Coping with Terms-of-Trade Shocks in Developing Countries
Christian Broda and Cédric Tille
Sharp swings in a developing country’s terms of trade—the price of its exports relative to the price
of its imports—can seriously disrupt output growth. An analysis of the effects of a decline in
export prices in seventy-five developing economies suggests that countries with a flexible exchange
rate will experience a much milder contraction in output than their counterparts with fixed
exchange rate regimes.
D
eveloping economies typically face large
swings in the price of the goods they
export. Such fluctuations are unwelcome
because they can contribute to increased volatility in the
growth of output (GDP). Indeed, several studies have concluded
that changes in the terms of trade—the price of
exports relative to the price of imports—can account for
half of the output volatility in developing countries.1
In this edition of Current Issues, we examine how the
exchange rate regime affects the ability of developing
countries to absorb fluctuations in their terms of trade.
Economic theory offers a clear and widely accepted interpretation
of the role played by the exchange rate regime. In
a country with a flexible exchange rate, fluctuations in the
terms of trade will be offset by movements in the exchange
rate, eliminating much of the impact on economic activity.
By contrast,a country with a fixed exchange rate will experience
substantial swings in output.2
To test this interpretation, we observe the output effects
of a 10 percent decline in export prices in seventy-five
developing countries with differing exchange rate regimes.
We find that two years after the price decline, real GDP is
almost unaffected in countries with a flexible exchange rate,
while it drops by about 2 percent in countries with a fixed
exchange rate. These results provide strong support for the
theory that a flexible exchange rate can help to insulate an
economy against fluctuations in export and import prices.
In a separate demonstration of the importance of the
exchange rate regime,we narrow our focus to two countries
with fixed rate regimes, Ecuador and Argentina, to show
how forcefully changes in the terms of trade will drive economic
activity when the buffer of a flexible exchange rate is
absent. Ecuador benefited from higher export prices after
adopting the dollar as its currency in 2000,while Argentina
faced sharp falls in export prices during 1998 and 1999.
Our calculations indicate that the contrary movements in
the terms of trade experienced by these countries contributed
heavily to divergent output performances.
Why Do the Terms of Trade Matter So Much?
To understand how export and import prices affect a country’s
terms of trade, consider a simple example in which a
country exports wheat and imports oil. Increases in the
price of oil represent a worsening of the terms of trade
Current IssuesI N E C O N O M I C S A N D F I N A N C E
Volume 9, Number 11 November 2003
FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF NEW YORK
w w w. n e w y o r k f e d . o r g / r e s e a r c h / c u r r e n t _ i s s u e s
because the country will pay more for the goods it imports.
Conversely, increases in the price of wheat boost the country’s
export earnings and represent an improvement in its
terms of trade.
The terms of trade have an especially marked impact on
the economies of developing countries. One recent study
(Baxter and Kouparitsas 2000) suggests that terms-of-trade
fluctuations are twice as large in developing countries as in
developed countries.The authors attribute this pattern to the
heavy reliance of developing countries on commodity
exports, whose prices are more volatile than those of manufactured
goods. Moreover, because developing countries
generally have a high degree of openness to foreign trade,
these sharp swings in the terms of trade affect a large share
of their economies.
Developing countries are also very exposed to terms-oftrade
fluctuations because they have little, if any, leverage
over their export prices (Broda 2003).World markets dictate
the price of the goods they export. By contrast, developed
countries and oil exporters can exert a substantial influence
on export prices. Building on the fact that terms-of-trade
shifts in developing countries are largely exogenous—that
is, determined by forces outside the countries’ control—
Mendoza (1995) and Kose (2002) find that terms-of-trade
movements can account for roughly half of the output
volatility in these countries.3
Coping with Terms-of-Trade Volatility: The Role
of the Exchange Rate
Economic theory suggests that the effectiveness with which
countries cope with changes in their terms of trade—
terms-of-trade shocks—depends primarily on the nature of
their exchange rate regime. Under a fixed exchange rate
system, the value of the domestic currency is pegged to the
value of another currency or basket of currencies. Under a
flexible exchange rate regime, by contrast, the value of the
domestic currency is allowed to shift freely in response to
supply and demand conditions in the foreign exchange
market. Theory predicts that countries with flexible
exchange rate regimes will be better able to adjust to termsof-trade
shocks.
To understand the logic behind the theory, consider the
consequences of a fall in the price of a country’s exports
under both types of regimes.At the outset, the worsening of
the terms of trade will reduce the income of the country’s
exporters,leading to a decline in activity and employment in
the export industries.4 Since exporters are taking in less foreign
currency—say, dollars—they will bring fewer dollars
to the foreign exchange market. As dollars become scarce,
fewer market participants will want to sell dollars to buy the
domestic currency—pesos in this example—and as a result,
the peso will weaken.
If the authorities in the country follow a fixed exchange
rate policy, they will be required to intervene in the foreign
exchange market to keep the value of the two currencies in
line.Thus,they will sustain the value of the peso by purchasing
pesos for dollars. This move will in turn drain pesos out
of the money market, reducing the amount of money and
credit available for business investment and expansion.
Because the authorities’ actions are equivalent in their
effects to a tightening of monetary policy, this response to
the decline in export prices can lead to a costly contraction
in output.
By contrast, if the authorities follow a flexible exchange
rate policy, they will refrain from intervening in the foreign
exchange market and will permit the currency to depreciate.
This depreciation makes exports more competitive in world
markets and thereby increases demand.Rising demand then
stimulates activity in the export industries, cushioning the
adverse impact of the terms-of-trade shock on output.5
In sum, theory predicts that a country with a fixed
exchange rate regime will adjust to a terms-of-trade shock
through a contraction in output, while a country with a
flexible exchange rate will adjust through a currency depreciation
that significantly offsets the shock’s negative effects
on output. To be sure, it does not necessarily follow that a
flexible exchange rate is unambiguously the best choice for a
developing country.6 Nevertheless, theory makes a compelling
case that a flexible exchange rate can function as a
kind of automatic stabilizer, absorbing by means of its own
movements the fluctuations in the terms of trade.
The Empirical Evidence: Is the Theory Right?
We test the theoretical prediction that a flexible exchange
rate is a superior tool for coping with terms-of-trade shocks
by looking at the experience of developing countries with
different exchange rate regimes (see Broda [2003]). Our
sample consists of seventy-five developing countries in
Africa, Latin America, Asia, and Eastern Europe, tracked
from 1973 to 1998.
We classify the exchange rate regime of each country as
either fixed or flexible, but we take into account changes
through time. We do not use the regime classifications
provided by the International Monetary Fund (IMF 1997),
because they are based on the publicly stated commitment
of the authorities in each country and may not represent the
C U R R E N T I S S U E S I N E C O N O M I C S A N D F I N A N C E V O L U M E 9 , N U M B E R 1 1
2
www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues 3
countries’ actual policies.7 Rather, we adopt the classifications
used in Ghosh et al. (1997), which adjust the IMF
classifications to reflect the observed behavior of the various
countries. This source shows that developing countries
have gradually moved toward more flexible exchange rate
regimes since the early 1970s (Table 1).
Using this breakdown of countries by exchange rate
regime, we assess the effects of a worsening in the terms
of trade on each country’s nominal exchange rate, real
exchange rate,8 consumer prices,and real GDP.We consider a
permanent 10 percent deterioration in the terms of trade9
and contrast the effects under a flexible exchange rate with
those under a fixed exchange rate.A more detailed explanation
of the methodology is provided in the box.
Chart 1 tracks the response of the four variables in
countries with a flexible exchange rate (blue line) and countries
with a fixed exchange rate (green line) following the
worsening in the terms of trade at year 0. The responses are
computed in terms of percentage changes from the initial
situation. For example, a value of -1 indicates that the variable
in question is 1 percent below the level that it would
have reached had the terms of trade remained unchanged.
As expected, the worsening of the terms of trade leads to
a substantial depreciation of the domestic currency—7 percent
after one year—under a flexible exchange rate but has
virtually no effect under a fixed exchange rate (Chart 1, top
panel).10 Although the shock leads to a contraction in GDP
under a flexible exchange rate (second panel from the top),
the decrease is relatively modest—0.2 percent after two
years—because the depreciation of the currency sustains
the competitiveness of exporters. Under a fixed exchange
rate, however, the effect on output is sharply different: here,
we observe a substantial contraction in GDP that peaks at
nearly 2 percent two years after the shock.These results bear
out the prediction that a flexible exchange rate will soften the
effects of terms-of-trade shocks relative to what the effects
would have been under a fixed exchange rate.
The impact of the terms-of-trade shock on consumer
prices also differs across exchange rate regimes (third panel
from the top). Under a flexible exchange rate, the currency
depreciation feeds into higher prices for imported goods and
leads to an increase in consumer prices of 1.7 percent after
one year. By contrast, the contraction in economic activity
under a fixed exchange rate translates into lower wages and
Table 1
Evolution of Exchange Rate Regimes
in Developing Countries
Number of Countries
1973 1980 1990 1998
Flexible 7 19 42 53
Fixed 63 53 31 22
Total 70 72 73 75
Source: Broda (2003).
To test the effects of an export price decline under fixed and
flexible exchange rate regimes, we use a vector autoregression
(VAR) technique representing the dynamic paths of real
GDP, the real exchange rate, consumer prices, and the terms
of trade. The system can be represented as
(1) A*Y(t) = B*Y(t-1) + C*Y(t-2)
+ D*Y(t-3) + F*Y(t-4) + e(t),
where A to F are 4 x 4 matrices of coefficients and Y is
a vector of the four endogenous variables. The system is estimated
using the assumption of exogenous terms of trade.
Our analysis gives the response of the variables to an exogenous
decline in the terms of trade. We control for a series of
factors (not included in the equation above) that can shape
the response to terms-of-trade changes, such as the degree of
openness, financial development, access to international
capital markets, and fiscal policy. For a complete description
of the empirical methodology, see Broda (2003).
The VAR methodology also allows us to assess the extent
to which fluctuations in economic variables are driven by
terms-of-trade movements. We do so by combining the
volatility of the movements and the effect of the shocks on a
given variable at a given horizon. This can be computed by
using standard variance decomposition techniques on the
VAR described above.
We offer one caveat concerning our method: our calculations
assume that the choice of exchange rate regime is not
systematically correlated with other characteristics of the
economy. Two examples should illustrate the importance of
this assumption. If countries that have relatively flexible
labor markets adopt a flexible exchange rate, we may
wrongly attribute the good performance stemming from
their efficient labor markets to their flexible exchange rate.
By contrast, if countries with relatively rigid labor markets
adopt flexible regimes, we may underestimate the benefits of
a flexible exchange rate. While both cases are possible, the
current empirical literature on exchange rate regimes has not
uncovered any systematic relationship between exchange
rate regimes and structural characteristics of the economy.
Empirical Methodology
prices, with the consumer price index falling 0.4 percent
after one year. Although the higher prices under a flexible
exchange rate cushion the impact of the depreciation on the
real exchange rate, the offset is only partial and the country
experiences a real depreciation of 5.5 percent after one year
(bottom panel). The contraction in prices under a fixed
exchange rate also leads to a real depreciation, although the
magnitude—0.9 percent after one year—is much smaller.
In addition to showing that the response of the economy
to terms-of-trade shocks depends on the exchange rate
regime, our analysis provides evidence that these shocks are
a substantial source of economic fluctuations in developing
countries. Using our framework, we compute the share of
actual volatility in a variable, such as GDP growth, that can
be traced back to volatility in the terms of trade (see the box
for details).We undertake this exercise for real GDP growth,
the real exchange rate, and consumer prices, at both short
(two-year) and long (ten-year) horizons.
Under a flexible exchange rate, terms-of-trade shocks
play little role in driving GDP volatility but account for
nearly a third of the real exchange rate volatility (Table 2,
first row). By contrast, under a fixed exchange rate, these
shocks are not an important source of real exchange rate
volatility but explain between 20 and 30 percent of GDP
volatility (second row). These results further underscore
how the adjustment to shocks occurs through the exchange
rate under a flexible exchange rate and through real activity
under a fixed exchange rate.
How Output Effects Are Magnified in Fixed Regimes:
The Case of Ecuador and Argentina
The recent experience of Ecuador and Argentina shows the
crucial role of terms-of-trade shocks in driving economic
activity once the exchange rate is prevented from cushioning
the shocks’ impact on GDP growth. Until December 2001,
Argentina was under a currency board regime in which the
value of its currency was rigorously pegged one-for-one to
the U.S. dollar. Similarly, Ecuador has been using the U.S.
dollar as its currency since early 2000.
Although both countries have operated under fixed
exchange rate regimes, their growth performances in recent
years have diverged dramatically. The Ecuadorian economy
has experienced robust growth since it adopted the U.S. dollar,
with GDP expanding by 3.7 percent each year on average
C U R R E N T I S S U E S I N E C O N O M I C S A N D F I N A N C E V O L U M E 9 , N U M B E R 1 1
4
Chart 1
Effects of a 10 Percent Worsening of the Terms of Trade
Nominal Exchange Rate
-2
0
2
4
6
8
10
Fixed exchange rate
Flexible exchange rate
Gross Domestic Product
-2
-1
0
1
2
Fixed exchange rate
Flexible exchange rate
Source:Authors’calculations.
Note: In the top and bottom panels of the chart,a depreciation of the domestic
currency is plotted as a rise.
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
Fixed exchange rate
Flexible exchange rate
0
2
4
6
8
Fixed exchange rate
Flexible exchange rate
543210
Consumer Price Index
Real Exchange Rate
Percentage change
Years
Table 2
Share of the Variance in Real GDP and the Real Exchange
Rate Driven by Terms-of-Trade Shocks
Percent
Real GDP Real Exchange Rate
Exchange Rate Regime Short-Run Long-Run Short-Run Long-Run
Flexible 2.4 9.6 28.6 31.2
Fixed 21.3 30.0 4.5 12.9
Source: Broda (2003).
Note: Short-run denotes a horizon of two years,long-run a horizon of ten years.
www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues 5
between 2000 and 2002 (Chart 2, top panel). By contrast, the
Argentinean economy contracted in the three years before
the collapse of the currency board, with GDP down 2.5 percent
each year on average between 1999 and 2001 (Chart 2,
bottom panel).11
We might infer from these contrasting experiences that
the exchange rate regime has no implication for growth,
since one economy contracted and the other expanded
under a fixed rate system.However,a closer look at the actual
evolution of the terms of trade in Ecuador and Argentina,
combined with our findings from the previous section,
suggests that the fixed exchange rate played an important
role in the growth performance of these countries.
During the years in question, Ecuador and Argentina
experienced diametrically different movements in their
terms of trade (Table 3). In Ecuador, a surge in oil prices led
to an 18.0 percent improvement in the terms of trade in
2000. Although oil prices subsequently dropped,the terms of
trade did not decline as abruptly as oil prices because the
prices of other exports, such as bananas, performed well.12
By contrast, Argentina saw its terms of trade worsen by
nearly 6 percent on average in 1998 and 1999.The deterioration
reflected widespread weaknesses in the prices of several
exports,such as edible oils,wheat,corn,and aluminum.13
Such movements in the terms of trade can affect a country’s
output growth over a period of several years, as Chart 2
suggests. The ongoing impact of terms-of-trade changes
implies that a country’s growth performance in a given year
is driven by current and past changes. Thus, although the
initial fall in Argentina’s terms of trade was mostly offset in
the latter part of the period under study (with a 10.2 percent
rise in 2000),it still had a significant impact on growth.
To assess the extent to which terms-of-trade movements
account for the growth performances of Ecuador and
Argentina, we use our earlier statistical results (presented in
Chart 1) for countries with fixed exchange rate regimes,
together with the actual terms-of-trade changes experienced
by Argentina and Ecuador. Specifically, we calculate what
Ecuadorian GDP growth would have been if the only shocks
affecting the economy had been the terms-of-trade movements
starting in 2000.14 We undertake a similar exercise for
Argentina for the 1999-2001 period.15 Comparing the GDP
growth computed by our model with the actual GDP growth
of these countries enables us to quantify the contribution
of terms-of-trade shocks to the countries’ growth perfor-
mances.16
Using the dynamic responses to terms-of-trade shocks
presented in Chart 1,our counterfactual exercise suggests that
movements in the terms of trade had a marked influence on
the growth performance of the two countries (Chart 2).We
estimate that in Ecuador between 2000 and 2002, improvements
in the terms of trade contributed an average of 1.6 percentage
points annually to GDP growth, which averaged
Chart 2
Contribution of Changes in the Terms of Trade
to Real GDP Growth
Average annual percentage change
Ecuador: 2000-02
0
1
2
3
4
5
Sources: International Monetary Fund, International Financial Statistics;
authors’calculations.
-1.4
-2.5
Argentina: 1999-2001
-3
-2
-1
0
1
Contribution of changes
in the terms of trade
Real GDP growth
1.6
3.7 Table 3
Terms of Trade and Export Prices
Percentage Change
Ecuador
Terms of Trade Oil Bananas
1999 2.9 33.8 N.A.
2000 18.0 57.1 -1.2
2001 -6.5 -14.5 57.6
2002 7.6 1.1 25.4
Argentina
Terms of Trade Edible Oils Wheat Corn Aluminum
1998 -5.5 16.5 -23.5 -9.6 -15.8
1999 -5.9 -34.1 -4.5 -8.6 1.5
2000 10.2 -22.1 2.2 -8.6 12.4
2001 -0.6 13.0 4.9 0.7 -6.4
Sources: Banco Central de Ecuador; Instituto Nacional de Estadística y Censos
(Argentina); Chicago Board of Trade.
3.7 percent each year. By contrast, the worsening of the
Argentinean terms of trade created a drag on growth averaging
1.4 percentage points each year between 1999 and 2001,
a period during which GDP fell by 2.5 percent annually.
These estimates should be viewed with some caution
since we are applying to only two countries a statistical
relation drawn from a much larger sample.Nevertheless,our
results provide persuasive evidence of the key role played by
terms-of-trade movements in determining whether output
rose or fell in Ecuador and Argentina in recent years.
Moreover, our results suggest that a fixed rate regime, in
contrast to a flexible rate regime, permits terms-of-trade
movements to exert a strong influence on output growth in
developing countries.
Conclusion
This article has explored how the exchange rate regime
adopted by developing countries can affect their ability to
adjust to terms-of-trade fluctuations.Our statistical analysis
has shown that a terms-of-trade shock will have little impact
on growth under a flexible exchange rate system because the
exchange rate’s own movements will absorb the effects of the
shock. Under a fixed exchange rate, however, this buffer is
absent and the adjustment will fall primarily on growth:
consequently,a worsening of the terms of trade will lead to a
contraction in output.
Our analysis has also shown that movements in the terms
of trade represent a sizable source of volatility for developing
countries. The contrasting experiences of Ecuador and
Argentina are a case in point: in recent years, terms-of-trade
shocks have been an important determinant of the direction
and extent of output changes in these countries.
The effectiveness of the flexible exchange rate in responding
to these shocks is only one of the many considerations
that developing countries would weigh in choosing an
exchange rate regime.Nevertheless,in light of the significant
volatility risks that terms-of-trade movements pose for output
growth in developing countries, the consideration
appears to be an important one.
Notes
1. The studies include Mendoza (1995),Kose (2002),and Broda (2003).
2. Since Friedman’s (1953) famous case for flexible exchange rate regimes,this
argument has become one of the least disputed in favor of flexible rates.
3. Broda (2003) finds that the share explained by terms-of-trade movements
is substantially smaller.His analysis is based on empirical estimates,while the
calculations in Mendoza (1995) and Kose (2002) are based on calibrations of
their models.
4. If wages in these industries were to adjust quickly, contracting in line with
the drop in income, the terms-of-trade shock would have only a moderate
impact on activity. In practice, however, wages exhibit substantial inertia. The
failure of wages to react fast enough shifts the burden of adjustment onto the
exchange rate.
5. The magnitude of the fall in output in each exchange rate regime will
depend on the magnitude of the terms-of-trade change. However, for a given
movement in the terms of trade, the fall in output should always be larger in a
country with a fixed exchange rate regime than in a country with a flexible
regime.
6. Many considerations enter into a country’s choice of an exchange rate
regime.A full assessment of the optimal exchange rate regime is beyond the
scope of this article. Readers interested in the pros and cons of alternative
exchange rate regimes might consult Calvo and Reinhart (2000), Calvo and
Mishkin (2003),Ghosh et al.(1997),McKenzie (1999),and Tornell and Velasco
(2000).
7. Several countries classified by the International Monetary Fund as fixed
regimes experienced substantial depreciations of their exchange rate, making
them more like flexible regimes in practice. For example, El Salvador (in 1983-
84), Guatemala (in 1986-88), and Nicaragua (in 1985-87) were classified as
fixed regimes (with currencies pegged to the dollar), but their currencies
depreciated by 10 percent, 41 percent, and 106 percent, respectively. Conversely,
several countries classified as flexible regimes—including India (in
1993-96) and Bolivia (in 1985-90)—acted more like fixed regimes when they
limited the fluctuations of their exchange rate.
8. The nominal exchange rate is the price of one country’s currency in terms of
the currency of another country—for example, the quantity of pesos required
to purchase one dollar. The real exchange rate—the nominal exchange rate
adjusted for price differences—is the price of one country’s consumption
basket in terms of the consumption basket of another country. The real
exchange rate, for example, might be understood as the quantity of Mexican
consumption baskets that one must sell in Mexico to purchase one U.S.
consumption basket in the United States. Specifically, the relation is RER =
NER * P(US) / P(Mex), where RER is the real exchange rate, NER the nominal
exchange rate, P(US) the dollar price of the U.S. consumption basket, and
P(Mex) the peso price of the Mexican consumption basket.
9. Because of the rich dynamics of the statistical model, the terms of trade
worsen by slightly more than 10 percent initially, but then ease somewhat so
that the total change is equivalent to a permanent 10 percent change.
10. Because the exchange rate is defined as units of domestic currency per unit
of foreign currency,the depreciation appears as an increase in the chart.
11. We end our analysis of Argentina in 2001 because the sharp contraction in
2002 after the collapse of the currency board stemmed primarily from the failure
of the banking sector and other factors unrelated to movements in the terms of
trade.Such factors are outside the scope of this article.
12. Oil and bananas together accounted for 59 percent of Ecuadorian exports in
2001.
C U R R E N T I S S U E S I N E C O N O M I C S A N D F I N A N C E V O L U M E 9 , N U M B E R 1 1
6
www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues 7
The views expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Federal
Reserve Bank of New York or the Federal Reserve System.
About the Authors
Christian Broda is an economist and Cédric Tille a senior economist in the International Research Function of the Research
and Market Analysis Group.
13. Together, these commodities accounted for 21 percent of Argentinean
exports in 2000.
14. We ignore the pre-2000 shocks because the Ecuadorian economy was then
operating under a flexible exchange rate, so the effects of terms-of-trade movements
on output growth would have been limited. In any case, the terms-oftrade
movements in 1999 were not large.
15. Because of the delayed impact of the terms of trade, we consider the 1998
shock even though our analysis of growth starts in 1999.
16. Note that our method,while illustrative,is imperfect in that we infer a statistical
relation from a sample of countries and apply it to two particular cases.This
limitation should be borne in mind when interpreting our results.
References
Baxter, Marianne, and Michael Kouparitsas.2000.“What Causes Fluctuations in
the Terms of Trade?”NBER Working Paper no.7462.
Broda, Christian. 2003. “Terms of Trade and Exchange Rate Regimes in
Developing Countries.” Journal of International Economics, forthcoming.
(See also Federal Reserve Bank of NewYork Staff Reports,no.148.)
Calvo, Guillermo, and Frederic S. Mishkin. 2003.“The Mirage of Exchange Rate
Regimes for Emerging Market Countries.”NBER Working Paper no.9808.
Calvo, Guillermo, and Carmen Reinhart. 2000. “Fixing for Your Life.” NBER
Working Paper no.8006.
Friedman, Milton. 1953.“The Case for Flexible Exchange Rates.” In Essays in
Positive Economics.Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Ghosh,Atish,Anne-Marie Gulde, Jonathan D. Ostry, and Holger C.Wolf. 1997.
“Does the Nominal Exchange Rate Regime Matter?”NBER Working Paper
no.5874.
International Monetary Fund (IMF). 1997.“Exchange Rate Arrangements and
Economic Performance in Developing Countries.”World Economic Outlook,
October.
Kose, M.Ayhan. 2002.“Explaining Business Cycles in Small Open Economies:
How Much Do World Prices Matter?”Journal of International Economics 56,
no.2: 299-327.
McKenzie, Michael. 1999. “The Impact of Exchange Rate Volatility on
International Trade Flows.”Journal of Economic Surveys 13,no.1 (February):
71-106.
Mendoza, Enrique G. 1995. “The Terms of Trade, the Real Exchange Rate,
and Economic Fluctuations.” International Economic Review 36, no. 1
(February): 101-37.
Tornell,Aaron,and AndresVelasco.2000.“Fixed versus Flexible Exchange Rates:
Which Provides More Fiscal Discipline?”Journal of Monetary Economics 45,
no.2 (April): 399-436.
www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues 7
Learn about New Research Publications via Electronic Alert
By subscribing to our free Electronic Alert service, you receive e-mails describing the new publications recently posted
on our website.You can then link directly to the publications.Visit <http://www.newyorkfed.org/alertservices/> to join.
Current Issues in Economics and Finance is published by the Research and Market Analysis Group of the Federal Reserve
Bank of New York.Dorothy Meadow Sobol is the editor.
Editorial Staff:Valerie LaPorte,Mike De Mott,Susan Szarkowitz,Robert Clark
Production: Carol Perlmutter,David Rosenberg,Jane Urry
Subscriptions to Current Issues are free.Write to the Public Information Department, Federal Reserve Bank of New York,
33 Liberty Street, New York, N.Y. 10045-0001, or call 212-720-6134. Back issues of this publication are available at
<http://www.newyorkfed.org/research/current_issues>.