output growth in OECD countries was about 1 percent in 1981 and was actually negative in 1982. From the relationships of the estimated equation, this would lead one to expect a cumulative decline of non-oil imports of some 6 percent over the two years 1981–82. The decline that actually occurred was some 2 percent. There is no negative “residual” in this period to be attributed to the impact of other factors, such as protectionism or exchange rate uncertainties.
Chart 9.OECD Member Countries: Growth Rate of Non-Oil Imports, 1962–81
The purpose of this Appendix is to replicate Bergsten and Cline’s test, with certain modifications that are of interest for the subject of the present study.
(i) Overall world trade is considered, rather than just OECD non-oil imports. This is partly to test the robustness of Bergsten and Cline’s results and partly because exchange rate uncertainty can (at least potentially) affect a broader cross-section of trade than is captured in the variable used by Bergsten and Cline.
(ii) The time period covered by the data is extended backward by two years (to include 1959 and 1960) and forward by one year (to include 1982).
(iii) A variable intended to capture exchange rate uncertainty is introduced. This is defined as the weighted average quarterly variation in the real effective exchange rate of the major industrial countries, and is explained in footnote 2 to Table 11. It is introduced both in unlagged and lagged form.
Table 11 presents the results of a selection of equations from a larger number that were in fact estimated. (The other equations mostly involved different specification of the exchange rate uncertainty variable, and produced broadly similar results.)
It may be seen from equations 1–3, covering the longer time period, that the results are similar to those obtained by Bergsten and Cline, and that the inclusion of exchange rate variability, whether in lagged or unlagged form, does not help the explanatory power of the equation. The coefficient on exchange rate variability is not significant, and it has a perverse sign. The only noteworthy difference from Bergsten and Cline’s results is that the elasticity of trade growth with respect to income growth is somewhat lower (about 2 instead of 3).
Equations 1–3 do not provide support for the proposition that exchange rate variability has had a significant adverse effect on trade growth. However, firm conclusions cannot be reached on the basis of such relatively simple tests. One possibility that is not tested in equations 1–3 is that the impact of exchange rate uncertainty on trade accumulates gradually over time, and cannot easily be related to measured variability in a given time period, such as a year. To investigate this, equations 4 and 5 estimate the relationship between growth of world output and trade over two subperiods, one of which (1959–71) was characterized by relative stability in exchange rates and the other (1974–83) by relative instability. It will be seen that there is a striking difference between the equations for the two subperiods. Moreover, Chart 10, which shows predicted and actual rates of growth of world trade over the past 20 years on the basis of the equation estimated for 1959–71, reveals a tendency toward negative residuals. This chart suggests that some unincluded factor has in the late 1970s and early 1980s reduced the growth of world trade relative to that of world output below what would have been expected on the basis of experience in the 1960s.
Chart 10.Rate of Growth of World Trade, 1959–82
Source: Based on equation 4 in Table 11.
This having been said, it must be recognized that a number of fundamental changes have occurred in the world economy in the past ten years, and it is not possible on the basis of the evidence presented here to conclude that exchange rate variability is the one that has been responsible for the negative residuals shown in the chart. Also, it should be noted that the explanatory power of the equation used to extrapolate the “expected” values in the chart is very low.
A possible mechanism by which exchange rate variability could affect inflation is through a “ratchet” effect on the domestic price level. If increases in traded goods prices from exchange rate depreciations are passed on into consumer prices more rapidly or completely than are any reductions attributable to exchange rate appreciations, this could lead to a faster rate of price increase when exchange rates are volatile than when they are stable.
One way of testing the presence of such an effect is to estimate an equation explaining variations in the rate of inflation, including among the explanatory variables a measure of exchange rate variability. Table 12 presents the results of such a test for seven major industrial countries. The equation employed is based on that used by Spitaller (1978) with the only substantive difference being the extension of the estimation period by five years (to 1981) and the addition of a variable to capture exchange rate movements. Specifically, the estimating equation is as follows:
|Germany, Fed. Rep. of||–2.59||–0.01||3.09||0.02||0.84||0.04||0.90||1.91|
A dot above a variable indicates a rate of change.
The results are broadly consistent with those obtained by Spitaller in his equations. The lagged dependent variable is highly significant in all cases except that of Japan, and has a value in the range 0.75–0.95. Both in the results reported here and those of Spitaller, import prices seem to have a dominant effect in Japan, with a given change in the import price index having an impact roughly one fourth the size on the consumer price index.
Changes in the pressure of demand (as measured by output growth relative to trend) are generally positively associated with inflation, though the results do not appear to be highly significant, or robust across countries. The rate of growth of the money supply is only significant (with the correct sign) in one country, as against three in Spitaller’s results.
For present purposes, the greatest interest attaches to the estimates for the coefficient on exchange rate variability. Six out of the seven countries exhibit a positive relationship between inflation and exchange rate variability, but in no case is the coefficient significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. While these results do not, therefore, preclude the possibility of a systematic inflationary effect coming from exchange rate instability, they do not provide any strong support for it.
Several recent papers have undertaken an empirical investigation of the relationship between exchange rate variability and bilateral trade flows using time-series data (Clark, 1973; Hooper and Kohlhagen, 1978; Cushman, 1983). Of these, only Cushman has claimed any success in relating the volume of trade to exchange rate variability. In a study of 14 sets of bilateral trade flows (all involving the United States or the Federal Republic of Germany as a partner country), he finds six cases in which his measure of exchange rate variability enters with a negative (i.e., expected) sign, and is significantly different from zero at the 95 percent confidence level. Cushman’s study differed from the earlier ones cited above in covering a greater portion of the floating rate period (though still only until 1977), and in employing a measure of real rather than nominal exchange rate variability.
While Cushman’s results are suggestive, closer examination reveals that they are by no means conclusive. Even in the six equations where the coefficient on exchange rate variability was negative and significant, the level of significance was not high (the highest f-ratio being 3.45); the equations concerned employed five different lag structures (including two where trade levels were made to depend on future exchange rate variability); and there were two equations where the coefficient on exchange rate variability was positive (i.e., perverse) and significant. Moreover, in four of the six equations where the coefficient was not significant at the 95 percent level, it also had a perverse sign.
One purpose of this appendix is to present results of estimating a model similar to Cushman’s (though somewhat simplified in structure) and applied uniformly across countries. This model is as follows:
Xij= volume of exports from country i to country j
GNPj = real GNP in country j
RCUij = relative capacity utilization
RXRij = real bilateral exchange rate
RXVij = variability in the real bilateral exchange rate
The equation is estimated in logarithmic form
As in Cushman’s model, all independent variables were lagged by one quarter, and 42 equations were estimated, covering exports from seven industrial countries (the United States, the United Kingdom, Japan, the Federal Republic of Germany, France, Canada, and Italy) to each of the other six (Table 13). All the equations were estimated for first quarter 1965 to fourth quarter 1982. In the absence of specific information about bilateral trade flows in volume terms, the bilateral flows in value terms (derived from the Fund’s Direction of Trade Statistics) were deflated by the export price index for all trade. The real bilateral exchange rate is the nominal bilateral rate (quarterly average obtained from the Fund’s International Financial Statistics), adjusted for changes in relative normalized unit labor costs. Variability in this rate is the standard deviation of percentage changes during the five quarters ending with the observation period.
|United States-United Kingdom||–23.78||2.00||1.48||0.54||–0.01||0.80||0.99|
|United Kingdom-United States||–22.47||1.54||–0.60||0.40||0.001||0.69||0.88|
The variable measuring exchange rate variability has the correct (negative) sign in 16 out of 42 equations and the incorrect sign in the remaining 26. In only two cases where the coefficient is negative is it statistically significant, while positive coefficients are significant in several more cases.
The results reported in Table 13 have a number of similarities to, as well as differences from, those of Cushman. In nearly every equation, gross national product in the importing country is strongly and positively related to bilateral imports, as would be expected. The influence of relative capacity utilization (a measure of relative cyclical position) shows the expected negative sign in a majority of cases, although the tendency is not particularly striking. The real exchange rate variable is specified as the real price of the importer’s currency in terms of the exporter’s currency; since an increase in this variable increases the exporter’s competitiveness, it is expected to exhibit a positive association with trade flows. (It should be noted that insofar as rising exports tend to pull up the exchange rate, the opposite association could also be justified.) In fact, there does appear to be a general positive association between exports and competitiveness that is statistically significant in more than half the cases considered.
(1980a), “International Trade Flows Under Flexible Exchange Rates,” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Economic Review (March1980), pp. 3–10.
(1980b), “Exchange Rate Volatility and Bilateral Trade Flows” (unpublished, Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City).
The Firm under Pegged and Floating Exchange Rates,” Scandinavian Journal of Economics(Stockholm), Vol. 78,No. 2 (1976), pp. 309–22.“
(1983), “Money, Multinationals and Sovereigns,” inThe Multinational Corporation in the 1980s,ed. byCharlesP. Kindleberger andDavid B.Audretsch (Cambridge, Massachusetts:Massachusetts Institute of Technology,1983), pp. 245–59.
Methods of Assessing the Long-Run Equilibrium Value of an Exchange Rate,” Journal of International Economics (Amsterdam), Vol. 8 (May1978), pp. 277–99.“
Floating Exchange Rates and the Need for Surveillance,Essays in International Finance, No. 127, Princeton University (Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1978).Andrew D. Crockett
Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates: A Renewal of the Debate,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 26(December1979), pp. 654–98.“
Flexible Exchange Rates and International Trade,” in Flexible Exchange Rates and the Balance of Payments,ed. byJohn S.Chipman and Charles P.Kindleberger(Amsterdam: North-Holland,1980), pp. 67–80.“
Bank for International Settlements,Forty-Seventh Annual Report(Basle,1977).
The Cost of Import Restrictions to American Consumers (New York:American Importers Association,1972).
Trade Policy in the 1980s: An Overview,” in Trade Policy in the 1980s,ed. byWilliam R.Cline (Washington:Institute for International Economics,1983), pp. 59–98.William R. Cline “
Exchange Rates and Trade Policy,” in Trade Policy in the 1980s,ed. by> William R.Cline(Washington:Institute for International Economics,1983), pp. 99–120.“
Welfare and Trade Effects of Exchange Rate Uncertainty,” Southern Economic Journal(Chapel Hill, North Carolina), Vol. 45(October1978), pp. 534–42.“
The 'Vicious Circle' Hypothesis,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 26(March1979), pp. 1–37.“
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,September1980).
Flexible Exchange Rates and International Business (Washington:British-North America Committee,1981).
Exchange Rates, Inflation, and Vicious Circles,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 27(December1980), pp. 679–711.“
Exchange Rate Variations Facing Individual Industries in Developing Countries,” Journal of Development Studies (London), Vol. 19(April1983), pp. 349–67.“
International Trade and Investment Under Floating Rates: The Reaction of Business to the Floating Rate System,” in Exchange Rate Flexibility,ed. byJacob S.Dreyer,GottfriedHaberler, and Thomas D.Willett(Washington:American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,1978), pp. 151–58.“
Uncertainty, Exchange Risk and the Level of International Trade,” Western Economic Journal(Long Beach, California), Vol. 11(September1973), pp. 302–13.“
“Flexible Exchange Rates and the Level of Trade: A Preliminary Analysis of the Canadian Experience” (unpublished, Washington:Federal Reserve Board,1972).
The Crawling Peg and Exchange Rate Uncertainty,” in Exchange Rate Rules: The Theory, Performance, and Prospects of the Crawling Peg,ed. byJohnWilliamson (New York:St. Martin's Press,1981), pp. 113–36.“
Inflation under Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 23 (November1976), pp. 509–44.“
The Effects of Real Exchange Rate Risk on International Trade,” Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 15 (August1983), pp. 44–63.“
Protecting Corporate Assets Under Floating Currencies (New York:The Conference Board,1977).
The Hedging of Commercial Transactions Between U.S. and Canadian Residents: A View from the United States,” in Canadian-United States Financial Relationships, Proceedings of a Conference held at Melvin Village, New Hampshire,September1971 (Boston:Federal Reserve Bank of Boston,1971), pp. 171–91.“
The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates,” in Essays in Positive Economics (Chicago:University of Chicago Press,1953), pp. 157–203.“
General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade,Basic Instruments and Selected Documents, Twenty-Ninth Supplement, Protocols, Decisions, Reports, 1981–1982 and Thirty-Eighth Session(Geneva,March1983), p. 21.
The Effect of Exchange Rate Changes on Wages and Prices in the United Kingdom: An Empirical Study,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 21(November1974), pp. 694–739.“
Downward Price Inflexibility, Ratchet Effects, and the Inflationary Impact of Import Price Changes: Some Empirical Evidence,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 24 (November1977), pp. 569–612.“
Have Flexible Exchange Rates Handicapped Macroeconomic Policy? Special Papers in International Economics, No. 14 (Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,June1980).
“Income and Price Effects in World Trade,”Ch. 20 in Handbook of International Economics,ed. byPeter B.Kenen and Ronald W.Jones. (It is scheduled to be published by North-Holland).
Group of Thirty,The Foreign Exchange Markets under Floating Rates,a study in international finance by the Exchange Markets Participants' Study Group (New York:Group of Thirty,1980).
The Welfare Costs of Disequilibrium Exchange Rates,” Journal of Political Economy(Chicago), Vol. 74(August1966), pp. 333–52.“
The Sterling Rate of Exchange and UK Profitability: Short Term Effects,” in The Money Supply and the Exchange Rate,ed. byW.A.Eltis and P.J.N.Sinclair(Oxford:Clarendon Press,1981), pp. 248–67.“
“The Impact of Floating Exchange Rates on Relative Prices, Uncertainty and Economic Activity” (mimeographed, Geneva:Battelle Institute,1983).
The Impact of the Exchange Rate System on the Developing Countries (New York:United Nations Development Program,April1981).
Exposure to Exchange Rate Movements,” Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 13(November1982), pp. 375–86.“
The Effect of Exchange Rate Uncertainty on the Prices and Volume of International Trade,” Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 8(November1978), pp. 483–511.“
International Monetary Fund,Annual Report of the Executive Board for the Financial Year Ended April 30, 19—(Washington:International Monetary Fund,various issues).
The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates, 1969,” in U.K. and Floating Exchanges: A Debate on the Theoretical and Practical Implications, Hobart Papers, 46 (London:Institute of Economic Affairs,1969), pp. 9–37.“
The New Exchange Rate Regime and the Developing Countries,” Journal of Finance(Chicago), Vol. 33(June1978), pp. 795–802.“
Exchange Rate Variability: Measurement and Implications” (mimeographed, Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University,June20,1979).“
The Performance of the Foreign Exchange Markets: 1971–1974,” Journal of International Business Studies(Newark, New Jersey) Vol. 6(Fall1975), pp. 33–39.“
Adjustment Costs, Optimal Currency Areas, and International Reserves,” Ch. 6 in International Trade and Finance: Essays in Honour of Jan Tinbergen,ed. byWillySellekaerts(London:MacMillan Press Ltd.,1974), pp. 127–40.“
Opening Address at the Financial Times Conference on Foreign Exchange Risk-1983,February16 and 17,1983, London.
The Case for Floating Exchange Rates Reconsidered, Essays in International Finance, No. 72, Princeton University (Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,February1969).
Exchange Rate Variability: Alternative Measures and Interpretation,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 29(December1982), pp. 527–60.“
Unexpected Real Consequences of Floating Exchange Rates,Essays in International Finance, No. 153, Princeton University (Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University Press,1983).
Exchange Rate Instability, Trade Balances and Monetary Policy in Japan and the United States” (mimeographed, Stanford, California:Stanford University,1978).“
Eurocurrencies and the Evolution of the International Monetary System,” in Eurocurrencies and the International Monetary System,ed. byCarl H.Stem, John H.Makin, and Dennis E.Logue(Washington:American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,1976), pp. 17–52.“
Agriculture and the European Community(London:Allen and Unwin,1981).
Floating Exchange Rates, International Trade and Domestic Economic Stability,” in Floating Exchange Rates—The Lessons of Recent Experience,ed. byHenriFournier andJ.E.Wadsworth(Leyden, Netherlands:A.W. Sijthoff,1976), pp. 47–67.“
“A New International Currency System,”Remarks at a Joint Forum of Keidanren and the Group of Thirty in Tokyo,April21,1983.
The 'New Inflation' and Flexible Exchange Rates,” in The 'New Inflation' and Monetary Policy,ed. byMarioMonti(London:Macmillan Press Ltd.,1976), pp. 142–59.“
A Model of Exchange Rate Dynamics,” Journal of Political Economy(Chicago), Vol. 90(February1982), pp. 74–104.“
Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development,The Effects of Exchange Rate Fluctuations on Trade,DES/NI(82)1.
The Purchasing-Power-Parity Theory of Exchange Rates: A Review Article,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 23(March1976), pp. 1–60.“
“Some Aspects of the Behavior and Effects of Exchange Rate Flexibility,”paper presented at Konstanz Conference, June1975.
Exchange Rate Risk Under Generalized Floating: Eight Asian Countries,” Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 11(November1981), pp. 459–66.“
British Economic Policy over the Last Decade,” Bank of England, Quarterly Bulletin(London), Vol. 23(June1983), pp. 194–99.“
“Statement,”in Global Economic Outlook: Hearings, U.S. Congress, Senate Committee on Foreign Relations, Subcommittee on International Economic Policy, 98th Congress, 1st Session, February 15 and 23, 1983(Washington:Government Printing Office,1983).
Revaluation can be Inflationary: An Analysis of the Inflationary Impact of Demand Shifts in a Simple Policy Dilemma Model,” annex to “The Inflationary Impact of Exchange Rate Changes: Some Theoretical Considerations,”in The Effects of Exchange Rate Adjustments,ed. byPeter B.Clark,Dennis E.Logue, and RichardJames Sweeney,Proceedings of a Conference Sponsored by OASIA Research, Department of the Treasury, April 4 and 5, 1974(Washington,1977).“
A Model of Inflation and Its Performance in the Seven Main Industrial Countries, 1958–76,” Staff Papers,International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 25(June1978), pp. 254–77.“
The Resource Reallocation Costs of Fixed and Flexible Exchange Rates: A Multi-Country Extension,” Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 11(November1981), pp. 487–93.“
“The Effects of Flexible Exchange Rates on International Trade and Investment: Historical Views and Current Analysis” (mimeographed, Ohio State University and Claremont Graduate School).
“The Uncertainty Effects of Floating Exchange Rates: Empirical Evidence on International Trade Flows.”It is scheduled to be published by Ballinger in Exchange Rates, Trade, and the U.S. Economy,ed. bySven W. Arndt,Richard J.Sweeney, and Thomas D.Willet.
U.S. International Trade Commission,“The Effect of Changes in the Value of the U.S. Dollar on Trade in Selected Commodities,”USITC Publication, Number 1423(Washington,September1983).
The Mundell-Laffer Hypothesis: A New View of the World Economy,” Public Interest(New York), No. 64(Spring1975), pp. 31–52.“
Determinants of International Trade Flows,” Review of Economics and Statistics(Cambridge, Massachusetts), Vol. 65(February1983), pp. 96–104.“
An Examination of Foreign Exchange Risks under Fixed and Floating Rate Regimes,” Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 7(May1977), pp. 181–200.“
The Causes and Effects of Exchange Rate Volatility,” in The International Monetary System: A Time of Turbulence,ed. byJacob S.Dreyer,GottfriedHaberler, and Thomas D.Willett (Washington:American Enterprise Institute for Public Policy Research,1982), pp. 24–64.“
The Exchange Rate System (Washington:Institute for International Economics,September1983).
Inflation and the International Monetary Situation,” American Economic Review, Papers and Proceedings (Nashville), Vol. 65(May1974), pp. 108–14.“
International Monetary Relations: Theory, History and Policy(New York:Harper and Row,1966).
While for an individual transactor the cost of forward cover may appear to be the discount from the spot rate, it should be remembered that this discount is matched by a premium facing those wishing to make transactions in the other direction. The net cost facing traders in the aggregate is the difference between the discount in one direction and the premium in the other (i.e., the spread).
Occasional Papers of the International Monetary Fund
*1. International Capital Markets: Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, by a Staff Team Headed by R.C. Williams, Exchange and Trade Relations Department. 1980.
2. Economic Stabilization and Growth in Portugal, by Hans O. Schmitt. 1981.
*3. External Indebtedness of Developing Countries, by a Staff Team Headed by Bahram Nowzad and Richard C. Williams. 1981.
*4. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1981.
5. Trade Policy Developments in Industrial Countries, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, L.L. Perez, and W.S. Tseng. 1981.
6. The Multilateral System of Payments: Keynes, Convertibility, and the International Monetary Fund’s Articles of Agreement, by Joseph Gold. 1981.
7. International Capital Markets: Recent Developments and Short-Term Prospects, 1981, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1981.
8. Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa. Part I: Tax Policy and Administration in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Carlos A. Aguirre, Peter S. Griffith, and M. Zühtü Yücelik. Part II: A Statistical Evaluation of Taxation in Sub-Saharan Africa, by Vito Tanzi. 1981.
9. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1982.
10. International Comparisons of Government Expenditure, by Alan A. Tait and Peter S. Heller. 1982.
11. Payments Arrangements and the Expansion of Trade in Eastern and Southern Africa, by Shailendra J. Anjaria, Sena Eken, and John F. Laker. 1982.
12. Effects of Slowdown in Industrial Countries on Growth in Non-Oil Developing Countries, by Morris Goldstein and Mohsin S. Khan. 1982.
13. Currency Convertibility in the Economic Community of West African States, by John B. McLenaghan, Saleh M. Nsouli, and Klaus-Walter Riechel. 1982.
14. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1982, by a Staff Team Headed by Richard C. Williams, with G.G. Johnson. 1982.
15. Hungary: An Economic Survey, by a Staff Team Headed by Patrick de Fontenay. 1982.
16. Developments in International Trade Policy, by S.J. Anjaria, Z. Iqbal, N. Kirmani, and L.L. Perez. 1982.
17. Aspects of the International Banking Safety Net, by G.G. Johnson, with Richard K. Abrams. 1983.
18. Oil Exporters’ Economic Development in an Interdependent World, by Jahangir Amuzegar. 1983.
19. The European Monetary System: The Experience, 1979–82, by Horst Ungerer, with Owen Evans and Peter Nyberg. 1983.
20. Alternatives to the Central Bank in the Developing World, by Charles Collyns. 1983.
21. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1983.
22. Interest Rate Policies in Developing Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1983.
23. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1983, by Richard Williams, Peter Keller, John Lipsky, and Donald Mathieson. 1983.
24. Government Employment and Pay: Some International Comparisons, by Peter S. Heller and Alan A. Tait. 1983. Revised 1984.
25. Recent Multilateral Debt Restructurings with Official and Bank Creditors, by a Staff Team Headed by E. Brau and R.C. Williams, with P.M. Keller and M. Nowak. 1983.
26. The Fund, Commercial Banks, and Member Countries, by Paul Mentre. 1984.
27. World Economic Outlook: A Survey by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.
28. Exchange Rate Volatility and World Trade: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.
International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431, U.S.A.
Telephone number 202 473 7430
Cable address: Interfund