« A Thoroughly Unscientific Poll On What The FOMC Should Do | Main | One Thoroughly Unscientific Poll On Inflation Expectations, And Some More Reliable Ones »
September 08, 2005
Evaluating The Renminbi Revaluation
I have, in the past, alluded to work-in-progress by my colleagues Pat Higgins and Owen Humpage that has significantly colored the way I look at the whole issue of Chinese exchange rate policy and its likely effects on the U.S. economy. The work is in progress no more, appearing in the form of two new Economic Commentary articles from the Federal Reserve Bank of Cleveland. The first deals with the impact of yuan-appreciation/dollar-depreciation on trade conditions. The second discusses nondeliverable forward contracts, and what we can learn from these contracts about market participant's estimates of the renminbi's future value.
Here is the key conclusion from the first article:
China's recent devaluation and liberalization of its exchange-rate policies will, at best, have only a temporary impact on its trade competitiveness with the United States. The type of exchange-rate regime that a country adopts matters little for its long-term international competitiveness. In addition, the recent focus on China's exchange rate diverts attention from the real problem: China’s command economy.
Higgins and Humpage come to this conclusion about liberalization of China's capital markets:
In general, Chinese policies favor net inflows of foreign direct investment,encourage exports over imports, and —most importantly— discourage other types of private financial outflows, largely by limiting the amount of dollars that China’s residents might hold and their ability to invest in foreign assets. Remove the restraints and corresponding policies, and the demand for renminbi will fall relative to the supply and domestic prices will rise.
In other words, the pressure will be in the direction of renminbi depreciation. This conforms to former Commerce Department undersecretary Grant Aldonas' view of things. It decidedly does not conform to Brad Setser's.
September 8, 2005 in Asia, Exchange Rates and the Dollar, Trade | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c834f53ef00d834239a7d53ef
Listed below are links to blogs that reference Evaluating The Renminbi Revaluation:
» Daily linklets 9th September from Simon World
Happy birthday, Paul Chater. The economics of Super Girl, China's TV talent search phenomena. China's nuclear power industry is booming, but what to do with the nuclear waste? Engrish: a labour of love, popular for the wrong reasons. China's next mann... [Read More]
Tracked on Sep 9, 2005 5:08:03 AM
Comments
Posted by:
edward |
September 08, 2005 at 01:14 PM
Looking at the Higgins and Humpage piece the point they are making about real and nominal exchange rates is valid, but:
"Between June 1995 and October 1997, the dollar depreciated 11.4 percent against the renminbi on a
real basis because China’s inflationrate exceeded the U.S. inflation rate. Between October 1997 and October 2003, however, China’s inflation rate dipped below the U.S. inflation rate,
causing the dollar to appreciate 17.2 percent on a real basis against the renminbi. Since October 2003, China’s inflation
rate has generally exceeded ours, and the dollar has again depreciated 1.1 percent against the renminbi in real terms. The
recent revaluation moves the real renminbi– dollar exchange rate approximately back to its mid-1995 level."
They seem to be talking about the CPI here. This may not be the appropriate index, you need something like a trade weighted ex-works PPI, and of course here prices in China seem to have have been dropping more systematically than in the US, so in real exchange rate terms post 1997 the dollar real exchange rate may have appreciated even more than they allow.
This does give the other argument why a rise in the renminbi may not be so strong in its impact on the CA deficit, since if the float lead the PPI to drop even more substantially this would tend to cancel out much of the trade impact of the float.
The big issue with China's evolution is the investment and export dependence of the economy - command or not command. Levels of fixed capital investment like they are having and 30% y-o-y export increases are just not sustainable. They are generating massive over capacity. But this is very much Brad Setser territory.
Posted by:
edward |
September 08, 2005 at 01:49 PM
We need to be careful about the semantics here. “Remove the restraints and corresponding policies, and the demand for renminbi will fall relative to the supply and domestic prices will rise.” So “the pressure will be in the direction of renminbi depreciation” relative to what the pressure is now, but not in absolute terms. I don’t read Higgins and Humpage to be saying that the renmenbi would fall relative to the dollar, only that the equilibrating forces would operate more rapidly and stop requiring the PBoC to buy so many dollars. In their conclusion, they refer specifically to “a real appreciation” – meaning that a rise in domestic prices may prevent the need for a nominal appreciation, but not that it will actually bring about a nominal depreciation.
Posted by:
knzn |
September 08, 2005 at 02:35 PM
To me all of this energy expended on exchange rates fogs up China's real problem: The massive increase in and level of foreign reserves. Foreign reserves grew $200B in 2004 with only a $31B trade surplus. This rate is continuing in 2005. China now has $711B in foreign reserves which is 40% of GDP. Surely this is unsustainable and will force China to take drastic steps that will effect us all. Let the Cleveland Fed folks write about this.
Posted by:
Norman |
September 08, 2005 at 03:38 PM
China is a paper dragon. They are less than a decade from total collapse.
Posted by:
x |
September 08, 2005 at 06:58 PM
I'll be honest -- I was not terribly impressed with Higgins and Humpage's analysis. Specifically, to me, the argument that "China creates artificial demand for RMB through substantial restraints on financial outflows" is:
a) one sided, since it leaves out the "substantial restraints on financial inflows into China."
b) ignores the available evidence indicating Chinese savings (at current exchange rates) is coming home, not moving away (see Wei and Prasad, and Setser)
re: a) i would note that the restraints on inflows were seriously tightened this year in one obvious way -- namely the imposition of quotas on the amount Chinese banks could borrow from abroad (the banks found lots of Chinese firms eager to borrow $ to invest in RMB). China also is trying to crack down on various schemes facilitating foreign investment in residential property. conversely, they are trying to encourage capital outflows by Chinese firms.
re b) I think the household dollar deposits to RMB deposits is a decent indicator, though it deals with onshore dollars rather than offshore dollars (offshore = safer, not in chinese banks), i suspect it tracked the movement of chinese savings into offshore dollars depsoits (98-02)and more recently, the movement out of offshore dollars back into RMB (hot money flows). household $ deposits fell in 04. Again, see Prasad and Wei, and various PBOC data.
re: China's bilateral real exchange rate vis a vis the dollar is where it was in 95. Isn't that precisely the problem? China's productivity growth exceeded US productivity growth significantly from 95-05, but the bilateral real exchange rate did not move ... recently, productivity growth in china has been 8% higher (per year) than in the US. that should produce a real appreciation. Do we really think the right real exchange for China in say 2015 will be the 2005 real exchange rate or the 1995 real exchange rate? China's economy/ exports are much different now than in 95.
Moreover, the recent data out of China suggest Chinese inflation rates that are well below US inflation rates (leaving aside the PPI v CPI) issue, so the RMB would depreciate in real terms barring any move in the nominal exchange rate. While i agree in principle that this kind of reserve growth should generate money growth and inflation, the facts are that this has not happened in China, at least not yet. THat has been a surprise to me -- but it is something that needs to be dealt with. i did not see any discussion of the 2005 data in Higgins and Humpage -- look at some of the work by Stephen Green for example. there is a puzzle here, but it needs to be addressed, not ignored away.
It also not obvious to me that sterilization will jeopardize the exchange rate peg w/o restrictions on imports/ outflows -- wouldn't not sterilizing the inflows be a bigger problem for the peg? More money growth, etc. China has been sterilizing in a big way since the end of 2003, and it has not obviously broken the peg. What would kill the peg is ending the controls on inflows, since the amount of sterilization debt that China would need to issue in the face or larger hot money inflows would go up ...
It seems to me that the Higgins/ Humpage analysis left out a lot of important recent data points.
I probably will turn this into a blog.
Posted by:
brad |
September 09, 2005 at 01:49 PM
Just to add the the discussion. One disagreement I have with Prof. Setser is that I'm of the opinion that Chinese capital controls are largely one-way in that they do not significantly lower the amount of capital inflows into China. They certainly change the nature of the inflow (moving them into joint ventures and physical assets rather than securities), but I do not believe that they affect too much the volume of the inflows. This argument would hold that the money that didn't get into China due to restrictions on dollar borrowing, eventually ended up in China anyhow.
Having said that I think it would be very bad idea for China to lift capital controls any time soon. The economic damage that is being done by the existence of capital controls (i.e. higher inefficiency) are minor compared to the damage that could be done by removing them too early (i.e. a Russian style looting of corporate assets followed by a systemic economic collapse.)
Posted by:
Joseph Wang |
September 10, 2005 at 01:16 AM
I don't see why Chinese reserve accumulation per se is unsustainable. (Export growth is politically unsustainable, but that's different.)
Surpluses aren't like debt in which if the X/GDP ratio goes too high, people stop lending.
I think the more relevant ratio is the Chinese reserves/US debt or Chinese reserves/US GDP ratio.
Posted by:
Joseph Wang |
September 10, 2005 at 01:22 AM


I tend to be with Brad on this. With the euro more likely to decline, if the rupee and the renminbi don't steadily rise I don't know what is going to take the strain of an eventual US CA correction. Of course there is a lot to play around with here depending on whether you are talking about short, medium or long run.
Otoh, if some structural reason the euro can't drop short term I think you have to take very seriously indeed the deflation scenario for Germany.