출처: Giancarlo Gandolfo, International finance and open-economy macroeconomics (Springer, 2002)
자료: 구글도서
※ 발췌 (excerpts):
8.6 The Transfer Problem
Let us consider a two-country world, and suppose that country 1 makes a transfer of funds to country 2. The reason why we treat it here is that it has many connections with multiplier analysis.
The transfer traditionally considered consists of war reparations and, in fact, although the transfer problem had already been studied in remote times, the culmination of the debate was in relation to the war reparations that Germany had to pay after World War I to the victors. Noteworthy is the debate that was carried out between Keynes (1929) and Ohlin (1929) over the effects of such payments.
Keynes argued that the transferor would undergo a balance-of-payments deficits and, consequently, a deterioration in terms of trade to eliminate it. Ohlin, on the contrary, pointed out that the payer's terms of trade would not need to deteriorate if the recipient spent the transfer on the payer's goods.
Before going on, it is important to point out that all kinds of transfer fall under this topic: not only war reparations, but also donations, long-term capital movement (direct investment, portfolio investment, international loans, etc.). Although donations and war reparations are ^unilateral^ transfers whilst capital movements are ^bilateral^ ones (see Sect. 5.1), in the current period both types of transaction give rise to the transfer of purchasing power from one country to another. It has therefore been correctly noted that an abrupt increase (by a cartel producers) in the price of an output not not substitutable in the short term (and so having a rigid short-term demand), such as for example oil, also give rise to a transfer, from the importing o the producing countries.
Thus, in general, a transfer takes place whenever there is an international movement of funds temporarily (for example, the case of a loan, which will subsequently be repaid) or definitively (for example, the case of war reparations) without any ^quid pro quo^. In case of loan, of course, the ^quid pro quo^ exists in the form of an increase in the stock of indebtedness etc. written in the books, but we are looking at the ^actual flow^ of purchasing power. It goes without saying that, when a loan is granted, there is a transfer of funds in one direction, and when the loan is repaid, a transfer in the opposite direction will take place; in the case of a gradual repayment there will be a series of transfers. One can use a similar argument in the case of the subsequent disinvestment of funds transferred for direct or portfolio investment purposes.
Besides the ^financial^ aspect of the transfer, we must also consider its ^real^ effects, that is the movement of goods between country 1 and 2 induced by the movement of funds. The ^transfer problem^ consists in ascertaining whether, account being taken of all the secondary effects induced by the transfer, the balance of payments of the transferor (country 1) improves by a sufficient amount to "effect" the transfer. To be precise, three cases are possible in theory:
From this point of view it has been stated that ^the transfer problem can be considered as the "inversion" of the balance-of-payments problem^, since any actual balance-of-payments disequilibrium involves a real transfer from the surplus to the deficit country. Therefore, the problem of rectifying balance-of-payments disequilibria can be framed as the problem of creating either a real transfer of equal amount in the opposite direction (i.e. from the deficit to the surplus country) or a financial transfer from the surplus to the deficit country.
All this is undoubtedly true in the traditional context, in which the focus of the analysis is the current account. In this context the only way of effecting the initial transfer of funds is to achieve a trade surplus (i.e. to make a real transfer) and, inversely, a deficit country, by receiving (in value) more goods than it releases, receives a real transfer. Bus as soon as one consider the overal balance of payments which includes capital movements, none of the above statements is necessarily true. The initial transfer of funds can also be effected by way of a capital flow determined by an increase in the interest rate ( ... pp. 112-113 unavailable ... )
p. 114
( ... ... ) (4) induced changes in imports, u1Δy1 and u2Δy2.
Let us then introduce the following relations:
ΔC(01)＝－b1'T, ΔC(02)＝b2'T,
ΔI(01)＝－h1'T, ΔI(02)＝h2'T,
Δm(01)＝－u1'T, Δm(02)＝u2'T,
where ΔC(01), ΔI(01), Δm(01) denote the changes, concomitant to the transfer, in the exogenous components of country 1's expenditure functions, and b1', h1', u1' are coefficients that relates these exogenous changes to the transfer (the minus sign indicates that these changes are negative, since country 1 is the transferor). The primes are used to distinguish them from the "normal" marginal propensities referring to the induced changes depending on "ordinary" changes in income. Similar considerations hold for country 2, the transferee.
If we examine country 1's balance of payments we see that
ΔB1＝－T＋(Δm(02)－Δm(01))－u1Δy1＋u2Δy2, (8.29)
which are the effects mentioned in points (1), (2), (4), in the order. Note that Δm(01), Δm(02) come from (8.28) while Δy1, Δy2 come from the multiplier with foreign repercussions (the effect under (3) above).
The net result of all these effects can be determined only through a formal mathematical analysis (see Appendix), but it is easy to understand that all will depend on the various propensities (to spend on domestic good and on imports) as well as on the size of the transfer-induced changes in the autonomous components of expenditure (determined by the primed coefficients).
Hence call cases are possible, though the case of undereffectuation is more likely. Paradoxically again, the Keynes in his debate with Ohlin is validated through an application by other authors of his later multiplier theory.
If the transfers is undereffected, thenㅡin the context of the traditional theoryㅡa deterioration of the terms of trade of the transferor will have to take place so as to effect the residual adjustment. Hence the conclusions are qualitatively similar to those of the classical theory.
8.6.3 Observations and Qualifications
The traditional opinion (whether classical or multiplier) represents a simplification because it amounts to saying that the effectuation of the transfer can be separated into two phases. The first consists of ascertaining whether the transfer is effected, by applying the chosen model (either the classical or the Keynesian). If it is not, there will remain a balance-of-payments disequilibrium, which must be corrected by some adjustment process (second phase). This process is a change in the terms of trade (according to the classical theory), or some other adjustment process (excluding, of course, the multiplier mechanism which has already worked itself out in the first phase of the Keynesian approach).
But, more rigorously, the transfer problem ought to be tackled from the very beginning in the context of the adjustment process chosen for the second phase in the two-stage traditional approach (note that this phase is not only possible but very likely, since the conditions for the transfer to be effected are unlikely to occur).
This approach does not present any special difficulty, because the ^transfer problem can be examined as any comparative-static problem in the context of the model chosen^. It excludes, however, the possibility of enunciating a ^general theory^ of the transfer, as the traditional approach (whether classical or Keynesian) proposed to do. In fact, different comparative-static results and so different conditions for the transfer to be effected will prevail according as one or the other model is used. We shall give examples in the following chapters (see Sects, 9.1.3 and 10.2.3.1).
- (a) Country 1's balance of trade improves by less than (the absolute amount of) transfer. In this case the transfer is said to be ^undereffected^, and country 1's current account balance worsens.
- (b) Country 1's trade balance imporves by an amount exactly equal to the transfer. In this case the transfer is said to be ^effected^, and country 1's current account does not change.
- (c) Country 1's trade balance improves by more than the transfer, which is then said to be ^overeffected^; country 1's current account improves.
From this point of view it has been stated that ^the transfer problem can be considered as the "inversion" of the balance-of-payments problem^, since any actual balance-of-payments disequilibrium involves a real transfer from the surplus to the deficit country. Therefore, the problem of rectifying balance-of-payments disequilibria can be framed as the problem of creating either a real transfer of equal amount in the opposite direction (i.e. from the deficit to the surplus country) or a financial transfer from the surplus to the deficit country.
All this is undoubtedly true in the traditional context, in which the focus of the analysis is the current account. In this context the only way of effecting the initial transfer of funds is to achieve a trade surplus (i.e. to make a real transfer) and, inversely, a deficit country, by receiving (in value) more goods than it releases, receives a real transfer. Bus as soon as one consider the overal balance of payments which includes capital movements, none of the above statements is necessarily true. The initial transfer of funds can also be effected by way of a capital flow determined by an increase in the interest rate ( ... pp. 112-113 unavailable ... )
p. 114
( ... ... ) (4) induced changes in imports, u1Δy1 and u2Δy2.
Let us then introduce the following relations:
ΔC(01)＝－b1'T, ΔC(02)＝b2'T,
ΔI(01)＝－h1'T, ΔI(02)＝h2'T,
Δm(01)＝－u1'T, Δm(02)＝u2'T,
where ΔC(01), ΔI(01), Δm(01) denote the changes, concomitant to the transfer, in the exogenous components of country 1's expenditure functions, and b1', h1', u1' are coefficients that relates these exogenous changes to the transfer (the minus sign indicates that these changes are negative, since country 1 is the transferor). The primes are used to distinguish them from the "normal" marginal propensities referring to the induced changes depending on "ordinary" changes in income. Similar considerations hold for country 2, the transferee.
If we examine country 1's balance of payments we see that
ΔB1＝－T＋(Δm(02)－Δm(01))－u1Δy1＋u2Δy2, (8.29)
which are the effects mentioned in points (1), (2), (4), in the order. Note that Δm(01), Δm(02) come from (8.28) while Δy1, Δy2 come from the multiplier with foreign repercussions (the effect under (3) above).
The net result of all these effects can be determined only through a formal mathematical analysis (see Appendix), but it is easy to understand that all will depend on the various propensities (to spend on domestic good and on imports) as well as on the size of the transfer-induced changes in the autonomous components of expenditure (determined by the primed coefficients).
Hence call cases are possible, though the case of undereffectuation is more likely. Paradoxically again, the Keynes in his debate with Ohlin is validated through an application by other authors of his later multiplier theory.
If the transfers is undereffected, thenㅡin the context of the traditional theoryㅡa deterioration of the terms of trade of the transferor will have to take place so as to effect the residual adjustment. Hence the conclusions are qualitatively similar to those of the classical theory.
8.6.3 Observations and Qualifications
The traditional opinion (whether classical or multiplier) represents a simplification because it amounts to saying that the effectuation of the transfer can be separated into two phases. The first consists of ascertaining whether the transfer is effected, by applying the chosen model (either the classical or the Keynesian). If it is not, there will remain a balance-of-payments disequilibrium, which must be corrected by some adjustment process (second phase). This process is a change in the terms of trade (according to the classical theory), or some other adjustment process (excluding, of course, the multiplier mechanism which has already worked itself out in the first phase of the Keynesian approach).
But, more rigorously, the transfer problem ought to be tackled from the very beginning in the context of the adjustment process chosen for the second phase in the two-stage traditional approach (note that this phase is not only possible but very likely, since the conditions for the transfer to be effected are unlikely to occur).
This approach does not present any special difficulty, because the ^transfer problem can be examined as any comparative-static problem in the context of the model chosen^. It excludes, however, the possibility of enunciating a ^general theory^ of the transfer, as the traditional approach (whether classical or Keynesian) proposed to do. In fact, different comparative-static results and so different conditions for the transfer to be effected will prevail according as one or the other model is used. We shall give examples in the following chapters (see Sects, 9.1.3 and 10.2.3.1).
글
댓글 없음:
댓글 쓰기