Berikut ini adalah contoh Master Thesis ketika mengambil studi Master of Applied Economics di UofA.
By Dias Satria (2007)
In 1997 East Asian (EA) countries experienced a currency crisis which broadened to a banking, financial and general economic crisis. Starting from Thailand, the depreciation of The Baht led to contagious attacks on other currencies, with huge devaluations, a high rate of interest and mass bankruptcies in domestic financial institutions and business enterprises. (McKinnon, 2005) It is believed that the currency regime was not the major factor of the crises, but the collapse of The Bath was the trigger factor in the East Asian crises.
Following the East Asian financial crises, the issue of exchange rate arrangements and financial cooperation has become prominent. Increased cooperation is an important response to preventing future currency crises and to strengthen financial systems within the region. Interestingly, Ogawa and Yang (2006) have examined the flexibility of exchange rate in East Asia and observed the transformation of exchange rate arrangement in Post crises in their paper “The Dilemma of exchange rate arrangements in East Asia”. Generally speaking, they argue that the various models of exchange rates in East Asia can threaten integration in East Asian economies as a whole because as a result of pressure on competitive intervention, a “beggar thy neighbor” situation is likely to arise. Consequently, this would increase economic instability and slow down regional trade arrangements and economic integration in East Asia.
This situation has brought the idea of regional cooperation by introducing adopting external Currency Basket Regime (CBR) to stabilize intra-regional exchange rate. Although the idea of implementing CBR seems viable and would speed up an economic integration within regions, Ogawa and Yang (2006) lack valid data and convincing argument to support their argument in case that is necessary for East Asian economies to develop such an exchange rate system.
The main objective of this paper is to critically review on Eiji Ogawa and Doo Yong Yang paper “The Dilemma of exchange rate arrangements in East Asia”, by addressing 3 major concerns mentioned in that paper : 1) Asymmetric responses to external shocks, 2) Competitive devaluation and 3) The dilemma of asset and liability Dollarization. Furthermore, this paper will also put forward a few arguments against the external Currency Basket Regime (CBR) and discuss the feasibility of external Currency Basket Regime (CBR) for East Asia.
Following on from this introduction, the reminder of this paper is structured as follows. Section two considers the stylist facts of exchange rate movement during before and after crises. These discussions examine the distortion between De Jure and De Facto exchange rate regime to explain the current situation in East Asia. Section three examines 3 major concerns pointed out by the authors: 1) Asymmetric responses to external shocks, 2) Competitive devaluation and 3) Dilemma of asset and liability Dollarization. Section four examines the policy implication and asks whether the CBR regime is viable in East Asia economies. Section five is conclusion.
- SNAP-SHOT OF EXCHANGE RATE REGIME IN EAST ASIA : DE JURE VS DE FACTO
This section outline recent exchange rate regime in East Asia and assesses the discrepancy between de jure and de facto features of the exchange rate regime in East Asia as pointed by the Ogawa and Yang (2006).
As noted by Ogawa and Yang (2006) in section 2.3, they outline a critical point regarding the gap between de jure and de facto functioning rate regimes. They asses the discrepancy between dejure and de facto of exchange rate arrangements by using 4 different methods, such as : Levy-Yeyati and Sturzeneger (1999), Reinhart and Rogoff (2002), Flexibility Index (Bayoumi and Eichengreen, 1998) and official announcements from the IMF. With the respect to the latter, Ogawa and Yang conclude (Ogawa and Yang, 2006 pp.10):
“… The IMF classification did not reflect the true exchange rate regime of a specific country, as exchange rate regimes often differed from what the authorities officially declared them to be.”
Table 2.1 The exchange rate regimes based on difference sources
Resource: Ogawa and Yang (2006) and Rajan (2006) (Modified)
Note:IMF classification: exchange arrangement with no separate legal tender,1; currency board arrangement, 2; conventional pegged arrangement,3; pegged exchange rate within horizontal bands,4; crawling peg,5; crawling band,6; managed floating with no pre-announced path,7; independently floating,8.
Levy: NA means that classification variable is not available. Fix+, inconclusive; Fix*, uncontroversial; Interm, dirty; Interm*, dirty/crawling peg; 2, classified in 2nd round; 3, outliers.
Reinhart and Rogoff (find grid): no separate legal tender, 1; pre-announced peg or currency board arrangement, 2; pre-announced horizontal band that is narrower than or equal to -/+2 percent, 3; de facto peg, 4; preannounced crawling peg, 5; pre-announced crawling band that is narrower than or equal to -/+2 percent, 6; de facto crawling peg, 7; de facto crawling peg that is narrower than or equal to -/+2 percent, 6; de facto crawling peg, 8; preannounced crawling ban that is wide than or equal to -/+2 percent, 9; de facto crawling peg that is narrower than or equal to -/+5 percent, 10; moving band that is narrower than or equal to -/+2 percent, 11; managed floating, 12; free floating, 13; freely falling, 14.
Based on official announcements from each central bank of Asian economies, a number of East Asian economies which appear to adopt a fixed exchange rate regime or form of single currency pegs are Hong Kong (Currency Board Regime or Peg to US Dollar), Brunei (Peg to Singapore Dollar). On the contrary, Indonesia, Philippines, South Korea and Thailand have announced adopting flexible exchange rate regimes accompanied by an Inflation Targeting framework. In addition, the other East Asian economies, such as : Malaysia, China, Japan, Singapore have implemented a variety of intermediate regimes (Currency Basket, Crawling Bands, Adjustable Pegs and such)
In contrast, Thailand and Indonesia have been classified as managed floating but their official announcements were independent floating. China has announced it will adopt a “basket regime” despite appearing to be a soft peg to the US Dollar. Furthermore, Malaysia which officially announced to adopt “single currency peg” (peg to the US dollar) is seems faced a greater fluctuation vis-à-vis the US Dollar). Overall therefore, these two examples show that “One size does not necessarily fit all” when it comes to the choice of exchange rate regimes in Asia. (Rajan, 2006)
Another interesting point in this section is related to the behavior of exchange rate after the crisis. As pointed by Ogawa and Yang (2006) that “…Most of them actually have a substantially less flexible exchange rate than is officially announced, due to a fear of floating.” pp. 10. It can be seen that in the past few years, some countries have accumulated a huge amount of reserve to defend their currency from excessive volatility. It seems that some East Asian countries are behaving more prudently by building up more reserve. The questions now are why they seem “fear of floating”?
Generally speaking, “fear of floating” is the situation in which the fluctuation of domestic exchange rate is very small due to the intervention of government to make the value of exchange rate constant to other currency peg. As pointed by Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999), some emerging economies have a “fear of floating” because if they have a pervasive dollar liability, devaluation could be associated with recession and inflation. On the other hand, the countries that have good circumstances (good TOT-Term of Trade, net inflow of capital etc) seem reluctant to appreciate their currency because they do not want to lose their international competitiveness and also can lead to deflationary spiral as the exchange rate appreciate.
In recent years, there is mounting evidence that some East Asian Economies tended to return to peg to US Dollar after the crises. McKinnon, R. I. and Schnabl, G. (2004) have pointed out that before the crises East Asian economies were trapped by “Original Sin”, but after they change from net creditor to be net debtor, they face “conflicted virtue”.
As pointed by Eichengreen and Hausmann (1999), the term of “original sin” can be defined as a situation in which the domestic currency cannot be used to borrow abroad (international original sin) or to borrow long term, even domestically (domestic original sin). On the other hand, the term of “conflicted virtue” is the mirror of “original sin” concept, in which happen in international creditor country that cannot lend in its own currency. (McKinnon, 2004)
Eichengreen et al. (2003a) pointed out that original sin is common in most emerging markets which are normally international net debtors. Even for countries with a sustained record of stable domestic prices, they face difficulties borrowing internationally in domestic currency. Also, due to the incompleteness of financial markets, government think that they have to undertake high-frequency exchange rate pegging in order to mitigate payment risk. In the presence of financial market incompleteness, financial fragility is likely to appear because domestic investment will have either a “currency mismatch” or a “maturity mismatch”.
Table 2.2 Standard deviations of Monthly exchange rate fluctuations against the US Dollar
|Hong Kong Dollar||
Source : Mc Kinon, 2004 (Modified)
The table above reveals the standard deviation figure of EA exchange rates against US Dollar in three different times; pre crises, crises and post crises. Generally speaking, almost all the EA countries have pegged their currencies to US Dollar in a high frequency in pre crises. However, in a time of crises they fluctuated more freely. After the crises, they tend to return to pegging their currencies to US Dollar but in a lower frequency. This evidence strongly reveals how the EA economies have returned to stabilize their currencies against U.S Dollar after the crises.
As pointed by Mc Kinon (2004), the “original sin” situation has transformed to be a “conflicted virtue” after the crises. A huge surplus due to current account surplus and net inflows of Foreign Domestic Investment (FDI) has made emerging economies net creditors. However, due to the incompleteness of financial markets these economies are unable to lend their own currency to international markets. This condition called as “conflicted virtue” syndrome. All in all, they have fear of allowing their currencies to appreciate because it can lead deflationary spiral and dampen their exports. Consequently, East Asian governments have returned to maintaining a “soft dollar peg” to US$. The table below shows the amount of FOREX reserve in EA economies has increased significantly after the crises. In 2004, for example, the amount of Japanese and Chinese FOREX reserve had reached 21% and 15% of world total respectively. Furthermore, the other Asian economies had accumulated for about 17% of world total in the same year.
The basic idea behind the parallel currency regime or Basket Currency Regime is this regime is one of the steps towards the alternative regional monetary integration and economic integration. In line with those arguments, Eichengreen (2006) pointed out that adopting multilateral currency grid has the important objective of maintaining stability of exchange rates in the region. Thus, it would promote intra regional trade, simplify investment planning and encourage cross border participation in local bond markets. However, he stressed the risk of such an arrangement in the presence of high capital mobility era. In short, he suggested the importance of closer integration in political commitment and the maintenance of credibility are the key to succees.
More discussion about the feasibility of Basket Currency Regime (intermediate exchange rate regime) will be examined in the next section.
In the examination of the Ogawa and Yang (2006) arguments, there will be a focus on 3 concerns, 1) Asymmetric responses to external shocks, 2) Competitive devaluation and 3) Dilemma between asset dollarization and liability dollarization.
In the first concern, Ogawa and Yang (2006) pointed out that the asymmetric response of the EA currencies to the fluctuation of US dollar could bias the relative price of EA products, and consequently effect misallocation in terms of international trade and FDI (Foreign Direct Investment). In line with this argument, they argued that the East Asian central banks face a “coordination failure” problem in choosing desirable exchange rate system. Based on this situation, they suggest the introduction regional coordination for a desirable exchange rate regime (i.e Basket Currency Regime) instead of the existing diversified exchange rate regimes.
Firstly, I will say that the asymmetric reaction of EA exchange rates to US Dollar depreciation should be recognized as a natural movement of the exchange rate fluctuation. Each country is different from each other due to the different of macroeconomic and trade structure. For example, the correlation of US monetary policy and its impact to Indonesia must be different to Singapore because Singapore has a stronger linkage in trade with US than Indonesia. Consequently, the depreciation of US$ will has a different impact to both Rupiah and Singapore Dollar.
Another explanation, the different policy strategy in FOREX intervention and monetary policy can also contribute to the differential impact of US$ fluctuation to EA exchange rates. Moreover, as suggested by Glick (2002), because the East Asian economies remained subject to different domestic and external shocks, market pressures on their exchange rates are likely to be different over time.
Secondly, the asymmetric reaction of EA exchange rates to US Dollar depreciation should be considered carefully by the model. Giavazzi et.al (1986) have observed the asymmetric reaction to US dollar depreciation in Europe countries in 1973-1985. Based on their research, there were 2 important models to explain the exchange rate movement. The first is based on a dynamic model of portfolio choice. The second uses a modified portfolio model which allows for the presence of capital controls. They found that the (sterilized) foreign exchange market operations which affect the relative asset denominated in different currencies should have larger effect on the price of assets with capital controls, and hence on their exchange rate. Furthermore, this result is also depends on market thinness, which is associated with lump-sum transaction cost.
Thirdly, as observed by Mc.Kinnon, almost all EA economies had similar reaction to US depreciation. It can be seen from the figure 3.1 below that since US dollar started to depreciate in 2002, EA exchange rates tend to appreciate considerably against the dollar except The Peso. However, each East Asian central bank intervened heavily to buy dollars, to prevent their currencies from appreciating. As shown in table 2.3, the amount of official foreign reserves in East Asian countries has increased significantly after the crises. (McKinnon and Schnabl, 2004 pp.179-180)
All in all, there will be a serious problem when a country condition needs to realign its currency due to external shock, but it is constrained by the “club” or regional common arrangement. The consequence must be painful to a domestic economy when the price and labor flexibility is absent. Because if the nominal exchange rate is fixed, the adjustment in the real exchange rate will have to take place through changes in domestic nominal prices and domestic wages. But, if the price and labor flexibility is absent, the output loss will become bigger. In other words, there must be a cost of adjustment if country move to new common currency arrangement. Furthermore, this situation can also be tested by speculator if they lack the credibility to maintain new CBR regime.
These evidences highlight the weaknesses of the Ogawa and Yang (2006) arguments about the asymmetric response problem in EA countries. They also provided no evidence of the cost of adjustment when EA economies join to new regional exchange rate regime.
Of additional concern, Ogawa and Yang (2006) have pointed out the “competitive devaluation” problem in EA regions. By exploring this concern, the Ogawa and Yang (2006) were using a correlation between the degree of Japanese intervention and other selected EA countries. They argued that if the intervention of Japanese authority (BOJ-Bank of Japan) influence the Yen/Dollar exchange rate, consequently this movement could be a pressure in “competitive devaluation” for EA countries. Based on table 11, almost countries in EA have a positive correlation with BOJ intervention, except China. However, the degree of correlation is different in each case. Hong Kong and Taiwan have strong correlation with Japanese intervention, with 0.850 and 0.830 respectively. The other countries correlation ranged between 0.007 – 0.723.
Table 3.1. Intervention correlation between Japan and Other selected countries
Resource : Ogawa and Yang, 2006
Before discussing the case of “competitive devaluation”, it is important to observe the correlation between Japanese intervention and their periphery-East Asia. As observed by Spencer and Wong (2002) who conducted a research about the impact of Japanese Yen to its periphery (East Asia) conclude that the movements in the Japanese yen/US$ exchange rate have small impact to the EA economies. In their research, they used an elasticity method to measure a series of real effective-exchange-rates in East Asia. Based on their finding, the result of simple trade weighted index between China and Japan was 0.22, while the weights based on their bilateral competition and estimated elasticity no greater than 0.10. Furthermore, the corresponding weight for an index focused on competition in third-country markets is 0.15. These evidences suggested that the Japanese Yen/US $ exchange rate have small impact to its periphery-East Asia economies.
Furthermore, as pointed by Bernanke (2000) (cited in Mc Kinon, 2003 pp.1068) who oppose weaker of Japanese Yen could affect its major trading partner as “beggar thy neighbour” conclude that :
“…beggar thy neighbour argument against competitive devaluation had its origins in the Great Depression and does not apply to contemporary Japan and East Asia.”
Based on these facts, the case of competitive devaluation as suggested by Ogawa and Yang (2006) in EA economies is weak. First because, the Japanese Yen/US $ does not have a strong effect to EA economies. It could be argued that “Yen Carry Trade” (YCT) problems should be pointed as the important factor in 1997 crises. However, in recent days this YCT transaction has declined significantly. Secondly, the correlation method used by authors’ is weak. To ensure the strength of relationship between them, Ogawa and Yang should use econometrics standard to measure the statistical significance of this relationship.
In a general sense, the concept of “competitive devaluation” is a problem (as pointed by Gerlach and Smets (1996)) when a currency crisis in one country may lead to devaluation in a second country if the two countries are connect in a strong bilateral trade. In a similar vein, Corsetti, Pesenti, and Roubini (1998), stress that competitive devaluation pressures may arise even if two countries do not directly trade with one another. Such pressures may be present if the two countries are competing in a common third market.
Kaminsky and Reinhart (1999) have also investigated the possibility of trade and financial linkages among the asian economies which may help explain why devaluation in small country like Thailand could significantly effects regional crises. However, they found that the trade and financial linkages are not the only the vital factors causing the contagion of currency crises. They found evidence that common bank lenders have played a significant role in the spread of currency crises. Specifically they found that the bank lending channel surpasses trade channels in explaining the vulnerability of a country to contagion.
The concept of “competitive devaluation“should also be recognized as the important channel of contagion which can led to a regional currency crises. The example of “competitive devaluation” can be captured in 1997 crises when the depreciation of Baht has spread widely to other currencies in regions such as Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia and South Korea, which at that time, had a tremendous decline in the value of their currencies. Generally, there are two important explanations of contagion. The first point is “fundamental based contagion”. In this type, fundamental causes of contagion include macroeconomic shocks that have consequences on an international scale. That shocks are transmitted through trade links, competitive devaluations, and financial links. In other words, this interdependence means that shocks can be transmitted across countries because of their real and financial linkages. The second point is “role of speculators”. In this type, contagion involves a financial crisis that is not linked to observed changes in macroeconomic or other fundamentals but is solely the result of the behavior of investors or other financial agents. Under this definition, contagion arises when a comovement occurs, even when there are no global shocks and interdependence and fundamentals are not factors.
Based on Ogawa and Yang (2006) explanation, they seem worried about the former explanation in which “competitive devaluation” can threaten financial and economic relations within intra-regions. As they mentioned in page 16:
A competitive devaluation will occur as beggar-thy-neighbor policies increase output growth and employment domestically at the expense of output growth and employment abroad.
In an East Asian context, a country’s devaluation (center) in the region, whether intended or unintended, will create more pressure on other countries’ devaluation (periphery). This will produce more currency deviation from the equilibrium level as well as more possible future volatile exchange rate movements in the region
In recent days, the possibility of “competitive devaluation” seems far from the reality in East Asian economies. In fact, most of EA countries have defended their currency to fluctuate (appreciate) by intervening heavily in the foreign exchange market. However, the idea of “competitive devaluation” should be focused on Japan and China. The huge amount of reserve has built up by China has threatened the international competitiveness of Japanese goods. In other words, China seems heavily defend their currency from appreciating. For this particular reason, “competitive devaluation” might be a worry for Japanese economies as a big competitor of China due to the use of exchange rate policy to gain a competitive advantage in global trading.
In the last concern, Ogawa and Yang (2006) have pointed out “the dilemma between asset and liability dollarization” in EA countries. Actually, this concern should raise the importance of the stabilization of US Dollar in EA region. Because, when the amount of both Dollar liability and assets is high in regions, show that this economy needs the stabilization of US Dollar. For example, the net creditor economies which have a considerable amount of foreign reserve in dollar denominated assets will suffer loss from the depreciation of US Dollar. By the same token, the net debtor economies will suffer loss from the appreciation of US Dollar because of their Dollar liability.
- POLICY IMPLICATIONS
In the previous section, we’ve already examined 3 major concerns pointed out by Ogawa and Yang (2006) regarding to the exchange rate regime in East Asia. Generally, these 3 important points lead to a policy implication for East Asian to adopt intermediate exchange rate regimes or “Currency Basket Regime”. However, the feasibility of this new regime has been increasingly questioned today.
There are, at least, four important issues regarding to the implementation of common currency arrangement like “Currency Basket Regime” or CBR.
Firstly, the Currency Basket Regime can be identified as the intermediate exchange rate regime that is naturally unstable and crisis-prone in the highly capital mobility era. The reason is intermediate exchange rate arrangements are more vulnerable to shift in market sentiment and more difficult to manage. Frankel et al. (2000) pointed out that most intermediate regimes are insufficiently “transparent” and it is hardly to maintain its credibility. This argument also strengthen by Calvo and Mendoza (2000) who said that the problem of “herding behavior” in global financial market can only be diminished by implementing a credible and transparent policy, such as: fixed exchange rate or floating exchange rate regime.
In addition, the problem that might arise from implementing intermediate targets is that policymakers and private agents are insufficient to undertake actions that would reduce the vulnerability of the economy to crisis. Predominantly, the domestic financial system will be more fragile due to the increasing of foreign borrowing and fiscal deficits. Consequently, the vulnerability of domestic financial system is likely to appear when countries adopting intermediate regimes. From these point of view, CBR idea as an option of the new regional exchange rate regime may be weak for EA economies. However, as a stepwise approach to monetary integration, this option can be implemented to facilitate EA members to get to know their potential partners and their policy preferences more closely.
Secondly, the implementation of CBR needs a strong political commitment among the members. This important issue needs to be resolved in order to solve some hard economic policies regarding to the new currency arrangement. As pointed by Volz (2006), the political commitment is important to solve some initial programs, such as: support fund, intervention rule design, surveillance program, credit program for central banks, the weight of CBR and term of reference for domestic exchange rate realignment
Furthermore, the political commitment is also needed to resolve the problem when the system is facing the pressures which threat its sustainability. European experience is a classic example, how important to maintain this issue. Following the German unification, the German government pursued excessive fiscal policy, with the consequence of rising inflation. The Bundesbank responded with a high interest rate policy actually has caused the Lira and Sterling to realign their exchange rate. This policy was needed because a high interest rate policy would have severely dampened their economies. In this respect, the crisis increased due to the lack of coordination among EU members. (Volz, 2006)
Thirdly, the implementation of CBR regime needs an independent central banks and robust monetary rules. Establishing an independent central bank with strong inflation aversion is an important manner to keep down inflationary expectations. While beneficial for any economy, this is particularly important for countries with an external anchor, because central bank independence provides credibility to the peg. Regarding to this concern, the central bank of each member is needed to be robust in term of maintaining its consistency to peg to the new anchor. In other words, if their national policy and economic objectives become inconsistent with the common-basket peg, the system will be tested by speculators. In the last section, it has been revealed about de jure and de facto exchange rate regime in EA regions. It can be summarized that for many EA countries, de facto central bank independence still seems a long way off. Consequently, this weak condition should be a concern by EA authorities before implementing new regime.
Fourthly, the issue about setting up the weight into the currency basket is become prominent. Actually, there is no simple set of trade weights that will give optimal results and no one really knows enough about the relevant parameters to modify the trade weights in a satisfactory way. The duty will be more difficult to manage when groups in region agree to adopt a common basket. Even if they choose to use trade weights, they might disagree about the size of weight, because their trade patterns are different. Take East Asia, as an example. Korea trades far more heavily with Japan than do most ASEAN countries. Within ASEAN itself, moreover, Indonesia and Thailand trade more heavily with Japan than with the United States, while Singapore trades more heavily with the United States. (Eichgreen, 2006)
Similar to this idea, Glick (2002) pointed out the problems in deciding the currency weight in CBR is hard to implement in practice. He thought that the virtues of simplicity, observability and transparency are lost to the extent that weight are not published to the public and may change over time due to the structural changes. Consequently, this discretionary manipulation of weights is likely to undermine the credibility of the exchange rate regime. The political consensus which is hardly appears, will minimally contribute to the feasibility of the regime.
This paper contains a critique about Ogawa and Yang (2006) paper “The dilemma of exchange rate arrangement in East Asia”. It pointed out several weaknesses of the Ogawa and Yang (2006) arguments in promoting the importance of coordination and management in EA economies. In short, they lack valid data and convincing argument that it is necessary for East Asian economies to develop a regional exchange rate system.
The idea of Currency Basket Regime promoted by Ogawa and Yang (2006) has a principal problem related to the weight need establish the basket. In addition, the risks associated with intermediate exchange rate regime will make this regime more crises prone. Consequently, the issue of maintaining political harmony and credibility of the regime is a vital role to ensure the sustainability of this regime.
The development of new exchange rate management in EA economies should not be considered partially. At first, it should be managed in line with the strategic interests of EA economies. In other words, this development needs a political harmony among them. Furthermore, this new arrangement has also to fit with their domestic policies. These important requirements are needed to push the enhancement of regional surveillance and macroeconomic coordination among EA economies. Secondly, the new exchange rate regime needs a regional liquidity support arrangement to enforce the sustainability of the new regime. These two requirements are needed to protect the multilateral peg system from the speculative attack in the era of high capital mobility. Lastly, the convergence in regional business cycle is important as a basic ingredient of Optimum Currency Area (OCA) in EA regions.
Babic, A and A. Zigman. 2001. “Currency Crisis: Theoretical and Empirical Overview of the 1990s.”
Bibow, Jorg. 2005. “Europe’s Quest for Monetary Stability: Central Banking Gone Astray.” Working Paper No. 428: Levy Economic Institute.
Bird, Graham and Ramkishen Rajan. 2002. “The Evolving Asian Financial Architecture.”
Brouwer, Gordon de. 2002. Financial Markets and Policies in East Asia. London: Routledge.
Bubula, Andrea and Inci Otker-Robe. 2003. “Are Pegged and Intermediate Exchange Rate Regimes More Crisis Prone?” IMF Working Paper, WP/03/223.
Calvo, Guillermo A. and Enrique G. Mendoza. 2000. “Capital-Markets Crises and Economic Collapse in Emerging Markets: An Informational-Frictions Approach.” The American Economic Review, 90:2, pp. 59-64.
Cavoli, Tony and Ramkishen Rajan. 2003. “Inflation Targeting Arrangements In Small And Open Economies In Asia And Elsewhere: Exploring The Role Of The Exchange Rate.”
Chang, Roberto and Andres Velasco. 2000. “Exchange Rate Policy for Developing Countries.” the American Economic Review, 90:2, pp. 71-75.
Cho, Yoon-Je and Deena Khatkhate. 1989. Lesson of Financial Liberalization in Asia: A Comparative Study. Washington, D. C: The World Bank.
Chowdhry, Baghwan and Amit Goyal. 2000. “Understanding the financial crisis in Asia.” Pacific-Basin finance Journal, 8, pp. 135-52.
Corsettia, Giancarlo, Paolo Pesentib, and Nouriel Roubinic. 1999. “What caused the Asian currency and financial crisis?” Japan and the World Economy, 11, pp. 305-73.
Eichengreen, Barry. 2006. “The Parallel Currency Approach to Asian Monetary Integration.” American Economic Review.
Eichengreen, Barry and Ricardo Hausmann. 1999. “Exchange Rates and Financial Fragility.” NBER, Working Paper 7418.
Eiji Ogawa, Junko Shimizu. 2006. “Stabilization of Effective Exchange Rate Rates Under Common Currency Basket Systems.” Journal of the Japanese and international economies, 20, pp. 590-611.
Epstein, Gerald A. 2005. Capital Flight and Capital Controls in Developing Countries. Massachusetts: Edward Elgar Publishing, Inc.
Frankel, Jeffrey A. 2003. “Experience and lessons from exchange rate regimes in emerging economies.” NBER (National Bureau of Economic Research), Working Paper 10032.
Frankel, Jeffrey A., Sergio Schmukler, and Luis Serven. 2000. “Verifiability and the Vanishing Intermediate Exchange Rate Regime.” Brookings Trade Forum.
Garnaut, Ross H. Mcleod and Ross. 1998. East Asia in Crisis: From Being a Miracle to Needing One? London: Routledge.
Giavazzi, Francesco, Alberto Giovanni, David Begg, and Louka Katseli. 1986. “The EMS and the Dollar.” JSTOR, 1:2, pp. 455-85.
Glick, Reuven. 2002. “Fixed of floating : is it possible to manage in the middle,” in Financial Markets and Policies in East Asia. Gordon de Brouwer ed. New York: Routledge, pp. 200-34.
Grauwe, Paul De. 2000. Economics of Monetary Union. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Grauwe, Paul De. 2006. “Flaws in the Design of the Eurosystem?” International Finance, 9: 1, 2006, 137-144.
Jeffrey A. Frankel, Andrew K. Rose. 1997. “The Endogeneity of Optimum Currency Area Criteria.”
Kaminsky, Graciela L. and Carmen M. Reinhart. 1999. “Bank Lending and Contagion : Evidence From The Asian Crisis.”
Kwack, Sung Y. 2000. “Exchange Rate and monetary regime options for regional cooperation in East Asia.” Journal of Asian Economics, 16, pp. 57-75.
Llewellyn, David T. 1980. International Financial Integration: The Limit of Sovereignty. London: The Macmillan Press Ltd.
McKinnon, R. and Huw Pill. 1999. “Exchange Rate Regimes for Emerging Markets: Moral Hazard and International Overborrowing.” Oxford Review of Economic Policy, 15, pp. 423 -64.
McKinnon, R. I. 1999. “The East Asian Dollar Standard, Life after death?”
McKinnon, R. I. 2000. “Mundell, the Euro, and Optimum Currency Areas.”
McKinnon, Ronald I. 2005. Exchange Rate under the East Asian Dollar Standard: Living with Conflicted Virtue. London: The MIT Press.
McKinnon, R. I. and Huw Pill. 1997. “Credible Economic Development and Over-borrowing.” American Economic Review, 87 (2) 189-193.
McKinnon, R. I. and Gunter Schnabl. 2003. “Synchronized Business Cycles in East Asia: Fluctuations in the Yen/Dollar Exchange Rate and China’s Stabilizing Role.” The World Economy, 26, pp. 1067 -89.
McKinnon, R. I. and Gunter Schnabl. 2004. “The East Asian Dollar Standard, Fear of Floating and Original Sin.” Review of Development Economics, 8, pp. 331 -60.
Mundell, Robert. 2002. “Does Asia Need a Common Currency?” Pacific Economic Review, 7:1.
Murase, Tetsuji. 2002. A Zone of Asian Monetary Stability. Tokyo: Asia Pacific Press.
Obstfeld, Maurice and Kenneth Rogoff. 1995. “The Mirage of Fixed Exchange Rates.” Journal of Economic Perspectives, 9 (4) 73-96.
Ogawa, Eiji and Kentaro Kawasaki. 2001. “Toward an Asian Currency Union.”
Ogawa, Eiji and Doo Yong Yang. 2006. “The Dilemma of Exchange Rate Arrangements in East Asia.” Japan and The World Economy, 633.
Rajan, Ramkishen. 2002. “Exchange Rate Policy Options for Post Crisis Southeast Asia: Is There a case for Currency Baskets?”
Rajan, Ramkishen S. 2006. “Asian Exchange Rate Regimes Since The 1997-1998 Crisis.”
Ravenhill, John. 2005. Global Political Economy. New York: Oxford University Press, Inc.
Rodriguez-Fuentes, Carlos J. 2006. Regional Monetary Policy. New York: Routledge.
Schnabl, Ronald McKinnon and Gunther. 2004. “The Return to Soft Dollar Pegging in East Asia: Mitigating Conflicted Virtue.” International Finance, 7:2, 2004: pp. 169–201.
Simon, David Gruen and John. 2001. Future Directions for Monetary Policies in East Asia: Planet Press.
Spencer, Michael and Aileen Wong. 2002. “Asian Export Competitiveness and the Yen.” Global Markets Research:Deutsche Bank.
Stiglitz, Joseph E. 2002. Globalization and Its Discontents. London: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc.
Sturzenegger, Yeyati and. 2003. “Dollarization: A Primer by Eduardo Levy Yeyati and Federico Sturzenegger in Dollarization: Debate and Policy Alternatives.” MIT Press.
Taylor, Paul R. Masson and Mark P. 1993. Policy Issues in The Operation of Currency Unions. New York: Cambridge University Press.
Thakur, Abdessatar Quanes and Subhash. 1997. Macroeconomic Accounting and Analysis in Transition Economies. Washington, D. C: International Monetary Fund.
Tony Cavoli, Ramkishen Rajan. 2003. “Exchange Rate Arrangements for East Asia Post-Crisis: Examining the Case for Open Economy Inflation Targeting.”
Volz, Ulrich. 2006. “On the feasibility of a regional exchange rate system for East Asia: Lessons of the 1992/1993 EMS crisis.” Journal of Asian Economics, 17, pp. 1107-27.
White, Ben Thirkell -. 2005. The IMF and the Politics of Financial Globalization: From the Asian Crisis to a New International Financial Architecture? New York: Palgrave Macmilan.
Williamson, Jhon. 2005. “A Currency Basket for East Asia, not just China.” Policy Brief in International Economics, PB05-1.
Perbedaan logit dan probit
Marginal effect in Probit
Example by Green
Kemungkinan besar, 2-3 tahun kedepan menjadi eranya iBook Author di Indonesia. Karena penulis buku Akan mudah menjajakan buku mereka secara online melalui perusahaan raksasa Apple.
Buah dari percakapan ide dengan pakar teknologiapel, mr Hasbullah Mappelawa.
Sebelum melesat dan meledak seperti petasan “jangwe” Mari kita pelajari bersama kawan.
Presiden PPIA – SA 2013/2014
Semoga amanah menjalankan tugas.
Beberapa foto yang mengingatkan dengan teman-teman dan keluarga saat “adventure” dengan motor off-road di beberapa wilayah di Jawa Timur. Sebuah pengalaman yang tidak mungkin terlupakan, dan menginspirasi keindahan dan kekayaan alam Indonesia.
Terinspirasi untuk bersepeda ke kantor, namun tidak ingin backpain karena menggendong tas di punggung. Check this out “Ortlieb” pannier yang bisa dipasang dibagian belakang sepeda.
Review Pannier ORTLIEB
Morocco cycle tour
Terinspirasi untuk memiliki sepeda yang sederhana, kuat dan tahan lama. Maka pilihannya ada di sepeda berbahan titanium.
Tearing up single-tracks, long climbs and fast descents; however you choose to ride the Redwood, it performs exquisitely.
- May 2015
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012