Inflation, Growth and Crisis Performance of Hard Pegged Exchange Rate Regimes Ivo Mandadjiev Lawrence University
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Undergraduate Economic Review Volume 1 | Issue 1 Article 3 2004 Inflation, Growth and Crisis Performance of Hard Pegged Exchange Rate Regimes Ivo Mandadjiev Lawrence University Recommended Citation Mandadjiev, Ivo (2005) "Inflation, Growth and Crisis Performance of Hard Pegged Exchange Rate Regimes," Undergraduate Economic Review: Vol. 1: Iss. 1, Article 3. Available at: http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/uer/vol1/iss1/3 This Article is brought to you for free and open access by The Ames Library, the Andrew W. Mellon Center for Curricular and Faculty Development, the Office of the Provost and the Office of the President. It has been accepted for inclusion in Digital Commons @ IWU by the faculty at Illinois Wesleyan University. For more information, please contact [email protected]. ©Copyright is owned by the author of this document. Inflation, Growth and Crisis Performance of Hard Pegged Exchange Rate Regimes Abstract The bipolar view of unsustainable intermediate exchange rate regimes transitioning into the corners of hard pegs and free floats has attracted much attention and criticism in recent times. While highly mobile capital is argued to render intermediate regimes unsustainable by the virtues of the impossible trinity (Fischer 2001), the prevalent “fear of floating” can eliminate the flexible pole of the bipolar view for developing countries (Calvo and Reinhart 2000). This paper employs four-way, de jure and de facto exchange rate classifications to compare the performance of hard pegged exchange rate regimes – currency boards in particular – against that of soft a( djustable) pegs, hard (heavy intervention) floats, and free floats. The onclusionc from the analysis is that hard pegs offer exceptional inflation performance even when accounting for possible endogeneity of regime choice. Furthermore, hard pegged regimes stand out as the least crisis prone, while maintaining steady growth comparable to that of free floats. This article is available in Undergraduate Economic Review: http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/uer/vol1/iss1/3 Mandadjiev: Inflation, Growth and Crisis Performance of Hard Pegged Exchange Undergraduate Economic Review A publication of Illinois Wesleyan University Vol. I – 2004-2005 Title “Inflation, Growth and Crisis Performance of Hard Pegged Exchange Rate Regimes” Author Ivo Mandadjiev Affiliation Lawrence University Abstract The bipolar view of unsustainable intermediate exchange rate regimes transitioning into the corners of hard pegs and free floats has attracted much attention and criticism in recent times. While highly mobile capital is argued to render intermediate regimes unsustainable by the virtues of the impossible trinity (Fischer 2001), the prevalent “fear of floating” can eliminate the flexible pole of the bipolar view for developing countries (Calvo and Reinhart 2000). This paper employs four-way, de jure and de facto exchange rate classifications to compare the performance of hard pegged exchange rate regimes – currency boards in particular – against that of soft (adjustable) pegs, hard (heavy intervention) floats, and free floats. The conclusion from the analysis is that hard pegs offer exceptional inflation performance even when accounting for possible endogeneity of regime choice. Furthermore, hard pegged regimes stand out as the least crisis prone, while maintaining steady growth comparable to that of free floats. Published by Digital Commons @ IWU, 2005 1 Undergraduate Economic Review, Vol. 1 [2005], Iss. 1, Art. 3 I. Introduction The long lasting debate on exchange rate regimes has taken a new turn in recent economic literature with regimes moving away from the middle ground of pegged but adjustable fixed exchange rates towards the two poles: flexible exchange rates and fixed exchange rates. In general, the tradeoff in moving from a floating exchange rate to a pegged rate manifests in reduced exchange rate volatility at the cost of an independent monetary policy. Pegged regimes provide superior insulation of output against monetary shocks and are deemed to reduce both exchange rate uncertainty and transaction costs; thus, greater trade and investment results (Ghosh, Gulde and Wolf 2002). In contrast, floating regimes efficiently absorb real shocks and enable countries to retain an independent monetary policy as a macroeconomic stabilization tool. The impossible trinity of a fixed exchange rate, capital mobility, and an independent domestic monetary policy presents a strong case against traditional pegged regimes. Support for such a regime will not be viable in the long run unless the regime is really hard1 and supported by a credible commitment, since domestic monetary policy would undoubtedly be tempted to address exchange rate volatilities. One primary attraction of pegged regimes, the removal of the nominal exchange rate as an adjustment mechanism, is also their principal drawback, since adjustment to domestic or international shocks is slower via differential domestic inflation than that via the nominal exchange rate (Ghosh, Gulde Wolf 2002). Currency board arrangements have gained increased popularity in recent years attributable to their success in addressing objectives such as facilitating the transition from a centrally planned to a market economy, arresting hyperinflation, restoring exchange rate stability after a period of political and economic turmoil, and providing a trustworthy and stable institutional framework. A currency board can allow a developing economy to establish its domestic currency relatively promptly and efficiently by fixing the exchange rate between the domestic currency and the reserve currency at a predetermined level and by guaranteeing that the domestic currency is backed by sufficient foreign exchange reserves. Though currency boards are generally associated with outstanding inflation and interest rate performance, they are hardly a panacea. The arrangement of this most extreme form of exchange rate peg imposes restrictions on the central bank’s ability to employ monetary policy, diminishes its role as a lender of last resort and inhibits the creation of domestic credit. The stringent institutional arrangements required to initiate a currency board aim to make its abolition a daunting task. These limitations, on the other hand, tend to heighten confidence in the domestic monetary authority and financial institutions due to enhanced monetary discipline and restrictive fiscal policy (Gulde, Kahkonen, Keller, 2000). 1 Hard pegged regimes denote currency board arrangements, dollarization and monetary unions. 2 http://digitalcommons.iwu.edu/uer/vol1/iss1/3 2 Mandadjiev: Inflation, Growth and Crisis Performance of Hard Pegged Exchange Thesis This paper builds upon the study by Ghosh, Gulde and Wolf (2002) by examining the inflation and output performance of currency boards and other hard pegged regimes (such as dollarization and monetary unions) as well as of soft pegged and floating regimes. The impossible trinity suggests that in countries with open capital accounts, traditional soft pegs have proved to be unsustainable in the long run and crisis prone (Obstfeld and Rogoff 1995). The choice between a hard peg and a floating rate depends on numerous factors including the unique characteristics of an economy: level of income, degree of openness of capital accounts, and the country’s inflationary and monetary policy history. The choice of a hard peg is justifiable for countries with a history of monetary instability and countries whose capital and current account transactions are closely integrated with a group of other economies (Fischer 2001). Also, countries implementing hard pegged regimes are usually small both in terms of GDP and population and are highly open to trade. This paper seeks to employ regression analysis to empirically estimate the crisis proneness and the differences for the levels of inflation and per capita GDP growth among countries with floating exchange rates, those with pegged exchange rates, and finally, those with currency board arrangements or dollarization. Specifically, we expect the inflation levels for countries implementing currency boards to be significantly lower than those for countries having pegged, intermediate floating and floating exchange rates. Although we do not anticipate hard pegged regimes to exhibit exceptional output growth, we conjecture that the superior inflation performance of the regime is not gained in a tradeoff between inflation and growth. The assumed inflation performance advantage of hard pegged regimes inevitably raises the question of endogeneity of regime choice since countries with a low propensity of inflation are prone to adopt relatively restrictive monetary regimes. Since in real economies we often observe that monetary instability or hyperinflation predates arrangements of currency boards, we anticipate the reverse causality bias to be unsubstantiated. Finally, with an eye towards improved stability, we expect to find support for the bipolar view that countries will eventually abandon the crisis prone adjustable pegs and intermediate floats for the corner solutions of free floats and hard pegs. II. Literature Review The theoretical literature on the choice and consequences of exchange rate regime adoption is expansive and ever-growing. Essentially, the choice between adopting pegged or floating regimes represents a tradeoff between restricted exchange rate volatility and the benefit of monetary policy as a stabilization tool. Following Ghosh, Gulde and Wolf, one can claim, at the risk