Affiliation:
1. Division of Business, Tourism & Entrepreneurship Universidad Ana G. Méndez Gurabo Puerto Rico USA
2. Department of Economics and Finance Valdosta State University Valdosta Georgia USA
Abstract
AbstractThe assumption of no correlation of the structural shocks as Blanchard and Quah's identification (BQ) assumes is not suitable when central banks, through discretionary policies or inflation targeting regimes, affect the output growth among other goals. In this study, we analyze the present value model of the current account (PVM) using a three‐SVAR specification and a modified BQ to identify three structural shocks: country‐specific permanent, country‐specific temporary, and global, but allowing the correlation of the domestic ones. Using Australia, Canada, Norway, and the UK, we find that those shocks are correlated and are less volatile than BQ would assume they are. The PVM predictions that hold are: (i) a positive (no) response in the current account to a country‐specific temporary (global) shock; and (ii) with the exception of Australia, there is no response in the current account to a country‐specific permanent shock. In addition, for all countries, the country‐specific temporary shock dominates current account changes but does not dominate net output growth fluctuations, which was a puzzle identified by a prior study. The role of the shock is enhanced by the modified BQ, but even with this enhancement, it still does not hold the most significant role in output variations, as indicated by PVM.
Subject
Economics and Econometrics
Reference31 articles.
1. World Real Interest Rates
2. Current account deficits: The australian debate;Belkar R.;Series on Central Banking, Analysis, and Economic Policies,2008
3. The dynamic effects of aggregate demand and supply disturbances;Blanchard O.;The American Economic Review,1989
4. Consumption tilting and the current account: Evidence from Canada