Abstract
Globalization can potentially ease or firm up the foreign exchange constraint of a country. Considering a sample of 42 less developed countries and fixing an approximate date of globalization in 1991, we show that, at the aggregate level, the constraint has relaxed for them since the 1990s. After fixing the approximate dates of globalization for each country from the available literature and replicating the analysis at the country level, we found mixed results. Though the results are mixed, a general conclusion can be derived from the results: The foreign exchange constraint has relaxed due to globalization in upper-middle and lower-middle-income developing countries, while the opposite is true for low-income countries. Balance-of-payment accounting statistics show interesting correspondences. Merchandise exports and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) tend to have a high and positive correspondence with relaxing the burden of the constraint while Foreign Portfolio Investment (FPI) and efforts toward reduction of imports have no correspondence. Policy insights derived from the analysis suggest export diversification is important for improving current account balance.
… The problem for many developing countries is the deficiency of productive capacity and not the anomaly of its underutilization and … the availability of foreign exchange may become, under many circumstances, the principal factor limiting economic activity. Demand constraints do exist … but supply constraints generated either by the availability of capital or by the availability of foreign exchange are more important.
Stiglitz et al. (2006: 56)
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Similar content being viewed by others
Notes
- 1.
The literature dates back at least to the 1960s (Chenery and Bruno, 1962; Manne, 1963; McKinnon, 1964). Some more recent literature includes Porter and Ranney (1982), Moran (1989), Lensink (1995), Agenor and Monteil (2008), Stiglitzet et al. (2006), Maiti (1984), Snehadji (1998), MacKenzie and Ohndorf (2013), McKinnon (1964), Kohli (1978), Princová (2010), Panshak et al. (2020), Senbeta (2013), and Wyplosz (2007).
- 2.
Population greater than 1 million is arbitrarily chosen.
- 3.
- 4.
Q–A: Quand Andrews test, FER: foreign exchange reserve. Wald: Wald test.
- 5.
Q–A: Quand Andrews test, FER: foreign exchange reserve. Wald: Wald test.
- 6.
Q–A: Quand Andrews test, FER: foreign exchange reserve. Wald: Wald test.
- 7.
See Appendix 1 for a formal derivation.
- 8.
The following countries have a mixture of I(0) and I(1) variables: Bangladesh, Bolivia, Burundi, Chad, Central African Republic, Costa Rica, Mauritania, and Papua New Guinea. The Philippines has all the variables as I(0). For the rest of the countries, all variables are I(1) (see Appendix).
- 9.
LZ: log of z where z: ratio between domestic expenditure and foreign exchange availability.
- 10.
The error-correction mechanism revealed that convergence occurred in the same period for Brazil, Hungary, Kenya, Morocco, Togo, and Bhutan.
- 11.
[1] ADF RESID: Augmented Dickey Fuller residuals, an asterisk mark implies significant variable.
- 12.
The CUSUM squared test had the same pattern and is therefore not reported.
References
Agenor & Monteil. (2008). Macroeconomics. 3rd edn. Princeton University Press.
Ahad, M., Afza, T., & Shahbaz, M. (2017). Financial development and estimation of import demand function in Pakistan: Evidence from combined cointegration and causality tests. Global Business Review, 18(1), 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1177/0972150916666909
Andrews & Ploberger. (1994). “Optimal test when a nuisance parameter is present under only alternatives: Econometrica, 62, 1383–1414.
Bahmani-Oskooee. (1986). Determinants of international trade flows: The Case of Developing Countries. Journal of Development Economics, 20(1), 107–123.
Ahluwalia, M. S. (2002). Economic Reforms in India since 1991: Has Gradualism Worked? Journal of Economic Perspectives, 16(3), 67–88.
Arize, A., & Afifi, R. (1987). An economic examination of import demand function in thirty developing countries. Journal of Post Keynesian Economics, 9(4), 604–616.
Aryeetey, E., Devarajan, S., Kanbur, R., & Kasekende, L. (2012). Overview. In E. Aryeetey, S. Devarajan, R. Kanbur, & L. Kasekende (Eds.), The Oxford companion to the economics of Africa (pp. 1–23). Oxford University Press.
Ayodotun, A., & Farayibi, A. (2016). Modelling the determinants of import demand in Sub-Sahara Africa. Munich Personal RePEc Archive (MPRA), 1–27.
Bacheta, M. (2009). Globalization and informal job in developing countries. World Trade Organization.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M. (1998). Cointegration approach to estimate the long-run trade elasticities in LDCs. International Economic Journal, 12(3), 89–96.
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Kara, O. (2003). Relative responsiveness of trade flows to a change in price and exchange rate. International Review of Applied Economics, 17(3), 293–308. https://doi.org/10.1080/0269217032000090496
Bahmani-Oskooee, M., & Kara, O. (2005). Income and price elasticities of trade: Some new estimates. The International Trade Journal, 19(2), 165–178. https://doi.org/10.1080/08853900590933125
Bangara, B. C. (2019) A New Keynesian DSGE model for Low Income Economies with Foreign Exchange Constraints. Economic Research Southern Africa (ERSA) working paper 795.
Bankoff, G. (2006). The historical geography of disaster. ‘Vulnerability’ and ‘local knowledge’ in Western discourse. In G. Bankoff, G. Freaks, D. Hilhorst (Eds.), Mapping vulnerability. Disasters, development, and people (pp. 25–36). Earthscan.
Calvo & Mendoza. (2000). Rational contagion and the globalization of securities market. Journal of International Economics, 51, 79–113.
Ceglowski, J. (1993). Intertemporal substitution in import demand. Journal of International Money and Finance, 10(March (1991)), 118–130.
Chang, T., Ho, Y. H., & Huang, C. (2005). A Reexamination of South Korea’s aggregate import demand functions: The bounds test analysis. Journal of Economic Development, 30(1), 119–128.
Chenery, H. B., & Bruno, M. (1962). Development alternatives in an open economy: The case of Israel. The Economic Journal, 72 (285), 79–103.
Clarida, R. (1994). Cointegration, aggregate consumption, and the demand for imports: A structural econometric investigation. American Economic Review, 84, 298–308.
Dreher, A. (2006). Does globalization affect growth? Evidence from a new index of globalization. Applied Economics, 38(10), 1091–1110.
Dutta-Chaudhuri, M. (1990, Summer). Market failure and Government failure. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 4(3), 25–39.
Dutta D., & Ahmed, N. (2004). An aggregate import demand function for India: A cointegration analysis.
Emran, S. (1996). Foreign exchange rationing and the aggregate import demand function. Economics Letters, 51, 315–322.
Faini, G. (1988). “Import demand in developing countries”: Country economics department. The World Bank November 1988 WPS 122.
Fosu, A. (Ed.). (2013a). Development success. Historical accounts of more advanced countries. Oxford University Press.
Fosu, A. (Ed.). (2013b). Achieving development success. Strategies and lessons from the developing world. Oxford University Press.
Goldstein M., & Khan, M. (1978). The supply and demand for exports: A simultaneous approach. Review of Economics and Statistics, 60, 275–286.
Goldstein, M., & Khan, M. S. (1985). Income and price effects in foreign trade. In R. W. Jo & P. B. Kenen (Eds.), Jones (pp. 1041–1105). Elsevier Science Publications.
Gollin, D., & Rogerson, R. (2010). Agriculture, roads, and economic development in Uganda. NBER Working Paper No. 15863.
Gräbner, C., Heimberger, P., Kapeller, J., et al. (2021). Understanding economic openness: A review of existing measures. Review of World Economics, 157, 87–120. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10290-020-00391-1
Greenaway, et al. (2001). Trade liberalisation and growth in developing countries. Journal of Development Economics, 67, 229–244.
Gygli, S., Haelg, F., Potrafke, N., & Sturm, J.-E. (2019). The KOF globalisation index—Revisited. Review of International Organizations, 14(3), 543–574. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11558-019-09344-2
Harvey, S., & Sedegah, K. (2011). Import demand in Ghana: Structure, behaviour and stability. African Economic Research Consortium AERC Research Paper 233, Nairobi.
Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2006). Doomed to choose: Industrial policy as predicament. Mimeo, Harvard University.
Hausmann, R., & Rodrik, D. (2003). Economic development as self-discovery. Journal of Development Economics., 72(2), 603–633.
Hillman, A. L., & Katz, E. (1984, March). Oil price instability and domestic energy substitution for imported oil. The Economic Record, The Economic Society of Australia, 60(168), 85–89.
Hillman, A. (2009). Trade liberalization and globalization in the encyclopedia of public choice (C. K. Rowley, F. Schneider, Eds.) (Vol. I, pp. 312–320). Kluwer Academic Publishers.
Hope, N., Kochar, A., Noll, R., & Srinivasan, T. N. (2013). Economic reform in India: Challenges, prospects, and lessons. Cambridge University Press.
Huh, H.-S., & Park, C.-Y. (2019, July). A new index of globalization: Measuring impacts of integration on economic growth and income inequality (pp. 1–49). No. 587. ADB Working paper, Philippines.
IMF. International Financial Statistics.
Kohli, U. R. (1978, May). A gross national product function and the derived demand for imports and supply of exports. The Canadian Journal of Economics, 11(2), 167–182.
Kose, et al. (2003). Globalization, the business cycle, and macroeconomic monitoring. IMF Working Paper. WP/11/25.
MacKenzie, I. I. A., & Ohndorf, M. M. (2013). Restricted Coasean bargaining. Journal of Public Economics, 97(C), 296–307.
Maiti, P. (1984). India’s imports during the last three decades: An econometric study. Sankhyā: The Indian Journal of Statistics, Series B, 48(1) (April 1986), 78–81
Manne, A. S. (1963). Key sectors of the Mexican economy 1960–1970. In A. S. Manne & H. M. Markowitz (Eds.), Studies in process analysis (pp. 379–400). Wiley.
McKinnon, R. R. I. (1964). Foreign exchange constraints in economic development and efficient aid allocation. The Economic Journal, 74(294), 388–409.
Min, B. S., Mohammad, H. A., & Tang, T. C. (2002). An analysis of South Korea’s import demand. Journal of Asia-Pacific Affairs, 4, 1–17.
Mishra & Mohanty. (2017). Is Fiscal Policy Pro-Cyclical or Counter-Cyclical? Evidence from India: Arthashatra, 6(2).
Moran, C. (1989). Imports under a foreign exchange constraint. The World Bank Economic Review, 3(2), 279–295.
Moran & Pearson. (1988). Tread carefully in the field of TRIP measures. The World Economy, 11(1), 119–134, 03.
Mwega, F. M. (1993). Import demand elasticities and stability during trade liberalization: A case study of Kenya. Journal of African Economies, v2.
Nannicini et al. (2011). Assessing economic liberalization episodes: A synthetic control approach. A Review of Economics and Statistics, 95(3) (July 2013), 983–1001.
Nayyar, D. (2008). Liberalization and development. Oxford University Press.
Nayyar, D. (2017). Economic liberalisation in India: Then and now. Economic and Political Weekly, 52(2), 41–48.
Nayyar, D. (1996). Economic liberalization in India: Analytics, experience and lessons. Orient Longmans.
Norman, A., & Stiglitz, J. (2012). African development prospects and possibilities. In E. Aryeetey, S. Devarajan, R. Kanbur, & L. Kasekende (Eds.), The Oxford companion to the economics of Africa (pp. 33–47). Oxford University Press.
Obstfeld, M., & Rogoff, K. (1996). Foundations of international economics. MIT Press.
Olabisi, M., & Charles Sawyer, W. (2021). The Demand for imports and exports in Africa: A survey. Journal of African Trade, 71(1–2), 45–59.
Oukiazis, E., Antunes, M., & Kostakis, I. (2018). The Greek economy under the twin deficit pressure: A demand-oriented growth approach. International Review of Applied Economics, 32(2), 215–236.
Panshak, et al. (2020). Towards determining Nigeria’s economic growth path: A balance-of-payments constrained growth approach. Science Direct.
Park, J. D. (2019) Korea’s path of development in retrospect. In Re-inventing Africa’s development. Palgrave Macmillan. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-03946-2_7
Pedar. (2004). Globalization, the Celtic tiger, and social outcome: Is Ireland is a model or mirage. Globalisations, 1(2), 205–222.
Pedroni. (1999). Critical values for cointegration tests in a heterogeneous panel in multiple regressors. Oxford Bulletin of Economics and statistics0305Statistics 0305–9049 Volume 61, Issue S1 Pages 653–670
Peseran, et al. (1999). Bounds testing approaches to the analysis of long-run relationship. Discussion paper series no 46. http://www.econ.ed.ac.uk/papers/id46_esedps.pdf
Porter, C., & Ranney, I. (1982). An eclectic model of recent LDC macroeconomic policy. Analyses Working Development, 10(9), 751–165.
Prasad, et al. (2003). How does globalization affect the synchronization of business cycles? Econstore, IZA Discussion Paper Series, No. 702. Retrieved from https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/20635/1/dp702.pdf
Princová, K. (2010). Globalisation, vulnerability, poverty and human limits. In Beyond globalization: Exploring the limits of globalization in the regional context. http://conference.osu.eu/globalization/publ/16-princova.pdf
Rajan, R. (2019). Rising tide. Finance and Development. IMF, 2019, Washington DC, USA.
Rodrik, D. (1998). Trade Policy and Economic Performance in Sub-Saharan Africa. Working Paper 6562. NBER, Cambridge, MA, USA.
Rodrik, Dani (2006). The social cost of foreign exchange reserves. International Economic Journal, 20(3), 253–266.
Rodrik, D. (2006). Imperfect competition, scale economies, and trade policy in developing countries Chapter http://www.nber.org/chapters/c5849 Chapter pages in book: (pp. 109–144).
Rodrik, D. (2008). The real exchange rate and economic growth. Brooking papers on Economic activity (fall).
Senbeta, S. R. (2013). Foreign exchange constraints and macroeconomic dynamics in a small open economy. Working Papers 2013023, University of Antwerp, Faculty of Business and Economics.
Senhadji. (1998). Time-series estimation of structural import demand equation a cross country analysis. American Economic Review, 45(2).
Schwarz, G. (1978). Estimating the dimension of a model. Annals Statistics 6(2), 461–464 (1978).
Steger, Manfred B. (2013). Globalization: A Very Short Introduction. Oxford.
Stiglitz, J. E., Ocampo, J. A., Spiegel, S., Ffrench-Davis, R., & Nayyar, D. (2006). Stability with Growth: Macroeconomics, liberalization, and development. Oxford University Press.
Tahir, M., Arturo Ruiz Estrada, M., & Afridi, M. A. (2019). Foreign inflows and economic growth: An empirical study of the SAARC region. Economic Systems, 43, 1–8.
Thirlwall, A. P. (2011). Balance of payments constrained growth models: History and overview. PSL Quarterly Review, 64(259), 307–351.
Tirmazee, Z. S., & Naveed, R. (2014). Reviewing Pakistan’s import demand function: A Time-Series Analysis, 1970–2010. The Lahore Journal of Economics, 19(September 2014), 371–393.
UNCTAD. (2020). World investment report 2020. UNCTAD. Accessed on June 15, 2021. https://worldinvestmentreport.unctad.org/world-investment-report-2020/
Vacu, N. P., & Odhiambo, N. M. (2020). The determinants of import demand in South Africa: An empirical investigation. International Economics, 73(1) (February), 51–76.
Walton, M (2009)” Vulnerability and globalization: On protection, power and identity in India” http://www.michaelwalton.info/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/Vulnerability-and-globalization_August-2009.pdf.
Wan, J. R., & Henry, Y. (2003). Reform unleashed Korean growth. German Economic Review, 4(1), 19–34.
Williamson, J.G. (Eds.) (1999). Globalization and history (p. 343). MIT Press.
World Bank. (1993). The East Asean miracle, economic growth and public policy. Oxford University Press.
World Development Report. (2010).
Wyplosz. (2007). The eurozone in the current crisis ADBI working paper series.
Xu, X. (2000). The dynamic-optimizing approach to import demand a structural model. Economics Letters, 74(2002), 265–270.
Zhang, H., Wei, Y., & Ma, S. (2021). Overcoming the “Solow paradox”: Tariff reduction and productivity growth of Chinese ICT firms. Journal of Asian Economics (forthcoming).
Zhou, G., Yan, X., & Luo, S. (2018). Financial security and optimal scale of foreign exchange reserve in China. Sustainability, 10(1724), 1–19.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Appendices
Appendix 1
Let the utility function be
Therefore, the current-value Hamiltonian will now be
The first-order conditions are
Eliminating λt from (18) and (19), we have.
where \(\mu_{t}^{ * } = \frac{{\mu_{t} }}{{\lambda_{t} }}\) is the change in the marginal utility of foreign exchange availability to the marginal utility of domestic goods.
Taking log on both sides yields
Let the functional form of \(\mu_{t}^{*}\) be
where Zt is the ratio of foreign exchange reserve to the GDP (Xu, 2000). We, therefore, assume that the change in the marginal utility of foreign exchange availability to the marginal utility of domestic goods is a function of the ratio between domestic expenditure and foreign exchange availability. Therefore,
Let Zt be the ratio between domestic expenditure and foreign exchange availability.
Thus, Eq. (20) can be rewritten as
In Eq. (21), \(\frac{{\theta_{1} }}{\beta }\) is our coefficient of interest. In what follows, we estimate Eq. (21)—or equivalently Eq. (14)—using our sample of countries and years.
Appendix 2
Unit Root Test (Phillips-Perron)
Country | Level | First difference | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LM | LGDP | LP | Z | LM | LGDP | LP | Z | ||||
Argentina | −2.24 | −1.96 | −3.05 | 3.04 | −4.6 | 2.97 | −3.48 | −5.27 | |||
Benin | −3.08 | −1.65 | 1.71 | −1.96 | −8.04 | −5.43 | 8.04 | −6.41 | |||
Bhutan | −6.29 | −2.06 | −1.29 | 2.94 | −7.34 | −5.39 | 7.04 | ||||
Brazil | −2.43 | −1.33 | −1.19 | −0.23 | −6.06 | −3.71 | −3.74 | −4.15 | |||
Burkina Faso | −0.92 | −1.69 | −2.29 | −2.26 | −6.48 | −6.15 | −5.85 | −4.31 | |||
China | −3.47 | −2.60* | −2.91 | −0.17 | −6.45* | −6.71* | −6.46* | −4.91* | |||
Congo (Rep) | 2.94 | −2.29 | −1.72 | 1.53 | −8.1 | 3.62 | −3.53 | 4.72 | |||
Dominican Republic | 1.06 | 1.94 | −2.33 | −2.26 | −7.46 | 4.47 | 4.6 | −5.21 | |||
El Salvador | −3.47 | −1.61 | −1.91 | −0.17 | −6.45* | 5.76* | −6.46* | −4.91* | |||
Ethiopia | −0.44 | −2.36 | −1.37 | −2.77 | 8.4 | −6.13 | −4.87 | −5.54 | |||
The Gambia | −2.9 | −2.05 | −1.44 | −1.78 | 5.75 | −3.82 | −5.22 | −5.73 | |||
Guinea−Bissau | −0.69 | −2.8 | −0.37 | 1.6 | −5.09 | −3.6 | −4.67 | 4.86 | |||
Haiti | 1.06 | 1.94 | −2.33 | −2.26 | −7.46 | 4.47 | 1.06 | 1.94 | |||
Hungary | −1.46 | −2.2 | 1.11 | −2.04 | −3.83 | 6.6 | 3.83 | −6.13 | |||
India | 1.91 | 2.46 | 3.11 | 1.12 | −5.15 | −4.82 | −5.52 | −6.7 | |||
Jordan | −1.41 | −2.66 | 2.46 | −0.73 | −5.16 | −3.99 | −5.7 | −3.58 | |||
Libya | −3.28 | −0.34 | −0.27 | −3.46 | −5.72 | −4.32 | −5.89 | −4.87 | |||
Malawi | −1.85 | −1.44 | −1.5 | −2.23 | −6.57 | −4.99 | −15.35 | −5.43 | |||
Malaysia | −1.96 | −1.96 | −2.56 | −3 | −5.56 | −5.4 | −3.15 | −5.16 | |||
Mauritius | −1.87 | −2.41 | −2.92 | −2.37 | 4.5 | −5.41 | 4.37 | −5.28 | |||
Morocco | −1.41 | −2.66 | 2.46 | −0.73 | −5.16 | −3.99 | −5.7 | −4.87 | |||
Nicaragua | −0.16 | −2.83 | −2.65 | 0.65 | 4.56 | −5.59 | 6.99 | 4.89 | |||
Pakistan | −3.39 | −3.16 | −3.44 | −3.64 | −6.92 | −7.3 | −5.26 | −4.1 | |||
Paraguay | −2.48 | −1.65 | −1.32 | 1.37 | −4.74 | −3.73 | −4.87 | 4.55 | |||
The Philippines | −6.19 | −4.73 | −4.08 | −4.65 | |||||||
Rwanda | 2.97 | −2.19 | 0.77 | −1.8 | 9.36 | −4 | −6.02 | −4.82 | |||
Senegal | −2.06 | −1.96 | 0.4 | 0.85 | −5.21 | −5.23 | −5.79 | −5.79 | |||
Somalia | −2.27 | −2 | −3.04 | −1.24 | −7.03 | −8.47 | −8.24 | −4.86 | |||
Sri Lanka | −2.12 | −2.89 | −2.22 | −2.82 | −4.52 | −4.95 | −4.5 | −4.68 | |||
Thailand | −1.59 | −3.53 | −3.22 | −2.9 | −4.24 | −8.08 | −8.1 | −4.57 | |||
Togo | 1.72 | 2.92 | −3.04 | −1.94 | −7.07 | −6.83 | −8.89 | 8.6 | |||
Trinidad & Tobago | −1.34 | −1.71 | −2.67 | −2.26 | −5.36 | −3.91 | −5.95 | −3.66 | |||
Tunisia | −3.29 | −1.79 | −2.71 | −1.17 | −6.75 | −6.61 | −3.69 | −5.5 | |||
Turkey | −2.07 | −1.49 | −1.81 | −1.27 | −3.83 | −5.8 | −4.27 | −4.63 |
Unit Root Test (for ARDL)
Country | Level | First difference | ||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
LM | LGDP | LP | Z | LM | LGDP | LP | Z | |
Bangladesh | −3.47 | −4.60* | −2.91 | −0.17 | −6.45* | −6.46* | −4.91* | |
Kenya | −2.05 | 5.07* | −2.45 | −3.05 | −4.48* | −3.95* | −10.54 | |
Bolivia | −3.79* | −1.75 | −1.02 | −1.26 | −3.99* | −3.56* | −3.60* | |
Burundi | −2.90 | −1.73 | −1.24 | −5.61* | −7.02* | −3.57* | −6.30* | |
Central African Republic | −4.19* | −2.02 | −2.95 | −2.62 | −6.27* | −6.97* | −4.34* | |
Chad | −3.21 | −1.57 | −3.90* | −5.50* | −6.44* | −6.05* | ||
Costa Rica | −0.69 | −2.80 | −0.37 | 3.60* | −5.09* | −3.60 | −4.67 | |
Mauritania | 4.76* | −3.14 | 6.45* | 4.39* | −8.55 | |||
Papua New Guinea | 2.81 | −3.18 | 4.087* | −1.53 | −6.57* | −5.27* | 3.60* | |
Swaziland | 3.47 | −3.60* | 3.67* | −2.71 | −5.61* | −5.64* |
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2022 The Author(s), under exclusive license to Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Bhattacharyya, R., Chatterjee, R., Das, G.G. (2022). Do Developing Countries Still Suffer from the Foreign Exchange Constraint? An Empirical Study for 1990–2014. In: Yoshino, N., Paramanik, R.N., Kumar, A.S. (eds) Studies in International Economics and Finance. India Studies in Business and Economics. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7062-6_23
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-7062-6_23
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Singapore
Print ISBN: 978-981-16-7061-9
Online ISBN: 978-981-16-7062-6
eBook Packages: Economics and FinanceEconomics and Finance (R0)