View original document

The full text on this page is automatically extracted from the file linked above and may contain errors and inconsistencies.

VOL. 8, NO. 6 • JULY 2013­­

DALLASFED

Economic
Letter
Economic Shocks Reverberate in
World of Interconnected Trade Ties
by Matthieu Bussière, Alexander Chudik and Giulia Sestieri

As the world economy
slowly recovers from
the Great Recession
and global trade flows
remain weak, net
trade contributions
to domestic growth
become more critical.

R

enewed debate about currency
wars and the question of global
trade imbalances are part of
a longer-running economic
discussion about what drives a country’s
exports and imports.
More specifically, what determines
international trade flows? As the world
economy slowly recovers from the Great
Recession and global trade flows remain
weak, net trade contributions to domestic
growth become more critical and the factors affecting exports and imports tend to
become more intensely scrutinized.
Studies of the current account—the
balance of goods and services traded
internationally, plus net income from
abroad and net cross-border transfer payments—have long emphasized the role of
the exchange rate in adjusting to excessive
current account surpluses and deficits.
In the context of global imbalances, several efforts have been made to estimate
the magnitude of the dollar depreciation
needed to reduce the U.S. trade deficit,
which reached around 6 percent of gross
domestic product (GDP) in the year preceding the 2008 financial crisis.1 However,
it’s also important to take into account the
role of demand because its fluctuations at
home and abroad can offset relative price
movements.
Based on a global vector autoregression (GVAR) macroeconomic model of
trade flows, it appears that world exports

respond more to an unexpected event,
or shock, affecting U.S. output than to a
comparable unplanned event involving
the dollar. Additionally, shocks abroad
bring wide-ranging responses that tend
to be felt among countries with strong
trading relationships. A positive bump to
German output would increase output and
exports among other European economies. Surprisingly, perhaps, it would also
increase exports and GDP in more distant
countries such as Mexico. The effect of a
positive shock to Chinese imports would
be especially large among other Asian
countries but less so in Europe.

Modeling Economic Spillovers
The multilateral nature of international
trade deserves particular attention, given
that trade is increasingly fragmented. For
example, a slowdown in economic activity in country A affects not only its trading
partner, country B, but also country B’s
trading partners, C and D. This is particularly true if B imports from C and D the
components needed to produce the goods
exported to A.
GVAR modeling, which looks at relationships among series of data over time
and across countries, offers a convenient
and flexible way to study international
trade because it takes into account crosscountry interdependencies.
The model can capture strong links
between exports and imports that occur

Economic Letter

Global Output Rises in Response to Shock to U.S. Output

Output (percent)
1
.8
.6
.4
.2
0
–.2

Korea

Japan

Brazil

Spain

China

Argentina

Thailand

UK

Sweden

NOTE: Chart shows the impact of a U.S. output shock on global output after one year, with 90 percent confidence bounds.
SOURCE: Authors’ calculations.

2

2

U.S. Dollar Appreciation
Next, suppose a positive shock occurs
to the U.S. real effective exchange rate,
which corresponds to an appreciation of
2.5 percent on impact.4 The stronger dollar
has an unambiguous effect on U.S. exports,

Global Exports Increase as U.S. Output Rises

Exports (percent)
3
2
1
0
–1

Brazil

China

Australia

Norway

Japan

New Zealand

Netherlands

Spain

Germany

UK

Argentina

France

Switzerland

Mexico

Thailand

Singapore

US

–3

Canada

–2

Asia

Consider a positive shock to domestic output in the U.S., an unexpected/
unpredictable rise in GDP over the period
covered in the data sample. In the model, a
one-standard-error shock to U.S. output—
a size considered statistically typical—is

Chart

Latin America

Unanticipated Rise in U.S. Output

equal to 0.6 percent of GDP at the time of
impact. One noticeable result is a large
effect on U.S. imports, which increase
around 2 percent after one year and 1.3
percent after three years. In addition, the
impact on other countries is significant
and large.
Unsurprisingly, such a positive shock
to U.S. output has expansionary effects on
the output of almost all foreign countries
(Chart 1). The squares in the chart rep-

Europe

because of vertical integration of production chains—an exported finished
product includes imported components,
for example. As a result, the model can
look at global trade flows and the effect of
unanticipated changes to variables such
as aggregate demand—proxied here by
GDP—and exchange rates.2 These shocks
may be correlated and may differ from
the independent, economically unrelated
shocks depicted in so-called structural
macroeconomic models.3
The trade model covers 21 countries—14 advanced and seven emerging
markets. The modeling strategy uses a
handful of key variables: exports and
imports of goods and services, GDP, effective exchange rates, and oil prices (all in
real, or inflation-adjusted, terms), plus
country-specific foreign data aggregates.
These foreign aggregates are constructed as
weighted cross-section averages of exports,
imports, output and exchange rates.
Data cover 1980 to 2007, an endpoint
just before the onset of the Great Recession
and ensuing trade collapse.

Italy

Italy

France

Norway

Germany

Australia

New Zealand

Netherlands

Mexico

Switzerland

Singapore

US

Canada

Asia

Europe

–.6

Latin America

–.4

Korea

1

resent the mean effect after one year, while
the length of the associated bars indicates
the degree of statistical uncertainty around
the estimates. Although the effect is particularly large in neighboring Canada and
Mexico, European economies are significantly affected, too, especially the smaller
ones. The effect is positive but not statistically different from zero in several Asian
countries, especially larger ones such as
China and Japan.
Similarly, exports increase significantly
in almost all countries (Chart 2). The
effects of higher growth abroad generate a
rise in U.S. exports. The positive feedback
to U.S. exports is statistically and economically significant in the first couple of years
after the shock.
The rankings of countries in Charts
1 and 2 are similar, suggesting that geographic proximity and trade linkages are
important channels of transmission. The
model is symmetric—when an increase
in U.S. output causes a substantial export
increase, it follows that a U.S. recession
would likely be associated with a significant fall in world trade.

Sweden

Chart

NOTE: Chart shows the impact of a U.S. output shock on exports after one year, with 90 percent confidence bounds.
SOURCE: Authors’ calculations.

Economic Letter • Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas • July 2013

Economic Letter
Chart

3

2
1.5
1
.5
0
–.5
–1
–1.5

US

Brazil

Korea

Singapore

Sweden

New Zealand

Argentina

Mexico

Netherlands

China

Canada

Italy

Thailand

UK

Norway

France

Switzerland

Spain

Australia

Japan

NOTE: Chart shows the impact of a U.S. dollar shock on exports after one year, with 90 percent confidence bounds.
SOURCE: Authors’ calculations.

4

Response to Rising German Output Most Widely Felt in Europe

Exports (percent)
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
.5
0
–.5
–1

–2

Mexico
Thailand
Germany
Italy
Norway
France
Netherlands
Singapore
Spain
US
Switzerland
Sweden
Canada
Australia
Korea
Japan
UK
New Zealand
Argentina
China
Brazil

–1.5
Europe
Asia
Latin America

Although the U.S. clearly has a leading role in the global business cycle,
other countries play important roles.
Accordingly, it is interesting to look at
Germany and China to illustrate regional
and global dynamics. Both countries are
systemically important to the global economy and are forces in their own regions.
Germany is the world’s fourth-largest
economy and the foremost one in the
euro area, as well as the second-largest
global exporter after China. A positive, onestandard-deviation shock to German GDP,
corresponding to a 0.8 percent increase
at the time of impact, has a broad impact
on exports after one year and carries
economically and statistically significant
effects on other countries, especially in
Europe (Chart 4). This is not surprising
given the strength of linkages in Europe.
Interestingly, the effect on U.S. exports is
also significant, at about 0.4 percent.
Finally, consider the effect on exports
from a positive shock to Chinese imports,
given the increasing importance of China
in global trade (Chart 5). Although some
of the estimated effects are uncertain, the
general pattern is relatively clear: A onestandard-error shock to Chinese imports,
which corresponds to an increase of 1.9
percent at the time of the impact, has a
large positive effect on exports from other

Germany

Asia

–2.5

Latin America

–2

Chart

Other Country Shocks

U.S. Dollar Appreciation Felt Most in Japan and Europe

Exports (percent)

Europe

which fall 1.3 percent in the first year
(Chart 3).5
Japanese exports are affected by the
U.S. exchange rate appreciation more than
those of other foreign economies, in line
with Japan experiencing the greatest resulting currency depreciation.6 The stronger
dollar also significantly affects exports from
European countries. The overall effect on
Asian and Latin American exports tends
to be subdued. A possible explanation:
The currencies of these regions tend to follow U.S. exchange-rate appreciation and
gain little competitiveness when the dollar
strengthens.
Thus, world exports respond more to
a U.S. output shock than to a shock involving dollar appreciation. This appears to
be consistent with what occurred after
the 2008 financial crisis, when, contrary
to what many observers expected, adjustment to global imbalances was not accompanied by a sharp dollar depreciation.

NOTE: Chart shows the impact of a German output shock on exports after one year, with 90 percent confidence bounds.
SOURCE: Authors’ calculations.

Asian countries and, to a lesser extent,
exports from Europe after one year. This
result clearly suggests the presence of
strong trade integration among Asian
economies.7

Global Trade Flows
GVAR trade modeling, helpful in showing cross-country interdependence, suggests that changes in domestic demand
have a strong effect on international trade

flows and on foreign GDP. This underlines
the importance of policy coordination
across countries: In a strongly interconnected world in which economic shocks
reverberate through international trade
linkages, international spillover effects cannot be ignored. Policy measures in a given
country affect its trading partners directly,
and the effects quickly spread to the rest of
the world, ultimately feeding back to the
domestic economy itself.

Economic Letter • Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas • July 2013

3

Economic Letter

Chart

5

Global Exports Respond to Unexpected Rise in Chinese Imports

Exports (percent)
4
3
2
1
0
–1

Thailand
China
Singapore
Japan
Australia
France
Italy
Korea
Germany
Brazil
Netherlands
Canada
Switzerland
Sweden
New Zealand
Mexico
US
Spain
UK
Argentina
Norway

Europe
Asia
Latin America

–2

NOTE: Chart shows the impact of a Chinese import shock on exports after one year, with 90 percent confidence bounds.
SOURCE: Authors’ calculations.

The G-20, representing the largest and
some of the most influential economies,
offers a natural forum for policy coordination among systemically important
countries.8 This is particularly true of the
G-20 working group on the Framework for
Strong, Sustainable and Balanced Growth,
which seeks to address global imbalances.
Rebalancing the world economy—
for instance, by stimulating demand in
countries experiencing trade surpluses—is
important to ensure that global growth
does not rely on a small number of countries, each susceptible to downturns, but
instead becomes more evenly spread
among all nations.
Bussière is head of the international macroeconomics division of Banque de France,

DALLASFED

and Sestieri is head of a section in the same
division. Chudik is a senior research economist at the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Notes
Thanks to Bruno Cabrillac and Annabelle Mourougane
for helpful comments and suggestions.
1
See, for example, the survey “A Framework for
Assessing Global Imbalances,” by Thierry Bracke,
Matthieu Bussière, Michael Fidora and Roland Straub,
The World Economy, vol. 33, no. 9, 2009, pp. 1,140–74
and the references cited therein.
2
Technically, the GVAR approach consists of estimating
a set of small-scale country-specific dynamic models,
which link domestic and foreign variables. The GVAR formulation is a rich dynamic model, which also allows for
cointegration within and across countries. See “Modeling
Global Trade Flows: Results from a GVAR Model,” by
Matthieu Bussière, Alexander Chudik and Giulia Sestieri,
Globalization and Monetary Policy Institute Working

Economic Letter

is published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. The
views expressed are those of the authors and should not
be attributed to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas or the
Federal Reserve System.
Articles may be reprinted on the condition that the
source is credited and a copy is provided to the Research
Department of the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.
Economic Letter is available free of charge by writing
the Public Affairs Department, Federal Reserve Bank of
Dallas, P.O. Box 655906, Dallas, TX 75265-5906; by fax
at 214-922-5268; or by telephone at 214-922-5254. This
publication is available on the Dallas Fed website,
www.dallasfed.org.

Paper no. 119, Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, 2012, for
details of the GVAR model used to generate these results
and for a complete description of the data.
3
Generalized impulse response functions (GIRF) reported
here (and originally proposed in “Impulse Response
Analysis in Nonlinear Multivariate Models,” by Gary
Koop, M. Hashem Pesaran and Simon M. Potter, Journal
of Econometrics, vol. 74, no. 1, 1996, pp. 119–47) give a
sense of the expected impact of a change in one variable
(demand or exchange rates) on other variables (trade
flows) in the model.
4
The real effective exchange rate of the dollar is a
weighted average value of the dollar relative to an index
or basket of other major currencies, adjusted for the
effects of inflation.
5
Preliminary results imply that a 10 percent appreciation
of the dollar would trigger a more than 5 percent decline
in U.S. real exports, which appears to be on the high
side. Other researchers also find substantial effects (see,
for example, “The New OECD International Trade Model,”
by Nigel Pain, Annabelle Mourougane, Franck Sédillot
and Laurence Le Fouler, OECD Economics Department
Working Papers no. 440, 2005, or “Trade Elasticities for
the G-7 Countries,” by Peter Hooper, Karen Johnson and
Jaime Marquez, International Finance Discussion Paper
no. 119, Federal Reserve Board of Governors, 1998.
These comparisons are not without caveats because they
refer to different definitions of relative prices and different
country and time samples.
6
See note 2 (Figure 2).
7
Many papers have documented the increase in vertical specialization—the international fragmentation of
production—and its important role in international
transmission of business cycles. See, for example, “The
Nature and Growth of Vertical Specialization in World
Trade,” by David Hummels, Jun Ishii and Kei-Mu Yi,
Journal of International Economics, vol. 54, no. 1, 2001,
pp. 75–96.
8
G-20 participants are Argentina, Australia, Brazil,
Canada, China, France, Germany, India, Indonesia,
Italy, Japan, Korea (Republic of), Mexico, Russia, Saudi
Arabia, South Africa, Turkey, the U.K. and the U.S. in
addition to the European Union.

Richard W. Fisher, President and Chief Executive Officer
Helen E. Holcomb, First Vice President and Chief Operating Officer
Harvey Rosenblum, Executive Vice President and Director of Research
E. Ann Worthy, Senior Vice President, Banking Supervision
Mine Yücel, Vice President and Director of Research Publications
Anthony Murphy, Executive Editor
Michael Weiss, Editor
Kathy Thacker, Associate Editor
Ellah Piña, Graphic Designer

FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OF DALLAS
2200 N. PEARL ST., DALLAS, TX 75201