Skip to main content

The Transmission Mechanisms of International Business Cycles: International Trade and the Foreign Effects of US Monetary Policy

IMF Economic Review volume 71, pages 300–325 (2023)Cite this article

Abstract

This paper studies the channels through which shocks from one country transmit in the global economy. Using local projections with instrumental variables (LP-IV), we document significant effects of US monetary shocks on output, interest rates, and trade flows in a large panel of countries. We find substantial heterogeneity in the foreign output responses depending on international trade. This association is due to the output share of international trade (extensive margin) and not the elasticity of trade (intensive margin), the exchange rate, or the foreign interest rate responses. To distinguish between the direct and indirect transmission of shocks, we further collect detailed data on bilateral trade linkages and combine the LP-IV approach with spatial econometric models. The indirect spillovers account for nearly half of the total response of foreign output, indicating substantial amplification engendered by the trade network. But the heterogeneity in the total effects is almost entirely due to the direct effects. Moreover, accounting for network effects within this framework leads to estimates of the mean output response up to one-third larger in magnitude than in the nonspatial specifications. Thus, studies that do not explicitly model cross-country linkages may present an incomplete view of international business cycles.

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

Access options

Buy single article

Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5

Notes

  1. We also take advantage of a long-standing literature dedicated to the identification and analysis of the real effects of monetary shocks in the USA (e.g., Romer and Romer 2004; Nakamura and Steinsson 2018). Our paper extends these analyses to foreign economies, focusing on the transmission channels of international business cycles.

  2. Recent work by di Giovanni and Hale (2021) studies the role of the global production network in explaining international spillovers of US monetary policy shocks to stock returns.

  3. Several papers focus on the spillovers stemming from the Federal Reserve’s unconventional monetary policy to emerging markets (e.g., Bhattarai, Chatterjee, and Park 2021).

  4. These data are publicly available on the authors’ websites.

  5. The list of countries and their characteristics are provided in the online appendix (Table A.1).

  6. While several papers focus on unconventional policies (e.g., Eberly, Stock, and Wright 2020), we do not consider the Gürkaynak, Sack, and Swanson (2005) path shocks, as the analysis of forward guidance is beyond the scope of this paper. Our baseline results are robust to removing the period when the path shocks were likely important.

  7. We estimate symmetric responses, as we do not find significant quantitative differences between the effects of monetary tightening and easing in our sample.

  8. Due to space constraints, these and many other additional results are relegated to the online appendix.

  9. This response is strong regardless of the exchange rate regime (Appendix Figure A.3), and could be attributed to several possible reasons. For example, a large pass-through for the floaters could be due to “fear of floating” (Calvo and Reinhart 2002). Bhattarai, Chatterjee, and Park (2020) provide evidence that some emerging markets, to avoid sharp capital outflows, raise their policy rate in response to rising US uncertainty.

  10. Due to a small number of countries in each subsample, we cannot cluster the errors by country, because this procedure is valid only for large N. Instead, we report Driscoll–Kraay standard errors. Because this procedure relies on the Bartlett (Newey–West) truncated kernel within each panel, Driscoll–Kraay standard errors are valid for large T but possibly small N. As required by local projections, we set the bandwidth to \(h+1\) quarters.

  11. The stronger impact on high-trade countries is consistent with the dollar’s dominance as the global currency of trade invoicing (Gopinath et al. 2020; Boz et al. 2022).

  12. The role of exchange-rate responses in the transmission of US monetary shocks is emphasized in Ilzetzki and Jin (2021), among others.

  13. We show the differential responses of other key macroeconomic variables in the online appendix (Fig. A.7).

  14. For example, if \(\lambda _{i,\text {US}}=0.01\) and \(\xi _{i,\text {US}}=\varphi _\text {US}\), the resulting partial effect would be characterized by a semielasticity of \(-0.02\), more than an order of magnitude smaller, in absolute value, than implied by our baseline estimates. We thank our discussant Javier Cravino for providing this example.

  15. For example, in 2019 the GDP share of total exports was 31.9 percent in Canada and 35.0 percent in Spain.

  16. Spatial autoregressions are closely related to the global vector autoregressions used to study international spillovers (e.g., Georgiadis 2016). A key difference is that the spatial models explicitly account for endogenous feedback loops, thereby enabling us to estimate separately the direct and indirect effects ( Elhorst, Gross, and Tereanu 2021).

  17. In the online appendix, we show robustness of our results to setting \(\lambda ^h=0\) or \(\kappa ^h_k=0\), or both (Table A.9).

  18. We also consider alternative normalizations that account for overall trade openness, such as the dominant eigenvalue normalization. We reach qualitatively similar conclusions.

  19. With standard normalizations, the model converges if \(\left| \rho ^h\right| < 1\).

  20. In Online Appendix B, we illustrate this decomposition using a stylized example with \(N=3\) countries.

  21. The nodes’ locations are not informative. They are chosen subjectively to enhance visibility.

  22. The high share of the indirect effect comes almost entirely from the spatial structure of the model and not from the heterogeneity in \(\beta _i\). When we estimate specification (10) with country-invariant \(\beta\), the share of the indirect effect, at 46 percent, remains close to the baseline (see Fig. A.9 in the online appendix).

  23. At the 12 and 13 quarter horizons (the peak absolute response in the nonspatial model), the total effects in the spatial model are larger by 7.0 percent and 14.3 percent, respectively (cf. Table 2 and Fig. 3).

  24. We plot the corresponding distributions in the online appendix (Fig. A.10). Only in two countries does the indirect effect make up less than 30 percent of the total. In seven countries, this share is 70 percent or above.

References

  • Acemoglu, Daron, Vasco M. Carvalho, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi. 2012. The network origins of aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica 80 (5): 1977–2016.

    Google Scholar 

  • Acemoglu, Daron, Asuman Ozdaglar, and Alireza Tahbaz-Salehi. 2017. Microeconomic origins of macroeconomic tail risks. American economic review 107 (1): 54–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aguiar, Mark, and Gita Gopinath. 2007. Emerging market business cycles: the cycle is the trend. Journal of political economy 115 (1): 69–102.

    Google Scholar 

  • Alfaro, Laura, Pol Antràs, Davin Chor, and Paola Conconi. 2019. Internalizing global value chains: a firm-level analysis. Journal of political economy 127 (2): 508–559.

    Google Scholar 

  • Antràs, Pol, Davin Chor, Thibault Fally, and Russell Hillberry. 2012. Measuring the upstreamness of production and trade flows. American economic review: papers & proceedings 102 (3): 412–416.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barrot, Jean-Noël., and Julien Sauvagnat. 2016. Input specificity and the propagation of idiosyncratic shocks in production networks. Quarterly journal of economics 131 (3): 1543–1592.

    Google Scholar 

  • Baxter, Marianne, and Michael A. Kouparitsas. 2005. Determinants of business cycle comovement: a robust analysis. Journal of monetary economics 52 (1): 113–157.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattarai, Saroj, Arpita Chatterjee, and Woong Yong Park. 2020. Global spillover effects of US uncertainty. Journal of monetary economics 114: 71–89.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bhattarai, Saroj, Arpita Chatterjee, and Woong Yong Park. 2021. Effects of US quantitative easing on emerging market economies. Journal of economic dynamics and control 122: 104031.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boz, Emine, Camila Casas, Georgios Georgiadis, Gita Gopinath, Helena Le Mezo, Arnaud Mehl, and Tra Nguyen. 2022. Patterns of invoicing currency in global trade: new evidence. Journal of international economics 136: 103604.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bruno, Valentina, and Hyun Song Shin. 2015. Capital flows and the risk-taking channel of monetary policy. Journal of monetary economics 71: 119–132.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bräuning, Falk, and Victoria Ivashina. 2019. U.S. monetary policy and emerging market credit cycles. Journal of monetary economics 112: 57–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Caballero, Ricardo J., and Arvind Krishnamurthy. 2004. Smoothing sudden stops. Journal of economic theory 119 (1): 104–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Calvo, Guillermo A., and Carmen M. Reinhart. 2002. Fear of floating. Quarterly journal of economics 117 (2): 379–408.

    Google Scholar 

  • Carvalho, Vasco, and Xavier Gabaix. 2013. The great diversification and its undoing. American economic review 103 (5): 1697–1727.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chang, Jeffery Jinfan, Du. Huancheng, Dong Lou, and Christopher Polk. 2022. Ripples into waves: Trade networks, economic activity, and asset prices. Journal of financial economics 145 (1): 217–238.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cravino, Javier, and Andrei A. Levchenko. 2017. Multinational firms and international business cycle transmission. Quarterly journal of economics 132 (2): 921–962.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crucini, Mario J., M. Ayhan Kose, and Christopher Otrok. 2011. What are the driving forces of international business cycles? Review of economic dynamics 14 (1): 156–175.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dedola, Luca, Giulia Rivolta, and Livio Stracca. 2017. If the fed sneezes, who catches a cold? Journal of international economics 108: S23–S41.

    Google Scholar 

  • di Giovanni, Julian, and Galina Hale. 2021. “Stock Market Spillovers via the Global Production Network: Transmission of U.S. Monetary Policy”. Journal of Finance. Forthcoming.

  • di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei A. Levchenko, and Isabelle Mejean. 2014. Firms, destinations, and aggregate fluctuations. Econometrica 82 (4): 1303–1340.

    Google Scholar 

  • di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei A. Levchenko, and Isabelle Mejean. 2018. The micro origins of international business-cycle comovement. American economic review 108 (1): 82–108.

    Google Scholar 

  • di Giovanni, Julian, Andrei A. Levchenko, and Isabelle Mejean. 2020. “Foreign Shocks as Granular Fluctuations.” Working Paper No. 28123, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Eberly, Janice C., James H. Stock, and Jonathan H. Wright. 2020. The federal reserve’s current framework for monetary policy: A review and assessment. International journal of central banking 16 (1): 5–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Eichengreen, Barry, and Andrew K. Rose. 1999. Contagious currency crises: channels of conveyance. In Changes in exchange rates in rapidly developing countries: theory, practice, and policy issues, ed. Takatoshi Ito and Anne O. Krueger, 29–56. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Elhorst, J. Paul., Marco Gross, and Eugen Tereanu. 2021. Cross-sectional dependence and spillovers in space and time: Where spatial econometrics and global VAR models meet. Journal of economic surveys 35 (1): 192–226.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, Kristin, Ida Hjortsoe, and Tsvetelina Nenova. 2018. The shocks matter: Improving our estimates of exchange rate pass-through. Journal of international economics 114: 255–275.

    Google Scholar 

  • Forbes, Kristin J. 2004. The Asian flu and Russian virus: The international transmission of crises in firm-level data. Journal of international economics 63 (1): 59–92.

    Google Scholar 

  • Frankel, Jeffrey A., and Andrew K. Rose. 1998. The endogeneity of the optimum currency area criteria. Economic journal 108 (449): 1009–1025.

    Google Scholar 

  • Georgiadis, Georgios. 2016. Determinants of global spillovers from us monetary policy. Journal of international money and finance 67: 41–61.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gertler, Mark, and Peter Karadi. 2015. Monetary policy surprises, credit costs, and economic activity. American economic journal: macroeconomics 7 (1): 44–76.

    Google Scholar 

  • Giroud, Xavier, and Holger M. Mueller. 2019. Firms’ internal networks and local economic shocks. American economic review 109 (10): 3617–49.

    Google Scholar 

  • Glick, Reuven, and Andrew K. Rose. 1999. Contagion and trade: Why are currency crises regional? Journal of international money and finance 18 (4): 603–617.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goldberg, Linda S., and Cédric. Tille. 2008. Vehicle currency use in international trade. Journal of international economics 76 (2): 177–192.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopinath, Gita, Emine Boz, Camila Casas, Federico J. Díez, Pierre-Olivier. Gourinchas, and Mikkel Plagborg-Møller. 2020. Dominant currency paradigm. American economic review 110 (3): 677–719.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gopinath, Gita, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2021. Banking, trade, and the making of a dominant currency. Quarterly journal of economics 136 (2): 783–830.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gürkaynak, Refet S., Brian Sack, and Eric Swanson. 2005. Do actions speak louder than words. The response of asset prices to monetary policy actions and statements. International journal of central banking 1 (1): 55–93.

    Google Scholar 

  • Iacoviello, Matteo, and Gaston Navarro. 2019. Foreign effects of higher U.S. interest rates. Journal of international money and finance 95: 232–250.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ilzetzki, Ethan, and Keyu Jin. 2021. The puzzling change in the international transmission of US macroeconomic policy shocks. Journal of international economics 130: 130444.

    Google Scholar 

  • Imbs, Jean. 2004. Trade, finance, specialization, and synchronization. Review of economics and statistics 86 (3): 723–734.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ivashina, Victoria, David S. Scharfstein, and Jeremy C. Stein. 2015. Dollar funding and the lending behavior of global banks. Quarterly journal of economics 130 (3): 1241–1281.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Robert C. 2014. Five facts about value-added exports and implications for macroeconomics and trade research. Journal of economic perspectives 28 (2): 119–142.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Robert C., and Guillermo Noguera. 2012. Accounting for intermediates: production sharing and trade in value added. Journal of international economics 86 (2): 224–236.

    Google Scholar 

  • Johnson, Robert C., and Guillermo Noguera. 2017. A portrait of trade in value-added over four decades. Review of economics and statistics 99 (5): 896–911.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jordà, Òscar. 2005. Estimation and inference of impulse responses by local projections. American economic review 95 (1): 161–182.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kaminsky, Graciela L., and Carmen M. Reinhart. 2000. On crises, contagion, and confusion. Journal of international economics 51 (1): 145–168.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kim, Soyoung. 2001. International transmission of U.S. monetary policy shocks: Evidence from VAR’s. Journal of monetary economics 48 (2): 339–372.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kose, M. Ayhan., Christopher Otrok, and Charles H. Whiteman. 2003. International business cycles: World, region, and country-specific factors. American economic review 93 (4): 1216–1239.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lumsdaine, Robin L., and Eswar S. Prasad. 2003. Identifying the common component of international economic fluctuations: A new approach. Economic journal 113 (484): 101–127.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miranda-Agrippino, Silvia, and Hélène. Rey. 2020. U.S. monetary policy and the global financial cycle. Review of economic studies 87 (6): 2754–2776.

    Google Scholar 

  • Murphy, Kevin M., and Robert H. Topel. 1985. Estimation and inference in two-step econometric models. Journal of business & economic statistics 3 (4): 370–379.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nakamura, Emi, and Jón. Steinsson. 2018. High-frequency identification of monetary non-neutrality: The information effect. Quarterly journal of economics 133 (3): 1283–1330.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ozdagli, Ali, and Michael Weber. 2017. “Monetary policy through production networks: Evidence from the stock market.” Working Paper No. 23424, National Bureau of Economic Research.

  • Ramey, V.A. 2016. Macroeconomic shocks and their propagation. In Handbook of macroeconomics, vol. 2, ed. John B. Taylor and Harald Uhlig, 71–162. Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rey, Hélène. 2016. International channels of transmission of monetary policy and the mundellian trilemma. IMF economic review 64 (1): 6–35.

    Google Scholar 

  • Romer, Christina D., and David H. Romer. 2004. A new measure of monetary shocks: derivation and implications. American economic review 94 (4): 1055–1084.

    Google Scholar 

  • Servén, Luis, and Girum Dagnachew Abate. 2020. Adding space to the international business cycle. Journal of macroeconomics 65: 103211.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stock, James H., and Mark W. Watson. 2018. Identification and estimation of dynamic causal effects in macroeconomics using external instruments. Economic journal 128 (610): 917–948.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Rijckeghem, Caroline, and Beatrice Weder. 2001. Sources of contagion: Is it finance or trade? Journal of international economics 54 (2): 293–308.

    Google Scholar 

  • Van Wincoop, Eric, and Kei-Mu. Yi. 2000. Asia crisis postmortem: where did the money go and did the United States benefit? Economic policy review 6 (3): 51–70.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wu, Jing Cynthia, and Fan Dora Xia. 2016. Measuring the macroeconomic impact of monetary policy at the zero lower bound. Journal of money, credit and banking 48 (2–3): 253–291.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank Keith Barnatchez and Sam Tugendhaft for excellent research assistance. For comments and suggestions, they thank Paul Bergin, Ryan Chahrour, Javier Cravino, Mario Crucini, Bill Dupor, Sacha Gelfer, Gita Gopinath, Yuriy Gorodnichenko, Pierre-Olivier Gourinchas, Laura Jackson Young, Ralph Koijen, Ezgi Kurt, Andrei Levchenko, Giovanni Olivei, Nick Sander, Eric Sims, and Eva Van Leemput as well as seminar and conference participants at the Boston Area Macro-Finance Juniors meeting, Society for Economic Dynamics 2021 meeting, Bentley University, National Bank of Ukraine, and the IMF 22nd Jacques Polak Annual Research Conference. The authors thank Haver Analytics for providing some of the publicly available data used in this research. They are especially grateful to Rob Johnson and Eric Swanson for sharing their data. An earlier version of this paper circulated under the title “Output Spillovers from U.S. Monetary Policy: The Role of International Trade and Financial Linkages.” The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors and do not indicate concurrence by the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, the principals of the Board of Governors, or the Federal Reserve System.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Federal Reserve Bank of Boston, Boston, US

    Falk Bräuning & Viacheslav Sheremirov

Authors
  1. Falk Bräuning
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Viacheslav Sheremirov
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Viacheslav Sheremirov.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

Supplementary file 1 (pdf 1909 KB)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bräuning, F., Sheremirov, V. The Transmission Mechanisms of International Business Cycles: International Trade and the Foreign Effects of US Monetary Policy. IMF Econ Rev 71, 300–325 (2023). https://doi.org/10.1057/s41308-022-00179-3

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1057/s41308-022-00179-3

JEL Classification

  • E52
  • F14
  • F42
  • F44