Consumption volatility and financial openness

Economic theory predicts that the integration of financial markets lowers the volatility of consumption. In this article, we study long-term trends in the consumption volatility of the G7 countries. Using different measures of financial openness, we find evidence that greater financial openness has been associated with lower consumption volatility. However, volatility of consumption relative to output has not declined.     

A new approach to capital flows: Theory and evidence

This paper examines how an open economy determines its financial openness and deals with volatile capital flows when deciding to utilize them for output growth. We find that higher economic instability is an inevitable price paid for faster growth if a country permits wider openness without reversing its financial vulnerability. We prove that the country can leave its capital market wider open to achieve higher growth and lower instability if its financial system has been strengthened substantially. We show why some financially advanced countries request reluctant developing countries to liberalize their immature markets and how the conflict of interest between the two parties is formulated. The paper also presents a large sample of cross-country experiences with tradeoffs between growth and instability, with the observed evidence supporting our theoretical predictions.     

Does industrial concentration impact on the relationship between policies and volatility?

It is usually recommended that countries diversify their economies to guard against any negative shocks that might impact on one industry. However, previous research has not identified how concentration can impact on the effectiveness of macroeconomic policies. This paper attempts to evaluate the relationship between industrial concentration, policies and economic volatility for a sample of 147 countries for the period 1970 to 2005. The study reports that less concentrated countries tend to have lower rates of output, consumption and investment growth volatility. In addition, while trade and capital account openness variables alone tend to diminish economic volatility, in concentrated economies opening both the capital and trade account can increase economic volatility.     

发展中国家的资本账户开放:问题和抉择

无论是对发达国家还是发展中国家资本账户的开放性研究,人们都倾注了大量的精力.但是回顾这争鸣的百家,对发展中国家资本账户开放后的经济效应,也莫衷一是.尽管如此,被经济学界广泛承认的事实是,资本账户开放后的效应是因各国情况不同而不同的,需要决策者审时度势,慎之又慎,尤其要避免伴随资本账户开放而可能带来的金融冲击甚至危机.     

Sudden stops, banking crises and investment collapses in emerging markets

We evaluate whether financial openness leaves emerging market economies vulnerable to the adverse effects of capital reversals (“sudden stops”) on domestic investment. We investigate this claim in a broad sample of emerging markets during the period 1976–2002. If the banking sector does not experience a systemic crisis, sudden stop events fail to have a significant impact on investment. Bank crises, on the other hand, have a significant negative effect on investment even in the absence of a contemporaneous sudden stop crisis. We also find that openness to capital flows worsens the adverse impact of banking crises on investment. Our results provide statistical support for the policy view that a strong banking sector which can withstand the negative fallout of capital flight is essential for countries that open their economies to international financial flows.     

中国资本账户开放进程中跨境证券投资对国内金融市场的影响*

随着中国资本项目开放进程的推进,跨境证券投资对国内金融市场的冲击日益增强。在此背景下,本文首先通过构建考虑了资本市场收益率以及有管理浮动汇率制度的IS LM BP模型对跨境证券投资与中国国内金融市场的相互影响机理进行了理论探究,并基于中国2005年7月—2016年8月的月度数据,运用马尔科夫区制转移向量自回归模型对中国资本账户开放进程中跨境证券投资与人民币汇率、股票市场收益率、短期利率的联动关系进行了实证分析。研究结果表明：第一,四者的关联性存在明显的区制特征,区制1主要包括次贷危机时期（2007—2008年）、欧债危机时期（2010—2012年）以及后金融危机时期（2015—2016年）,经济呈现“股票市场收益率较低、跨境证券投资较少、短期利率较高、金融市场波动性大”的状态;区制2主要包括次贷危机前夕（2005—2006年）、次贷危机后的量化宽松时期（2009—2010年）以及欧债危机后的调整期（2013—2014年）,经济呈现“股票市场收益率较高、跨境证券投资较多、短期利率较低、金融市场波动性小”的状态。第二,当处于资本市场化进程较快、金融市场波动性较大的区制阶段（区制1）时,跨境证券投资与国内金融市场的联动关系更加明显。本文研究结论对于我国进一步开放资本市场具有借鉴价值和政策启示。     

Housing market volatility connectedness among G7 countries

This study investigates international linkages among housing markets in the G7 countries, using the connectedness methodology developed in Diebold and Yilmaz (2012, 2015). We find that volatility connectedness varies over the business cycle, with a surge during the global financial crisis. We also show that the United States and Italy were major net transmitters of housing market volatility shocks to other countries during the global financial crisis and the European debt crisis, respectively.     

Riding the Bubble: Financial Market Crises in Twenty-Two OECD Countries

In the past decade, financial markets have been hit twice by crisis, followed each time by recession (i.e., Enron and the subprime mortgage crisis). I present three theories to explain the dynamics of share prices: rational expectations, behavioral finance, and an institution-oriented theory. Institutional investors are the dominant actors on financial markets. They hold the majority of the share capital in big companies. They tend to drive financial markets to a higher level of risk (volatility). The greater the percentage of the share capital held by institutional investors in a company, the higher the volatility (variance) of the share price. The results of my multilevel analysis confirm this hypothesis (a sample of 1,369 firms in twenty-two OECD countries). There are also significant differences among the OECD countries. Whereas both financial market crises originated in the United States, the country did not have the highest level of volatility in the period from 2000 to 2013.     

Output volatility,composition of trade,and transmission of economic shocks across countries

In this paper we investigate how supply and demand shocks in one country affect output volatility in other countries. While the evidence for cross‐country transmission of demand shocks is mixed, we find that volatile supply in one country leads to larger imports and output volatility in other countries. As a result, the effect of trade openness on output volatility is highly heterogeneous across countries and depends on the composition of their trade. Those countries whose imports originate in economies with volatile supply experience a greater impact of trade on output volatility.     

What matters for financial development? Capital controls,institutions, and interactions

We investigate whether financial openness leads to financial development after controlling for the level of legal development using a panel encompassing 108 countries over the period 1980 to 2000. We also examine the issue of the optimal sequence of liberalization in both goods and financial markets. Our findings suggest that a higher level of financial openness spurs equity market development only if a threshold level of legal development has been attained. On the issue of sequencing, we find that trade openness is a prerequisite for capital account liberalization while banking system development is a precondition for equity market development.     

Financial openness and capital mobility: a dynamic panel analysis

Does unrestricted control on the movement of capital increase capital mobility? Theoretically, the answer is yes. This paper uses the Feldstein–Horioka savings–investment methodology to examine the impact of financial openness on the degree of capital mobility in 104 countries. Our estimates suggest that financial openness has increased capital mobility in developing countries, while its effect is statistically insignificant in OECD countries. This also implies that a developing country with more financial openness can have more access to external capital markets for borrowings. Foreign aid also appears to supplement domestic savings for investment in developing countries. In line with the previous findings, our study also confirms that capital is more mobile for developing countries.     

FINANCIAL CRISES AND INTERNATIONAL STOCK MARKET VOLATILITY TRANSMISSION

This paper examines the interplay between stock market returns and their volatility, focusing on the Asian and global financial crises of 1997–98 and 2008–09 for Australia, Singapore, the UK, and the US. We use a multivariate generalised autoregressive conditional heteroskedasticity (MGARCH) model and weekly data (January 1992–June 2009). Based on the results obtained from the mean return equations, we could not find any significant impact on returns arising from the Asian crisis and more recent global financial crises across these four markets. However, both crises significantly increased the stock return volatilities across all of the four markets. Not surprisingly, it is also found that the US stock market is the most crucial market impacting on the volatilities of smaller economies such as Australia. Our results provide evidence of own and cross ARCH and GARCH effects among all four markets, suggesting the existence of significant volatility and cross volatility spillovers across all four markets. A high degree of time‐varying co‐volatility among these markets indicates that investors will be highly unlikely to benefit from diversifying their financial portfolio by acquiring stocks within these four countries only.     

新兴市场国家国际资本流动“突然停止”的影响因素分析--基于金融脆弱性的视角

在金融全球化的背景下,脆弱的国内金融体系会波及国际资本市场,导致国际资本流动发生剧烈波动甚至“突然停止”。运用面板Probit模型考察1976-2012年22个新兴市场国家国际资本流动“突然停止”的影响因素,着重探讨一国金融脆弱性对国际资本流动“突然停止”的影响。实证研究结果表明：一国的金融脆弱性对国际资本流动“突然停止”具有显著的负影响;金融开放会放大一国的金融脆弱程度,进一步提高国际资本流动“突然停止”的发生概率。     

Inflation volatility: A Bayesian approach

The ongoing trend of high inflation across much of the world has reignited interest in inflation volatility with varying foci and methods. In this paper, we employ a Bayesian framework to estimate inflation volatility using a sample of G20 countries. Estimation results suggest persistent heterogeneity in price volatility across time and countries. Furthermore, we use the Bayesian estimates of volatility to conduct several empirical analyses on the implications of interdependence of economies, development status for uncertainty. Further analyses on the determinants of price volatility suggest that trade openness, COVID-19, and the Ukraine crisis have positive impacts on volatility. Additionally, the nature of the political institutions and the share of manufacturing in total national output are also found to affect volatility to some extent.     

Market microstructure matters when imposing a Tobin tax—Evidence from the lab

Trading in FX markets is dominated by two microstructures: exchanges with market makers and OTC-markets without market makers. Using laboratory experiments we test whether the impact of a Tobin tax is different in these two market microstructures. We find that (i) in markets without market makers an unilaterally imposed Tobin tax (i.e. a tax haven exists) increases volatility. (ii) In contrast, in markets with market makers we observe a decrease in volatility in unilaterally taxed markets. (iii) An encompassing Tobin tax has no impact on volatility in either setting. Efficiency does not vary significantly across tax regimes.     

Foreign banks,financial crises and macroeconomic fluctuations

Understanding the implications of increased foreign bank presence is especially compelling in periods of financial crisis. In this paper, we explore this issue by examining the relationship between the involvement of foreign banks in the banking systems and the volatility of key macroeconomic variables in normal and crisis periods. Using a sample of 20 Emerging European countries from 1998 to 2013, we find that an increase in the assets of foreign banks in the banking system reduces output and consumption growth volatility in general but does not significantly affect the volatility of investments. However, these banks were found to play a significant role in increasing output, consumption and investment volatility in 2009. Our findings suggest that foreign banks’ harmful impact during the global crisis was only temporary and that they seem to help Emerging European countries stabilize macroeconomic volatility in normal times and after the global crisis.     

Labor Markets and Kaleidoscopic Comparative Advantage

Capturing the notion of kaleidoscopic comparative advantage ( Bhagwati, 1998 ), we show that international trade increases the volatility of profitability. In this framework, we address the labor market implications of an increase in openness, when insurance and credit markets are imperfect. With kaleidoscopic comparative advantage, trade raises the likelihood of firm shutdown and worker displacement, which, in equilibrium, affects wage contracts. In a simple model, we analyze the consequences for wage levels, earnings volatility, job instability, and income distribution, of the openness of previously nontraded industries to international trade.     

Developing countries’ financial vulnerability to the eurozone crisis: an event study of equity and bond markets

The global crisis highlights the continued vulnerability of developing countries to shocks from advanced economies. Just a few years after the global crisis, the eurozone sovereign debt crisis has emerged as the single biggest threat to the global outlook. In this paper, we apply the event study methodology to gauge the scope for financial contagion from the EU to developing countries. More specifically, we estimate the responsiveness of equity and bond markets in developing countries to global crisis period and eurozone crisis news. Overall, we find that whereas global crisis period had a consistently negative effect on returns of equity and bond markets in developing countries, the effect of eurozone crisis news was more mixed and limited.     

对外开放和经济波动的关联性检验——中国和东亚新兴市场国家的案例

本文运用研究非对称性冲击问题的实证方法考察和比较了东亚4国(韩国、印尼、泰国和中国)在经济开放过程中内外金融资源的相对价格——实际利差的变化及由此引起的宏观经济(产出、货币和银行信贷)的波动特征。这一研究的政策意义在于通过区分外部因素的基本面(mean)变化和突发性的波动(volatility)对本国经济所产生的不同性质的溢出效应(spillover),为政府制定不同的针对性措施提供理论根据。通过引入非对称“时变波动”(asymmetrictimevaryingvolatility)特征的二元EGARCHVAR实证模型,论文得到了三个主要结论第一,虽然为维持名义汇率的稳定,各国政府都积极地干预外汇市场,由此影响了当期内外利差的收敛,但包括中国在内的4个国家金融的实际开放程度都在不断加大。第二,除上世纪90年代国际资本移动的鼎盛阶段外,各国的经济波动并不是由外部冲击直接带来的,而是国内经济的不确定因素导致的。第三,比较各国经济波动特征,可以发现汇率制度、金融市场的开放程度以及资本市场的发展状况对经济波动有很大的影响。     

Market microstructure matters when imposing a Tobin tax-Evidence from the lab

TRADING IN FX MARKETS IS DOMINATED BY TWO MICROSTRUCTURES: exchanges with market makers and OTC-markets without market makers. Using laboratory experiments we test whether the impact of a Tobin tax is different in these two market microstructures. We find that (i) in markets without market makers an unilaterally imposed Tobin tax (i.e. a tax haven exists) increases volatility. (ii) In contrast, in markets with market makers we observe a decrease in volatility in unilaterally taxed markets. (iii) An encompassing Tobin tax has no impact on volatility in either setting. Efficiency does not vary significantly across tax regimes.