Exchange Rate Misalignment

Economists writing on flexible exchange rates in the 1960s foresaw neither the magnitude nor the persistence of the changes in real exchange rates that have occurred in the last fifteen years. Unexpectedly large movements in relative prices have lead to sharp changes in exports and imports, disrupting normal trading relations and causing shifts in employment and output. Many of the largest changes are not equilibrium adjustments to real disturbances but represent instead sustained departures from long-run equilibrium levels, with real exchange rates remaining "misaligned" for years at a time. Contributors to Misalignment of Exchange Rates address a series of questions about misalignment. Several papers investigate the causes of misalignment and the extent to which observed movements in real exchange rates can be attributed to misalignment. These studies are conducted both empirically, through the experiences of the United States, Great Britain, Japan, and the countries of the European Monetary System, and theoretically, through models of imperfect competition. Attention is then turned to the effects of misalignment, especially on employment and production, and to detailed estimates of the effects of changes in exchange rates on several industries, including the U.S. auto industry. In response to the contention that there is significant "hysteresis" in the adjustment of employment and production to changes in exchange rates, contributors also attempt to determine whether the effects of misalignment can be reversed once exchange rates return to earlier levels. Finally, the issue of how to avoid—or at least control—misalignment through macroeconomic policy is confronted.

The study cautiously identifies exchange rate misalignment as an important element in most of the exchange rate crises that plagued the developing world during the last decade. Given that the increasing integration of world capital markets, has escalated the costs of such crises, a broad consensus emerged in recent years, that the overriding objective of exchange rate policy in developing countries, should be to avoid episodes of prolonged, and substantial misalignment, i.e., situations in which the actual real exchange rate differs significantly from its long-run equilibrium value. It was the Bank's involvement in one such misalignment episode, that eventually led to this book. Following an overview on the concepts and measurement of exchange rate misalignment, its impact on the purchasing power parity, and the relationship between the external real exchange rate (RER), and the two-good internal RER for tradables non-tradables, the study presents methodologies - empirical applications - for estimating the RER equilibrium. The study reaches an optimistic conclusion - that enough is known to identify cases of misalignment, and be able to sound clear warning signals. The implication for exchange rate policy is that ignorance about the empirical value of the equilibrium exchange rate, cannot be used to clinch arguments for extreme exchange arrangements, such as clean floats, currency boards, and "dollarization."

This article analyzes the theory of equilibrium real exchange rates and defines misalignment as a deviation of the real exchange rate (RER) from its equilibrium level. The role of macroeconomic policies is then analyzed under three alternative nominal exchange rate regimes: predetermined nominal exchange rates; floating nominal rates; and dual or black market nominal exchange rates. This discussion points out how inconsistent macroeconomic policies often lead to real exchange rate misalignment. Corrective measures, including nominal devaluation and several alternative approaches, are then evaluated.

It is often argued that the parallel market premium is a useful indicator of real exchange rate misalignment in developing countries. The empirical evidence does not, however, suggest the existence of a robust correlation between these two endogenous variables that is independent of the nature of economic shocks and various structural relationships in the economy. This paper presents an analytical investigation of the reliability of the parallel market premium as an indicator of real exchange rate misalignment in the context of a fully optimizing model of a developing country. The analysis suggests that one should exercise caution in drawing inferences about the sign and magnitude of real exchange rate misalignment from the parallel market premium.

Botswana's successive currency devaluations and recent move from a fixed to a crawling peg exchange rate regime raise the question of whether the exchange rate might be misaligned with economic fundamentals. This paper, applying the behavioral equilibrium exchange rate (BEER) approach, analyzes the behavior of the real exchange rate for the period 1985-2004. It finds that the pula was undervalued in the later 1980s but overvalued in recent years. Some policy lessons from experiences in other countries with crawling peg arrangements are therefore considered in the context of Botswana.

We combine some newly developed panel co-integration techniques and common factor analysis to analyze the behavior of the real exchange rate (RER) in a sample of 64 developing countries. We study the dynamic of the RER with its economic fundamentals: productivity, the terms of trade, openness, and government spending. We derive a number of common factors that explain the dynamic of the RER in our sample. We find that while some fundamentals such as productivity, terms of trade, and openness are strongly related to these common factors in low-income countries, no such link is found for the middle-income countries. We also derive the misalignment indices, which seem to reproduce recent episodes of overvaluation and undervaluation in a number of countries.

Real exchange rate (RER) misalignment is now a standard concept in international macroeconomic theory and policy. However, there is neither a consensus indicator of misalignment, nor an agreed upon methodology for constructing such an indicator. This paper constructs an indicator of RER misalignment for a large sample of developed and developing countries. This indicator is based on a well-structured but simple extension of an IS-LM model of an open economy. The paper then uses regression analysis to explore whether RER misalignments are related to country growth experiences. Interestingly the work finds that there are important non-linearities in the relationship. Only very high over-valuations" appear to be associated with slower economic growth, while moderate to high (but not very high) under-valuations appear to be associated with more rapid economic growth.

Between 1990 and 2001 the Argentine peso appreciated by 80 percent in real terms, and its overvaluation has been singled out as one of the main suspects in the debate on the causes of the Argentina collapse of late 2001. This paper assesses the degree of real misalignment in Argentina over the Convertibility period using a model in which the equilibrium real exchange rate is defined as the value consistent with (i) a balance of payments position where any current account imbalance is financed by a sustainable flow of international capital (external equilibrium), and (ii) traded/nontraded sector productivity differentials (internal equilibrium). Empirical implementation of the model suggests that the initial real appreciation of the peso, between 1990 and 1993, was consistent with the productivity increases that Argentina enjoyed following the stabilization of the economy after the hyperinflation of the late 1980s. But after 1996 a widening gap opened between the observed real exchange rate and that consistent with a sustainable net foreign asset position. Our estimates indicate that in 2001 the peso was overvalued by over 50 percent. The model allows us to assess how much of the overvaluation resulted from Argentina's inadequate choice of anchor currency and how much from a divergence of fundamentals between the U.S. and Argentina, ultimately due to the maintenance of policies inconsistent with the peg. We find that both factors played a role in the overvaluation accumulated between 1977 and 2001 that preceded the collapse of the Convertibility regime.