TRADE, EXCHANGE RATES AND ECONOMIC TRANSITION


DO FIRMS OR WORKERS GAIN MOST FROM GLOBALISATION? EVIDENCE FOR DEVELOPED AND DEVELOPING COUNTRIES

Does openness to trade generate extra profits and, if so, how are they shared among countries, employers and employees? That is the question addressed in new research by Daniel Mirza and Lionel Fontagné, which they presented at the Royal Economic Society’s Annual Conference on Wednesday 27 March.

Their results show that in developed countries, trade tends to be profitable for firms, and the related profits seem to be shared with employees. But in some developing regions such as Asia and, to a lesser extent, Latin America, trade and wages do not seem to be related by such a profit sharing mechanism. This, the researchers suggest, is due to a lack of union power or insufficient specialisation in high profit industries in these countries.

Since the WTO's Seattle meeting, NGOs, unions and other representatives of the civil society have called for more equity in the globalisation process. According to these claims, globalisation benefits capital holders and multinational firms at the expense of workers and other smaller, possibly non-exporting, firms. In this study, Mirza and Fontagné explore who does gain from openness to trade.

In recent years, particular attention has been paid to the role of profits in the impact of trade on labour in developed and developing countries. Changes in the wage premium have been explained by changes in profits arising from openness. The basic idea is that foreign firms that enter the market shift profits from domestic firms that would be otherwise shared with employees.

This view appears to be consistent with Canada and US data. Evidence on trade policy and labour market adjustment in Mexico and Morocco suggests that openness had a small impact on wages and employment. The main reasons come from the organisation of the labour and product markets in these developing countries that is consistent with the profit sharing analysis.

But if trade shifts some profits to foreign firms selling on the domestic markets, then why cannot extra profits be made and then shared with employees through exporting. Moreover, these researchers ask, does openness - through both imports and exports - affect the wage premium identically in developed and developing countries? In the latter, profits accruing to protected factors may be important as well, while profits from exporting might be more limited. As a matter of fact, opening those economies may be associated with the loss of large profits on the domestic market in industries characterised by imperfect competition, while these countries would tend to specialise and export in rather competitive industries with respect to their comparative advantage.

The study links the industry wage premium to both domestic and foreign market share variables. These are linked to wages by a channel of adjustment that represents an interaction between the market power of the firms and the negotiation power of unions. In fact, when selling to a domestic or a foreign market, a national industry extracts profits as long as its firms on average benefit from sufficient market power. Whether these profits are shared with employees then depends on the power of unions. Now, if either firms or unions lack of market power in the commodity and labour markets respectively, then the channel between openness and the wage premium breaks down.

Is there a channel of adjustment between the wage premium and the domestic and/or foreign market shares at the industry level for different groups of countries. The study analyses a data set matching trade, activity and labour-related data for around 29 industries in 65 countries, during the period 1981-97.

For OECD countries, an increase in export as well as domestic market shares is associated with an increase in wages in a small majority of the industries. This supports the idea that in rich countries an increase in export or domestic market shares is a source of rents that is then shared with employees in the majority of the industries. This phenomenon is also present, though to a lesser extent, in Mediterranean countries.

In Latin America, profits seem to be acquired and then shared with employees when there is an increase in domestic sales only. There are no significant positive relations when selling abroad. This suggests that unions do have some market power in Latin America, although it is only used to shift domestic profits not the extra profits from exporting.

Finally, in Asian countries, neither domestic nor foreign sales have significant and positive effects on the wage premium. This suggests that Asian firms are either specialising in competitive industries in which there are no profits to be extracted, or they are acquiring profits through trade but unions in these countries are not strong enough to shift them to employees.

ENDS

Notes for Editors: ‘International Trade and Rent Sharing in Developed and Developing Countries’ by Daniel Mirza and Lionel Fontagné was presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2002 Annual Conference at the University of Warwick. Mirza is at the University of Nottingham; Professor Fontagné is at CEPII and TEAM in Paris.

For Further Information: contact Daniel Mirza on 0115-846-6447 (email: daniel.mirza@nottingham.ac.uk); Lionel Fontagné on +33-1-53-68-55-43 (email: fontagne@cepii.fr); or RES Media Consultant Romesh Vaitilingam on 0117-983-9770 or 07768-661095 (email: romesh@compuserve.com).


THE COLLAPSE OF THE ARGENTINE PESO: ECONOMIC FUNDAMENTALS OR SELF-FULFILLING PANIC?

Was the recent currency collapse in Argentina the result of a genuine crisis of economic fundamentals? Or did it come about through a self-fulfilling panic? New research by Professor Marcus Miller, Javier Fronti and Lei Zhang of the University of Warwick suggests that the answer will become clear with the performance of Argentina’s economy over the next few months.

Their analysis, presented at the Royal Economic Society’s Annual Conference on Tuesday 26 March, argues that if by financial restructuring and indexation, the current administration can make devaluation work, fundamentals were clearly the problem in this ‘slow-motion train crash’.

Failure to make devaluation work, followed by economic chaos, would support the view that the high interest rates were due to a self-fulfilling crisis that should have been resisted by ever more determined commitment to the currency board.

The currency board system as it operated in Argentina was very successful in reducing inflation to zero and below. But public debt rose above 50% of GDP - and over 500% of exports - towards the end of 1990s, and the economy moved into severe recession as interest rates rose decisively above US levels. By the third quarter of 2001, for example, the ‘country risk premium’ was about 1500 basis points.

Two very different policy recommendations were put forward. Critics of the currency board (for example, the authors of the Fenix plan) recommended devaluation and default on the grounds that the peso was seriously overvalued against the dollar and that the debt burden was unsustainable. (Their explanation of high interest rates was that the market took the same view.)

To defenders of the currency board, however, devaluation and default were unnecessary and the high interest rates were a sign of panic, which would disappear given sufficiently resolute commitment. Guillermo Calvo, for example, took this ‘multiple equilibrium’ view.

To encompass both of these interpretations, Professor Miller and his colleagues adopt an analytical framework in which the abandonment of a fixed exchange rate regime is triggered by an optimising policy-maker: but the market is aware of the choice of trigger and there is a run-up in interest rates as it is approached. This framework allows for the existence of liabilities in foreign currency (so that spreads reflect a default premium); and recognition that ending the currency board would require a change of policy-maker (as Mr Cavallo would evidently never devalue or default).

Starting with the view that there was a genuine crisis of economic fundamentals, the analysis shows the rise in interest rates and the fall in economic activity as markets forecast Cavallo’s downfall, followed by devaluation and default. As fundamentals deteriorate, there is a ‘slow-motion train crash’, made worse by excessive commitment to the peg. Although there is, as yet, no explicit treatment of the magnitude of external and internal debt, the analysis is calibrated to produce an interest rate run-up and devaluation consistent with was observed in reality.

If the economic costs of leaving the peg increase strongly with the size of devaluation, however, this allows for the other interpretation, namely that devaluation and default may be too costly ever to be optimally chosen so the pressures to quit are those of a self-fulfilling panic, which should be resisted by ever more determined commitment to the currency board.

In conclusion, the researchers argue that the costs associated with devaluation and default are not in fact exogenous but are themselves policy-determined. The ‘Fenix view’ will be borne out if, by financial restructuring and indexation, the current administration can make devaluation work. Failure to do this, followed by economic chaos, would support the view that the high interest rates were due to a self-fulfilling crisis that should have been resisted.

ENDS

Notes for Editors: ‘The Collapse of the Argentine Peso: Economic Fundamentals or Self-fulfilling Panic?’ by Javier Fronti, Marcus Miller and Lei Zhang was presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2002 Annual Conference at the University of Warwick. The authors are at the University of Warwick.

For Further Information: contact Marcus Miller on 024-7652-3048 (email: marcus.miller@warwick.ac.uk); or RES Media Consultant Romesh Vaitilingam on 0117-983-9770 or 07768-661095 (email: romesh@compuserve.com).


INTERNATIONAL TRADE, NATIONAL NET ASSETS AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR EXCHANGE RATES

The rapid growth in the net external liabilities of the United States and its implications for a possible reversal in the current strength of the dollar are a dominant theme of discussion in economic policy circles. Speaking at the Royal Economic Society’s Annual Conference on Monday 25 March, Philip Lane and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti presented their analysis of the relationship between international transactions, countries’ net external asset positions, and the real exchange rate, using a new data set on external assets and liabilities.

Their study of a sample of OECD economies for the period 1970-98 provides direct evidence that the relationship between the trade balance and net foreign assets depends on investment returns, output growth and exchange rate movements. In addition to the trade balance effect, the empirical findings also confirm the importance of relative productivity as a key determinant of the relative price of non-traded goods and the real exchange rate.

Lane and Milesi-Ferretti’s research focuses on long-run relationships between the trade balance, net foreign assets and the real exchange rate. In simple terms, the standard argument linking net foreign assets, the trade balance and the real exchange rate runs as follows. A positive net external asset position enables a country to run persistent trade deficits. In turn, the capability to sustain a negative net export balance is associated with an appreciated real exchange rate.

Conversely, a debtor country that must run trade surpluses to service its external liabilities may require a more depreciated real exchange rate. Indeed, the size of the trade surplus that a debtor country has to run to service its external liabilities will depend on the rate of return it has to pay on these liabilities, as well as on its output growth rate.

In the example of the United States, a debtor country that grows quickly and manages to earn returns on its foreign assets that are higher than the payouts on its foreign liabilities requires a much smaller trade surplus to stabilise its net foreign asset position than a country with poor growth performance and unfavourable net investment income flows. By extension, the magnitude of any real exchange rate depreciation will be smaller in the former case.

The research shows that the magnitude of the trade balance coefficient increases with increasing country size - it is more important for the United States or Japan than for Iceland or Denmark - and there is direct evidence that the relative price of non-traded goods co-moves with the trade balance, even controlling for relative sectoral productivity.

The study also highlights the important role played by differences in rates of return on external assets and liabilities in shaping the dynamics of net foreign assets. Understanding the sources of these differences in rates of return is an important topic on the research agenda.

The debate on the relationship between international payments and real exchange rates has a long and distinguished intellectual history. It was at the forefront in the late 1920s, with the debate between Keynes and Ohlin on the impact of German war reparations; in the 1970s, with the debate on the implications of oil price shocks; in the early 1980s, in the aftermath of the debt crisis; and in the mid- and late 1980s, with the debate on causes and consequences of the large swings in the value of the dollar.

ENDS

Notes for Editors: ‘External Wealth, the Trade Balance, and the Real Exchange Rate’ by Philip R. Lane and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti was presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2002 Annual Conference at the University of Warwick.

Lane is at the Institute for International Integration Studies, Trinity College Dublin, and CEPR; Milesi-Ferretti is at the International Monetary Fund and CEPR.

For Further Information: contact Philip Lane via email: plane@tcd.ie; or RES Media Consultant Romesh Vaitilingam on 0117-983-9770 or 07768-661095 (email: romesh@compuserve.com).


SO MANY ROCKET SCIENTISTS, SO FEW MARKETING CLERKS: OCCUPATIONAL MOBILITY IN TIMES OF RAPID TECHNOLOGICAL CHANGE

One of the few positive legacies from socialism is thought to be the high level of educational attainment of the labour force. Nevertheless, the stock of human capital - in terms of occupations - has proved inadequate to the needs of a modern market economy. New research by Nauro Campos and Aurelijus Dabušinskas, presented at the Royal Economic Society’s Annual Conference on Wednesday 27 March, shows that the transition from plan to market entails a process of massive occupational change.

Their study investigates the magnitude and determinants of this process of occupational change using data from the Estonian Labour Force Survey. They find that almost 50% of wage earners in the country changed occupations between 1989 and 1995 and that job tenure was the main determinant of this occupational mobility.

The results also show the remarkable speed with which the market mechanism takes root: in just this short period, the variation in returns to current and alternative occupations play increasingly meaningful roles in explaining occupational change.

The motivation for the study is that the process of economic development in general, and that of transition in particular, necessarily involves occupational change. One of the least appreciated features of the process of economic development is that it is not enough for workers to move from the rural to the urban sector; they must change occupations.

A second motivation for studying occupational mobility is that it can throw light on the recent debate on the skill premium. One argument is that rising wage inequality in the last two decades in the United States, the UK and Canada is due to skill-biased technological change. Studying occupational mobility may be useful because one of its determinants is the transferability of skills across occupations. In this light, the premium may have risen for skills that are more easily transferable.

A final motivation is that occupational change is at the heart of the allocation of talent problem: one of the most important aspects of the process of accumulation of human capital regards occupational choice. In particular, how society's pool of talent is allocated to entrepreneurial or rent-seeking activities is of fundamental importance vis-à-vis long-term growth.

This study provides a detailed description of the changing composition of the stock of human capital (in terms of the occupational mix), and investigates the determinants of this process of occupational change.

The results use data from the Estonian Labour Force Survey 1995, a representative survey of Estonian workers covering the period from 1989 to 1995. The data cover the end of the socialist period as well as the early years of the transition to a market economy.

Depending on the level of aggregation used to classify occupations, the results indicate that between 35% and 50% of all Estonian wage earners changed occupations in this short period of time. Moreover, the bulk of these occupational switches happened in the early years, at the very beginning of the transition. Job tenure is the main determinant of occupational mobility: it has a negative impact from 1989 to 1994.

The results also show the remarkable speed with which the market mechanism takes root: the returns to current and alternative occupations play, over these few years, increasingly meaningful roles in explaining occupational change. For example, the effect of the returns to the currently held occupation only gradually becomes statistically significant and of the expected sign (higher returns to the current occupation lower the probability of changing occupations).

This same gradual emergence happens to returns to alternative occupations. Moreover, the results are not sensitive to the effects of gender, nationality, labour market conditions, heterogeneity of workers and complexity of the occupational switch.

ENDS

Notes for Editors: ‘So Many Rocket Scientists, So Few Marketing Clerks: Occupational Mobility in Times of Rapid Technological Change’ by Nauro F. Campos and Aurelijus Dabušinskas was presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2002 Annual Conference at the University of Warwick.

Campos is in the Department of Economics, University of Newcastle; Dabušinskas is at CERGE-EI, Charles University, Prague.

For Further Information: contact Nauro Campos on 0191-222-6861 (fax: 0191-222-6548; email: n.f.campos@ncl.ac.uk); or RES Media Consultant Romesh Vaitilingam on 0117-983-9770 or 07768-661095 (email: romesh@compuserve.com).


WHO WANTS A MORE EQUAL SOCIETY? CONTRASTING ATTITUDES IN WESTERN AND EASTERN EUROPE

Which countries in Europe are most in favour of a more equal society? New research by Marc Suhrcke reveals that despite a rather successful adjustment towards the principles of a market economy and a functioning democracy, people living in the formerly socialist countries of the East continue to display much more egalitarian attitudes than those living in the established market economies of the West.

Suhrcke‘s research – to be presented at the Royal Economic Society’s Annual Conference at the University this week - analyses a large-scale international survey covering 14 Western market economies and seven transition countries from Central and Eastern Europe, asking respondents about the degree to which they tolerate current income differences.

Ranking countries by their attitudes to inequality shows Portugal to be most ‘egalitarian’, even ahead of the transition countries. France comes fourth, behind Bulgaria and Russia, but still more egalitarian than Hungary, Czech Republic, Eastern Germany, Slovenia, Latvia and Poland. The least egalitarian views are expressed in Norway, Switzerland and the Netherlands.

The study examines a series of factors that explain individual attitudes to inequality – individual income, individual mobility experience, the actual level of income inequality, and the individual perception of the determinants of income generation – but systemic effect turns out to be the most powerful determinant of differences in attitudes between East and West. Hence, it seems much more difficult to adjust attitudes than to change economic and political realities.

Other things equal, a person living in the transition countries is almost 20% more likely than someone from the West to ‘strongly agree’ with the statement that income differences within the respondent’s country are currently too large. The higher the actual level of income inequality, the less willing people are to tolerate existing income differences. But the size of the influence is comparatively small: it would take a huge increase in income inequality – a 20-point leap in the standard measure of income inequality (the Gini coefficient) corresponding to the difference between the Swedish and the Philippine level of income inequality – to achieve a 20% higher probability of answering ‘strongly agree’.

Tolerance of current levels of inequality also depends strongly on whether people perceive them as ‘fair’, that is, resulting from differences in individual effort and skills. On average, a mere 13% of respondents in the transition countries believes that in their country people actually do get rewarded for their efforts, compared to a figure of 36% in the Western market economies.

These results confront policy-makers in the transition countries with a particularly severe dilemma. Governments in the more advanced candidate countries for accession to the European Union (EU) have spent a substantial amount of their limited budgets to keep income inequality at about the Western average. But popular pressure to increase these redistributive efforts is much stronger than in the West, as these results confirm.

The problem is that this pressure clashes with the facts that: a) these countries have far less financial resources than the West to redistribute; and b) financing it via social insurance contributions has already worsened firms’ competitive positions in these countries. So attitudes may not only be lagging behind economic adjustment, they may even hinder further necessary adjustment as the countries are preparing for the competitive pressures of the EU internal market.

ENDS

Notes for Editors: ‘Preferences for Inequality: East vs West’ by Marc Suhrcke will be presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2002 Annual Conference at the University of Warwick on Monday 25 March.

Suhrcke is at the UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre, 12, Piazza SS. Annunziata, 50122 Florence, Italy.

For Further Information: contact Marc Suhrcke on +39-055-2033-345 (sec: -356; fax: +39-055-244817; email: msuhrcke@unicef.org); or RES Media Consultant Romesh Vaitilingam on 0117-983-9770 or 07768-661095 (email: romesh@compuserve.com).


MEASURING VULNERABILITY: WHY UNCERTAINTY CAN BE AS DAMAGING FOR HUMAN WELLBEING AS POVERTY

Analysts and policy-makers often focus on poverty statistics in formulating policy. But new research by Professor Ethan Ligon and Laura Schechter of the University of California at Berkeley suggests that they should also place great weight on minimising the displacement and uncertainty generated by big changes in policy. Their analysis of a period of great economic turmoil in Eastern Europe, presented at the Royal Economic Society’s Annual Conference on Wednesday 27 March, suggests that vulnerability to future calamity can rival poverty in determining overall human well-being.

Economists have traditionally used estimates of the incidence of poverty to try and measure the well-being of less fortunate members of society. But extensive research confirms the common-sense notion that one's sense of well-being depends not on current poverty alone, but also on one's sense of vulnerability to future calamity.

Ligon and Schechter construct a measure of this vulnerability, and use it to evaluate the well-being of a sample of households from Bulgaria in 1994. This was a period of great economic turmoil: prices were liberalised, inequality increased and, in the end, the Communists were re-elected to power. The research shows that during this period, households' well-being was reduced nearly as much by uncertainty as by poverty.

In particular, during this tumultuous period, vulnerability reduced household well-being by an average of 26%. Of this, 53% was due to poverty, and 47% due to uncertain future prospects. 23% of the uncertainty can be directly attributed to macroeconomic shocks that affected the entire population.

Of course, not everyone was equally vulnerable to these shocks. In particular, education was of key importance in reducing vulnerability, though those who lived in rural areas and owned livestock were less vulnerable than were city-dwellers.

Analysts and policy-makers have often tended to focus on poverty statistics in formulating policy. This research suggests that they should also place great weight on minimising the displacement and uncertainty generated by big changes in policy, as these can rival poverty in determining well-being.

Similarly, various forms of social insurance can help to shield households from uncertainty. While these points may have been appreciated before in a rather general way, this research provides a basis for quantifying the benefits associated with reducing uncertainty.

ENDS

Notes for Editors: ‘Measuring Vulnerability’ by Ethan Ligon and Laura Schechter was presented at the Royal Economic Society’s 2002 Annual Conference at the University of Warwick.

The authors are at the University of California, Berkeley.

The study was presented at a special session of the conference on ‘Insurance Against Poverty‘, organised by Stefan Dercon of the University of Oxford. The other studies presented were by Orazio Attanasio of University College London on ‘Empirical Implications of Imperfect Enforceability’ and by Dercon on ‘Informal Insurance, Public Transfers and Consumption Smoothing’.

For Further Information: contact Professor Ethan Ligon on +1-510-643-5411 (email: ligon@are.berkeley.edu); or RES Media Consultant Romesh Vaitilingam on 0117-983-9770 or 07768-661095 (email: romesh@compuserve.com).


Last updated 12th April 2002