Book
Back Matter

# Back Matter

Malcolm Knight, and Mohsin Khan
Published Date:
November 1985
Show Summary Details
Appendix Description of the Simulation Model

The model used for the simulation experiments reported in Section V is essentially a variant of the econometric model developed by Khan and Knight (1981, 1982). As the present version involves important extensions, however, it is worthwhile to summarize its basic features. This Appendix discusses in turn the specification of the model, the values of the parameters, and how the various policies under consideration are expected to affect the rate of growth of output.

## Structure of the Model

The complete model, reported in Table 6, contains six behavioral equations and five identities. While highly aggregated and simple in structure, this type of model has been found to provide a fairly useful framework for analyzing the dynamic effects of macroeconomic policies. Unlike its predecessor (Khan and Knight (1981)), this model explicitly considers the composition of the balance of payments, and more important, allows capacity output to be endogenously determined. This latter change is deemed essential if supply-side policies are to be incorporated into the analysis.

Table 6.Specification of the Model1
 1. Demand for money logmf = a j logy, + a2\ogrt - a3log7rr 2. Imports $\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathbf{\text{log}}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{M}\mathbf{,}& =& \mathbf{\text{log}}\mathbf{\left(}\mathbf{/}\mathbf{>}\mathbf{\text{m.e}}\mathbf{\right)},+\text{p}\mathbit{\left[}{\mathbit{a}}_{\mathbit{4}}{\mathbit{logy}}_{\mathbit{t}}\mathbit{–}{\mathbit{a}}_{\mathbit{5}}\mathbit{log}{\mathbit{\left(}\mathbit{Pm}\mathbit{.}\mathbit{dP}\mathbit{\right)}}_{\mathbit{t}}\mathbit{\right]}\hfill \\ & & +\left(1–\mathrm{p},\right)\left[\text{logMf,_,- log}\left(/>\text{m.€}\right),_,\right]\hfill \end{array}$ 3. Exports $\mathrm{logX},\text{\hspace{0.17em}}=\text{\hspace{0.17em}}\mathrm{log}\left(/>\mathrm{jc}.e\right),+{a}_{6}\mathrm{log}{y}^{*}t+{a}_{7}\mathrm{log}\left(\mathrm{Px}.e/P{\right)}_{t}\text{\hspace{0.17em}}+{a}_{%}\\mathrm{og}\left(\mathrm{Px}.\mathrm{dP}{{\right)}_{{t}^{-}}}_{X}+{a}_{9}\\mathrm{og}\left(\mathrm{Px}.\mathrm{dP}{\right)}_{t-2}$ 4. Inflation $\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \mathbf{AlogP}\mathbf{,}& \hfill =& {\mathbit{a}}_{\mathbit{xo}\left[\\mathbit{og}{\left(\mathbit{MIP}\right)}_{{\mathbit{t}}^{\mathbit{–}}\mathbit{x}}–\{{\mathbit{ogm}}^{\mathbit{d}}}_{\mathbit{t}}\right]+{\mathbit{a}}_{\mathbit{u}}\left({\mathbit{MogPm}}_{\mathbit{t}}+{\mathbf{Aloge}}_{\mathbf{r}}\right)}\hfill \\ & & +\left(\mathrm{l}–\text{anXAlogPm},–!\right)+\text{Alog}€,_,\right)\hfill \end{array}$ 5. Real output $\begin{array}{ccc}\hfill \text{Alogy,}& \hfill =& {a}_{J2}\left({\mathit{MogDCP}}_{\mathit{t}}–\text{AlogP,}\right){+}^{\wedge }\left(\text{AlogDCP,.!}–\text{Alog}/\mathrm{V},\right)\hfill \\ & & –{\text{fl}}_{14}\text{log}\left({y}_{{r}^{–}},/{{y}^{*}}_{r}\right)+\text{tf,5}\left(\text{AlogG,}–\text{AlogP,}\right)\hfill \\ & & +{«}_{16}\left[{\text{AlogX}}_{r}–\text{Alog}{\left(/>\text{X.€}\right)}_{r}\right]\hfill \end{array}$ 6. Capacity output $\begin{array}{ccc}{\text{Alogy}}_{t}^{*}& =& {a}_{17{\left(\mathit{IR}\mathit{/}\mathit{y}\right)}_{t}+{0}_{18}\text{AlogL,}}\end{array}$ 7. Money supply AM, = ARt + ADC, 8. Balance of payments ARt = Xt - lMt + S, + AF/P, + AF/G, 9. Domestic credit ADC, = ADCP, + ADCG, 10. Domestic credit to the public sector ADCG, = Gt - Tt - AFIG, 11. Expected inflation AIT, = 7(AlogP,_, - Tr,^) The definitions of variables are: Endogenous md = demand for real money balances IM = value of imports (in domestic currency) X = value of exports (in domestic currency) AlogP = rate of inflation Alogv = rate of growth of actual output Alogv* = rate of growth of capacity output M = nominal stock of (broad) money R = net foreign assets of the consolidated banking system (in domestic currency) DC = net domestic assets of the consolidated banking system (domestic credit) DCG = domestic credit to the public sector 7T = expected rate of inflation Exogenous DCP = domestic credit to the private sector € = exchange rate (index of units of domestic currency per unit of foreign currency) FIG = net external indebtedness of the public sector FIP = net external indebtedness of the private sector G = government expenditures IR = gross capital formation (in real terms) L = labor force Pm = price of imports Px = price of exports r = domestic nominal interest rate S = net services account T = government revenues

The first equation in Table 6 is a standard demand for money function, relating the desired stock of real money balances (md) to real income (y), the rate of interest on deposits (r), and the expected rate of inflation (π).54 This is a standard formulation with one important exception. The equation reflects the assumption that in developing countries there is a lack of financial assets that can be held as an alternative to money and goods. The variable r is an “own” rate of interest, and the only opportunity cost to holding money is the rate of return on holding goods or real assets. The absence of a developed financial or capital market thus excludes the interest rate on alternative financial assets (bonds) from consideration.

The next two equations (2 and 3) describe the behavior of imports and exports. The demand for import specification is identical to that formulated by Khan (1974) and is the one most often used in the literature. The demand for real imports is written as a positive function of real income and the ratio of the price of imports (in domestic currency terms) to the domestic price level:

The actual quantity of imports is assumed to adjust proportionally to the difference between the demand for imports and actual imports in the previous period. This partial-adjustment model is specified as:

where β is the coefficient of adjustment, 0 ≤ β ≤ 1. As is well known, this type of adjustment model introduces a distributed lag process (with geometrically declining weights) into the behavior of real imports. Substituting equation (2a) into (2b) and solving for the level of nominal imports yields equation (2) in Table 6.

In contrast to the case of import demand, the equation for exports is more problematic. Although the theory of export supply is still very much a contested and unresolved subject in empirical trade work, the idea behind equation (3) in Table 6 is quite simple. The volume of exports will increase with the productive capacity of the economy (represented by y*) and with the profitability of producing and selling exports (captured by the ratio of export prices to domestic prices—Px.∊/P). Basically the domestic price index (P) serves a dual role in the supply function. First, for a given level of the export price (in domestic currency terms), the profitability of producing exports falls when the factor costs in the export industries increase. As these factor costs are likely to move with the general price index, the variable P is assumed to serve as a suitable proxy for them. Second, to the extent that resources involved in the production of exportables can be transferred to other uses, or that the export price of a given good can be kept different from the domestic price, the relative profitability of selling exports falls with an increase in domestic prices. Lags are introduced into the specification in a different way from the procedure used in the case of imports to avoid the fact that in the partial-adjustment model the largest effect of any change in the explanatory variables occurs in the current period. For the supply of exports, particularly from developing countries producing primary goods, this would be an unrealistic assumption. Consequently, a more general three-period lag structure was introduced. This allows the lag pattern to be determined from the data.

The inflation formulation (equation 4) is taken almost directly from Khan and Knight (1981, 1982). The domestic rate of inflation (AlogP) is assumed to be positively related to the excess supply of real money balances and the rate of foreign inflation. The latter variable is taken to be the rate of growth of import prices (AlogfVw) adjusted by the percentage change in the exchange rate (Aloge). It is assumed that a given change in import prices or the exchange rate would be fully reflected in domestic prices within two periods, and thus a restriction is imposed on the parameters of the current and lagged values to ensure this outcome.

The rate of growth of output (Alogj)55 is specified to respond to both monetary and fiscal variables, the deviations of output from capacity output (the output gap), and the rate of growth of real exports. An increase in real credit to the private sector is assumed to have a temporary positive effect on output which works through its effects on private expenditures. The degree to which this occurs is measured by the sum of the parameters on the current and lagged values of the flow of real credit to the private sector, that is, (ai2 + an).56 While there are no firm theoretical views on the size of (aX2 + al3), most studies relating monetary Variables to output have found the effect to be small (see Table 6). The equation also hypothesizes that, when the actual level of output is below its capacity level, current output will tend to expand. If the parameter <214 is equal to unity, then the dependent variable would itself become the output gap.57 The fiscal variable is represented by the growth in real government expenditures, although, as was pointed out in Section III of the paper, the relationship between the rate of growth of output and real government expenditures is complex and has not been amenable to simple econometric modeling. Finally, the rate of growth of real exports is introduced as a variable to be able to incorporate the possible advantages of policies designed to promote exports.

Unlike the earlier versions of the model, in this particular variant the rate of growth of capacity output is made endogenous. Since the rate of growth of capacity output (Alogv*) is central to analyzing supply-side policies, it is useful to indicate how it was derived. Equation (6) in Table 6 is basically a simple growth model that starts with an aggregate production function (f) relating output (v) to the capital stock (K) and the labor force (L):

Converting this equation into rates of growth yields:

where the variable dK is defined as equal to the rate of gross real investment {IK). A log-linear approximation to equation (4a) would be:

The fitted values from equation (6c) then can be used as values for the rate of growth of capacity output, as in equation (6) in Table 6. It should be noted, however, that while this equation shows how capacity output is determined, it does not make this variable fully endogenous. For purposes of the exercise here, it was assumed that both the explanatory variables, that is, (IR/y) and (AlogL), were effectively exogenous. In any realistic setting, of course, it would be expected that the investment-income ratio would itself be influenced by both monetary and fiscal policies. At this stage this additional step was not undertaken.

The remaining equations in the model are identities. The money supply (identity 7) is the balance sheet relationship for the banking system, in which the changes in liabilities of both the central bank and commercial banks (broad money) are equal to the change in assets (foreign and domestic). The variable A/? is the change in net foreign assets (equal to the balance of payments) and ADC is domestic credit expansion. The balance of payments (equation 8) is equal to the trade balance (X—IM), plus the services account (S), and the change in net external indebtedness of the private sector (AF/P) and of the public sector (AF/G). Changes in domestic credit (ADC) can take place through changes in the banking system’s claims on the private sector (ADCP) and on the government (ADCG)—equation (9). Equation (10) simply links the fiscal accounts to the monetary accounts by assuming that any government deficit (G—T) can be financed only by borrowing from the banking system (ADCG) or borrowing abroad (AF/G), that is:

where G and T are government expenditures and revenues, respectively. Solving (10a) for ADCG yields the equation (10) in Table 6.

Finally, expectations of inflation (TT) are assumed to be generated by an adaptive process in which these expectations are revised proportionally to the difference between the actual rate of inflation in the previous period (AlogP,-/) and the rate that was expected to prevail (IT,-/):

where 7 is the coefficient of expectations, 0 ^ 7 ^ 1. Solving for TT yields equation (11). Note that in this formulation a value of 7 equal to unity would mean the expected rate of inflation is equal to the actual rate of inflation in the previous period (TT, = Alog/^-i)-

## Values of Parameters Used in Simulations

The model contains 18 structural parameters and 2 adjustment parameters. While in principle the complete model could be empirically estimated, as was done for example in Khan and Knight (1981), in the present exercise the values of the parameters were imposed on the system. The specific choice of values was dictated by two conditions. First, the parameters should be broadly consistent with the estimates obtained by empirical studies on various aspects of stabilization policies in developing countries.58 To allow for this, some flexibility had to be maintained, and thus the model was not estimated with a given set of data. Second, the combination of parameters had to ensure the dynamic stability of the model. In other words, after a shock the model had to settle down to a steady state, which may or may not necessarily be the same as the original steady-state equilibrium. The values of the parameters used for the model are shown in Table 7.

Table 7.Values of Parameters
EquationParameterValue
1. Demand for money:
Incomea11.20
Interest ratea20.20
Expected inflationa31.20
2. Imports:
Incomea40.41
Relative pricea50.20
3. Exports:
Capacity outputa60.13
Relative pricesa70.10
a80.30
a90.50
4. Inflation:
Excess money demanda100.33
Foreign inflationa110.27
5. Real output:
Real private credit (current)a120.06
(lagged)a130.03
Output gapa140.90
Government expendituresa150.04
Exportsa160.05
6. Capacity output:
Capitala170.18
Labora180.59
7. Expected inflation:

The coefficients for the money demand function are basically taken from Khan and Knight (1981), who estimated this function using pooled data for a group of 29 developing countries. Since the Khan and Knight model did not contain an interest rate variable, the elasticity (a2) was arbitrarily chosen. The specific value, however, is consistent with the estimates for savings functions obtained by Fry (1980) for 14 Asian countries and McDonald (1983) for 12 Latin American countries.

The parameters in the trade equations (import demand and export supply) were estimated on a pooled sample of 34 developing countries covering the period 1971–80. This estimation was necessary as there are relatively few cross-country estimates available for the import demand equation, and practically none at all for export supply. Since the data are annual, the lags correspond to years, and it can be seen that the initial response of imports to a change in the explanatory variables is faster than in the case of export supply. The effect of the explanatory variables on the latter does, however, build up over time, and by the third year the total effect turns out to be quite large.

The estimates for the inflation equation parameters are taken directly from Khan and Knight (1981). The coefficient a11 can be interpreted to represent the share of imports in final expenditure and thus measures the first-round effects on domestic prices of a change in import prices or the exchange rate. The parameters in the output equation are also mainly obtained from Khan and Knight (1981). The effect of real domestic credit to the private sector, as given by (a12 + a13), is consistent with the estimates reported in Table 1. Both the elasticities for real government expenditures and real exports were not found to be statistically significant in the earlier Khan and Knight (1981) estimates, but in this exercise they were re-incorporated into the model. The elasticities of growth with respect to the investment-income ratio and the growth in the labor force are from Blejer and Khan (1984). It can be noted that these values are broadly consistent with most other available estimates for such models (Table 4). Finally, the coefficient of expectations was set equal to unity, using the results reported by Khan and Knight (1981, Appendix V).

## Simulation Experiments

The structural model, with the given values of the parameters, was used to perform the various simulation experiments reported in Section V. These experiments illustrate the effects of certain policies of the type generally contained in Fund-supported adjustment programs. It may be useful to describe the channels through which these policies influence the growth rate or, in other words, the transmission process.59

Consider first the case of a reduction in the rate of growth of domestic credit to the private sector that results in decline in total domestic credit growth (by 10 percentage points in the specific example in Section V). This will directly reduce the growth of output, although the effect will be dampened by the fall in domestic inflation that keeps the rate of growth of real credit from declining as much as it would otherwise. A similar output response would occur if the rate of growth of nominal government expenditures was lowered, except that, because of the link between the fiscal and monetary sectors, the growth of the money supply would tend to fall. Both fiscal and monetary policies would, other things being equal, work in concert toward lowering the rate of growth of output.

A devaluation in the context of this model has two distinct effects. First, it creates a wealth effect through the increase in domestic prices. Both the growth rates of real credit and real government expenditures would decline as a result, and thus real output growth would fall. Second, as real exports begin to rise in response to the change in relative prices, output is stimulated. The way the model is set up, it would be expected that devaluation would be contractionary in the short run as the wealth effect initially dominates the relative-price effect. Later on, the process is reversed and devaluation becomes expansionary.

Finally, the effects of a supply-side policy are illustrated by raising the investment-income ratio by 2.5 percentage points over a period of four years. The growth of the labor force is assumed to be constant at 2 percent a year. Given the relevant parameters, the increase in the investment-income ratio, brought about by an unspecified set of policies, raises the growth of capacity output by 0.5 percentage point a year over the four years.

References

(ed)“Credit Policy and the Balance of Payments in Developing Countries,” in (ed)(eds.), Money and Monetary Policy in Less Developed Countries(Oxford: Pergamon, 1980), pp. 685–711.

Exports and Economic Growth: Further Evidence,Journal of Development Economics (Amsterdam),Vol. 5(June1978),pp. 181–89.

The Process of Industrial Development and Alternative Development Strategies, Essays in International Finance No. 141(Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University, 1980).

“Money and Output in Mexico, Colombia, and Brazil,” in (ed)(eds.), Short-Term Macroeconomic Policy in Latin America(Cambridge, Massachusetts:National Bureau of Economic Research,1979), pp. 177–200.

“Trade Policy and Development,” in (ed)(eds.), International Economic Policy: Theory and Evidence(Baltimore:Johns Hopkins University,1979), pp. 1–35.

The Effects of Unanticipated Money Growth on Prices and on Output and Its Composition in a Fixed-Exchange Rate Open Economy,Canadian Journal of Economics(Toronto), Vol. 13(February1980), pp. 82–95.

Government Policy and Private Investment in Developing Countries,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 31(June1984), pp. 379–403.

Agricultural Responses to Prices in Sub-Saharan African Countries,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 30(December1983), pp. 703–26.

Stabilization, Stagflation, and Investment Incentives: The Case of Kenya, 1979—80, Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs Discussion Papers in Economics No. 89(Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University,1985).

Cline, William R., SidneyWeintraub,eds., Economic Stabilization in Developing Countries(Washington:The Brookings Institution,1981).

The Apparent Effects of Recent IMF Stabilization Programs, International Finance Discussion Papers, No. 135(Washington: U. S. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System,International Finance Division,April1979), pp. 1–15.

Currency Devaluation in Developing Countries, Essays in International Finance No. 86(Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University,1971).

Stabilization Policies in Developing Countries: Some Policy Considerations,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 28(March1981), pp. 54–79.

Exchange Rate Devaluation in a Semi-Industrialized Economy: The Experience of Argentina 1955–1961(Cambridge, Massachusetts:Massachusetts Institute of Technology,1965).,

IMF Conditionality: What Kind?”PIDE Tidings (Islamabad),No. 4(January–February1984), pp. 7–9.

Real Responses Associated with Exchange Rate Action in Selected Upper Credit Tranche Stabilization Programs,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 28(December1981), pp. 698–727.,

Macroeconomic Performance and Adjustment Under Fund-Supported Programs: The Experience of the Seventies,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 29(June1982), pp. 171–203.

Open Economy Macroeconomics(New York:Basic Books,1981).

The Effects of Taxation on Labor Supply, Savings, and Investment in Developing Countries: A Survey of the Empirical Literature” (unpublished,Washington:International Monetary Fund,April1984).

(1983a),The Short-Run Relation Between Growth and Inflation in Latin America: Comment,American Economic Review(Nashville, Tennessee), Vol. 73(June1983), pp. 477–82.

(1983b),The Relation Between Money and Growth Under Alternative Exchange Rate Arrangements: Some Evidence from Latin-American Countries,” paper presented at the Econometric Society Meetings,San Francisco,December1983.

Saving, Investment, Growth and the Cost of Financial Repression,World Development(Oxford), Vol. 8(April1980), pp. 317–27.,

Saving, Investment, Growth and the Terms of Trade in Asia(February1984),unpublished, Irvine, California.

The Interest Elasticity of Savings in Developing Countries: The Existing Evidence,World Development(Oxford), Vol. 11(July1983), pp. 601–07.

The Effects of Changes in the Exchange Rate on Output, Prices, and the Balance of Payments,Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 6(February1976), pp. 65–74.,

Fund Conditionality: Evolution of Principles and Practices, IMF Pamphlet Series No. 38(Washington:International Monetary Fund,1981).

Credit Policy and Economic Activity in Developing Countries: An Evaluation of Stand-By Programs, 1977–79,” Institute for International Economic Studies, Seminar Paper No. 268(Stockholm:University of Stockholm,December1983).,

Do Devaluations Cause Stagflation?” Institute for International Economic Studies, Seminar Paper No. 201(Stockholm:University of Stockholm,April1982).

The Short-Run Relation Between Growth and Inflation in Latin America,American Economic Review(Nashville, Tennessee), Vol. 70(December1980), pp. 972–89.,

Contractionary Devaluation, Substitution in Production and Consumption, and the Role of the Labor Market,Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 14(February1983), pp. 179–89.

Causes of Inflation in Developing Countries: Some New Evidence,” paper presented at the American Economics Association Meetings,December1982.

Fiscal Adjustment and Fund-Supported Programs, 1971–80,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 29(December1982), pp. 561–602.

Import and Export Demand in Developing Countries,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 21(November1974), pp. 678–93.,

Stabilization Programs in Developing Countries: A Formal Framework,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 28(March1981), pp. 1–53.,

Some Theoretical and Empirical Issues Relating to Economic Stabilization in Developing Countries,World Development(Oxford), Vol. 10(September1982), pp. 709–30.

Determinants of the Current Account Balances of Non-Oil Developing Countries in the 1970s: An Empirical Analysis,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 30(December1983), pp. 819–42.

The Impact of Fund Stabilization Programs,” Chapter 6 in T. Killick (ed.),The Quest for Economic Stabilization: The IMF and the Third World(London:Heinemann,1984), pp. 227–69.

others,Towards a Real Economy Approach,” Chapter 7 in T. Killick (ed.),The Quest for Economic Stabilization: The IMF and the Third World(London:Heinemann,1984), pp. 270–320.

(ed)Trade and Employment in Developing Countries: Vol. I—Individual Studies(Chicago:University of Chicago,1981).

Contractionary Effects of Devaluation,Journal of International Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 8(August1978), pp. 445–56.

On the Monetary-Macro Dynamics of Colombia and Mexico,Journal of Development Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 14(May1984), pp. 183–201.

Domestic Credit and Exchange Rates in Developing Countries: Some Policy Experiments with Korean Data,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund (Washington), Vol. 31(December1984), pp. 595–635.

“The Determinants of Saving Behavior in Latin America”(unpublished, Washington:International Monetary Fund,April1983).

Growth of Exports and Income in the Developing World: A Neoclassical View,” U.S. AID Discussion Paper No. 28(Washington:U.S. Agency for International Development,November1973).

A Supply Framework for Exchange Reform in Developing Countries: The Experience of Sudan,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 27(March1980), pp. 24–79.

The IMF and its Critics, Essays in International Finance No. 146(Princeton, New Jersey:Princeton University,1981).

Phillips Curves in Developing Countries: The Latin American Case,Economic Development and Cultural Change(Chicago), Vol. 30(January1982), pp. 321–34.

Experience with Programs of Balance of Payments Adjustment: Stand-By Arrangements in the Higher Tranches 1963–72,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 25(June1978), pp. 293–309.

Sources of Growth in Less Developed Countries: A Cross-Section Study,Quarterly Journal of Economics(Cambridge, Massachusetts), Vol. 85(August1971), pp. 391–408.

Public Investment, Crowding Out, and Growth: A Dynamic Model Applied to India and Korea,Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund(Washington), Vol. 27(December1980), pp. 814–55.

“IS/LM in the Tropics: Diagrammatics of the New Structuralist Macro Critique,” in W. R. Cline and S. Weintraub (eds.), Economic Stabilization in Developing Countries(Washington:The Brookings Institution,1981), pp. 465–502.

“Devaluation, Capital Flows and Crowding-Out: A Computable General Equilibrium Model with Portfolio Choice for Thailand”(unpublished, Washington:International Bank for Reconstruction and Development,November1984).

Determinants of Private Investment in Developing Countries,Journal of Development Studies(London), Vol. 19(October1982), pp. 19–36.

Growth and Export Expansion in Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence,Journal of Development Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 9(August1981), pp. 121–30.

United Nations Conference on Trade and Development,“Survey of Commodity Demand and Supply Elasticities,” Research Memorandum No. 48(Geneva: UNCTAD,March1974).

Stagflationary Effects of Monetary Stabilization Policies: A Quantitative Analysis of South Korea,Journal of Development Economics(Amsterdam), Vol. 10(April1982), pp. 133–69.

(ed) ed., IMF Conditionality(Washington:Institute for International Economics,1983).

Out of print

This is only one of the many criticisms made of the Fund. For a review of the broad lines of the criticisms that occur most often in appraisals of the Fund and its policies, see Nowzad (1981).

See Khan and Knight (1983) for a discussion of the respective roles of foreign and domestic factors in the current account outcomes of non-oil developing countries during the 1970s.

For example, during 1983 lending by the Fund exceeded \$12 billion and the Fund helped to secure over \$21 billion in additional bank lending to countries with programs.

For a discussion of the types of policies usually contained in Fund programs, see Crockett (1981) and Guitian (1981).

Diaz-Alejandro (1984), for example, characterizes Fund programs in this way.

The “real economy” approach advocated by Killick and others (1984) is another example of a specific set of proposals for adjustment. This approach emphasizes structural policies at the sectoral level and argues for adjustment to be spread over a longer period (5 years) than is considered by the Fund. Other alternative programs either tend to be very general, with little elaboration of the policies that should be adopted, or are restricted to particular countries and specific episodes of adjustment.

The use of controls on trade and payments also is inconsistent with the objectives of the Fund as set forth in the Articles of Agreement.

Of course, situations may arise in which the supply response is fairly rapid, that is, if there exists substantial excess capacity in the economy.

This could also include comparing a Fund program with no program or no change in policy.

This and other problems with the cross-country approach will be discussed in Section IV.

See Section V.

See, for example, the papers contained in Cline and Weintraub (1981) and Williamson (1983).

Countries with Fund-supported programs are often included in the samples used by the various empirical studies, however, even though the use of a Fund program is not the main criterion for choice of country.

The demand-side effects of exchange rate policies are treated separately later in this paper.

Credit policies may also include the placing of subceilings on the extension of credit to the government. These, however, are generally regarded as an aspect of fiscal restraint in Fund programs.

In general, the larger the excess aggregate demand in the economy, the smaller are the effects on growth.

It should be noted, however, that some stabilization programs have involved large initial reductions in monetary growth, so that the effect on output of tighter monetary policy can in practice still be quite substantial.

The median value of the estimates in Table 1 is 0.8 percent.

Van Wijnbergen’s estimate, based on a neostructuralist model associated with the writings of Taylor (1981) and others, is roughly four times as large as most of the results given in Table 1.

The average of the estimates is 0.8 percent with a standard deviation of 0.4 percent.

This means that the assumption of the long-run neutrality of money is either imposed on the model or found to be satisfied.

For a test of the hypothesis that an unanticipated change in government expenditures affects real output, see Khan and Knight (1981), page 13. The empirical tests conducted, using a model that already included the effects of monetary policy, produced inconclusive (i. e., statistically insignificant) results. No empirical studies now available find a direct statistical role for taxes in the determination of output in developing countries.

A discussion of the empirical literature on the effects of taxation on labor supply, savings, and investment in developing countries is contained in Ebrill (1984).

The importance of this linkage is also reflected in the inclusion in Fund programs of subceilings on credit extended to the government or the consolidated public sector. Such subceilings serve the dual function of controlling both the public sector deficit and the growth of total domestic credit.27

This is not to suggest that all public investment will necessarily crowd out the private sector. A number of public sector investments do not affect private investment. Certain investments are undertaken by the public sector which the private sector cannot undertake for reasons of scale or financing difficulties. In addition, a number of public sector projects may be partly financed through concessional foreign lending that would not reduce the resources available to the private sector.

Sundararajan and Thakur (1980) found the coefficient of the public sector capital stock in the private investment equation to be statistically insignificant in both the countries (India and Korea) they studied. The coefficient measuring the relationship between public and private investment was statistically significant only in one country (Greece) of the five studied by Tun Wai and Wong (1982).

The results are based on a pooled sample of 24 developing countries for the period 1971–79.

This section is based largely on the discussion contained in Khan and Knight (1982).

Of course, this controversy is not exclusive to developing countries; there is just as much uncertainty about the relationship in industrial countries.

These values are close to Fry’s (1984) estimates when the latter are converted to elasticities.

Giovannini (1983), for example, finds little evidence on this question for a group of Asian countries similar to those studied by Fry (1980,1984).

This experience essentially forms the basis for Diaz-Alejandro’s (1984) argument for capital controls (on both inflows and outflows) during a stabilization program.

Of course, together with increases in physical capital, there must be a corresponding improvement in the efficiency of investment. Other factors, such as improvements in human capital (education, skills, and health), increases in the labor force, and technological developments, are also important for growth.

These estimates should, however, be treated with caution. Because capital endowments differ among countries, estimates of the marginal productivity of capital based on cross-section data may be somewhat misleading.

In the long run, as mentioned in Section II, correcting the external imbalance may certainly set the stage for more rapid growth later. In the present context, however, the focus is exclusively on the short run.

See, for example, Guitian (1976) and Dornbusch (1981).

For a discussion of the supply-side aspects of devaluation, see Nashashibi (1980) and Khan and Knight (1982).

Devaluation could also lead to a “liquidity squeeze” if domestic firms have significant foreign liabilities whose domestic-currency value rose with the devaluation. At the same time, however, the wealth of residents holding foreign assets would also increase. These effects may well be offsetting in the aggregate.

Guitian (1981), for example, refers to this type of comparison as a conjectural or judgmental standard of measurement of the effects of programs.

The simulation experiments are similar to those contained in Khan and Knight (1981, 1982).

While, as mentioned previously, devaluation has both demand-side and supply-side features, for expositional convenience it is treated here as a demand-management policy.

This calculation is made using an aggregate growth model estimated by Blejer and Khan (1984) for 24 developing countries. See also Table 4 in Section III.

Basically, this would involve an increase in domestic financial savings, brought about, say, through raising domestic interest rates, and an expansion in the flow of real bank credit to the private sector.

For simplicity, it has been assumed that the initial growth rate is constant. The analysis would not be changed if instead the initial conditions involved a declining (or increasing) rate of growth of output.

In this model there is one-for-one relationship between actual and capacity growth, so that any increase in the latter is matched by an equivalent increase in the actual growth rate.

All parameters are written so as to be positive.

Real output and real income are one and the same variable here, and the terms are used interchangeably.

The lag pattern was determined from the data.

With al4 = 1 the dependent variable becomes \og(y/y*)t.

In all cases the estimates chosen were based on cross-section data for groups of developing countries. Thus the results are not conditional on the parameters for any single developing country.

Since the model is dynamic and involves several important feedbacks, the verbal discussion will obviously be only heuristic.

## 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 Mentré. 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.

29. Issues in the Assessment of the Exchange Rates of Industrial Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984

30. The Exchange Rate System—Lessons of the Past and Options for the Future: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1984

31. International Capital Markets: Developments and Prospects, 1984, by Maxwell Watson, Peter Keller, and Donald Mathieson. 1984.

32. World Economic Outlook, September 1984: Revised Projections by the Staff of the International Monetary Fund. 1984.

33. Foreign Private Investment in Developing Countries: A Study by the Research Department of the International Monetary Fund. 1985.

34. Adjustment Programs in Africa: The Recent Experience, by Justin B. Zulu and Saleh M. Nsouli. 1985.

35. The West African Monetary Union: An Analytical Review, by Rattan J. Bhatia. 1985.

36. Formulation of Exchange Rate Policies in Adjustment Programs, by a Staff Team Headed by G.G. Johnson. 1985.

37. Export Credit Cover Policies and Payments Difficulties, by Eduard H. Brau and Chanpen Puckahtikom. 1985.

38. Trade Policy Issues and Developments, by Shailendra J. Anjaria, Naheed Kirmani, and Arne B. Petersen. 1985.

39. A Case of Successful Adjustment: Korea’s Experience During 1980–84, by Bijan B. Aghevli and Jorge Márquez-Ruarte. 1985.

40. Recent Developments in External Debt Restructuring, by K. Burke Dillon, C. Maxwell Watson, G. Russell Kincaid, and Chanpen Puckahtikom. 1985.

41. Fund-Supported Adjustment Programs and Economic Growth, by Mohsin S. Khan and Malcolm D. Knight. 1985.

International Monetary Fund, Washington, D.C. 20431, U.S.A.

Telephone number 202 623-7430