Dollar Liquidity, Financial Vulnerability and Monetary Sovereignty

IF 3 2区 社会学 Q1 DEVELOPMENT STUDIES
Rob Calvert Jump, Jo Michell
{"title":"Dollar Liquidity, Financial Vulnerability and Monetary Sovereignty","authors":"Rob Calvert Jump,&nbsp;Jo Michell","doi":"10.1111/dech.12799","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Periods of dollar-led global monetary tightening generate negative effects in many lower- and middle-income countries. The tightening cycle which commenced in early 2022 has exacerbated the financial dislocation experienced by countries including Zambia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. How can policy makers protect their economies from such external shocks and foster a stable developmental environment? Some recent contributions argue that the capacity of countries to insulate domestic policy from global financial conditions depends upon ‘monetary sovereignty’. This contribution argues that this misrepresents the constraints to macroeconomic policy and development strategy. Monetary sovereignty, if narrowly defined, is necessary but not sufficient for domestic policy autonomy. Stronger definitions impose unrealistic requirements on debt denomination and exchange rate regimes. The authors argue that, outside of currency unions, the main policy constraints for developing countries are limited domestic productive capacity and integration into global trade and financial networks rather than monetary arrangements. The discussion is illustrated with an empirical examination of three recent episodes of global illiquidity and/or policy tightening: the 2013 taper tantrum, the March 2020 liquidity shock and the 2022 dollar tightening cycle. The authors find evidence that monetary sovereignty does not insulate a country from episodes of dollar illiquidity. While ‘fundamentals’ such as current account deficits and foreign exchange reserves provide limited power in identifying vulnerability, measures of financial depth and activity do appear related to vulnerability.</p>","PeriodicalId":48194,"journal":{"name":"Development and Change","volume":"54 5","pages":"1087-1113"},"PeriodicalIF":3.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-10-16","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1111/dech.12799","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Development and Change","FirstCategoryId":"90","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/dech.12799","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"社会学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"DEVELOPMENT STUDIES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Periods of dollar-led global monetary tightening generate negative effects in many lower- and middle-income countries. The tightening cycle which commenced in early 2022 has exacerbated the financial dislocation experienced by countries including Zambia, Sri Lanka and Pakistan. How can policy makers protect their economies from such external shocks and foster a stable developmental environment? Some recent contributions argue that the capacity of countries to insulate domestic policy from global financial conditions depends upon ‘monetary sovereignty’. This contribution argues that this misrepresents the constraints to macroeconomic policy and development strategy. Monetary sovereignty, if narrowly defined, is necessary but not sufficient for domestic policy autonomy. Stronger definitions impose unrealistic requirements on debt denomination and exchange rate regimes. The authors argue that, outside of currency unions, the main policy constraints for developing countries are limited domestic productive capacity and integration into global trade and financial networks rather than monetary arrangements. The discussion is illustrated with an empirical examination of three recent episodes of global illiquidity and/or policy tightening: the 2013 taper tantrum, the March 2020 liquidity shock and the 2022 dollar tightening cycle. The authors find evidence that monetary sovereignty does not insulate a country from episodes of dollar illiquidity. While ‘fundamentals’ such as current account deficits and foreign exchange reserves provide limited power in identifying vulnerability, measures of financial depth and activity do appear related to vulnerability.

Abstract Image

美元流动性、金融脆弱性和货币主权
美元主导的全球货币紧缩时期对许多低收入和中等收入国家产生了负面影响。始于2022年初的紧缩周期加剧了赞比亚、斯里兰卡和巴基斯坦等国所经历的金融混乱。政策制定者如何保护本国经济免受此类外部冲击并营造稳定的发展环境?最近的一些贡献认为,各国将国内政策与全球金融状况隔离开来的能力取决于“货币主权”。这篇文章认为,这歪曲了宏观经济政策和发展战略的制约因素。狭义的货币主权是必要的,但不足以实现国内政策自主。更强的定义对债务计价和汇率制度提出了不切实际的要求。作者认为,在货币联盟之外,发展中国家的主要政策限制是有限的国内生产能力和融入全球贸易和金融网络,而不是货币安排。本文通过对最近三次全球流动性不足和/或政策收紧事件的实证研究来说明这一讨论:2013年的“缩减恐慌”(taper tantrum)、2020年3月的流动性冲击和2022年的美元紧缩周期。作者找到证据表明,货币主权并不能使一个国家免受美元流动性不足的影响。虽然经常账户赤字和外汇储备等“基本面因素”在识别脆弱性方面的作用有限,但金融深度和金融活动的指标似乎确实与脆弱性有关。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Development and Change
Development and Change DEVELOPMENT STUDIES-
CiteScore
6.80
自引率
3.30%
发文量
46
期刊介绍: Development and Change is essential reading for anyone interested in development studies and social change. It publishes articles from a wide range of authors, both well-established specialists and young scholars, and is an important resource for: - social science faculties and research institutions - international development agencies and NGOs - graduate teachers and researchers - all those with a serious interest in the dynamics of development, from reflective activists to analytical practitioners
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信