Journals / Sosyoekonomi / 2020 / Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 44

Asymmetries and Macroeconomic Shocks: The Pre-Crisis Period and Evidence for Europe

Asimetriler ve Makroekonomik Şoklar: Kriz Öncesi Dönem ve Avrupa İçin Kanıtlar

Pages
283–317
Publication Date
2020-04-19
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Those countries which experienced debt crises in the EMU, seemed to have big supply and demand shocks and compared to other member countries the adjustment speed of their economies to these shocks are slower.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:The main purpose of this paper is to discover the underlying of the debt crisis and examine the cross-country differences by analyzing the asymmetric supply and demand shocks for the member and candidate countries of the European Union for the pre-crisis period.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Following the path of Bayoumi and Eichengreen (1993, 1997) and Blanchard and Quah (1989), the calculations show us that Greece has the largest supply shocks, while Turkey has the largest demand shocks.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Those countries which experienced debt crises in the EMU, seemed to have big supply and demand shocks and compared to other member countries the adjustment speed of their economies to these shocks are slower.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Arz ve Talep Şokları · Simetrik vs. Asimetrik Şoklar · Ayarlama Hızları

Abstract

The main purpose of this paper is to discover the underlying of the debt crisis and examine the cross-country differences by analyzing the asymmetric supply and demand shocks for the member and candidate countries of the European Union for the pre-crisis period. Following the path of Bayoumi and Eichengreen (1993, 1997) and Blanchard and Quah (1989), the calculations show us that Greece has the largest supply shocks, while Turkey has the largest demand shocks. By looking at the impulse response functions associated with the SVARs, it is clear that Greece has the lowest adjustment speed to demand disturbances followed by the United Kingdom. Those countries which experienced debt crises in the EMU, seemed to have big supply and demand shocks and compared to other member countries the adjustment speed of their economies to these shocks are slower.

Özet

Bu yazının asıl amacı, borç krizinin temelini açıklamak ve kriz öncesi dönemde Avrupa Birliği’ne üye ve aday ülkeler için asimetrik arz ve talep şoklarını analiz ederek ülkeler arasındaki farklılıkları incelemektir. Bayoumi ve Eichengreen (1993, 1997) ve Blanchard ve Quah (1989) ‘un yolunu takiben yapılan hesaplamalar Yunanistan’ın en büyük arz şoklarına sahip olduğunu, Türkiye’nin ise en büyük talep şoklarına sahip olduğunu göstermektedir. Yapısal VAR analizi sonuçları incelendiğinde, Yunanistan’ın talep şoklarındaki düzensizliklere karşı Birleşik Krallık ile birlikte en düşük uyarlanma hızına sahip ülkeler olduğu görülmektedir. Diğer ülkeler ile kıyaslandığında borç krizi yaşayan ülkelerin karşılaştıkları arz ve talep şoklarının hem büyük olduğu hem de bu ülkelerin bu şoklara uyum hızlarının düşük olduğu görülmektedir.

🔖

Cite This Article

ALAKBAROV, N., UTKULU, U. (2020). Asymmetries and Macroeconomic Shocks: The Pre-Crisis Period and Evidence for Europe. Sosyoekonomi, Cilt: 28 - Sayı: 44, 283–317. https://ajindex.com/articles/139231

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (8)

  1. Alakbarov, N. (2013), “Optimum Para Sahası, Parasal Birlik ve İktisadi Şoklar: Avrupa Parasal Birliği ve Türkiye Eksenli Bir İktisadi Analiz”, Unpublished Dissertation, Dokuz Eylül Üniversitesi Sosyal Bilimler Enstitüsü. Arghyrou, M.G. & A. Kontonikas (2012), “The EMU sovereign-debt crisis: Fundamentals, expectations and contagion”, Journal of International Financial Markets, Institutions and Money, 22(4), 658-677. Bąk, H. & S. Maciejewski (2015), “Endogeneity and specialization in the European Monetary Union”, International Journal of Management and Economics, 46(1), 7-40.
  2. Baldwin, R. & C. Wyplosz (2004), The Economics of European Integration, 2nd ed., McGraw Hill Education, London. Bayoumi, T. & A. Thomas (1995), “Relative Prices and Economic Adjustment in the United States and the European Union: A Real Story about EMU”, IMF Staff Papers, 42, 1, IMF/Washington. Bayoumi, T. & B. Eichengreen (1993), “Shocking Aspects of European Monetary Integration”, in: Paul De Grauwe (ed.) 2001, The Political Economy of Monetary Union, An Elgar Reference Collection, Cheltenham/Northampton. Bayoumi, T. & B. Eichengreen (1994), One Money or Many? Analyzing the Prospects for Monetary Unification in Various Parts of the World, Princeton Studies in International Finance, Princeton University Press, Princeton/New Jersey. Bayoumi, T. & B. Eichengreen (1997), “Ever Closer to Heaven? An Optimum-Currency-Area Index for European Countries”, European Economic Review, 41(3-5), 761-770.
  3. Blanchard, O.J. & D. Quah (1989), “The Dynamic Effects of Aggregate Demand and Supply Disturbances”, American Economic Review, 79, 655-673.
  4. Boltho, A. & W. Carlin (2012), “The problems of European Monetary union-asymmetric shocks or asymmetric behavior”, VoxEU.org, 31, 2012.
  5. Campos, N.F. & C. Macchiarelli (2016), “Core and periphery in the European Monetary Union: Bayoumi and Eichengreen 25 years later”, Economics Letters, 147, 127-130.
  6. Cohen, B. (1993), “Beyond EMU: The problem of sustainability”, Economics and Politics, 5, 187-203.
  7. Corden, W.M. (1972), Monetary integration, essays in international finance, Princeton, NJ: International Finance Section, Princeton University. De Grauwe, P. & F. Mongelli (2004), “The Enlargement of the Euro area and Optimum Currency Areas”, 8th CEPR/ESI Annual Conference on ‘EMU Enlargement to the East and the West’, September, 24-25.
  8. De Grauwe, P. & Y. Ji (2013), “Self-fulfilling crises in the Eurozone: An empirical test”, Journal of International Money and Finance, 3