Macroprudential policies have become essential tools for the policy makers in order to maintain financial stability. Effectiveness of these policies has been studied by a growing literature with an emphasis on the impact of the policies on target variables such as credit growth and asset price appreciations. In this paper, we investigate the impact of macroprudential policies on the current account balance considering the link between external imbalances and financial stability. Building on a standard empirical current account model, we show that usage of an additional macroprudential instrument is associated with an improvement in the current account balance. Moreover, our results indicate that positive impact of macroprudential policy measures on the current account balance is stronger in the deficit countries compared to the surplus countries

Ekinci, Mehmet Fatih

English

Munich RePEc Personal Archive

Munich Personal RePEc ArchiveMacroprudential Policies and CurrentAccount BalanceEkinci, Mehmet FatihAtilim University5 April 2020Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99445/MPRA Paper No. 99445, posted 08 Apr 2020 11:37 UTCMacroprudential Policies and Current Account BalanceMehmet Fatih Ekinci∗AbstractMacroprudential policies have become essential tools for the policy makers in order to maintainfinancial stability. Effectiveness of these policies has been studied by a growing literature withan emphasis on the impact of the policies on target variables such as credit growth and assetprice appreciations. In this paper, we investigate the impact of macroprudential policies on thecurrent account balance considering the link between external imbalances and financial stability.Building on a standard empirical current account model, we show that usage of an additionalmacroprudential instrument is associated with an improvement in the current account balance.Moreover, our results indicate that positive impact of macroprudential policy measures on thecurrent account balance is stronger in the deficit countries compared to the surplus countries.Keywords: Global Imbalances, Current Account Balance, Macroprudential Policies and Panel Data.JEL Codes: C33 Panel Data Models, E58 Central Banks and Their Policies, F32 Current Account Adjustment,G18 Government Policy and Regulation, G28 Government Policy and Regulation.∗Atılım University, Faculty of Management, Department of Economics, Kızılcaşar Mahallesi İncek Gölbaşı, 06836,Ankara, Turkey, E-mail: fatih.ekinci@atilim.edu.tr.April 5, 20201. IntroductionMacroprudential measures have become an essential part of policy toolkit to preserve financialstability especially after the global financial crisis. The experience prior to the crisis shows thatfinancial imbalances can grow undetected even in stable macroeconomic environments. Alongwith concerns about the procyclicality of financial system, another challenging issue related withfinancial stability is expanding current account surpluses and deficits over the world. These globalimbalances have reached a peak level prior to the global financial crisis.Recent literature provides evidence on the effectiveness of macroprudential policies using dif-ferent indicators such as credit growth, asset price appreciations and capital flow volatility1. Onthe other hand, effects of macroprudential policies on output and inflation rate have been found tobe modest2. However, we have limited information about the impact of macroprudential policieson the current account balance. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature.We utilize the macroprudential policy index3 developed by Cerutti et. al. (2017) in order tosummarize the macroprudential policy stance of the countries in our panel data. To study theeffect of macroprudential policies on the current account balance, we build an empirical currentaccount model following Philips et. al. (2013) closely. Our findings suggest that usage of anadditional macroprudential policy measure causes an improvement in the current account balance.Furthermore, we extend our analysis by allowing different slopes for deficit and surplus countries.We find that positive impact of macroprudential policy tools on the current account balance isstronger in the deficit countries compared to the surplus countries.The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Data and the methodology are describedin section 2, section 3 presents the results, and section 4 summarizes our conclusions.1Akinci and Olmstead-Rumsey (2018) finds that macroprudential tightening is associated with lower bank creditgrowth, housing credit growth, and house price appreciation. Fendoglu (2017) reports that a macroprudential policytightening is effective in containing the credit cycles and the impact of portfolio inflows on the credit cycles. SeeAlam et. al. (2019) for a recent survey of literature.2 Richter et. al. (2019) finds that 10 percentage point tightening in loan-to-value ratios can be comparable toa 25 basis point increase in the policy rate. Assessing side effects of macroprudential policies, Alam et. al. (2019)reports mild effects of macroprudential policies on private consumption and output growth.3Macroprudential policy index is based on the IMF survey on Global Macroprudential Policy Instruments. Indexcovers the information on the usage of 12 different macroprudential policies. These policies are loan-to-value ratios,debt-to-income ratios, dynamic loan-loss provisioning, counter-cyclical capital buffers, leverage ratios, capital sur-charges on Systemically Important Financial Institutions, limits on interbank exposures, concentration limits, limitson foreign currency loans, reserve requirement ratios, limits on domestic currency loans and taxes on the revenuesof financial institutions. Index takes values between 0 and 12.22. Data and MethodologyBuilding on Philips et. al. (2013), we estimate the following equation,(CAGDP)i,t= β1MPIi,t−1 + β2Xi,t + µi + νt + ǫi,t (1)where the dependent variable is the ratio of the current account balance to GDP. As explanatoryvariables, we use the macroprudential policy index and other control variables (denoted by Xi,t).Country specific individual effects are denoted by µi, time effects are represented by νt and ǫi,t isthe error term (assumed to be white noise).Control variables include credit growth, average growth rate, relative income, lagged level ofnet foreign assets, oil trade balance, fiscal balance and population growth rate. Table ?? providesa description of the variables, data sources and expected signs of control variables4.The sample includes annual country-level variables from 42 countries5 and dataset covers theperiod from 2001 to 2015. To assess the impact of macroprudential measures on the current accountbalance, we report the results from a fixed effects model. Along with the fixed effects specification,we also implement a dynamic panel data model developed by Arellano and Bover (1995) andBlundell and Bonds (1998)6. This specification can handle multiple endogenous variables by usingfirst differences and lagged values of the endogenous variables as instruments.3. ResultsWe report the estimation results from our baseline empirical model in table 2. Regarding thecontrol variables in our model, we find that credit growth, average growth rate, oil trade balance,fiscal balance and population growth variables have significant effects on current account balanceconsistent with the theoretical predictions. Estimated coefficient on the macroprudential index4See Philips et. al. (2013) for detailed information on theoretical foundations of the expected signs of controlvariables. Ekinci and Omay (2019) provides a recent survey of literature on the global imbalances.5Our sample includes 15 emerging market economies and 27 advanced countries. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China,Colombia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey areclassified as emerging market economies. Advanced countries in our sample are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea,Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdomand United States.6Similar estimation methods based on a GMM procedure are applied by Calderon et al. (2002) and Cheung etal. (2013) in order to study the dynamics of the current account balance.3implies that usage of an additional policy tool is associated with an improvement in the currentaccount balance by 0.37 percentage points.Macroprudential policy index takes values between 0 and 12 depending on the usage of policiesclassified by Cerutti et. al. (2017). For our sample, average index value is 1.36 in 2001. Thisvalue increases to 3.64 by 2015. We observe that macroprudential policies have been used moreintensively in the post-crisis episode as the average index value in 2009 is 2.07. Combining with thepoint estimates obtained by our empirical model, we can conclude that macroprudential policieshave contributed substantially to current account balance adjustments in the post-crisis episode.Next, we classify the countries in our sample as deficit and surplus countries based on thesample average of current account balance. By allowing different slopes for deficit and surpluscountries, we re-estimate our empirical model as follows,(CAGDP)i,t= β1,S × SURPLUS ×MPIi,t−1 + β1,D ×DEFICIT ×MPIi,t−1+ β2Xi,t + µi + νt + ǫi,t (2)Results from the fixed effects specification and GMM estimation are reported in table 3. Con-sidering the GMM estimators, we report Sargan test results to test the validity of instruments.Arellano-Bond tests are conducted to test the hypothesis that error term of difference equation isnot second-order serially correlated.Our results in table 3 indicate that when potential endogeneity problem is taken into consid-eration, usage of macroprudential policies has a significant impact on the current account balance.Furthermore, we find that the magnitude of this positive impact is larger at the deficit countries.This finding suggests that macroprudential policies have been used more aggressively in deficitcountries in order to reduce the size of current account deficits.In order to achieve a broder perspective on the impact of macroprudential policies, extendingthis analysis by studying the effects of individual policy measures is left for future work. Further-more, policy indices which summarize macroprudential policy decisions as tightening and looseningactions can be useful to understand the impact of macroprudential policies on the current accountbalance.44. ConclusionCurrent account balance can be viewed as a target variable for the macroprudential policiesespecially in the deficit countries. We investigate the effects of macroprudential policies on thecurrent account by utilizing a macroprudential policy index. We find significant and positive effectson the current account balance by usage of additional policy measures. Our analysis indicates thatthis impact is more pronounced in the deficit countries.References[1] Akinci, O., Olmstead-Rumsey, J. [2018] “How effective are macroprudential policies? An empirical investiga-tion”, Journal of Financial Intermediation, vol. 33(C), pages 33-57.[2] Alam, Z., Alter, A., Eiseman, J., Gelos, R., Kang, H., Narita, M., Nier, E. and i Wang, N. [2019], “DiggingDeeper–Evidence on the Effects of Macroprudential Policies from a New Database”, IMF Working Paper 19/66.[3] Arellano, M. and Bover, O. [1995] “Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-componentsmodels”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 68(1), 29-51.[4] Blundell, R. and Bond, S. [1998] “Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models”,Journal of Econometrics, vol. 87(1), 115-143.[5] Calderon, C. A., A. Chong and N. Loayza [2002] “Determinants of Current Account Deficits in DevelopingCountries”, The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, vol. 2(1), 1-33.[6] Cerutti, E., Correa, R., Fiorentino, E. and Segalla, E. [2017] “Changes in Prudential Policy Instruments - ANew Cross-Country Database”, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 13(2), 477-503.[7] Cheung, C., D. Furceri and E. Rusticelli [2013] “Structural and Cyclical Factors behind Current AccountBalances”, Review of International Economics, vol. 21(5), 923-944.[8] Ekinci, M. F., and Omay, T. [2019] “Current Account and Credit Growth: The Role of Household Credit andFinancial Depth”, MPRA Paper 93882, University Library of Munich, Germany.[9] Fendoglu, S. [2017] “Credit cycles and capital flows: Effectiveness of the macroprudential policy framework inemerging market economies”, Journal of Banking and Finance, vol. 79(C), 110-128.[10] Phillips, S., Catao, L., Ricci, L., Bems, Rudolfs, Das, M., Di Giovanni, J., Unsal, D., Castillo, M., Lee,J., Rodriguez, J. and Vargas, M. [2013] “External Balance Assessment (EBA): Technical Background”, IMFWorking Paper 13/272.[11] Richter, B., Schularick, M. and Shim, I. [2019] “The costs of macroprudential policy”, Journal of InternationalEconomics, vol. 118, pages 263-282.56Table 2: Macroprudential Policies and Current Account BalanceMacroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0037**(0.0017)Credit Growth -0.0340***(0.0097)Average Growth -0.3519***(0.1034)Relative Income -0.0262(0.0345)Net Foreign Assets (lagged) -0.0069(0.0055)Oil Trade Balance 0.2314**(0.0968)Fiscal Balance 0.3100***(0.0498)Population Growth -1.4280***(0.3034)# of Observations 588# of Countries 42Time Effects YESR-squared 0.1995Standard errors in brackets: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1Table 3: Macroprudential Policies and Current Account BalanceDeficit and Surplus EconomiesFixed Effects GMMMacroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0037** 0.0031*(0.0017) (0.0016)Macroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0029 0.0021***× SURPLUS (0.0020) (0.0006)Macroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0047** 0.0042***× DEFICIT (0.0022) (0.0014)# of Observations 588 588 420 420# of Countries 42 42 42 42Time Effects YES YES YES YESSargan Test - - 0.7549 0.5897Arellano-Bond test - - 0.6289 0.4998Number of Instruments - - 54 46R-squared 0.1995 0.2003 - -Standard errors in brackets: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.We report p-values for Sargan and Arellano-Bond tests.7

Macroprudential Policies and Current Account Balance

Munich Personal RePEc Archive

Munich Personal RePEc Archive
Macroprudential Policies and Current
Account Balance
Ekinci, Mehmet Fatih
Atilim University
5 April 2020
Online at https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99445/
MPRA Paper No. 99445, posted 08 Apr 2020 11:37 UTC
Macroprudential Policies and Current Account Balance
Mehmet Fatih Ekinci∗
Abstract
Macroprudential policies have become essential tools for the policy makers in order to maintain
financial stability. Effectiveness of these policies has been studied by a growing literature with
an emphasis on the impact of the policies on target variables such as credit growth and asset
price appreciations. In this paper, we investigate the impact of macroprudential policies on the
current account balance considering the link between external imbalances and financial stability.
Building on a standard empirical current account model, we show that usage of an additional
macroprudential instrument is associated with an improvement in the current account balance.
Moreover, our results indicate that positive impact of macroprudential policy measures on the
current account balance is stronger in the deficit countries compared to the surplus countries.
Keywords: Global Imbalances, Current Account Balance, Macroprudential Policies and Panel Data.
JEL Codes: C33 Panel Data Models, E58 Central Banks and Their Policies, F32 Current Account Adjustment,
G18 Government Policy and Regulation, G28 Government Policy and Regulation.
∗Atılım University, Faculty of Management, Department of Economics, Kızılcas¸ar Mahallesi I˙ncek Go¨lbas¸ı, 06836,
Ankara, Turkey, E-mail: fatih.ekinci@atilim.edu.tr.
April 5, 2020
1. Introduction
Macroprudential measures have become an essential part of policy toolkit to preserve financial
stability especially after the global financial crisis. The experience prior to the crisis shows that
financial imbalances can grow undetected even in stable macroeconomic environments. Along
with concerns about the procyclicality of financial system, another challenging issue related with
financial stability is expanding current account surpluses and deficits over the world. These global
imbalances have reached a peak level prior to the global financial crisis.
Recent literature provides evidence on the effectiveness of macroprudential policies using dif-
ferent indicators such as credit growth, asset price appreciations and capital flow volatility1. On
the other hand, effects of macroprudential policies on output and inflation rate have been found to
be modest2. However, we have limited information about the impact of macroprudential policies
on the current account balance. This paper aims to fill this gap in the literature.
We utilize the macroprudential policy index3 developed by Cerutti et. al. (2017) in order to
summarize the macroprudential policy stance of the countries in our panel data. To study the
effect of macroprudential policies on the current account balance, we build an empirical current
account model following Philips et. al. (2013) closely. Our findings suggest that usage of an
additional macroprudential policy measure causes an improvement in the current account balance.
Furthermore, we extend our analysis by allowing different slopes for deficit and surplus countries.
We find that positive impact of macroprudential policy tools on the current account balance is
stronger in the deficit countries compared to the surplus countries.
The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. Data and the methodology are described
in section 2, section 3 presents the results, and section 4 summarizes our conclusions.
1Akinci and Olmstead-Rumsey (2018) finds that macroprudential tightening is associated with lower bank credit
growth, housing credit growth, and house price appreciation. Fendoglu (2017) reports that a macroprudential policy
tightening is effective in containing the credit cycles and the impact of portfolio inflows on the credit cycles. See
Alam et. al. (2019) for a recent survey of literature.
2 Richter et. al. (2019) finds that 10 percentage point tightening in loan-to-value ratios can be comparable to
a 25 basis point increase in the policy rate. Assessing side effects of macroprudential policies, Alam et. al. (2019)
reports mild effects of macroprudential policies on private consumption and output growth.
3Macroprudential policy index is based on the IMF survey on Global Macroprudential Policy Instruments. Index
covers the information on the usage of 12 different macroprudential policies. These policies are loan-to-value ratios,
debt-to-income ratios, dynamic loan-loss provisioning, counter-cyclical capital buffers, leverage ratios, capital sur-
charges on Systemically Important Financial Institutions, limits on interbank exposures, concentration limits, limits
on foreign currency loans, reserve requirement ratios, limits on domestic currency loans and taxes on the revenues
of financial institutions. Index takes values between 0 and 12.
2
2. Data and Methodology
Building on Philips et. al. (2013), we estimate the following equation,
(
CA
GDP
)
i,t
= β1MPIi,t−1 + β2Xi,t + µi + νt + ǫi,t (1)
where the dependent variable is the ratio of the current account balance to GDP. As explanatory
variables, we use the macroprudential policy index and other control variables (denoted by Xi,t).
Country specific individual effects are denoted by µi, time effects are represented by νt and ǫi,t is
the error term (assumed to be white noise).
Control variables include credit growth, average growth rate, relative income, lagged level of
net foreign assets, oil trade balance, fiscal balance and population growth rate. Table ?? provides
a description of the variables, data sources and expected signs of control variables4.
The sample includes annual country-level variables from 42 countries5 and dataset covers the
period from 2001 to 2015. To assess the impact of macroprudential measures on the current account
balance, we report the results from a fixed effects model. Along with the fixed effects specification,
we also implement a dynamic panel data model developed by Arellano and Bover (1995) and
Blundell and Bonds (1998)6. This specification can handle multiple endogenous variables by using
first differences and lagged values of the endogenous variables as instruments.
3. Results
We report the estimation results from our baseline empirical model in table 2. Regarding the
control variables in our model, we find that credit growth, average growth rate, oil trade balance,
fiscal balance and population growth variables have significant effects on current account balance
consistent with the theoretical predictions. Estimated coefficient on the macroprudential index
4See Philips et. al. (2013) for detailed information on theoretical foundations of the expected signs of control
variables. Ekinci and Omay (2019) provides a recent survey of literature on the global imbalances.
5Our sample includes 15 emerging market economies and 27 advanced countries. Argentina, Brazil, Chile, China,
Colombia, Hungary, India, Indonesia, Malaysia, Mexico, Poland, Russia, South Africa, Thailand and Turkey are
classified as emerging market economies. Advanced countries in our sample are Australia, Austria, Belgium, Canada,
Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Korea,
Luxembourg, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Portugal, Singapore, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, United Kingdom
and United States.
6Similar estimation methods based on a GMM procedure are applied by Calderon et al. (2002) and Cheung et
al. (2013) in order to study the dynamics of the current account balance.
3
implies that usage of an additional policy tool is associated with an improvement in the current
account balance by 0.37 percentage points.
Macroprudential policy index takes values between 0 and 12 depending on the usage of policies
classified by Cerutti et. al. (2017). For our sample, average index value is 1.36 in 2001. This
value increases to 3.64 by 2015. We observe that macroprudential policies have been used more
intensively in the post-crisis episode as the average index value in 2009 is 2.07. Combining with the
point estimates obtained by our empirical model, we can conclude that macroprudential policies
have contributed substantially to current account balance adjustments in the post-crisis episode.
Next, we classify the countries in our sample as deficit and surplus countries based on the
sample average of current account balance. By allowing different slopes for deficit and surplus
countries, we re-estimate our empirical model as follows,
(
CA
GDP
)
i,t
= β1,S × SURPLUS ×MPIi,t−1 + β1,D ×DEFICIT ×MPIi,t−1
+ β2Xi,t + µi + νt + ǫi,t (2)
Results from the fixed effects specification and GMM estimation are reported in table 3. Con-
sidering the GMM estimators, we report Sargan test results to test the validity of instruments.
Arellano-Bond tests are conducted to test the hypothesis that error term of difference equation is
not second-order serially correlated.
Our results in table 3 indicate that when potential endogeneity problem is taken into consid-
eration, usage of macroprudential policies has a significant impact on the current account balance.
Furthermore, we find that the magnitude of this positive impact is larger at the deficit countries.
This finding suggests that macroprudential policies have been used more aggressively in deficit
countries in order to reduce the size of current account deficits.
In order to achieve a broder perspective on the impact of macroprudential policies, extending
this analysis by studying the effects of individual policy measures is left for future work. Further-
more, policy indices which summarize macroprudential policy decisions as tightening and loosening
actions can be useful to understand the impact of macroprudential policies on the current account
balance.
4
4. Conclusion
Current account balance can be viewed as a target variable for the macroprudential policies
especially in the deficit countries. We investigate the effects of macroprudential policies on the
current account by utilizing a macroprudential policy index. We find significant and positive effects
on the current account balance by usage of additional policy measures. Our analysis indicates that
this impact is more pronounced in the deficit countries.
References
[1] Akinci, O., Olmstead-Rumsey, J. [2018] “How effective are macroprudential policies? An empirical investiga-
tion”, Journal of Financial Intermediation, vol. 33(C), pages 33-57.
[2] Alam, Z., Alter, A., Eiseman, J., Gelos, R., Kang, H., Narita, M., Nier, E. and i Wang, N. [2019], “Digging
Deeper–Evidence on the Effects of Macroprudential Policies from a New Database”, IMFWorking Paper 19/66.
[3] Arellano, M. and Bover, O. [1995] “Another look at the instrumental variable estimation of error-components
models”, Journal of Econometrics, vol. 68(1), 29-51.
[4] Blundell, R. and Bond, S. [1998] “Initial conditions and moment restrictions in dynamic panel data models”,
Journal of Econometrics, vol. 87(1), 115-143.
[5] Calderon, C. A., A. Chong and N. Loayza [2002] “Determinants of Current Account Deficits in Developing
Countries”, The B.E. Journal of Macroeconomics, vol. 2(1), 1-33.
[6] Cerutti, E., Correa, R., Fiorentino, E. and Segalla, E. [2017] “Changes in Prudential Policy Instruments - A
New Cross-Country Database”, International Journal of Central Banking, vol. 13(2), 477-503.
[7] Cheung, C., D. Furceri and E. Rusticelli [2013] “Structural and Cyclical Factors behind Current Account
Balances”, Review of International Economics, vol. 21(5), 923-944.
[8] Ekinci, M. F., and Omay, T. [2019] “Current Account and Credit Growth: The Role of Household Credit and
Financial Depth”, MPRA Paper 93882, University Library of Munich, Germany.
[9] Fendoglu, S. [2017] “Credit cycles and capital flows: Effectiveness of the macroprudential policy framework in
emerging market economies”, Journal of Banking and Finance, vol. 79(C), 110-128.
[10] Phillips, S., Catao, L., Ricci, L., Bems, Rudolfs, Das, M., Di Giovanni, J., Unsal, D., Castillo, M., Lee,
J., Rodriguez, J. and Vargas, M. [2013] “External Balance Assessment (EBA): Technical Background”, IMF
Working Paper 13/272.
[11] Richter, B., Schularick, M. and Shim, I. [2019] “The costs of macroprudential policy”, Journal of International
Economics, vol. 118, pages 263-282.
5
6
Table 2: Macroprudential Policies and Current Account Balance
Macroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0037**
(0.0017)
Credit Growth -0.0340***
(0.0097)
Average Growth -0.3519***
(0.1034)
Relative Income -0.0262
(0.0345)
Net Foreign Assets (lagged) -0.0069
(0.0055)
Oil Trade Balance 0.2314**
(0.0968)
Fiscal Balance 0.3100***
(0.0498)
Population Growth -1.4280***
(0.3034)
# of Observations 588
# of Countries 42
Time Effects YES
R-squared 0.1995
Standard errors in brackets: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1
Table 3: Macroprudential Policies and Current Account Balance
Deficit and Surplus Economies
Fixed Effects GMM
Macroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0037** 0.0031*
(0.0017) (0.0016)
Macroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0029 0.0021***
× SURPLUS (0.0020) (0.0006)
Macroprudential Policy Index (lagged) 0.0047** 0.0042***
× DEFICIT (0.0022) (0.0014)
# of Observations 588 588 420 420
# of Countries 42 42 42 42
Time Effects YES YES YES YES
Sargan Test - - 0.7549 0.5897
Arellano-Bond test - - 0.6289 0.4998
Number of Instruments - - 54 46
R-squared 0.1995 0.2003 - -
Standard errors in brackets: *** p < 0.01, ** p < 0.05, * p < 0.1.
We report p-values for Sargan and Arellano-Bond tests.
7


https://mpra.ub.uni-muenchen.de/99445/1/MPRA_paper_99445.pdf

Macroprudential Policies and Current Account Balance

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

Munich RePEc Personal Archive

Munich Personal RePEc Archive