Skip to main content

Vertical Trade, Exchange Rate Pass-Through, and the Exchange Rate Regime

Abstract

We compare the welfare of different combinations of monetary and currency policies in an open-economy macroeconomic model that incorporates two important features of many small open economies: a high level of vertical international trade and a high degree of exchange rate pass-through. In this environment, a small economy prefers a fixed exchange rate regime over a flexible regime, while the larger economy prefers a flexible exchange rate regime. There are two main causes underlying our results. First, in the presence of sticky prices, relative prices adjust through changes in the exchange rate. Multiple stages of production and trade make it more difficult for one exchange rate to balance the whole economy by adjusting several relative prices simultaneously throughout the vertical chain of production and trade. More specifically, there is a tradeoff between delivering an efficient relative price between home and foreign final goods and delivering an efficient relative price between home and foreign intermediate goods. Second, because the small economy faces a high degree of exchange rate pass-through under a flexible regime, it suffers from a lack of efficient relative prices in vertical trade. The larger economy, however, does not face this problem because its level of exchange rate pass-through is low.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15
Fig. 16
Fig. 17
Fig. 18
Fig. 19
Fig. 20
Fig. 21
Fig. 22
Fig. 23
Fig. 24
Fig. 25
Fig. 26

Notes

  1. An alternative measurement of vertical trade is the production-sharing intensity of trade, defined as the ratio of affiliate sales of manufactured goods to the U.S. parent as a share of total manufacturing exports to the United States in a country (or region). Based on trade flows between U.S. multinationals and their affiliates, Burstein et al. (2008) reported that the production-sharing intensity of trade was approximately 50 % for Canada and 25 % for Mexico in 2003. When maquiladoras were included, the production-sharing intensity of trade increased dramatically from 25 % to 55 % for Mexico. As the authors explained in their paper, these data likely understated the degree of production sharing because they captured only intra-firm trade and omitted arm’s-length production sharing.

  2. Up to 2004, there were fifteen member states in the EU: Austria, Belgium, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Ireland, Italy, Luxemburg, Netherland, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, and the United Kingdom. Out of them, the most important trading partner with the CEECs has been Germany, which accounted for 39.4 % of CEEC total parts imports and 49.7 % of their total parts exports.

  3. Kaminski and Ng (2001) focused on ten CEECs: the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Poland, Slovenia, Bulgaria, Romania, Slovakia, Latvia, and Lithuania.

  4. To facilitate the comparison of our results with those of the standard new open-economy macroeconomic models, we assume that the financial market is complete and that a production subsidy exists in each stage of production. Consequently, we abstract away from distortions caused by incomplete international risk-sharing and monopolistic competition and focus on a single friction: nominal price rigidity.

  5. Corsetti and Pesenti (2007) provided a graphical representation of optimal monetary policy in open economy models.

  6. However, depending on the model setup and types of shocks, LCP does not always imply that a fixed exchange rate regime is strictly preferred, e.g., Devereux et al. (2006) and Tille (2002).

  7. As we will discuss in details in Section 5, introducing labor mobility is unlikely to affect our results because migration is unlikely to affect the presence of vertical trade, a critical feature necessary for our results.

  8. Our results will hold in an infinite horizon model because of complete risk-sharing and price stickiness.

  9. For detailed derivation of the risk-sharing condition, see Devereux and Engel (2003) and Chari et al. (2002).

  10. Notice that although the price markup is the same for all goods produced at different stages and in different countries, PPP does not generally hold in our model because home firms practice LCP and set different prices in advance for home and foreign markets based on their expected demand in the corresponding market.

  11. We have assumed that no capital is required in either stage of production. Because there is no saving-investment decision in a one-period model, capital would be given exogenously in our simple model. Although the initial level of capital stock may have some impact on welfare, this is not an interest of this paper.

  12. We ignore the reverse of case (2), which is that the foreign country pegs unilaterally to the home currency. This is because the foreign economy is much larger in size, and it would not be optimal for the foreign country to engage in a unilateral peg.

  13. Benigno (2004) showed that, if two regions in a currency union have the same degree of nominal rigidity, it is optimal for the central bank to target the average inflation rate weighted by the economic sizes of the two regions. In practice, the European Monetary Union targets the average CPI of member countries, weighted by their consumption shares.

  14. The need for a second-order accurate solution in welfare analysis has been well addressed in the literature. For example, see Collard and Juillard (2001), Kim and Kim (2003), and Schmitt-Grohe and Uribe (2004).

  15. This solution technique has been employed in a series of papers, e.g., Sutherland (2004) and Senay and Sutherland (2005). The technical appendix (available upon request) documents the complete log-linearized system.

  16. The size of the home country does not affect our main results. For all n ≤ 0. 5, the results are qualitatively the same and available upon request.

  17. Ruhl (2008) reconciled the difference by suggesting that in the international macroeconomics literature, the smaller values of 𝜃 correspond to the responses of quantities to transitory shocks, while the larger estimates in the trade literature often rely on responses of quantities to permanent changes in tariff and trade cost.

  18. The literature suggests the relevant range for 𝜖 is [1,25]. We plot welfare for 𝜖 in [1,10] because we want to illustrate clearly the welfare comparison at lower values of 𝜖 and because the welfare ranking of the three regimes for all 𝜖 in [10,25] is the same as that for 𝜖 = 10.

  19. Detailed figures are in the technical appendix (available upon request).

  20. Another necessary feature is a high degree of exchange rate pass-through. Labor mobility is unlikely to change the choice of pricing currency, hence allowing for labor mobility would not affect the degree of exchange rate pass-through or our main results.

References

  • Bacchetta P, van Wincoop E (2005) A theory of the currency denomination of international trade. J Int Econ 67(2):295–319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Backus DK, Kehoe PJ, Kydland FE (1994) Dynamics of the trade balance and the terms of trade: the j-curve?Am Econ Rev 84(1):84–103

    Google Scholar 

  • Benigno P (2004) Optimal monetary policy in a currency area. J Int Econ 63:293–320

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bettin G, Lo Turco A (2012) A cross-country view on south-north migration and trade: dissecting the channels. Emerg Mark Financ Trade 48(4):4–29

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Burstein A, Kurz C, Tesar L (2008) Trade, production sharing, and the international transmission of business cycles. J Monet Econ 55:775–795

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chari VV, Kehoe PJ, McGrattan ER (2002) Can sticky price models generate volatile and persistent real exchange rates? Rev Econ Stud 69:533–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Collard F, Juillard M (2001) Accuracy of stochastic perturbation methods: the case of asset pricing models. J Econ Dyn Control 25:979–999

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Corsetti G, Pesenti P (2007) The simple geometry of transmission and stabilization in closed and open economies. In: Clarida R, Giavazzi F (eds) NBER international seminar on macroeconomics 2007. University of Chicago Press, Chicago

    Google Scholar 

  • Devereux MB, Engel C (2003) Monetary policy in the open economy revisited: price setting and exchange-rate flexibility. Rev Econ Stud 70:765–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Devereux MB, Lane PR, Xu J (2006) Exchange rates and monetary policy in emerging market economies. Econ J 116:478–506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Donnenfeld S, Haug AA (2008) Currency invoicing of US imports. Int J Finance Econ 13:184–198

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunlevy JA, Hutchinson WK (1999) The impact of immigration on american import trade in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. J Econ Hist 59(4):1043–1062

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ekanayake EM, Veeramacheneni B, Moslares C (2009) Vertical and horizontal intra-industry trade between the US and NAFTA partners. Rev Anál Econ 24(1):21–42

    Google Scholar 

  • Feenstra RC (1998) Integration of trade and disintegration of production in the global economy. J Econ Perspect 12:31–50

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Felbermayr GJ, Toubal F (2012) Revisiting the trade-migration nexus: evidence from new OECD data. World Dev 40(5):928–937

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Friedman M (1953) The case for flexible exchange rates. In: Essays in positive economics. University of Chicago Press, pp 157–203

  • Ghatak S, Pop Silaghi MI, Daly V (2009) Trade and migration flows between some CEE countries and the UK. J Int Trade Econ Dev 18(1):61–78

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Girma S, Yu Z (2002) The link between immigration and trade: evidence from the United Kingdom. Weltwirtschaftliches Archiv 138(1):115–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LS, Tille C (2008) Vehicle currency use in international trade. J Int Econ 76:177–192

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg LS, Tille C (2009) Micro, macro, and strategic forces in international trade invoicing. NBER Working Paper No. 15470

  • Gould DM (1994) Immigrants links to the home country: empirical implications for U.S. bilateral trade flows. Rev Econ Stat 76(2):302–316

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hanson GH, Mataloni RJ, Slaughter MJ (2005) Vertical production networks in multinational firms. Rev Econ Stat 87(4):664–678

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Head K, Ries J (1998) Immigration and trade creation: econometric evidence from Canada. Can J Econ 31(1):47–62

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang K, Liu Z (2001) Production chains and general equilibrium aggregate dynamics. J Monet Econ 48:437–462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang K, Liu Z (2004) Multiple stages of processing and the quantity anomaly in international business cycle models. Federal Reserve Bank of Philadelphia Working Paper 04-8

  • Huang K, Liu Z (2005) Inflation targeting: what inflation rate to target? J Monet Econ 52:1435–1462

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang K, Liu Z (2006) Sellers local currency pricing or buyers’ local currency pricing: does it matter for international welfare analysis? J Econ Dyn Control 30:1183–1213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hummels D, Rapoport D, Yi KM (1998) Vertical specialization and the changing nature of world trade. Federal Reserve Bank of New York Economic Policy Review, June

  • Hummels D, Ishii J, Yi KM (2001) The nature and growth of vertical specialization in world trade. J Int Econ 51:75–96

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kaminski B, Ng F (2001) Trade and production fragmentation: central European economies in EU networks of production and marketing. Working Paper, University of Maryland and World Bank

  • Kamps A (2006) The euro as invoicing currency in international trade. ECB Working Paper No. 665

  • Kim J, Kim H (2003) Spurious welfare reversals in international business cycle models. J Int Econ 60:471–500

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ligthart JE, Werner SEV (2010) Has the euro affected the choice of invoicing currency? CESifo Working Paper No. 3058

  • Markusen JR (1983) Factor movements and commodity trade as complements. J Int Econ 14:341–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mundell RA (1957) International trade and factor mobility. Am Econ Rev 47(3):321–335

    Google Scholar 

  • Murray J, Powell J, Lafleur LR (2003) Dollarization in Canada: an update. Bank of Canada Review, Summer 2003

  • Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (1995) Exchange rate dynamics redux. J Polit Econ 103(3):624–660

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (1998) Risk and exchange rates. NBER Working Paper No. 6694

  • Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (2000a) New directions for stochastic open economy models. J Int Econ 50(1):117–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (2000b) The six puzzles in international macroeconomics: is there a common cause? NBER Working Paper No. 7777

  • Obstfeld M, Rogoff K (2002) Global implications of self-oriented national monetary rules. Q J Econ 117:503–535

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peri G, Requena-Silvente F (2010) The trade creation effect of immigrants: evidence from the remarkable case of Spain. Can J Econ 43(4):1433–1459

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch JE (1999) Networks versus markets in international trade. J Int Econ 48:7–35

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch JE (2001) Business and social networks in international trade. J Econ Lit 39(4):1177–1203

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch JE, Casella A (2003) Overcoming informational barriers to international resource allocation: prices and ties. Econ J 113:21–42

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rauch JE, Trindade V (2002) Ethnic Chinese networks in international trade. Rev Econ Stat 84(1):116–130

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ruhl KJ (2008) The international elasticity puzzle. Working Paper, University of Texas-Austin

  • Saito M (2004) Armington elasticities in intermediate inputs trade: a problem in using multilateral trade data. Can J Econ 37(4):1097–1117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmitt-Grohe S, Uribe M (2004) Solving dynamic general equilibrium models using a second-order approximation to the policy function. J Econ Dyn Control 28:755–775

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Senay O, Sutherland A (2005) Foreign money shocks and the welfare performance of alternative monetary policy regimes. Manuscript, Middle East Technical University and University of St. Andrews

  • Senay O, Sutherland A (2011) The timing of asset trade and optimal policy in dynamic open economies. Working Paper, University of St Andrews

  • Shi K, Xu J (2007) Optimal monetary policy with vertical production and trade. Rev Int Econ 15(3):514–537

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sutherland A (2004) International monetary policy coordination and financial market integration. CEPR Discussion Paper No. 4251

  • Tille C (2002) How valuable is exchange rate flexibility? Optimal monetary policy under sectoral shocks. Federal Reserve Bank of New York

  • Wagner D, Head K, Ries J (2002) Immigration and the trade of provinces. Scott J Polit Econ 49(5):507–525

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yeats AJ (2001) Just how big is global production sharing? In: Arndt SW, Kierzkowski H (eds) Fragmentation: new production patterns in the world economy. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Yi KM (2003) Can vertical specialization explain the growth of world trade? J Polit Econ 3(1):52–102

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Yi KM (2010) Can multistage production explain the home bias in trade? Am Econ Rev 100(1):364–393

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ke Pang.

Additional information

We are grateful to SSHRC, Wilfrid Laurier University, and Bowdoin College for financial support. We thank the anonymous referee and the editor for insightful suggestions. We also thank Shutao Cao, Julian Diaz, Wei Dong, Kevin Huang, Larry Schembri, Pierre Siklos, Jian Wang, and seminar participants at the Canadian Economic Association Meeting in Ottawa, Shanghai University of Finance and Economics, Wilfrid Laurier University, and Zhejiang University for helpful comments.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pang, K., Tang, Y. Vertical Trade, Exchange Rate Pass-Through, and the Exchange Rate Regime. Open Econ Rev 25, 477–520 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-013-9286-4

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11079-013-9286-4

Keywords

  • Vertical production and trade
  • Exchange rate pass-through
  • Monetary policy

JEL Classifications

  • F3
  • F4