We study spillover effects of US uncertainty fluctuations using panel data from fifteen emerging market economies (EMEs). A US uncertainty shock negatively affects EME stock prices and exchange rates, raises EME country spreads, and leads to capital outflows from them. Moreover, it decreases EME output, while increasing their consumer prices and net exports. The negative effects on output, exchange rates, and stock prices are weaker, but the effects on capital and trade flows stronger, for South American countries compared to other EMEs. We present a model of a small open economy that faces an external shock to interpret our findings.JEL codes: C33, E44, E52, E58, F32, F41

No abstract

We estimate international spillover effects of US Quantitative Easing (QE) on emerging market economies. Using a Bayesian VAR on monthly US macroeconomic and financial data, we first identify the US QE shock with non-recursive identifying restrictions. We estimate strong and robust macroeconomic and financial impacts of the US QE shock on US output, consumer prices, long-term yields, and asset prices. The identified US QE shock is then used in a monthly Bayesian panel VAR for emerging market economies to infer the spillover effects on these countries. We find that an expansionary US QE shock has significant effects on financial variables in emerging market economies. It leads to an exchange rate appreciation, a reduction in long-term bond yields, a stock market boom, and an increase in capital inflows to these countries. These effects on financial variables are stronger for the "Fragile Five" countries compared to other emerging market economies. We however do not find significant effects of the US QE shock on output and consumer prices of emerging markets.JEL codes: C31, E44, E52, E58, F32, F41, F42

We study spillover effects of US uncertainty fluctuations using panel data from fifteen emerging market economies (EMEs). A US uncertainty shock negatively affects EME stock prices and exchange rates, raises EME country spreads, and leads to capital outflows from them. Moreover, it decreases EME output, while increasing their consumer prices and net exports. The negative effects on output, exchange rates, and stock prices are weaker, but the effects on capital and trade flows stronger, for South American countries compared to other EMEs. We present a model of a small open economy that faces an external shock to interpret our findings.

Using an estimated DSGE model that features monetary and fiscal policy interactions and allows for equilibrium indeterminacy, we find that a passive monetary and passive fiscal policy regime prevailed in the pre-Volcker period while an active monetary and passive fiscal policy regime prevailed post-Volcker. Since both monetary and fiscal policies were passive pre-Volcker, there was equilibrium indeterminacy which resulted in substantially different transmission mechanisms of policy as compared to conventional models: unanticipated increases in interest rates increased inflation and output while unanticipated increases in lump-sum taxes decreased inflation and output. Unanticipated shifts in monetary and fiscal policies however, played no substantial role in explaining the variation of inflation and output at any horizon in either of the time periods. Pre-Volcker, in sharp contrast to postVolcker, we find that a time-varying inflation target does not explain low-frequency movements in inflation. A combination of shocks account for the dynamics of output, inflation, and government debt, with the relative importance of a particular shock quite different in the two time-periods due to changes in the systematic responses of policy. Finally, in a counterfactual exercise, we show that had the monetary policy regime of the post-Volcker era been in place pre-Volcker, inflation volatility would have been lower by 34% and the rise of inflation in the 1970s would not have occurred. JEL codes: C52,

Using a micro-founded model and a likelihood-based inference method, we show that while a passive monetary and passive fiscal policy regime prevailed in the U.S. before Paul Volcker's chairmanship at the Federal Reserve, an active monetary and passive fiscal policy regime prevailed after his appointment. Since both monetary and fiscal policies were passive pre-Volcker, equilibrium indeterminacy was a feature of the economy. Finally, pre-Volcker, the effects of unanticipated policy shifts were substantially different from those predicted by conventional monetary models: unanticipated increases in interest rates increased inflation and output, while unanticipated increases in lump-sum taxes decreased inflation and output.

Using an estimated DSGE model that features monetary and fiscal policy interactions and allows for equilibrium indeterminacy, we find that a passive monetary and passive fiscal policy regime prevailed in the pre-Volcker period while an active monetary and passive fiscal policy regime prevailed post-Volcker. Since both monetary and fiscal policies were passive pre-Volcker, there was equilibrium indeterminacy which resulted in substantially different transmission mechanisms of policy as compared to conventional models: unanticipated increases in interest rates increased inflation and output while unanticipated increases in lump-sum taxes decreased inflation and output. Unanticipated shifts in monetary and fiscal policies however, played no substantial role in explaining the variation of inflation and output at any horizon in either of the time periods. Pre-Volcker, in sharp contrast to postVolcker, we find that a time-varying inflation target does not explain low-frequency movements in inflation. A combination of shocks account for the dynamics of output, inflation, and government debt, with the relative importance of a particular shock quite different in the two time-periods due to changes in the systematic responses of policy. Finally, in a counterfactual exercise, we show that had the monetary policy regime of the post-Volcker era been in place pre-Volcker, inflation volatility would have been lower by 34% and the rise of inflation in the 1970s would not have occurred. JEL codes: C52,

Using an estimated DSGE model that features monetary and …scal policy interactions and allows for equilibrium indeterminacy, we …nd that a passive monetary and passive …scal policy regime prevailed in the pre-Volcker period while an active monetary and passive …scal policy regime prevailed post-Volcker. Since both monetary and …scal policies were passive pre-Volcker, there was equilibrium indeterminacy that gave rise to self-ful…lling beliefs and resulted in substantially di¤erent transmission mechanisms of policy as compared to conventional models: unanticipated increases in interest rates increased in ‡ation and output while unanticipated increases in lump-sum taxes decreased in ‡ation and output. Unanticipated shifts in monetary and …scal policies however, played no substantial role in explaining the variation of in ‡ation and output at any horizon in either of the time periods. Pre-Volcker, in sharp contrast to post-Volcker, we …nd that a time-varying in ‡ation target does not explain low-frequency movements in in ‡ation.A combination of shocks account for the dynamics of output, in ‡ation, and government debt, with the relative importance of a particular shock quite di¤erent in the two timeperiods due to changes in the systematic responses of policy. Finally, in a counterfactual exercise, we show that had the monetary policy regime of the post-Volcker era been in place pre-Volcker, in ‡ation volatility would have been lower by 34% and the rise of in ‡ation in the 1970s would not have occurred.JEL Classi…cation: C52, C54, E31, E32, E52, E63