Search

Begin New Search Topic Deindustrialization Publication Year within 1 Year

1. The Industrial Cost of Fixed Exchange Rate Regimes

Author:
Blaise Gnimassoun, Carl Grekou, and Valérie Mignon
Publication Date:
06-2024
Content Type:
Working Paper
Institution:
Centre d'Etudes Prospectives et d'Informations Internationales (CEPII)
Abstract:
Premature deindustrialization in most emerging and developing economies is one of the most striking stylized facts of the recent decades. In this paper, we provide solid empirical evidence supporting that the choice of a fixed exchange rate regime accelerates this phenomenon. Relying on a panel of 146 developed, emerging, and developing countries over the 1974-2019 period, we show that fixed exchange rate regimes have had a negative, significant, and robust effect on the size of the manufacturing sector —developing countries being the most affected by the industrial cost of such a regime. Additional gravity model regressions show that the impact of fixed regimes passes through the trade channel. In particular, this regime has kept countries with low relative productivity in a state of structural dependence on imports of manufactured products to the detriment of the emergence of a strong local manufacturing sector.
Topic:
Developing World, Manufacturing, Industrialization, Deindustrialization, Exchange Rates, and Emerging Economies
Political Geography:
Global Focus

2. Misconceptions about US Trade Deficits Muddy the Economic Policy Debate

Author:
Maurice Obstfeld
Publication Date:
08-2024
Content Type:
Policy Brief
Institution:
Peterson Institute for International Economics (PIIE)
Abstract:
The distrust of openness to the global economy shared by Republican and Democratic leadership derives in part from a faulty premise that persistent US trade deficits have been imposed on the United States by foreign countries and have contributed significantly to US deindustrialization. In fact, the deficits have important domestic sources, and the main drivers of US manufacturing employment decline lie elsewhere. Two theories that blame foreign countries for deficits hold that deficits arose from unfair competition by trade partners or from a “global savings glut.” The author says the first theory is wrong, the second is incomplete, and economic isolationism is not a solution. Trade and current account deficits result generally from an economy’s collective decisions to save and invest. Freer trade does not necessarily raise investment more than saving, and an investment-driven deficit is likely positive for the economy. The years 1998–2001 during and after the Asian financial crisis led to the dollar appreciating and a rise in the US deficit, consistent with the global saving glut theory. But subsequently in the 2000s, foreign capital was not pushed into the United States from abroad; rather it was pulled and the dollar depreciated. The causes were easy financial conditions, a housing bubble, and strong US consumption—trends that ended in a financial crisis. Understanding this history is essential if the United States is to avoid destructive protectionism and other harmful economic policies.
Topic:
Economy, Economic Policy, Free Trade, Trade Deficit, and Deindustrialization
Political Geography:
North America and United States of America