THE EFFECTS OF ALTERNATIVE EXCHANGE RATE REGIMES ON REAL EXCHANGE RATE VOLATILITY: EVIDENCE BASED ON A NEW DATASET

Authors

  • JORGE CARRERA,

    1. Carrera: Central Bank of Argentina and Department of Economics, National University of La Plata, (1900) La Plata, Argentina.
    Search for more papers by this author
  • GUILLERMO VULETIN

    1. Vuletin: Department of Economics, Colby College, Waterville, ME 04901. E-mail gvuletin@colby.edu
    Search for more papers by this author
    • We would like to thank Ian Cummins, Bradley Turner, seminar participants at the Argentinean Economic Association, and two anonymous referees for helpful and constructive comments. We are grateful to Gaston Gelos for kindly providing us with ERR announcements data. We would also like to thank Mariano Sardi and Ling Zhu for excellent research assistance. Guillermo Vuletin is grateful to the Central Bank of Argentina and Colby College Social Division Grant for financial support. Any errors are ours. The views presented are solely those of the authors and should not be attributed to the Central Bank of Argentina or its staff.


Abstract

Do alternative exchange rate regimes affect short-term real exchange rate volatility differently? The existing empirical evidence is quite mixed with slightly more papers supporting that they do. We show that such lack of consensus is mainly due to current literature limitations regarding the measurement of real exchange rates (RERs), the identification of exchange rate regimes (ERRs), and the control for the incidence of real and nominal shocks. To address these limitations, we construct a novel monthly dataset for 63 countries over the period 1946–2007, which includes market-determined multilateral RER and a proxy for terms of trade. We find that ERRs indeed affect short-term real exchange rate volatility differently. While the evidence is generally consistent with Mussa's sticky prices argument, we find that for nonadvanced countries in post-Bretton Woods there exists a “U-shape nominal flexibility puzzle of RER.” We also find evidence of a “short-run RER volatility puzzle.” Having controlled for the incidence of real and nominal shocks, nonadvanced countries' RER volatility remains between 25% and 150% greater than that of the advanced economies. Moreover, the key literature finding that short-term RER volatility is higher in Bretton Woods (BW) than in post-Bretton Woods (PBW) for industrialized countries vanishes when using market-determined multilateral RER instead of official bilateral RER. (JEL F31, F33, F41)

Ancillary