How Do Trade and Financial Integration Affect the Relationship Between Growth and Volatility?

International Monetary Fund, Research Department, Washington, DC 20431, United States
Journal of International Economics 03/2005; 05(1):176-202. DOI: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2005.05.009
Source: RePEc

ABSTRACT The influential work of Ramey and Ramey [Ramey, G., Ramey, V.A., 1995. Cross-country evidence on the link between volatility and growth. American Economic Review 85, 1138–1151 (December).] highlighted an empirical relationship that has now come to be regarded as conventional wisdom—that output volatility and growth are negatively correlated. We reexamine this relationship in the context of globalization—a term typically used to describe the phenomenon of growing international trade and financial integration that has intensified since the mid-1980s. Using a comprehensive new data set, we document that, while the basic negative association between growth and volatility has been preserved during the 1990s, both trade and financial integration significantly weaken this negative relationship. Specifically, we find that, in a regression of growth on volatility and other controls, the estimated coefficient on the interaction between volatility and trade integration is significantly positive. We find a similar, although less robust, result for the interaction of financial integration with volatility.

Download full-text


Available from: Eswar S. Prasad, Dec 18, 2013
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: I study how the possibility of default on external debts affects other capital allocation decisions in a small open economy. In the model, default has an option value derived from the randomization over ex-post default regimes, which depends on country-specific productivity shocks. This feature of default reduces incentives for ex-ante diversification, which would reduce exposure to the productivity shock. As a result, if the economys debt to capital ratio is allowed to cross a fixed threshold (identified in the model), the unique equilibrium exhibits an allocation of capital that is less productive in expectation and more volatile than in a benchmark model without default. The model therefore captures a number of salient features of emerging and less developed countries, where low levels of international risk-sharing have gone hand-in-hand with frequent and recurring default events.
    Journal of Banking & Finance 07/2014; 49. DOI:10.1016/j.jbankfin.2014.06.008 · 1.29 Impact Factor
  • Source
    Dataset: j93592 3
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: This study treats capital flows as risky growth opportunities for both investing and host countries in a standard mean‐variance model. Differing optimal trade‐offs between growth and volatility on both sides of capital flows are examined on the basis of their different attitudes towards destabilising risk, different considerations of capital market openness and different levels of financial sector development. It is established that growth and volatility may have a positive or negative relationship in theory, but in practice, they are correlated negatively with each other. This negative correlation is significantly non‐linear after some normalisation and holds persistently not only for developing but also for developed countries. The study shows that one side’s push for financial liberalisation may come across the other side’s resistance to it. This conflict of interest can be resolved via negotiations for a compromise equilibrium at which both sides’ optimal trade‐offs are made internationally compatible.
    World Economy 07/2011; 34(07):1106-1123. DOI:10.1111/j.1467-9701.2011.01367.x · 0.76 Impact Factor