Survey
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
* Your assessment is very important for improving the workof artificial intelligence, which forms the content of this project
Fear of floating wikipedia , lookup
Economic democracy wikipedia , lookup
Global financial system wikipedia , lookup
Pensions crisis wikipedia , lookup
Economic growth wikipedia , lookup
Uneven and combined development wikipedia , lookup
Economic calculation problem wikipedia , lookup
Okishio's theorem wikipedia , lookup
The East Asian Meltdown: A Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Analysis Elena Ianchovichina, Robert McDougall and Thomas Hertel∗ American Agricultural Economics Association Meetings Nashville, Tennessee† August 8-11, 1999 ∗ Ianchovichina: Assistant Professor, Department of Agricultural Economics, Kansas State University, 342 Waters Hall, Manhattan, KS 66506-4011, USA. McDougall: Deputy Director, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 1145 Krannert Building, IN 47907, USA. Hertel: Professor and Director, Center for Global Trade Analysis, Department of Agricultural Economics, Purdue University, 1145 Krannert Building, IN 47907, USA. † Copyright 1999 by Ianchovichina, McDougall and Hertel. All rights reserved. Readers may make verba- tim copies of this document for non-commercial purposes by any means, provided that this copyright notice appears on all such copies. 1 Abstract The paper proposes a new disequilibrium approach to modeling international capital mobility. Key to this approach are errors in investors’ assessments of potential returns to capital – such as those recently observed in Asia. We use the model to study dynamic adjustment of North American farm and food industries to a marginally deeper, longer crisis in East Asia. Key words: International capital mobility, adaptive expectations, East Asian crisis, North America, agriculture, farm and food industries 2 1 Introduction The Asian financial crisis, which began in 1997 and which is still playing itself out, resulted in a heightened awareness of the need to understand global economic linkages. Virtually every country in the world has registered concern about the crisis’ potential impact on their economy. The range of modeling tools available for the analysis of this economic phenomenon extend from multi-region partial equilibrium models to global macroeconomic models. Multi-region partial equilibrium and single-region general equilibrium trade models, while appropriate for some types of analyses, cannot adequately capture sectoral and regional linkages, respectively. Static, multi-region general equilibrium models (Hertel and Tsigas, 1997) overcome these limitations. However, these models offer little macroeconomic detail, do not produce time path results, and do not distinguish between short-run and longer term outcomes. Therefore, these models are of limited use in studying economic phenomena such as the East Asian crisis. Macroeconomic models, on the other hand, are designed to predict the impact of financial phenomena. These models, however, lack the sectoral and regional detail necessary to study the economywide implications of the crisis. Given that the effects of the East Asian would be felt over the course of several years, and that these effects will differ across industries and economies, the study of this type of economic phenomena warrants a dynamic general equilibrium approach. Despite the fact that a number of dynamic multi-region applied general equilibrium (AGE) models are in use today, only very few of them incorporate international capital mobility adequately. The GREEN model of Burniaux et al. (1992) and Mercenier’s intertemporal multi-country, multi-sector model (1995) do not permit international capital mobility. The G-Cubed model of McKibbin and Wilcoxen (1998) overcomes this limitation. 1 The rational expectations assumption and the equilibrium nature of the G-Cubed model, however, are inconsistent with the disequilibrium nature of the East Asian crisis, which revealed errors in investors’ expectations about the region’s economic growth. This study contributes to the existing literature by offering a new disequilibrium approach to modeling international capital mobility. With this approach instead of changing the data to fit the model, as required in models with rational expectations, the theory of the model accommodates empirical facts as observed in the current world economy. Key to our disequilibrium approach is a new investment theory of adaptive expectations that emphasizes errors in investors’ assessments of potential returns to investment – such as those recently observed in Asia. In addition, this practical approach to modeling international capital mobility permits a simple recursive-solution procedure. This greatly facilitates its use with highly disaggregated models of the world economy. Our goal in this paper is to study the impact of a marginally deeper, longer crisis in East Asia on North American farm and food industries. For this purpose, we introduce the new disequilibrium theory of investment into an existing static global AGE model, GTAP (Hertel and Tsigas, 1997). The resulting, dynamic global AGE model uses the new investment theory, while preserving other features of GTAP. This model can, therefore, be implemented by adding minimum additional data to the publicly available GTAP data base (McDougall, 1997). 2 The model A serious limitation of forward–looking intertemporal models, in the context of modeling the East Asian crisis, is the assumption of investors’ perfect foresight of returns to capital. The 2 developments in Asia suggest that investors have not foreseen correctly returns to capital. The crisis-affected regions in Asia experienced a severe credit crunch as investors withdrew investment from the region, acknowledging errors in their expectations and adjusting these expectations in a downward direction. In deference to this empirical reality, this paper acknowledges the importance of errors in investors’ expectations and introduces a novel investment theory of adaptive expectations. The introduction of international capital mobility involves explicitly keeping track of regional capital stocks, which accumulate through time giving rise to medium-run growth effects, referred to by Baldwin (1989) as accumulation effects. Since the reallocation of capital across regions affects aggregate regional welfare and wealth, to obtain valid welfare results the model keeps track of capital ownership. Equity in domestic enterprises and equity in enterprises located in foreign regions comprise regional wealth. Over time regional savings, which are a fixed share of income, augment regional wealth. Due to an absence of data on bilateral investment flows, we do not model bilateral equity ownership, instead we assume that regional households invest abroad via a global investment trust. The global trust collects the savings that the regional households have chosen to invest in foreign regions and invests these funds on their behalf. The investment theory determines how the trust allocates funds across regions. Since regional households earn income, not from the capital stock they harbor, but from the capital stock they own, the model takes into account separately of capital and wealth accumulation by region. The total equity of the domestic economy consists of equity in domestic enterprises owned by domestic investors and equity in domestic enterprises owned by foreign investors. We assume that each region specializes in its own assets. The composition of regional 3 wealth and domestic capital change as needed to be consistent with the level of regional savings and investment determined elsewhere in the model. We do not distinguish between debt and equity investment. All foreign funds are used for the purchase of physical investment goods, which are then added to the existing stock of physical capital. In each region, there is an investment firm owned both by domestic and foreign residents. The firm provides capital to all industries in a region and earns rent on the capital services K it supplies. Domestic and foreign residents invest in the region through the investment firm; i.e., they buy capital goods, I. Following the adjustment cost models of Lucas (1967), Treadway (1969) and Uzawa (1969), we assume that the investment process is associated with waste of some of the purchased investment goods. This waste occurs either during or before installation. The investment firm maximizes intertemporal profits: max Z ∞ t Φ [q (s)K(s) − P (s)I(s) − π (s) 2 e e e ! I(s) I(s)]e−Rs (s−t) ds K(s) s.t. K̇(t) = I(t) − δ K(t). (1) (2) Variables q, P , and π are the rental price of capital, the price of raw capital goods, and the price of capital goods, respectively; superscript e denotes expectations; delta is the coefficient of depreciation. We adopt Uzawa’s approach by assuming that the per unit cost of installation is a linear function of investment, depends on the rate of investment I/K and on the parameter Φ, which is constant with respect to time. Under myopic expectations of the investment firm about the price of capital, the firstorder conditions of the problem of the investment firm lead to the following expression for 4 the gross rate of return (shown in proportionate changes, denoted with a “hat”: b):1 d rd + δ = A(q̂ − P̂ ) − αI/K, (3) where r is net return to capital, and A = 1/(1 + .5Φ(I/K)2 ) ≤ 1. In the special case where A = 1, there are no adjustment costs (Φ = 0). More generally, A is a function of the investment-capital ratio and adjustment costs, and α is the elasticity of the rate of return with respect to the investment-capital ratio. It can be shown that adjustment costs alone cannot satisfactorily determine capital allocation in a multi-region model. A theory, specifying supply of investment funds is required. Next, we propose such an investment theory of adaptive expectations. In each region there is a target (gross) rate Rt . The target rate of return equals the global rate of return that clears the global market for capital. To reflect inter-regional differences in returns due to different investment risks, we adjust the target rate of return with a regionspecific risk premium.2 Investment supplied to each region is such as to achieve some required def rate of growth Γ = Ṙ/R in the rate of return: dΓ = Λ(R̂t − R̂e ). (4) where Λ is a parameter determining the speed of adjustment in the expected rate of return towards the target rate and Re is the expected rate of return.3 Since investors typically expect to derive returns over some considerable period of time, they are concerned not only with the rate of return at the moment of investing funds, but also with the rate of return through the life of the asset. Therefore, it is the expected return in future periods, Re , not the actual return to which investors respond. 1 For convenience, from here onward, we omit the time index and the index on regions. 2 In the absence of risk premia, the target rate is uniform across regions. 3 The operators d and b denote a change and a proportionate change, respectively. 5 To determine the regional composition of investment, we impose equality between the actual and required rates of growth in the rate of return. Thus, Γ varies inversely with the actual rate of growth in the capital stock and directly with the normal rate of growth in the capital stock Ω: c I I dΓ = −φ K K ! ! − dΩ , (5) where φ is the elasticity determining the response of the actual rate of return to changes in the capital stock. The normal rate of growth in the capital stock is this rate of growth in the capital stock that allows the rate of return to remain constant through time. If there is a discrepancy between the estimated and the normal rate of growth in capital stock, Ω will change as specified by the following equation: ! c R a dΩ = η K̂ + − Ωdt . φ (6) This relationship is such that the normal rate of return adjusts towards the estimated rate c /φ at a speed determined by the parameter η. of growth in capital stock K̂ + R a Investors’ expectations are ”sticky” or ”sluggish.” When the observed rate of return changes, investors are unsure whether this change is transient or permanent. They adjust their expectations of future rates of return only with a lag. At first investors make a small adjustment, then if the change in the actual rate persists, they make further changes in expectations, until eventually the expected rate conforms to the observed rate:4 R̂e = −φ(K̂ − Ωdt) − µlog Re dt. Ra (7) Equations (4), (5), (6) and (7) comprise the investment theory of adaptive expectations and determine regional supply of investment funds. These equations, together with equation 4 Ianchovichina (1998) provides complete derivations of these equations. 6 (3), determine regional investment in the dynamic multi-region model. The equilibrium in the model is characterized by equality between constant expected, target and actual rates of return, and constant normal rate of growth in the capital stock, which equals zero in equilibrium: Re = Rt = Ra , (8) Ṙe = Ṙt = Ṙa = 0 (9) Ω = 0, Ω̇ = 0. (10) These conditions imply in turn constant investment-capital ratio. Jointly with the assumption of myopic expectations of the investment firm about the price of capital, we have the same conditions characterizing the equilibrium of the model as those characterizing the equilibrium solution to the problem of the investment firm. The mechanism of adaptive expectations ensures that the model moves towards this equilibrium over time. We can also show that this equilibrium is a stable one (Ianchovichina et al., 1999). 3 Empirical performance: economic crisis in East Asia This section examines the consequences of a deeper, longer crisis in Korea, Indonesia, Philippines, Malaysia and Thailand (East Asia 5) for North American farming and food processing industries, both in the short-run (1999) and in the long-run (2010). Our baseline, based on a macroeconomic scenario of the World Bank (1998), portrays the recent Asian crisis and captures the rise in unemployment; the impairment of regional capital markets; the sharp increase in trade balances in East Asia 5 and Japan accompanying the crisis; the high expectations of potential returns in East Asia before 1997, and the subsequent drop in expectations as investors realign their expectations with the actual returns in the region (e.g., Figure 1). 7 0.25 0.2 Levels 0.15 0.1 0.05 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 0 -0.05 Figure 1: Errors in Expectations: Thailand We then compare this baseline to an alternative simulation of a longer, deeper Asian crisis resulting in a percentage point lower annual GDP growth rates in East Asia 5 than the baseline. The crisis is deeper due to further impairment of regional capital markets, a larger decline in employment, and a continued decline in investment in the East Asia 5 relative to the baseline over the near term (1999). The crisis is longer due to slower employment recovery and subsequent lower factor productivity in the five East Asian economies relative to the baseline over the longer term (2010). Marginally lower growth of the five Asian economies due to a deeper, longer crisis, results 8 50 0 US$ Million -50 -100 -150 -200 Others S. Asia Africa S. America Thailand Philippines Malaysia Indonesia China Taiwan Korea Japan W. Europe N. America -250 Figure 2: Farm Products: 1999 Import Volume Changes, Relative to Baseline, Due to a Marginally Deeper, Longer Asian Crisis in additional capital outflows (a cumulative increase of US$ 189 billion relative to the base case by 2010) from the region. Investors, realizing that the crisis in Asia is more serious than previously anticipated, redirect their funds away from East Asia 5 and towards North America. Additional inflows of investment into North America put downward pressure on interest rates. This is good news for net debtors in the United States and Canada, be they farmers borrowing to finance their operations; or the government financing its debt. In the near term (1999), a deeper, longer crisis in the East Asia 5 reduces farm imports in the five Asian regions (Figure 2). Overall world trade in farm products also falls. The 9 crisis slows down income growth and the transition from the labor-intensive farm and natural resource-based production to the capital-intensive manufacturing in East Asia 5 (Figure 3). As a consequence of the slowdown in industrial transformation, farm production does not tend to fall as much as industrial output in East Asia 5, relative to the baseline. This further limits the scope for increased exports of farm products from North America. Indeed, the model predicts a small increase in farm exports from the five East Asian economies and a decline in farm exports from all other regions due to the deeper, longer crisis. The negative impact on farm exports from North America is especially strong given the large proportion of farm commodities exported to East Asia 5. The North American farm trade balance deteriorates by US$ 289 million in 1999, while farm output declines by about US$ 236 million in the same year relative to the base case (Figure 4). The effect of a deeper, longer crisis in East Asia 5 on this region’s food exports will be negative in the near term due to limited availability of capital and lower incomes in East Asia 5 (Figure 5). North America, in contrast, undergoes an economic expansion, fueled by foreign capital inflows and cheaper capital, which raises incomes and stimulates private consumption. These increases in consumption offset the decline in North American food exports. Thus, while the North American farm sector suffers losses, the region’s food sector expands in the face of a deeper, longer crisis in East Asia 5 (Figure 4). In the longer term (2010), provided that the Asian crisis continues to impair the industrial development of the five East Asian economies, the farm sector in North America and its exports are expected to contract further relative to the base case. However, the situation in the case of processed foods is very different. Since the regional food industries in East Asia 5 rely more heavily on capital than the farm sector, the decline in capital stock and productivity in the five Asian economies diminishes their comparative advantage in food manufacturing. 10 3 2 Services Heavy Mnfc. Machinery Light Mnfc. Apparel Textiles Resources -1 Food 0 Farming Percent change from base 1 -2 -3 -4 Korea Indonesia Malaysia Philippines Thailand Figure 3: Change, Relative to Baseline, in the Composition of Value Added in 1999 Due to a Marginally Deeper, Longer Asian Crisis, East Asia 5 Countries 11 3000 2500 2000 US$ Millions 1500 1000 500 0 Imports Exports Output -500 -1000 -1500 Farm Sector 1999 Farm Sector 2010 Food Sector 1999 Food Sector 2010 Figure 4: North American Farm and Food Sectors: Volume Changes, Relative to Baseline, Due to a Marginally Deeper, Longer Asian Crisis 12 20 0 -20 US$ Million -40 -60 -80 -100 -120 -140 Others S. Asia Africa S. America Thailand Philippines Malaysia Indonesia China Taiwan Korea Japan W. Europe N. America -160 Figure 5: Food Products: 1999 Export Volume Changes, Relative to Baseline, Due to a Marginally Deeper, Longer Asian Crisis 13 This opens the opportunity for more exports from other regions. For example, while in 1999 the longer, deeper crisis leads to a small negative change in the North American trade balance for processed foods, by 2010 this change turns around, and amounts to a positive US$ 1,867 million. The change in North American food output in 2010 is US$ 2,632 million compared to the base case. It dwarfs the decline in farm output in North America in 2010 (Figure 4). Thus, the food and farm sectors, viewed as a combined entity, actually experience higher long-run output as a result of the deeper, longer crisis. However, the beneficiaries are those North American food manufacturers presently competing with food processors in Asia, not farmers. 4 Concluding remarks The feature that distinguishes the dynamic multi-region multi-sector model, proposed in this paper, from other dynamic global AGE models is the disequilibrium approach to modeling capital mobility. Central to this new approach is the assumption about the adaptive expectations of investors supplying capital to the regions. This assumption, compatible with a simple recursive solution procedure, ensures the stability of the model over the long-run. In addition, the investment theory of adaptive expectations brings realism into the analysis of economic phenomena such as the East Asian crisis. The model observes errors in investors’ expectations about potential returns, while offering flexibility in accommodating to empirical data. Our analysis suggests that, in the long run, the benefits to North American food manufactures will far outweigh the losses to North American farmers from a deeper, longer crisis in Asia. Net debtors will also cheer a deeper, longer crisis in East Asia as it continues to put downward pressure on interest rates in North America. 14 5 References Arndt, C., T. Hertel, B. Dimaranan, K. Huff, and R. McDougall (1998), “China in 2005: Implications for the Rest of the World,” Journal of Economic Integration. Baldwin, R. (1989), “The Growth Effects of 1992,” Economic Policy, 4(9), pp. 247-283. Burniaux, J., G. Nicoletti and J. Olivera-Marins (1992),“GREEN: A Global Model for Quantifying the Costs of Policies to Curb CO2 Emissions,” OECD Economic Studies 19, OECD. Hertel, T. W. and M. E. Tsigas (1997), “Structure of GTAP,” In Hertel, T.W., (editor), Global Trade Analysis Modeling and Applications, Cambridge University Press, Chapter 2, pp. 13-73. Ianchovichina, E. I. (1998), “International Capital Linkages: Theory and Application in A Dynamic Computable General Equilibrium Model,” Ph.D. Dissertation, Purdue University. Ianchovichina, E. I., R. A. McDougall and T. W. Hertel (1999), “A Disequilibrium Model of International Capital Mobility,” paper prepared for the Second Annual Conference on Global Economic Analysis, Denmark, June 20-22. Lucas, R. E. (1967), “Optimal Investment Policy and the Flexible Accelerator,” International Economic Review, 8(1), pp. 78-85. McDougall, R. A. (ed.) (1997), Global Trade, Assistance, and Protection: The GTAP 3 Data Base, Chapter 3, Purdue University. McKibbin, W. and P. Wilcoxen (1998), “The Theoretical and Empirical Structure of the G-CUBED Model,” Economic Modelling (forthcoming). Mercenier, J. (1995), An Applied Intertemporal General Equilibrium Model of Trade and Production With Scale Economies, Product Differentiation and Imperfect Competition,” C.R.D.E. and University of Montreal. 15 Treadway, A. (1969), “On Rational Entrepreneurial Behavior and the Demand for Investment,” Review of Economic Studies, 3(2), pp. 227-39. World Bank (1998), “Global Economic Prospects and the Developing Countries,” The International Bank of Reconstruction and Development/ The World Bank, 1818 H Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20433 U.S.A. Uzawa, H. (1969), “Time Preference and the Penrose Effect in a Two Class Model of Economic Growth,” Journal of Political Economy, 77, pp. 628-652. 16