THE AGRICULTURAL TERMS OF TRADE IN BANGLADESH: AN ECONOMETRIC ANALYSIS OF TRENDS AND MOVEMENTS, 1952–2006

This paper investigates the trends and movements of agricultural prices, industrial prices and the agricultural terms of trade in Bangladesh with annual data for the period 1952–2006. The ADF and KPSS tests results suggest that both agricultural and industrial prices have a unit root while the agricultural terms of trade is trend-stationary. These results remain unchanged if allowance is made in the unit root test for the possibility of a structural break during 1971–1975 (when Bangladesh gained independence from Pakistan and experienced economic shocks) by applying the two-step procedure of Perron (1989 ). A simple Nerlovian agricultural price determination model is specified within the framework of aggregate demand and aggregate supply. The Johansen cointegration test results for the periods 1953–2006 and 1973–2006 suggest that there exists a cointegral relationship between agricultural prices, industrial prices, per-capita real income and the real exchange rate between the Bangladeshi taka and the US dollar under the restriction that per-capita real income and the real exchange rate are 'long-run forcing variables' in the sense of Pesaran and Shin (1995 ), and Pesaran, Shin and Smith (1996 ). The paper estimates a four-variable vector error-correction (VEC) model and conducts an impulse response analysis for the post-independence period, 1973–2006.     

A Reexamination of the Tradeoff between the Future Benefit and Riskiness of R&D Increases

Many previous studies document a positive relation between research and development (R&D) and equity value. Though R&D can increase equity value by increasing firm value, it can also increase equity value at the expense of bondholder wealth through an increase in firm risk because equity is analogous to a call option on the underlying firm value. Shi [2003] tests this hypothesis by examining the relation between a firm's R&D intensity and its bond ratings and risk premiums at issuance. His results show that the net effect of R&D is negative for bondholders. We reexamine Shi's [2003] findings and in so doing make three contributions to the literature. First, we find that Shi's [2003] results are sensitive to the method of measuring R&D intensity. When we use what we argue is a better measure of R&D intensity, we find that the net effect of R&D is positive for bondholders. Second, when we use tests that Shi [2003] recognizes are even better than the ones that he uses, we find even stronger evidence of the positive effect of R&D on bondholders. Third, we examine cross‐sectional differences in the effect of R&D on debtholders. Consistent with our main finding, we document a negative relation between R&D increases and default risk. The default risk reduction is also more pronounced for firms with higher initial default scores (where the debtholders have more to gain from an R&D increase) and for firms with more bank debt (where the debtholders have greater covenant protection from the possible detriments associated with R&D increases).