1 / 17

Discussion of Friedman Redux … by Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

Discussion of Friedman Redux … by Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides. Andrew K. Rose Berkeley-Haas, NBER and CEPR. A Critique of a Critique. “… no strong, robust or monotonic relationship between exchange rate regime flexibility and the rate of current account reversion …” Chinn-Wei

declan
Download Presentation

Discussion of Friedman Redux … by Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Discussion of Friedman Redux … byGhosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides Andrew K. Rose Berkeley-Haas, NBER and CEPR

  2. A Critique of a Critique • “… no strong, robust or monotonic relationship between exchange rate regime flexibility and the rate of current account reversion …” • Chinn-Wei • Response here necessarily involves overturning negative finding with strong robust relationship • Trick: use bilateral (not multilateral) relationships • Ex: US vs. China AND vs. Canada AND vs. Mexico… • Not US vs. RoW • Gratuitous personal reference: Rose and Yellen (JME 1989) • Use both bilateral and multilateral data on similar issue Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  3. Praise 1 • Good question, well-motivated • Divergence between different bilateral US$ regimes a great example • Notice though: need an anchor for relevance • Nice encompassing approach • Reproduce weak multilateral and then getstrong bilateral results • Easy to replicate (with their data) Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  4. Praise 2 • Admirable sensitivity analysis • Cut data by income, change estimator… • Current account/trade balance, normalization (GDP/Trade) issues handled well • Lithuania natural experiment (2002 switch from US$ to €) • Ancillary support (real exchange rate movements) Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  5. What does it Mean? • Suppose accept premise that relationship exists in bilateral but not multilateral data • What does this mean? • Empirical Options • Measurement Error: multilateral regime classification sucks, bilateral better • Plausible? Bilateral classifications derived from multilateral • Sample size: too little multilateral data? • Too much bilateral? (left-handed labor economist) Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  6. Smaller Criticisms: 1 • CFA franc zone experiment seems contrived, not compelling • France reliably pegged to DM, guilder, … pre-Euro • Ditto 1999 creation of Euro • Does BOR data go back to 1980 reliably? • Current accounts more interesting than trade imbalances (but highly correlated) Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  7. Smaller Criticisms: 2 • “Multilateral” better than “aggregate” • A good graph here would beat pages of regression coefficients Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  8. Soft Criticism 1: Why useRegime Classifications at All? • Instead of using three bins (fix, intermediate, float), why not use continuous measure of exchange rate volatility? • Original motivation is whether more flexibility affects adjustment speed Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  9. Soft Criticism 2: IncompleteModel of Trade Balance • Model links trade balance only to exchange rate regime, a lag and interaction • Mis-specification orthogonal to regime interaction? • Why not include other determinants of external account (model-dependent: output, real exchange rate, more lags for RY ’89; relative wealth, non-tradeables, etc)? Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  10. Soft Criticism 3:Much Ado about Little? • Many differences are economically small • Many half-lives are just plain small! • Ex (pp 14-15): half-life of trade imbalance ≈ • 1.2 years under fix • .9 years under float (plausible?) • So … difference is small (plausible? important?) • Small regime differences also on p21; .1 year • (But this is necessarily a short-run question) • All real exchange rates float at low frequencies Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  11. Hard Criticism 1: Does the Effect Work too Well? Shouldn’t high inflation make nominal exchange rate regime irrelevant? Critical Negative Interaction (γ3) Effect, Table 7 Country-pairs: a) unrestricted; both with b) moderate; or c) high inflation Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  12. Hard Criticism 2:Sensitivity over Time? Is exact sample period relevant? Critical Negative Interaction (γ3) Effect, Table 7 Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  13. Hard Criticism 3: AreAll Observations Equal? Weighting by GDP eliminates De Jure Result Smaller Effect on (more important) De Facto Critical Negative Interaction (γ3) Effect, Table 7 Regressions: a) unrestricted; b) weighted by real GDP Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  14. Hard Criticism 4: Using Too Much Data? Restricting to observations with an anchor Reduces/Eliminates Interaction Critical Negative Interaction (γ3) Effect, Table 7 Regressions: a) unrestricted; b) with one anchor Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  15. Basic Problem of Interpretation • Country can choose a single monetary regime, but still has many bilateral exchange rates • US$ does not float freely against RMB • But US$ floats freely against € • Policy-induced flexibility is multilateral, not bilateral • Seems natural to focus on one partner with whom have most significant/explicit arrangements • US floats against € • China manages RMB against US$ (an anchor) • (But … why throw away other bilateral information?) Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  16. Summary of Critique • Smaller • Why Use Regimes instead of Variability? • Silly Model of Trade Balance • Empirically Results are Modest • Bigger • Inflation Results Worrying: toogood • Unimportant observations too important (early years; GDP-weighting; non-anchor: non-anchor) • What does it mean? • Country has one monetary policy, many bilateral exchange rates Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

  17. What Would I do Differently? • Present and discuss these problems • Argue that they’re not a big deal Rose: Comments on Ghosh, Qureshi and Tsangarides

More Related