Recent research examining the growth impacts of institutions have found that institutions are important in fostering economic growth. By building a framework around the institutional taxonomy proposed by Rodrik (2005), our paper contributes to the literature in the following way. First, we confirm the result that "institutions matter" and show that different types of institutions matter differently for growth. By applying a dynamic panel model, we find that market-creating and market-stabilising institutions are important in fostering economic growth. We then extend this analysis and investigate whether countries at different levels of development could respond heterogeneously to changes in their institutional structure. We find that poor countries benefit the most from market-creating institutions and institutions that support market stability. We also find some evidence that market-legitimising institutions such as "democracy" are not necessarily optimal for growth in poor countries. These results have important implications for countries that decide on the optimal strategy to improve their institutional framework.
This paper presents new empirical evidence on the effectiveness of Bank of Japan's foreign exchange interventions on the daily realized volatility of USD/JPY exchange rates using high frequency data. Following Huang and Tauchen (2005) and Shephard (2004, 2006), we use bi-power variation to decompose daily realized volatility into two components: the smooth persistent and the discontinuous jump components. We model exchange rate returns, the different components of realized volatility and the central bank intervention using a system of simultaneous equations. We find strong support that interventions by Bank of Japan had increased both the continuous and the jump components of daily realized volatility. This suggests that the interventions by Bank of Japan had increased market volatility which not only caused short-lived positive jumps but were also persistent over time. We did not find any evidence that interventions were effective in influencing the exchange rate returns for the entire sample period.
Keywords
AbstractThis paper presents new empirical evidence on the effectiveness of Bank of Japan's foreign exchange interventions on the daily realized volatility of USD/JPY exchange rates using high frequency data. Following Huang and Tauchen (2005) and Shephard (2004, 2006), we use bi-power variation to decompose daily realized volatility into two components: the smooth persistent and the discontinuous jump components. We model exchange rate returns, the different components of realized volatility and the central bank intervention using a system of simultaneous equations. We find strong support that interventions by Bank of Japan had increased both the continuous and the jump components of daily realized volatility. This suggests that the interventions by Bank of Japan had increased market volatility which not only caused short-lived positive jumps but were also persistent over time. We did not find any evidence that interventions were effective in influencing the exchange rate returns for the entire sample period.
Previous studies investigating the effect of exchange rate changes on a country's exports have found little evidence that exchange rates matter. This "Exchange Rate Disconnect Puzzle" may stem from the fact that studies have mostly focused on aggregate data. We analyze the effect of real exchange rate fluctuations of the RMB by decomposing Chinese trade into its "extensive" and "intensive" margins using product-level data. Contrary to recent empirical evidence on the insignificant effects of exchange rate changes on trade, we estimate that real appreciation of the RMB has a significantly negative impact on Chinese exports. We also find that the major channel of effect is via the extensive margin. There is only weak evidence to indicate that imports are affected by exchange rates. With respect to exchange rate volatility, we generally find that it is negatively associated with exports, with no significant effect on imports. There appear to be major differences across China's major and non-major trading partners. Most of the exchange rate effects that we estimate are with China's non-major trading partners.
This study replicates Zigraiova and Havranek's (2016) meta‐analysis of banking competition and financial stability. It performs multiple types of replications: a ‘Reproduction’ replication where Z&H's data and code are verified to reproduce the results of their study; a ‘Repetition’ replication where the studies used by Z&H are independently recoded and then re‐analysed; an ‘Extension’ replication where additional studies on banking competition and stability are analysed; and a ‘Robustness Analysis’ where we check Z&H's results using an alternative empirical procedure. Our analysis strongly confirms Z&H's main finding that competition in the banking sector has an economically negligible effect on financial stability. This result is consistently confirmed across a variety of replication analyses. Most impressively, we confirm their finding even when we analyse a completely independent set of 35 studies not included in Z&H's meta‐analysis. Our results for Z&H's other findings are less supportive. As the first comprehensive replication of a meta‐analysis, this study also provides insights into the robustness of meta‐analysis. We find that meta‐regression analysis, where estimated effects are related to data, estimation, and study characteristics, is sensitive to how data are coded and to the choice of estimation procedure; and that this sensitivity extends to ‘best practice’ estimates.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.