Recently developed structural models of the global crude oil market imply that the surge in the real price of oil between mid-2003 and mid-2008 was driven by repeated positive shocks to the demand for all industrial commodities, reflecting unexpectedly high growth mainly in emerging Asia. This note evaluates this proposition using an alternative data source and a different econometric methodology. Rather than inferring demand shocks from an econometric model, we utilize a direct measure of global demand shocks based on revisions of professional real GDP growth forecasts. We show that recent forecast surprises were associated primarily with unexpected growth in emerging economies (and to a lesser extent in Japan), that markets were repeatedly surprised by the strength of this growth, that these surprises were associated with a hump-shaped response of the real price of oil that reaches its peak after 12 to 16 months, and that news about global growth predict much of the surge in the real price of oil from mid-2003 until mid-2008 and much of its subsequent decline.

Did Unexpectedly Strong Economic Growth Cause the Oil Price Shock of 2003-2008?; Parenting Styles and Financial Security: How are children impacted?

Why Should Current Account Balances Be Reduced

The purpose of this note is to discuss two complex issues. First, why might a country want to reduce its current account deficit or surplus? And second, why might the international community ask for more? We argue that, in many cases, current account balances reflect underlying domestic distortions. It is then in the interest of the country to remove those distortions and, in the process, reduce imbalances. We then discuss cases where spillover effects, either from deficits or surpluses, suggest a direct role for multilateral surveillance. This process can play two potentially useful roles: first, as a discussion of the differences in assessments; second, as a potentially useful commitment device for countries to implement some of the required but politically unpalatable fiscal or structural adjustments.

https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1057%2Fimfer.2012.2.pdf

Why) Should Current Account Balances Be Reduced

We study optimized monetary and fiscal feedback policy rules. The setup is a conventional New Keynesian DSGE model calibrated to match data from the euro area. Our aim is to welfare rank alternative tax-spending policy instruments used for shock stabilization and/or debt consolidation when, at the same time, the monetary authorities follow a Taylor rule for the interest rate.

On the optimal mix of fiscal and monetary policy actions

Optimal fiscal and monetary policy action in a closed economy

For the individual European Monetary Union (EMU) members fiscal policy has gained in importance owing to the loss of monetary policy as an autonomous policy instrument. Based on a small open economy dynamic stochastic general equilibrium (DSGE) model with fiscal feedback rules, we analyze the dynamic macroeconomic response in particular of the current account under alternative exchange rate regimes. Our results indicate that entry into monetary union makes the economy more vulnerable to a productivity shock and leads to higher variability of the current account. For a risk premium shock, an entry into EMU implies lower variability of most macroeconomic variables, but a higher persistence in the adjustment process of the current account. For both shocks, a countercyclical fiscal response to the current account is more stabilizing for most macroeconomic variables than a conventional countercyclical response to output. Stabilizing the current account comes at the price of higher variability of output in the short-run, however.

/pdf/fiscal-policy-monetary-regimes-and-current-account-dynamics-58dvci3hea.pdf

Fiscal policy, monetary regimes and current account dynamics

Euro Area and US external adjustment: The role of commodity prices and Emerging Market shocks

Large external imbalances and fragile fiscal positions have emerged as major policy challenges for the euro area in the financial crisis. The paper analyses whether shifting government purchases between tradable and non-tradable goods could help reduce external fluctuations without large swings in the overall fiscal stance. The policy rules considered are budgetary-neutral in the sense that the overall level of government expenditure is kept constant. We compare the policy rules to fiscal devaluation as a strategy to reduce external imbalances and find that state-dependent changes in the composition of government purchases between tradables and non-tradables can stabilise excessive fluctuations in the event of economy-wide supply and demand shocks. Contrary to fiscal devaluation, the expenditure-shifting rule faces a trade-off between stabilising domestic activity and enhancing household welfare, on the one hand, and reducing excessive fluctuations in external positions, on the other hand. The excess volatility of domestic variables associated less volatility in the external position implies welfare losses for standard specifications of household utility. The adverse welfare effect is absent in the case of fiscal devaluation.

Budgetary-Neutral Fiscal Policy Rules and External Adjustment

The article assesses the real costs and profits of German claims on the Eurosystem through TARGET2. While Germany’s nominal profits from holding TARGET2 claims depend on the development of the nominal interest rate, the real profits are determined by the real interest rate as well as the real exchange rate. The article finds that at the end of 2014, Germany faced current costs of approximately EUR 17 billion in real terms. Calculating the costs and profits of every member country in the euro area reveals that the TARGET2 system mirrors an implicit distribution mechanism, with a volume of approximately EUR 40 billion. The results underline the aspect that even without a euro area breakup or exit of one member country, holding TARGET2 claims can cause high economic costs in real terms. (JEL codes: E42, E44, F32)

TARGET2: How Costly is Buying Time?

To account for the specific situation of commodity exporters, pegging to export prices (PEP) has been proposed elsewhere as an alternative to other conventional monetary regimes such as an exchange rate peg or inflation targeting. PEP is supposed to deliver automatic accommodation to terms-of-trade shocks, while retaining the credibility gain from a nominal anchor. This paper analyzes the PEP proposal in a dynamic general-equilibrium model and compares it with a standard Taylor rule, consumer price index (CPI)-level targeting and a nominal exchange rate peg. Judged by the degree of output stabilization, PEP performs very similar to CPI targeting for export demand as well as domestic demand shocks and underperforms in the case of shocks to the export price. The results suggest that PEP is not superior to conventional CPI targeting from a macroeconomic stabilization perspective.

Stefan Hohberger

Papers

Fiscal policy, monetary regimes and current account dynamics

Euro Area and US external adjustment: The role of commodity prices and Emerging Market shocks

Budgetary-Neutral Fiscal Policy Rules and External Adjustment

TARGET2: How Costly is Buying Time?

Should Commodity Exporters Peg to the Export Price