"Aggregation Bias" DOES explain the PPP puzzle

This article summarizes our views on the role of an "aggregation bias" in explaining the PPP Puzzle, in response to the several papers recently written in reaction to our initial contribution. We discuss in particular the criticisms of Imbs, Mumtaz, Ravn and Rey (2002) presented in Chen and Engel (2005). We show that their contentions are based on: (i) analytical counter-examples which are not empirically relevant; (ii) simulation results minimizing the extent of "aggregation bias"; (iii) unfounded claims on the impact of measurement errors on our results; and (iv) problematic implementation of small-sample bias corrections. We conclude, as in our original paper, that "aggregation bias" goes a long way towards explaining the PPP puzzle

Finance, foreign (direct) investment, and the Dutch disease: the case of Colombia

In recent years Colombia has grown relatively rapidly, but it has been a biased growth. The energy sector (the locomotora minero-energetica, to use the rhetorical expression of President Juan Manuel Santos) grew much faster than the rest of the economy, while the manufacturing sector registered a negative rate of growth. These are classic symptoms of the well-known ‘Dutch disease’, but our purpose here is not to establish whether the Dutch disease exists or not, but rather to shed some light on the financial viability of several, simultaneous dynamics: (i) the existence of a traditional Dutch Disease being due to a large increase in mining exports and a significant exchange rate appreciation; (ii) a massive increase in foreign direct investment (FDI), particularly in the mining sector; (iii) a rather passive monetary policy, aimed at increasing purchasing power via exchange rate appreciation; (iv) more recently, a large distribution of dividends from Colombia to the rest of the world and the accumulation of mounting financial liabilities. The paper will show that these dynamics constitute a potential danger for the stability of the Colombian economy. Some policy recommendations are also discussed

Policy volatility and growth

The paper aims to examine how fiscal and monetary volatility might affect the balanced economic growth rate using a standard monetary growth model characterized by nominal wage rigidity and productive public spending. The model shows that any type of shock — monetary or fiscal — can generate either a negative or positive relationship between short-run volatility and long-run growth, critically de- pending on the size of government and the elasticity of output with respect to labor/ capital. In particular, given the labor income share, it shows that excessive government spending may cause the impact of fiscal volatility on long-run growth to turn from positive to negative. In addition, a rise in the volatility of the monetary shock is capable of generating either an increase or decrease in the mean of growth. With the range of the labor share values in reality, the model produces results consistent with the fact that the relationship between volatility and growth is generally found empirically to be more negative in developing than in developed countries. The model can be seen as a further explanation for the ambiguous empirical evidence in the existing literature.info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersio