Why Are Input-Output Tables Important?

The new input-output tables published by Rosstat for 2011–2015 are indeed an achievement worth celebrating. These tables form a comprehensive picture of the economy that show how its many parts are connected. They serve as a basis for national accounts and for envisioning possible futures for the economy.     

Mercantilism: a materialist approach

ABSTRACT

Historians and economists have shown renewed interest in mercantilism over the last couple of years. From this interest, a dispute has arisen about whether mercantilism should be seen as an incoherent economic thought or if it is possible to ‘reconstruct’ its basic principles. In line with this latter attempt, this paper is intended to provide a materialist explanation for varying degrees of belief in shared mercantilist assumptions. My hypothesis is that belief in mercantilist assumptions is significantly dependent upon how economic and security issues materially interact in a given time and space, with uncertainty and insecurity profoundly favouring mercantilist dispositions in economic thought. To analyse this hypothesis, the paper sets the first steps for relating the credibility of mercantilism with changes in British economic and military history from the sixteenth to the nineteenth century. Section 3 presents ideas to further investigate this hypothesis. Section 4 concludes the paper.     

International capital mobility: regional versus global perspective

This paper examines the role of regional versus global savings in financing domestic investment to shed light on the role of financial globalization and regionalism in capital markets. Regression results based on six regions with 141 countries reveal that although the role of foreign (global or regional) saving has increased over time, there are regional differences: domestic saving is the major source of investment financing in North America with an increasing role of regional and global savings over time, while regional saving is the main source in Europe. Global saving has been the main source of investment financing in other regions where domestic and regional financial markets are not well developed. However, the role of regional saving has significantly increased in recent years in the Asia-Pacific and in Latin America. Regionalism such as financial and monetary cooperation is likely to have increased the role of regional saving.     

Can countries rely on foreign saving for investment and economic development?

Contrary to widespread presumption, a surprisingly large number of countries have been able to finance a significant fraction of their investment for extended periods using foreign finance. While many of these episodes are in countries where official finance is important, we also identify episodes where a substantial fraction of domestic investment is financed by private capital inflows. Although there is evidence of a positive growth effect of such inflows in the short run, that positive impact dissipates after 5 years and turns negative over longer horizons. Many such episodes end abruptly, with compression of the current account and sharp slowdowns in investment and growth. Summing over the inflow (current account deficit) episode and its aftermath, we find that growth is slower than when countries rely on domestic savings. The implication is that financing growth and investment out of foreign savings, while not impossible, is risky and too often counterproductive.     

An elementary model of export tax war

In this paper, the author uses a generalized version of Kennan and Riezman (Int Econ Rev 29(1):81–85, 1988) trade war model with Stone–Geary preferences, where countries can choose between a Nash tariff or an export tax. Three scenarios emerge from this setting, namely: the standard tariff war, the export tax war and a mixed scenario—“the tariff-export tax war”—where one country applies a Nash tariff, while the other imposes an export tax. In this setting, countries derive their market power not only from their relative endowment size, but also from their subsistence consumptions. As a consequence, a large country does not necessarily win a trade war if it has a substantially higher consumption requirement than the small country. This finding explains why large economies sign trade agreements with small counterparts that prohibit the use of tariffs and export taxes.     

Non-tariff and overall protection: evidence across countries and over time

This paper analyzes the evolution of the incidence and intensity of non-tariff measures (NTMs). It extends earlier work by measuring protection from NTMs over time from a newly available database and provides evidence on the evolution of NTMs. In particular, building on Kee et al. (Econ J 119(534):172–199, 2009), this paper estimates the ad valorem equivalents of NTMs for 97 countries at the product level over the period 1997–2015. We show that the incidence and the intensity of NTMs were both increasing over this period, with NTMs becoming an even more dominant source of trade protection. We are also able to investigate the evolution of overall protection derived jointly from tariffs and NTMs. The results show that the overall protection level, for most countries and products, has not decreased despite the fall in tariffs associated with multilateral, regional and bilateral trade agreements in recent decades. We also document an increase in overall trade protection during the recent 2008 financial crisis. Overall, this study sheds light on an under-researched aspect of trade liberalization: the proliferation and increase of NTMs.     

The impact of shadow banking on the implementation of Chinese monetary policy

This paper empirically analyses the relationship between the shadow banking system and implementation of monetary policy in China using the VECM methodology. We show that an increase in the size of shadow banking sector increases the independence of bank lending from the policies of the People Bank of China. We also find that Shadow Banking works in an asymmetric fashion in that it amplifies increases in the money supply but weakens the effects of restrictive interest rate-based monetary policy decisions.     

MERCOSUR in gravity: an accounting approach to analyzing its trade effects

This paper aims at unveiling the roots of integration-induced trade effects for MERCOSUR. For this purpose, its methodology combines previous dummy-variables- and continuous variable approaches to identifying trade creation and trade diversion effects in a gravity model framework. Applying a straightforward accounting exercise to the integration-induced trade effects which are found for MERCOSUR en bloc, two results are central: Firstly, with sectoral exceptions, I generally identify pure trade creating effects on the import side but also find trade diversion with associate countries when refining extra-bloc country status. Secondly, while extra-bloc import growth seems to be driven predominantly by non-tariff determinants, trade creation in pooled commodity imports for the largest fraction stems from differences in the tariff treatment between trading partners.     

Net foreign asset positions and appreciation expectations on the Swiss franc and the Japanese Yen

The paper shows that currencies of countries with persistent current account surpluses and high foreign-currency denominated assets, such as the Swiss franc and the Japanese yen, are under persistent appreciation pressure, particularly when the centres of the world monetary system follow expansionary monetary policies. This limits the choice of exchange rate regime. Given flexible exchange rates, a negative risk premium on the domestic interest rate can emerge. Empirical estimations provide mixed evidence for a negative impact of net foreign asset positions and exchange rate uncertainty on interest rates of international creditor countries at the periphery of the world monetary system.     

Is Uniform Money Always Better than Separate Monies?

Previous studies that compare a uniform money with separate monies used models in which money is the only asset and in which individuals hold either zero or one unit of money. Here, the comparison is made using a model in which money coexists with a higher-return asset and in which individuals are permitted to hold richer portfolios of assets. The results show that a general conclusion is not possible. A uniform money has a higher expected utility than do separate monies in many examples. However, when the discount on bonds and uncertainty about the nationality of the trading partner are sufficiently high, then there are examples in which separate monies are better.