- Jaewoo Lee, Jonathan Ostry, Alessandro Prati, Luca Ricci, and Gian Milesi-Ferretti
- Published Date:
- April 2008
Ahmed, Shaghil1986, “Temporary and Permanent Government Spending in an Open Economy: Some Evidence for the United Kingdom,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 17, No. 2, pp. 197–224.
Bayoumi, Tamim, HamidFaruqee, and JaewooLee,2005, “A Fair Exchange? Theory and Practice of Calculating Equilibrium Exchange Rates,” IMF Working Paper 05/229 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Bayoumi, Tamim, JaewooLee, and SarmaJayanthi,2006, “New Rates from New Weights,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 53(June), pp. 272–305.
Bernanke, Ben, and RefetGurkaynak,2001, “Is Growth Exogenous? Taking Mankiw, Romer, and Weil Seriously,” NBER Macroeconomics Annual (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
Bernheim, B. Douglas, 1987, “Ricardian Equivalence: An Evaluation of Theory and Evidence,”NBER Macroeconomics Annual, Vol. 2, ed. byFischerStanley (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research), pp. 263–304.
Blanchard, J. Olivier, FrancescoGiavazzi, and FilipaSa,2005, “International Investors, the U.S. Current Account, and the Dollar,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity 1,Brookings Institution, pp. 1–49.
Canzoneri, Matthew B., Robert E.Cumby, and BehzadDiba,1999, “Relative Labor Productivity and the Real Exchange Rate in the Long Run: Evidence for a Panel of OECD Countries,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 47(April), pp. 245–66.
Cashin, Paul, Luis F.Céspedes, and RatnaSahay,2004, “Commodity Currencies and the Real Exchange Rate,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 75(October), pp. 239–68.
Chen, Yu-Chin, and KennethRogoff,2003, “Commodity Currencies,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 60(May), pp. 133–60.
Chinn, Menzie, 2005, “Getting Serious About the Twin Deficits,” Council Special Report No. 10 (New York: Council on Foreign Relations).
Chinn, Menzie, and HiroIto,2005, “Current Account Balances, Financial Development and Institutions: Assaying the World ‘Savings Glut,’” NBER Working Paper 11761 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
Chinn, Menzie, and EswarPrasad,2003, “Medium-Term Determinants of Current Accounts in Industrial and Developing Countries: An Empirical Exploration,” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 59, No. 1, pp. 47–76.
Choudhri, Ehsan, and MohsinKhan,2005, “Real Exchange Rates in Developing Countries: Are Balassa-Samuelson Effects Present?” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 52(December), pp. 387–409.
Debelle, Guy, and HamidFaruqee,1996, “What Determines the Current Account? A Cross-Sectional and Panel Approach,” IMF Working Paper 96/58 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
De Gregorio, José, AlbertoGiovannini, and HolgerWolf,1994, “International Evidence on Tradables and Non-tradables Inflation,” European Economic Review, Vol. 38(June), pp. 1225–44.
Demirgüç-Kunt, Asli, and EnricaDetragiache,2005, “CrossCountry Empirical Studies of Systemic Bank Distress: A Survey,” IMF Working Paper 05/96 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Edwards, Sebastian, 1989, Real Exchange Rates, Devaluation and Adjustment: Exchange Rate Policy in Developing Countries (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
Edwards, Sebastian, and Jonathan D.Ostry,1990, “Anticipated Protectionist Policies, Real Exchange Rates, and the Current Account: The Case of Rigid Wages,” Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 9(June), pp. 206–19.
Edwards, Sebastian, and Jonathan D.Ostry,1992, “Terms of Trade Disturbances, Real Exchange Rates, and Welfare: The Role of Capital Controls and Labor Market Distortions,” Oxford Economic Papers, Vol. 44, pp. 20–34.
Edwards, Sebastian, and MiguelSavastano,2000, “Exchange Rates in Emerging Economies: What Do We Know? What Do We Need to Know?” inEconomic Policy Reform: The Second Stage, ed. byAnne O.Krueger (Chicago: University of Chicago Press).
European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), 2005, Transition Report (London).
Faruqee, Hamid, 1995, “Long-Run Determinants of the Real Exchange Rate: A Stock-Flow Perspective,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 42(March), pp. 80–107.
Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 2004, “Global Demographic Change: Economic Impacts and Policy Challenges,”proceedings of a symposium sponsored by the Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, Jackson Hole, Wyoming (Aug. 26–28).
Froot, Kenneth A., and Kenneth S.Rogoff,1995, “Perspectives on PPP and Long-Run Real Exchange Rates,” inHandbook of International Economics, Vol. 3, ed. by Gene M.GrossmanKennethRogoff (Amsterdam: Elsevier), pp. 1647–88.
Gagnon, Joseph, 1996, “Net Foreign Assets and Equilibrium Exchange Rates: Panel Evidence,” U.S. Federal Reserve Board International Finance Discussion Paper No. 574 (Washington).
Ghosh, Atish R., and Jonathan D.Ostry,1997, “Macroeco-nomic Uncertainty, Precautionary Saving, and the Current Account,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 121–39.
Goldfajn, Ilan, and RodrigoValdes,1999, “The Aftermath of Appreciations,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 114(February), pp. 229–62.
Gonzalo, Jesus, and CliveGranger,1995, “Estimation of Common Long-Memory Components in Cointegrated Systems,” Journal of Business and Economic Statistics Vol. 13, No. 1 (January), pp. 27–35.
Gruber, Joseph, and StevenKamin,2005, “Explaining the Global Pattern of Current Account Imbalances,” U.S. Federal Reserve Board International Finance Discussion Paper No. 846 (Washington).
Hayashi, Fumio, 1997, Understanding Saving: Evidence from the United States and Japan (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
Higgins, Matthew, 1998, “Demography, National Savings, and International Capital Flows,” International Economic Review, Vol. 39, No. 2, pp. 343–69.
Hinkle, Lawrence E., and Peter J.Montiel,1999, Exchange Rate Misalignment: Concepts and Measurement for Developing Countries (Oxford: Oxford University Press).
Im, Kyung SoM. HashemPesaran and YongcheolShin,2003, “Testing for Unit Roots in Heterogeneous Panels,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 115(July), pp. 53–74.
International Monetary Fund, 2006, World Economic Outlook (Washington, April).
Isard, Peter, and HamidFaruqee,1998, Exchange Rate Assessment: Extension of the Macroeconomic Balance Approach, IMF Occasional Paper No. 167 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Isard, Peter, RussellKincaid, and MartinFetherston,2001, Methodology for Current Account and Exchange Rate Assessment, IMF Occasional Paper No. 209 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Kao, Chihwa, 1999, “Spurious Regression and Residual-Based Tests for Cointegration in Panel Data,Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 90(May), pp. 1–44.
Kao, Chihwa, Min-HsienChiang2000, “On the Estimation and Inference of a Cointegrated Regression in Panel Data,” Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 15, pp. 179–222.
Lane, Philip, and Gian MariaMilesi-Ferretti,2001, “LongTerm Capital Movements,” inNBER Macroeconomics Annual 2001 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).
Lane, Philip, and Gian MariaMilesi-Ferretti,2002, “External Wealth, the Trade Balance, and the Real Exchange Rate,” European Economic Review, Vol. 46(June), pp. 1049–71.
Lane, Philip, and Gian MariaMilesi-Ferretti,2004, “The Transfer Problem Revisited: Net Foreign Assets and Real Exchange Rates,” Review of Economics and Statistics, Vol. 86(November), pp. 841–57.
Lane, Philip, and Gian MariaMilesi-Ferretti,2007a, “A Global Perspective on External Positions,” in G7Current Account Imbalances: Sustainability and Adjustment, ed. byClaridaRichard (Chicago: Chicago University Press for NBER).
Lane, Philip, and Gian MariaMilesi-Ferretti,2007b, “The External Wealth of Nations Mark II: Revised and Extended Estimates of Foreign Assets and Liabilities, 1970–2004,” Journal of International Economics,Vol 73, No. 2(November), pp. 223–50.
Lee, Jaewoo, and Menzie D.Chinn,2007, “Current Account and Real Exchange Rate Dynamics in the G7 Countries,” Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 25, No. 2, pp. 257–74.
Lee, Jaewoo, and Man-KeungTang,2007, “Does Productivity Growth Appreciate the Real Exchange Rate?” Review of International Economics, Vol. 15(February), pp. 164–87.
Levin, Andrew, Chien-FuLin, and Chia-Shang JamesChu,2002, “Unit Root Tests in Panel Data: Asymptotic and Finite-Sample Properties,” Journal of Econometrics, Vol. 108(May), pp. 1–24.
MacDonald, Ronald, and Luca AntonioRicci,2005 “The Real Exchange Rate and the Balassa-Samuelson Effect: The Role of the Distribution Sector,” Pacific Economic Review, Vol. 10, No. 1, pp. 29–48.
MacDonald, Ronald, and Luca AntonioRicci,2007, “Real Exchange Rates, Imperfect Substitut-ability, and Imperfect Competition,” Journal of Macroeconomics, Vol. 29,No.4, pp. 639–64.
Maeso-Fernandez, Francisco, ChiaraOsbat, and BerndSchnatz,2004, “Towards the Estimation of Equilibrium Exchange Rates for CEE Acceding Countries: Methodological Issues and a Panel Cointegration Perspective,” ECB Working Paper 353 (Frankfurt: European Central Bank).
Meese, Richard A., and KennethRogoff,1983, “Empirical Exchange Rate Models of the Seventies: Do They Fit out of Sample?” Journal of International Economics, Vol. 14(February), pp. 3–24.
Obstfeld, Maurice2004, “External Adjustment,” Review of World Economics, Vol. 140, No. 4, pp. 541–68.
Obstfeld, MauriceKennethRogoff,1996, Foundations of International Macroeconomics (Cambridge, Massachusetts: MIT Press).
Ostry, Jonathan D., 1988, “The Balance of Trade, the Terms of Trade, and the Real Exchange Rate: An Intertemporal Optimizing Framework,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, Vol. 35, No. 4, pp. 541–73.
Ostry, Jonathan D., 1991, “Tariffs, Real Exchange Rates, and the Trade Balance in a Two-Country World,” European Economic Review, Vol. 35, No. 5, pp. 1127–42.
Ostry, Jonathan D., 1994, “Government Purchases and Relative Prices in a Two-Country World,” Economic Record, Vol. 70, No. 209 (June), pp. 149–61.
Ostry, Jonathan D., Carmen M.Reinhart,1992, “Private Saving and Terms of Trade Shocks: Evidence from Developing Countries,” Staff Papers, International Monetary Fund, Vol. 39(September), pp. 495–517.
Pedroni, Peter2000, “Fully Modified OLS for Heterogeneous Cointegrated Panels,” Advances in Econometrics, Vol. 15, pp. 93–130.
Phillips, Peter C.B., and Bruce E.Hansen,1990, “Statistical Inference in Instrumental Variables Regression with I(1) Processes,” Review of Economic Studies, Vol. 57, pp. 99–125.
Ricci, Luca Antonio, Gian MariaMilesi-Ferretti, and JaeWooLee,2008, “Real Exchange Rates and Fundamentals: A Cross-Country Perspective,” IMF Working Paper 08/13 (Washington).
Rogoff, Kenneth, 1996, “The Purchasing Power Parity Puzzle,” Journal of Economic Literature, Vol. 34(June), pp. 647–68.
Sachs, Jeffrey D., and AndrewWarner,1995, “Economic Reform and the Process of Global Integration,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity: 1,Brookings Institution, pp. 1–118.
Stock, James, and MarkWatson,1993, “A Simple Estimator of Cointegrating Vectors in Higher Order Integrated Systems,” Econometrica, Vol. 61, No. 4, pp. 783–820.
Taylor, Alan, 2001, “A Century of Current Account Dynamics,” Journal of International Money and Finance, Vol. 21(November), pp. 725–48.
See Isard and Faruqee (1998) and Isard, Kincaid, and Fetherston (2001). The broader country coverage being implemented here requires a greater variety of fundamentals to “explain” the current account than when the exercise covered only advanced countries.
The fundamentals are expected to play a role over the medium term even though exchange rates are essentially unpredictable in the near term (Meese and Rogoff, 1983). Hence, short-term effects of capital flows would eventually disappear, while their medium-term effect should be captured by the underlying fundamentals.
The euro area countries are treated as separate entities in the estimation. Previously, information for 21 industrial countries was used to estimate norms for the exchange rate assessments of the 11 advanced economies covered in the exchange rate assessments produced by the CGER.
Appendix 2.1 describes the database construction and each variable definition in detail.
Bernheim (1987) finds little support for the hypothesis of full Ricardian equivalence.
Although the quantitative effect of the age profile on the current account may differ across countries depending on financial development and the characteristics of the retirement system, it is not possible to accurately estimate country-specific coefficients for all countries.
If this were not the case, there would be a tendency for NFA to systematically decline in creditor countries and increase in debtor countries, which is at odds with what the data show.
All three approaches discussed in this paper use the NFA variable in the revised database on external assets and liabilities of Lane and Milesi-Ferretti (2007b), which has a broader coverage of NFA data across countries and time than the data used in previous studies.
The inclusion of relative economic growth was statistically important only for nonindustrial countries, reflecting greater heterogeneity in their growth performance.
The estimation treats the 12 euro area countries as separate economies for two reasons: (1) although these countries now share a common currency, their real exchange rates can still behave differently depending on relative inflation; and (2) the sample spans also the pre-euro period, when the countries had their own currencies. While the estimation treats the euro area countries separately, the planned exchange rate assessments going forward would continue to be made only for the euro area as a whole. Finally, it is worth noting that the country coverage used here is broader and more heterogeneous than that of Debelle and Faruqee (1996), who examined 21 industrial countries. Compared with Chinn and Prasad (2003), who examined 99 countries including 71 nonindustrial countries, the country coverage here is more homogeneous and provides sharper statistical results.
The regressions presented in Table 1 also include a limited number of country-specific variables capturing (1) the effect of the euro adoption on several member countries; (2) country-specific effects of aging in selected advanced economies where long-run changes in the demographic structure are more dramatic; and (3) the effect of the oil balance for Norway, whose oil reserves are to be depleted in the foreseeable future.
For resource exporters, the effect of an increase in the price of nonrenewable resources on domestic saving, and hence on the current account, should be larger in countries where the stock of remaining reserves is smaller, as spending should rise in proportion to the increase in the annuity value of existing reserves. Indeed, the country-specific coefficient on the oil balance for Norway, whose remaining oil reserves are relatively limited, is higher than for the rest of the sample.
Since the current account equals the saving-investment (S–I) balance, the current account norms referred to here used to be called S–I norms in previous CGER notes.
In countries where the 2012 current account projection is predicated on substantial real exchange rate adjustment, this adjustment is taken into account in the calculation of the implied exchange rate misalignment.
This final step is unchanged from previous versions of the MB approach described in Isard and Faruqee (1998) and Isard, Kincaid, and Fetherston (2001), which assume that the trade balance is the sole source of current account adjustment.
See Isard and Faruqee (1998) for a detailed discussion of the “nth” currency problem. In principle, if current account gaps and elasticities reflect all aspects of the complex web of bilateral trade relations, this correction should be very small. In past CGER assessments, this correction has amounted to some 1–4 percentage points.
The sample of countries is smaller than in Section II, owing to the difficulty in obtaining data for some determinants of real exchange rates, such as sector-level productivity measures. See Appendix 3.1 for the list of countries.
For a recent application to the exchange rate assessment of Central and Eastern European countries, see Maeso-Fernandez, Osbat, and Schnatz (2004).
Appendix 3.1 describes the construction of each variable and discusses some remaining limitations of the data.
The net effect of investment income ensures that creditor countries would still run current account surpluses and debtor countries, current account deficits. The economic literature also refers to this long-standing issue as the “transfer problem.” Previous analyses of the impact of the NFA position on the ERER include Faruqee (1995), who focused on the United States and Japan; Gagnon (1996), who used the cumulative current account as an approximation of net foreign assets; Bayoumi, Faruqee, and Lee (2005), who use trend net investment income; and Lane and Milesi-Ferretti (2002, 2004).
This section uses new measures of productivity in tradables and nontradables, constructed on the basis of a six-sector classification of output and employment. For earlier studies using advanced-economy data, see Canzoneri, Cumby, and Diba (1999), Choudhri and Khan (2005), MacDonald and Ricci (2005, 2007), and Lee and Tang (2007).
The limitation of the trade restriction index is its inability to capture gradual liberalization. Other studies have used trade openness (average export and import share of GDP). Such a measure, however, is only an indirect indicator of the extent of liberalization and is subject to endogeneity when used in exchange rate regressions (as a change in the exchange rate would affect openness for a given trade regime).
Country-specific constant terms are needed because (1) there could be residual country-specific effects that are not captured by the other regressors; and (2) the real exchange rates are index numbers with no natural common anchor across different countries.
The estimated effect for the whole sample is smaller than the amount predicted by theory (which is equal to the share of non-tradables in the CPI), but is in line with recent estimates for a large sample of advanced and developing countries (Choudhri and Khan, 2005, estimate a coefficient of about 0.2).
Net foreign assets are extended by cumulating the projected WEO current accounts. Productivity variables, the trade liberalization index, and the share of administered prices are left unchanged at the latest available observation. An alternative way to calculate the equilibrium exchange rate would be to apply the econometric methodology suggested by Gonzalo and Granger (1995), decomposing fundamentals into a permanent and transitory component and using the permanent component to calculate the ERER.
Our classification follows De Gregorio, Giovannini, and Wolf (1994) and is bound to be imperfect. As the authors acknowledge, every sector has some degree of tradability, which can vary from country to country.
For the euro area prior to 1998, member-country data (which includes intra—euro area trade) is aggregated first; and then area-wide services exports and imports are calculated by assuming that the trade in services outside the euro area is 10 percentage points higher than the trade in goods outside the euro area. The 10 percentage point difference between trade in goods and services is based on observations from 1998 onward, the only period where data is available for services trade both within and outside the euro area.
The programs adopted for testing for panel unit root (STATA routines) and for panel cointegration (NPT1.3 in www.maxwell.syr.edu/maxpages/faculty/cdkao/working/npt.html) require a balanced panel; hence some countries and years are dropped from the sample for these tests. A panel unit root was not rejected for the commodity price index. However, a Phillips-Perron unit root test run on commodity prices for each country separately could not be rejected for the vast majority of countries. Considering the limitation of the panel unit root test in dealing with cross-sectional dependence, which is likely to be very strong for commodity prices, we ignore the panel unit root test results and treat commodity prices as nonstationary.
Plain fixed-effects estimation provides consistent estimates if the residuals are stationary. However, it would generate incorrectly lower standard errors—and misleading inference—if the residuals are correlated with the stationary component of the unit root processes of the explanatory variables, which is generally the case. The dynamic OLS methodology adds leads and lags of first differences of right-hand-side variables to the set of regressors in order to wipe out such correlation (we employ one lead and lag, but we also explore robustness to more leads and lags). As this automatically introduces serial correlation of the residuals, which distorts standard errors, an additional correction is necessary (we use the Newey-West method). The DOLS residuals were found to be stationary using the aforementioned panel unit root tests, a result which is consistent with panel cointegration. The FMOLS panel cointegration estimation based on the routine provided by Kao and Chiang (2000) was used mainly as a robustness exercise as it requires a balance panel like the panel unit root and panel cointegration tests.
See, for example, Lane and Milesi-Ferretti (2007a). The return differential in recent years has been partly due to U.S. dollar depreciation (which has raised the dollar value of U.S. foreign currency returns) and partly due to equity prices, which have risen more slowly in the United States than in the rest of the world.
The appropriate measure of inflation is the domestic one if external assets and liabilities are primarily denominated in domestic currency, or foreign inflation if they are primarily foreign-currency-denominated.
The same trade elasticities are used as in the MB approach, scaled by the openness of each country. As a final step, multilateral consistency is imposed by applying a common correction factor to the estimated exchange rate adjustments (as described in Section II).
The difference between yields and returns is lower for FDI (where reinvested earnings are counted as investment income) but still significant (over 4 percent over the past decade for both assets and liabilities).
Of course the exchange rate is not necessarily the only variable delivering the adjustment. The idea behind assessing an exchange rate misalignment is to evaluate what would be the necessary exchange rate adjustment should all fundamentals be at their projected value.
In a few instances, there can be significant differences between misalignment estimates according to the different methodologies. For example, in the case of China and the United States, the ERER methodology points to a much lower misalignment than the MB or the ES approach as of 2007. One reason is that the two methodologies are based on different measures of external imbalances. ERER is based on the stock of net foreign assets projected for 2012, while the medium-term current account projections that underpin the MB and the ES would result in much higher stock imbalances over the longer run.
Recent Occasional Papers of the International Monetary Fund
261. Exchange Rate Assessments: CGER Methodologies, by Jaewoo Lee, Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, Jonathan Ostry, Alessandro Prati, and Luca Antonio Ricci. 2008.
260. Managing the Oil Revenue Book: The Role of Fiscal Institutions, by Rolando Ossowski, Mauricio Villafuerte, Paolo A. Medas, and Theo Thomas. 2008.
259. Macroeconomic Consequences of Remittances, by Ralph Chami, Adolfo Barajas, Thomas Cosimano, Connel Fullenkamp, Michael Gapen, and Peter Montiel. 2008.
258. Northern Star: Canada’s Path to Economic Prosperity, edited by Tamim Bayoumi, Vladimir Klyuev, and Martin Mühleisen. 2007.
257. Economic Growth and Integration in Central America, edited by Dominique Desruelle and Alfred Schipke. 2007.
256. Moving to Greater Exchange Rate Flexibility: Operational Aspects Based on Lessons from Detailed Country Experiences, by Inci Ötker-Robe and David Vávra, and a team of IMF economists. 2007.
255. Sovereign Debt Restructuring and Debt Sustainability: An Analysis of Recent Cross-Country Experience, by Harald Finger and Mauro Mecagni. 2007.
254. Country Insurance: The Role of Domestic Policies, by Törbjörn Becker, Olivier Jeanne, Paolo Mauro, Jonathan D. Ostry, and Romain Rancière. 2007.
253. The Macroeconomics of Scaling Up Aid: Lessons from Recent Experience, by Andrew Berg, Shekhar Aiyar, Mumtaz Hussain, Shaun Roache, Tokhir Mirzoev, and Amber Mahone. 2007.
252. Growth in the Central and Eastern European Countries of the European Union, by Susan Schadler, Ashoka Mody, Abdul Abiad, and Daniel Leigh. 2006.
251. The Design and Implementation of Deposit Insurance Systems, by David S. Hoelscher, Michael Taylor, and Ulrich H. Klueh. 2006.
250. Designing Monetary and Fiscal Policy in Low-Income Countries, by Abebe Aemro Selassie, Benedict Clements, Shamsuddin Tareq, Jan Kees Martijn, and Gabriel Di Bella. 2006.
249. Official Foreign Exchange Intervention, by Shogo Ishi, Jorge Iván Canales-Kriljenko, Roberto Guimarães, and Cem Karacadag. 2006.
248. Labor Market Performance in Transition: The Experience of Central and Eastern European Countries, by Jerald Schiff, Philippe Egoumé-Bossogo, Miho Ihara, Tetsuya Konuki, and Kornélia Krajnyák. 2006.
247. Rebuilding Fiscal Institutions in Post-Conflict Countries, by Sanjeev Gupta, Shamsuddin Tareq, Benedict Clements, Alex Segura-Ubiergo, Rina Bhattacharya, and Todd Mattina. 2005.
246. Experience with Large Fiscal Adjustments, by George C. Tsibouris, Mark A. Horton, Mark J. Flanagan, and Wojciech S. Maliszewski. 2005.
245. Budget System Reform in Emerging Economies: The Challenges and the Reform Agenda, by Jack Diamond. 2005.
244. Monetary Policy Implementation at Different Stages of Market Development, by a staff team led by Bernard J. Laurens. 2005.
243. Central America: Global Integration and Regional Cooperation, edited by Markus Rodlauer and Alfred Schipke. 2005.
242. Turkey at the Crossroads: From Crisis Resolution to EU Accession, by a staff team led by Reza Moghadam. 2005.
241. The Design of IMF-Supported Programs, by Atish Ghosh, Charis Christofides, Jun Kim, Laura Papi, Uma Ramakrishnan, Alun Thomas, and Juan Zalduendo. 2005.
240. Debt-Related Vulnerabilities and Financial Crises: An Application of the Balance Sheet Approach to Emerging Market Countries, by Christoph Rosenberg, Ioannis Halikias, Brett House, Christian Keller, Jens Nystedt, Alexander Pitt, and Brad Setser. 2005.
239. GEM: A New International Macroeconomic Model, by Tamim Bayoumi, with assistance from Douglas Laxton, Hamid Faruqee, Benjamin Hunt, Philippe Karam, Jaewoo Lee, Alessandro Rebucci, and Ivan Tchakarov. 2004.
238. Stabilization and Reforms in Latin America: A Macroeconomic Perspective on the Experience Since the Early 1990s, by Anoop Singh, Agnès Belaisch, Charles Collyns, Paula De Masi, Reva Krieger, Guy Meredith, and Robert Rennhack. 2005.
237. Sovereign Debt Structure for Crisis Prevention, by Eduardo Borensztein, Marcos Chamon, Olivier Jeanne, Paolo Mauro, and Jeromin Zettelmeyer. 2004.
236. Lessons from the Crisis in Argentina, by Christina Daseking, Atish R. Ghosh, Alun Thomas, and Timothy Lane. 2004.
235. A New Look at Exchange Rate Volatility and Trade Flows, by Peter B. Clark, Natalia Tamirisa, and Shang-Jin Wei, with Azim Sadikov and Li Zeng. 2004.
234. Adopting the Euro in Central Europe: Challenges of the Next Step in European Integration, by Susan M. Schadler, Paulo F. Drummond, Louis Kuijs, Zuzana Murgasova, and Rachel N. van Elkan. 2004.
233. Germany’s Three-Pillar Banking System: Cross-Country Perspectives in Europe, by Allan Brunner, Jörg Decressin, Daniel Hardy, and Beata Kudela. 2004.
232. China’s Growth and Integration into the World Economy: Prospects and Challenges, edited by Eswar Prasad. 2004.
231. Chile: Policies and Institutions Underpinning Stability and Growth, by Eliot Kalter, Steven Phillips, Marco A. Espinosa-Vega, Rodolfo Luzio, Mauricio Villafuerte, and Manmohan Singh. 2004.
230. Financial Stability in Dollarized Countries, by Anne-Marie Gulde, David Hoelscher, Alain Ize, David Marston, and Gianni De Nicolò. 2004.
229. Evolution and Performance of Exchange Rate Regimes, by Kenneth S. Rogoff, Aasim M. Husain, Ashoka Mody, Robin Brooks, and Nienke Oomes. 2004.
228. Capital Markets and Financial Intermediation in The Baltics, by Alfred Schipke, Christian Beddies, Susan M. George, and Niamh Sheridan. 2004.
227. U.S. Fiscal Policies and Priorities for Long-Run Sustainability, edited by Martin Mühleisen and Christopher Towe. 2004.
226. Hong Kong SAR: Meeting the Challenges of Integration with the Mainland, edited by Eswar Prasad, with contributions from Jorge Chan-Lau, Dora Iakova, William Lee, Hong Liang, Ida Liu, Papa N’Diaye, and Tao Wang. 2004.
225. Rules-Based Fiscal Policy in France, Germany, Italy, and Spain, by Teresa Dában, Enrica Detragiache, Gabriel di Bella, Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, and Steven Symansky. 2003.
224. Managing Systemic Banking Crises, by a staff team led by David S. Hoelscher and Marc Quintyn. 2003.
223. Monetary Union Among Member Countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council, by a staff team led by Ugo Fasano. 2003.
222. Informal Funds Transfer Systems: An Analysis of the Informal Hawala System, by Mohammed El Qorchi, Samuel Munzele Maimbo, and John F. Wilson. 2003.
221. Deflation: Determinants, Risks, and Policy Options, by Manmohan S. Kumar. 2003.
220. Effects of Financial Globalization on Developing Countries: Some Empirical Evidence, by Eswar S. Prasad, Kenneth Rogoff, Shang-Jin Wei, and Ayhan Kose. 2003.
219. Economic Policy in a Highly Dollarized Economy: The Case of Cambodia, by Mario de Zamaroczy and Sopanha Sa. 2003.
218. Fiscal Vulnerability and Financial Crises in Emerging Market Economies, by Richard Hemming, Michael Kell, and Axel Schimmelpfennig. 2003.
217. Managing Financial Crises: Recent Experience and Lessons for Latin America, edited by Charles Collyns and G. Russell Kincaid. 2003.
216. Is the PRGF Living Up to Expectations? An Assessment of Program Design, by Sanjeev Gupta, Mark Plant, Benedict Clements, Thomas Dorsey, Emanuele Baldacci, Gabriela Inchauste, Shamsuddin Tareq, and Nita Thacker. 2002.
215. Improving Large Taxpayers’ Compliance: A Review of Country Experience, by Katherine Baer. 2002.
Note: For information on the titles and availability of Occasional Papers not listed, please consult the IMF’s Publications Catalog or contact IMF Publication Services.