Tests of Structural Break
DF1 DF2 Y EX RP RM KY CY
Indonesia 8 37 0.38 19.6** 9.74** 2.29+ 112** 3.13*
0.42 18.7** 5.52** 2.27+ 101** 4.22*
Korea 13a 46a 0.72 61.5** 4.38** 4.47** 10.1** 4.15**
2.07+ 13.8** 3.88** 3.85** 7.88** 2.72*
Malaysia 11 84 1.07 11.9** 0.23 1.11 0.89 2.34+
1.47 5.71** 0.21 1.47 1.05 2.45+
Philippines 11a 30a 9.83** 3.20* 5.14** 0.96 4.34** 1.20*
11.4** 2.72* 2.89* 0.84* 4.26* 1.51 Singapore 10 83 0.72 4.26** 0.12 4.89** 1.74 1.61
1.11 2.92* 0.42 4.01* 1.55 1.84
Taiwan 13 42 1.20 3.95* 1.04 0.59 0.99 0.67
1.29 1.00 1.06 1.23 0.99 0.61 Thailand 12 64 0.78 14.0** 2.18* 1.54 5.15** 2.95*
1.63 5.14** 2.59* 1.60 6.68** 3.38*
Chile 13 61b 0.74 0.39 0.51 1.30 0.16 0.11
Mexico 12 49 0.56 0.50 0.43 0.48 0.38 0.50
Note: Reported are the F-statistics for the Chow predictive tests. DF1 and DF2 are the degrees of freedom for the numerator and the denominator. ‘a’ denotes that the degrees of freedom for KY and CY (and also DF2 of RM for the Philippines) are lower by 1. In case of Chile (‘b’ ), the degree of freedom is 60 for RM and KY. ‘+’, ‘*’ and ‘**’ denote significance at the 10, 5 , and 1 percent level, respectively.
References
Bahmani-Oskooee, Mohsen. Are Devaluations Contractionary in LDCs? Journal of Economic Development. Vol. 23 (1). p 131-44. June 1998.
Buffie, Edward F. 1989. Imported inputs, real wage rigidity and devaluation in the small open economy. European Economic Review. 33(7): 1345-61.
Calvo, G., Vegh, C.A., 1993. Exchange rate based stabilization under imperfect credibility. In:
Frisch H., Worgotter, A. (Eds.), Open Economic Macroeconomics. MacMillan, London, pp. 3-28.
Calvo, Guillermo, Leonardo Leiderman, and Carmen M. Reinhart, “Capital Inflows and Real Exchange Rate Appreciation in Latin America,” IMF Staff Papers 40 (March 1993), 108-151.
Cooper, Richard, “Currency Depreciation in Developing Countries,” Princeton Essays in International Finance 86 (1971).
Corsetti, G., P. Pesenti, and N. Roubini, “What Caused the Asian Currency and Financial Crisis?” Japan and the World Economy 11 (1999), 305-373.
Diaz-Alejandro, C.F., 1963. A note on the impact of devaluation and the redistributive effects, Journal of Political Economy 71. 577-580.
Domac, Ilker. Are Devaluations Contractionary? Evidence from Turkey. Journal of Economic Development. Vol. 22 (2). p 145-63. December 1997.
Dornbusch, R. and Y. C. Park, “Flexibility or Nominal Anchor?” in Stefan Collignon, Jean Pisani-Ferry and Yung Chul Park (eds), Exchange Rate Policies in Emerging Asian Countries (London: Routledge, 1999), 3-34.
Edwards, Sebastian, “Are Devaluations Contractionary?” Review of Economics and Statistics 68 (1986), 501-508.
_____, Real Exchange Rates, Devaluation, and Adjustment (MIT Press: Cambridge, MA, 1989)
Eichengreen, Barry and Jeffrey Sachs, “Exchange Rates and Economic Recovery in the 1930s,” Journal of Economic History 44 (December 1985), 925-946.
Findlay, Roland and Carlos Alfredo, Rodriguez (1977). “Intermediated imports and macroeconomic policy under flexible exchange rates. Canadian Journal of Economics 10(2):208-17.
Frankel, J. A. “Ambiguous Policy Multipliers in Theory and in Empirical Models,” Ralph C.
Bryant, et al. (eds.) Empirical Macroeconomics for Interdependent Economies (Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 1988), 17-26.
Frankel, J. A. and A. Rose, “Fixing Exchange Rates: A Virtual Quest for Fundamentals,”
Journal of Monetary Economics 36 (1995), 3-37.
Goldstein, Morris, and Mohsin S. Khan, “Income and Price Effects in Foreign Trade,” in Handbook of International Economics, Vol. II, edited by Ronald W. Jones and Peter B.
Kenen (Amsterdam: North-Holland, 1985), 1041-1105.
Gordon, Robert J. “The Aftermath of the 1992 ERM Breakup: Was There a Macroeconomic FreeLunch?” P. Krugman, (ed.) Currency Crises (Chicago: National Bureau of Economic Research, 2000).
Gylfasson, T. and O. Risager, “Does Devaluation Improve the Current Account?” European Economic Review 25 (1984), 37-64.
Gylfasson, T. and M. Schmid, “Does Devaluation Cause Stagflation?” Canadian Journal of Economics 16 (1983), 641-654.
Hallett, A J Hughes; Wren-Lewis, S. Is There Life Outside the ERM? An Evaluation of the Effects of Sterling's Devaluation on the UK Economy. International Journal of Finance &
Economics. Vol. 2 (3). p 199-216. July 1997.
Hoffmaister, A.W., Vegh, C., 1996. Disinflation and the recession-now-versus-recession-later hypothesis: evidence from Uruguay. IMF Staff Papers 43, 355-394.
Kamas, Linda. Devaluation, National Output and the Trade Balance: Some Evidence from Colombia. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv-Review of World Economics. Vol. 128 (3). 425-45.
1992.
Kamin, Stevel B and John Rogers H. 2000. Output and the real exchange rate in developing countries: an application to Mexico. Journal of Development Economics. 61(1): 85-109.
Kamin, Steven B; Klau, Marc. Some Multi-Country Evidence on the Effects of Real Exchange Rates on Output. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, International Finance Discussion Papers: 611. p 18. May 1998.
Kiguel, M. and N. Liviathan. “The Business Cycle Associated with Exchange Rate Based Stabilization.” World Bank Economic Review 6 (1992), 279-305.
Krugman, P. “Balance Sheets, the Trasnsfer Problem, and Financial Crises,” unpublished (January 1999), MIT.
Krugman, P., and L. Taylor, “Contractionary Effects of Devaluation,” Journal of International Economics 8 (August 1978), 445-456.
Kwan, C. H., Economic Interdependence in the Asia-Pacific Region (London: Routledge, 1994).
Lizondo, S. and Montiel, P.J., 1989, Contractionary devaluation in developing countries: an analytical overview. IMF Staff Papers 36, 182-227.
Marston, R. C. (1982) “Wages, relative prices and the choice between fixed and flexible exchange rates” Canadian Journal of Economics 15(1): 87-103.
McKinnon, Ronald I. “After the Crisis, the East Asian Dollar Standard Resurrected: An Interpretation of High-Frequency Exchange Rate Pegging,” Department of Economics, Stanford University, (August 2000).
Morley, Samuel A. 1997. On the effect of devaluation during stabilization programs in LDCs.
Review of Economic & Statistics. 74(1): 21-27.
Obsteld, M. and K. Rogoff, “The Mirage of Fixed Exchange Rates,” Journal of Economic Perspectives 9 (Fall 1995), 73-96,
Reinhart, C. M. “The Mirage of Floating Exchange Rates,” American Economic Review 20 (May 2000)
Rogers, J.H., Wang, P., 1995. Output, inflation, and stabilization in a small open economy:
evidence from Mexico. Journal of Development Economics 46, 271-293.
Sachs, Jeffery. (1980) “Wages, flexible exchange rates, and macroeconomic policy”
Quarterly Journal of Economics 94(4):731-47.
Schnedier, Martin and Aaron Tornell, “Balance Sheet Effects, Bailout Guarantee and Financial Crises,” NBER Working Paper 8060 (December 2000).
Solimano, A. “Contractionary Devaluation in the Southern Cone: The Case of Chile,” Journal of Development Economics 23 (September 1986), 135-151.
Upadhyaya, Kamal P., “Currency devaluation, aggregate output, and the long run: an empirical study,” Economics Letters 64 (1999), 197-202.
Williamson, J. “The Case for a Common Basket Peg for East Asian Currencies?” in Stefan Collignon, Jean Pisani-Ferry and Yung Chul Park (eds), Exchange Rate Policies in Emerging Asian Countries (London: Routledge, 1999), 327-343.
Williamson, J. Exchange Rate Regimes for Emerging Markets: Reviving the Intermediate Option (Washington D.C.: Institute for International Economics, 2000)
Table 1: Unit Root and Cointegration Tests
YD RX EX RP RM KY CY CI2 CI3 CI5
Indonesia -2.56 -1.18 -2.25 -0.74 -1.84 -2.82 -1.25 -1.76 -3.46 -4.28 Korea -2.48 -1.80 -2.53 -3.04 -1.16 -2.79 -2.77 -1.49 -4.03 -4.14 Malaysia -2.91 -0.35 -2.27 -0.56 -1.67 -2.58 -3.78 -3.27 -2.19 -3.81 Philippines -1.93 -2.64 -2.53 -2.93 -0.11 -1.68 -0.98 -0.88 -2.76 -2.31 Singapore -3.30 -2.00 -2.98 -2.51 -2.68 -1.02 -1.26 -2.79 -3.53 -3.53 Taiwan -1.70 -2.07 -1.67 -2.17 -1.49 -1.90 -1.59 -1.12 -2.93 -2.88 Thailand -2.18 -1.74 -0.75 -2.01 -0.13 -1.77 -3.17 -2.32 -2.30 -3.53 Chile -5.08 -2.26 -3.26 -0.04 -2.94 -3.27 -2.99 -1.72 -3.50 -1.48 Mexico -3.12 -3.29 -2.46 -2.01 -2.57 -2.26 -2.14 0.49 -3.31 -2.91 Note: Reported are Augmented Dickey Fuller unit-root tests with 4 lags. CI2 and CI3 are cointegration tests with (YD, RX) and {YD, RX, YF}, respectively. CI5 is an expanded model with {YD, RX, YF, KY, RM}. For the real and nominal exchange rates, the effective exchange rate is used for the East Asian countries and the bilateral US dollar rate for Chile and Mexico.
Table 2: Cross Correlations
USD - WP USD - PC EER - WP EER - PC lag LT DIF HP LT DIF HP LT DIF HP LT DIF HP
Indonesia 4 -.34 .01 -.26 -.07 .00 -.04 -.28 -.00 -.31 -.12 -.09 -.16
0 -28 .08 .15 -.35 .12 .01 -.22 .08 .14 -.29 .08 .02 -4 -.28 -.02 -.01 -.46 -.07 -.10 -.34 -.08 -.05 -.48 -.20 -.16
Korea 4 .02 .13 .05 .52 .25 .05 .34 .14 .28 .64 .09 .33
0 -.43 -.33 -.67 .16 .01 -.45 -.09 -.19 -.35 .44 .11 -.04 -4 -.48 .01 -.12 -.16 -.13 -.50 -.25 .05 -.24 .01 -.01 -.52
Malaysia 4 -.12 -.06 -.18 -.03 -.01 -.10 .14 .03 -.02 .22 .07 .04
0 -.21 .00 -.33 -.18 .09 -.29 -.04 .06 -.25 -.00 .03 -.22 -4 -.10 .16 .12 -.23 .21 -.02 -.08 .05 -.08 -.11 .06 -.15
Philippines 4 .19 .14 .14 .43 .25 .32 .48 .15 .29 .43 .24 .40
0 -.05 .01 -.03 .24 -.03 .01 .20 .03 -.04 .24 .03 -.02 -4 -.30 -.19 -.35 -.11 -.25 -.48 -.15 -.22 -.54 -.19 -.25 -.60
Singapore 4 -.17 .09 .28 -.20 .10 .28 .24 .20 .55 .18 .22 .55
0 -.49 .01 -.15 -.48 .03 -.12 -.18 .16 .08 -.21 .18 .08 -4 -.56 -.30 -.49 -.56 -.30 -.51 -.59 -.36 -.64 -.63 -.34 -.64
Taiwan 4 -.51 .01 -.02 -.07 .08 .05 -.03 .11 .37 .28 .13 .42
0 -.79 -.14 -.50 -.61 -.16 -.59 -.38 -.08 -.06 -.07 -.07 -.04 -4 -.75 .01 -.13 -.62 .06 -.23 -.56 -.09 -.29 -.39 -.09 -.32
Thailand 4 -.39 -.21 -.26 -.33 -.11 -.28 .20 -.11 .06 .25 -.00 .13
0 -.66 -.19 -.45 -.57 -.13 -.31 -.16 -.19 -.28 -.05 -.15 -.21 -4 -.67 -.07 -.11 -.74 -.09 -.25 -.40 -.10 -.35 -.39 -.09 -.51
Chile 4 -.36 -.02 -.19 -.37 -.03 -.19 -.28 -.01 -.14 -.27 -.02 -.14
0 -.71 -.01 -.44 -.73 -.01 -.45 -.63 -.01 -.43 -.63 -.01 -.43 -4 -.40 -.03 -.03 -.38 -.04 -.03 -.32 -.04 -.08 -.29 -.04 -.08
Mexico 4 -.27 -.05 -.20 -.35 -.04 -.21
0 -.66 -.20 -.58 -.76 -.21 -.59 -4 -.10 .07 .11 -.16 .07 .12
Note: Reported are the cross correlations of real exchange rate and detrended real income and at lag k. A positive (negative) lag represents the number of quarters by which the real
exchange rate leads (lags) real income. USD refers to the case where the US is considered as the foreign country. For EER, the simple geometric average of the US and Japan (the US, Japan, and Germany) is used as the foreign country in East Asian countries (Chile).
Table 3: Granger Causality Tests
Whole Period - US dollar Pre-crisis - EER
LT DIF HP LT DIF HP
Indonesia A 4.09 (0.01) 1.72 (0.16) 3.56 (0.01) 0.15 (0.96) 0.34 (0.85) 0.52 (0.72) B 0.88 (0.48) 0.37 (0.83) 0.18 (0.94) 1.10 (0.37) 0.94 (0.45) 0.61 (0.66)
Korea A 7.27 (0.00) 5.15 (0.00) 5.68 (0.00) 1.25 (0.30) 2.47 (0.06) 0.90 (0.47) B 0.79 (0.54) 0.12 (0.98) 0.23 (0.92) 2.21 (0.08) 1.44 (0.24) 4.50 (0.00)
Malaysia A 3.12 (0.02) 3.11 (0.12) 3.34 (0.01) 0.71 (0.59) 0.33 (0.85) 1.41 (0.24) B 0.32 (0.86) 0.84 (0.50) 0.62 (0.65) 1.34 (0.26) 0.86 (0.49) 2.07 (0.09)
Philippines A 0.34 (0.85) 0.52 (0.72) 0.26 (0.90) 1.98 (0.12) 1.63 (0.19) 2.43 (0.06) B 1.20 (0.32) 0.71 (0.59) 1.09 (0.37) 2.36 (0.07) 2.14 (0.09) 2.77 (0.04)
Singapore A 2.08 (0.09) 1.97 (0.10) 4.60 (0.00) 2.39 (0.06) 2.96 (0.02) 5.14 (0.00) B 2.13 (0.08) 3.00 (0.02) 2.64 (0.04) 5.36 (0.00) 4.16 (0.00) 8.93 (0.00)
Taiwan A 1.47 (0.22) 0.80 (0.53) 1.22 (0.31) 2.49 (0.06) 3.26 (0.02) 3.68 (0.01) B 2.72 (0.04) 1.53 (0.21) 0.86 (0.50) 0.83 (0.51) 1.44 (0.24) 0.59 (0.67)
Thailand A 1.88 (0.12) 4.42 (0.00) 3.35 (0.01) 6.12 (0.00) 1.47 (0.22) 1.56 (0.20) B 4.48 (0.00) 0.65 (0.63) 1.10 (0.36) 0.90 (0.47) 0.37 (0.83) 1.03 (0.40)
Chile A 2.62 (0.04) 3.10 (0.02) 2.78 (0.03) 6.00 (0.00) 3.21 (0.02) 5.22 (0.00) B 1.42 (0.23) 1.01 (0.41) 2.35 (0.06) 1.68 (0.16) 1.08 (0.37) 3.03 (0.02)
Mexico A 5.72 (0.00) 7.22 (0.00) 6.51 (0.00) 4.85 (0.00) 5.84 (0.00) 5.29 (0.00) B 0.36 (0.83) 0.50 (0.74) 0.34 (0.85) 0.42 (0.80) 0.52 (0.72) 0.24 (0.91)
Note: Reported are F-statistics with P values inside the parentheses. Row A tests the
hypothesis that the real exchange rate Granger causes real income. Row B tests the hypothesis that real income Granger causes the real exchange rate. For Chile and Mexico, the US dollar exchange rate is used in place of the effective rate.
Table 4: Variance Decomposition (Whole period, US dollar)
UKY UYD URP URM UCY UEX
(4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12) Indonesia
YD 2.1 23.9 89.8 54.7 3.6 7.1 2.1 4.2 1.2 4.6 1.2 5.5
RP 77.2 68.7 0.6 5.4 12.4 11.7 0.5 1.9 2.5 2.6 6.8 9.6
EX 58.8 47.2 1.1 2.7 10.2 20.4 2.8 6.6 12.0 9.3 15.1 13.8
Korea
YD 41.3 45.6 36.2 25.0 4.5 7.3 10.4 11.3 1.8 4.0 5.8 6.7
RP 8.0 9.4 2.6 2.4 60.0 51.2 4.3 9.5 18.6 20.8 6.8 6.7
EX 62.2 58.1 1.4 1.8 6.5 6.8 6.4 6.6 4.0 6.5 19.5 20.2
Malaysia
YD 1.5 1.9 83.3 62.7 0.6 1.0 0.9 1.2 1.0 1.8 12.7 32.4
RP 14.1 14.4 0.5 1.2 76.9 68.8 3.5 9.1 0.3 1.3 4.6 5.2
EX 0.3 0.6 1.6 2.1 2.8 4.2 3.2 3.3 0.6 0.9 91.6 88.8
Philippines
YD 2.1 4.6 65.1 60.2 4.4 10.1 7.7 6.3 5.8 8.5 15.0 10.3
RP 6.1 6.5 12.8 11.1 60.4 54.6 15.0 15.2 3.7 6.2 3.7 6.5 EX 27.1 24.1 2.1 12.7 16.3 16.3 4.4 4.1 16.0 16.9 34.1 25.7 Singapore
YD 3.1 4.2 68.7 47.9 0.0 4.0 18.6 23.8 0.0 1.1 9.6 18.9
RP 2.1 3.0 2.3 11.5 85.8 64.3 5.4 15.8 1.5 1.4 2.9 4.1
EX 11.2 11.3 4.5 7.0 4.3 5.6 5.5 6.3 8.8 8.4 65.9 61.4
Taiwan
YD 1.6 2.9 80.3 54.9 7.5 8.3 3.3 17.6 4.0 7.8 3.3 8.4
RP 2.3 2.6 9.2 8.9 78.8 74.8 1.4 2.1 3.8 6.4 4.4 5.1
EX 2.2 4.6 9.4 10.1 10.4 10.6 7.6 8.0 7.8 12.0 62.7 53.7 Thailand
YD 20.5 33.3 67.5 48.0 1.5 2.4 0.1 2.6 1.1 3.9 9.3 9.7
RP 16.7 17.0 5.2 5.3 70.5 63.1 5.1 11.2 1.0 1.5 1.5 1.9
EX 45.0 41.8 1.0 1.7 3.4 4.2 2.5 7.9 8.8 9.4 39.4 35.0
Chile
YD 1.2 2.4 73.9 53.5 1.7 6.2 8.3 17.4 3.7 11.0 11.2 9.5
RP 2.5 2.9 2.0 4.1 52.4 47.2 2.1 4.3 5.3 5.8 35.7 35.7
EX 1.1 2.2 7.4 12.9 23.7 21.2 3.6 9.6 11.2 11.5 52.9 42.6 Mexico
YD 35.4 29.4 41.1 28.7 0.1 0.6 0.4 3.4 1.0 2.0 21.9 35.8
RP 25.1 17.4 2.1 2.2 19.7 12.7 1.3 1.2 9.9 7.0 41.9 59.5
EX 19.9 17.6 1.6 2.3 12.8 11.6 0.4 0.7 3.6 3.7 61.6 64.1
Table 5: Variance Decomposition (Pre-crisis, EER)
UKY UYD URP URM UCY UEX
(4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12) (4) (12)
Indonesia
YD 1.5 1.7 88.3 79.7 0.1 1.6 8.0 13.5 1.8 2.4 0.3 1.1
RP 3.4 3.5 15.5 23.4 68.7 53.1 4.6 5.0 4.7 10.0 3.0 5.0 EX 10.5 9.7 12.9 14.7 8.6 13.1 13.0 14.3 15.9 14.5 39.0 33.8 Korea
YD 2.0 5.8 79.6 70.7 0.5 1.9 6.0 6.9 5.6 7.5 6.4 7.2
RP 10.7 10.8 6.1 9.7 59.8 53.9 5.0 4.6 16.9 17.9 1.4 3.0
EX 5.2 8.3 17.6 31.3 2.9 4.2 3.3 7.6 2.9 2.5 68.0 46.0
Malaysia
YD 4.5 5.9 84.7 74.6 0.2 2.3 3.4 2.9 5.9 7.3 1.4 7.0
RP 14.4 14.2 1.6 1.8 75.8 70.9 4.4 6.3 0.2 1.4 3.5 5.5
EX 1.9 2.5 4.8 6.2 5.6 6.0 0.7 8.9 1.6 2.7 77.3 73.8
Philippines
YD 12.9 33.3 51.3 27.4 20.5 15.8 3.7 3.2 6.8 17.1 4.6 3.2 RP 5.3 12.1 44.8 24.0 33.8 38.5 6.9 7.0 1.0 12.9 8.3 5.5 EX 20.1 17.5 23.5 29.3 28.4 32.7 11.8 5.6 4.2 8.3 12.0 6.7 Singapore
YD 0.5 1.2 82.2 64.8 1.2 8.9 8.6 17.8 0.2 0.7 7.3 6.6
RP 1.2 2.7 1.3 6.8 88.2 72.1 2.2 10.2 6.4 5.6 0.6 2.6
EX 3.5 6.4 9.7 15.7 3.7 6.4 2.0 7.7 1.7 2.1 79.3 61.7
Taiwan
YD 1.4 6.0 64.8 41.1 0.8 8.3 8.4 18.4 0.7 2.2 24.0 24.0
RP 1.2 2.7 1.3 6.8 88.2 72.1 2.2 10.2 6.4 5.6 0.6 2.6
EX 3.5 6.4 9.7 15.7 3.7 6.4 2.0 7.7 1.7 2.1 79.3 61.7
Thailand
YD 1.2 1.5 91.9 81.4 1.3 3.5 1.4 3.9 1.0 1.8 3.1 7.9
RP 8.6 11.4 10.0 10.6 71.1 52.8 8.9 11.3 1.1 4.0 0.4 8.7
EX 2.1 3.5 4.3 5.8 2.5 3.2 0.6 1.3 3.4 4.4 87.1 81.8
Chile
YD 0.2 0.4 72.9 47.4 4.9 10.9 6.5 16.1 10.0 19.6 5.4 5.4
RP 0.7 1.1 1.6 3.2 55.7 50.4 3.4 5.5 8.0 7.7 30.6 31.9
EX 0.5 1.1 2.6 7.6 28.9 26.9 4.0 9.5 15.8 15.8 48.1 39.0
Mexico
YD 31.9 26.8 40.9 29.5 0.1 0.5 0.2 3.1 0.4 1.9 26.6 38.2
RP 25.4 18.5 3.7 6.7 16.5 10.8 1.6 1.6 12.9 9.4 40.0 53.1
EX 19.8 18.8 3.3 6.9 9.6 9.0 0.2 0.5 5.6 5.4 61.5 59.4
30
Figure 1: Real Exchange Rate and Output
Figure 2: Impulse Responses to Exchanger Rate Change (US Dollar + Whole Period) Indonesia
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
-0.40
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
-0.20
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
-0.125
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
-0.15
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
-0.15
1981 1983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999
-0.15
Figure 3: Impulse Responses to Exchange Rate Change (Effective Rate + Pre-crisis)
Note: The following definitions of lines applied in figure 2 and 3.
YIMP CAIMP