After the currency crises of 1994-2001, and especially the East Asia crises of 1997-98, a lot of research investigated what countries could do to protect themselves against a future repeat. More importantly, policy makers in emerging markets took some serious measures. Some countries abandoned exchange rate targets and began to float. Many accumulated high levels of foreign exchange reserves. Many moved away from dollar-denominated debt, toward other kinds of capital inflow that would be less vulnerable to currency mismatch, such as domestic currency debt or Foreign Direct Investment. Some instituted Collective Action Clauses in their debt contracts to facilitate otherwise-messy restructuring of debt in the event of a severe negative shock. A few raised reserve requirements or otherwise tightened prudential banking regulations (clearly not enough, in retrospect). And so on.
Tag Archives: global
Border Measures Could Make Climate Policy Better or — More Likely — Worse
The international press reports, “At Climate Talks, Danger to Free Trade Mounts.”
The Copenhagen negotiations have essentially failed to include, among the many topics covered, one that will be critical in the coming years: the question of import tariffs or other trade penalties that individual countries apply against the products of other countries that they deem too carbon-intensive. Such border measures are already in EU and US legislation (the Waxman-Markey bill, not yet passed by the Senate). Properly designed, they could turn out to be the missing instrument needed to get each country to cut emissions without fear of others taking unfair advantage, via leakage. More likely, national politics will turn them into protectionist barriers.
Trying to Hit Ambitious Global Greenhouse Gas Goals, While Obeying Political Constraints
National leaders are meeting at the United Nations in New York today, to discuss the climate change negotiations. Talks will continue at the G-20 meeting in Pittsburgh later in the week. But hopes look very bleak for progress sufficient to produce at Copenhagen in December a successor treaty to the Kyoto Protocol. The biggest roadblock is the familiar game of “After you, Alphonse.” The United States will not accept quantitative emission targets unless China, India and other developing countries do the same, at the same time. But the developing countries will not cut their emissions below the Business as Usual path (BAU) unless the rich countries go first.