The effect of uncertainty on the occurrence and spread of financial crises [Elektronische Ressource] / vorgelegt von Friederike Köhler-Geib

Friederike Koehler-Geib

Informations

• Publié par: ludwig-maximilians-universitat_munchen
• Publié le: 01 janvier 2008
• Nombre de lectures: 22
• Langue: English

Extrait

THE EFFECT OF UNCERTAINTY
ON THE OCCURRENCE AND
SPREAD OF FINANCIAL CRISES
Inaugural-Dissertation
zur Erlangung des Grades
Doctor oeconomiae publicae (Dr. oec. publ.)
an der Ludwig-Maximilians-Universit˜at Munc˜ hen
2007
vorgelegt von
Friederike K˜ohler-Geib
Volkswirtschaftliche Fakult˜at
Referentin: Prof. Dr. Monika Schnitzer
Korreferent: Prof. Jaume Ventura, Ph.D.
Datum der mundlic˜ hen Prufung:˜ 29. Januar 2008
Promotionsabschlussberatung: 06. Februar 2008Acknowledgements
This research project would not have been possible without the kind support
of a number of people to whom I would like to express my gratitude. First
and foremost, I would like to thank my supervisor Monika Schnitzer for her
excellentguidance,veryhelpfuladvice,andcontinuoussupport. Justasmuch,
I am grateful to Jaume Ventura for hosting me twice as visiting Ph.D. student
atUniversityPompeuFabra,Barcelona,inspring2006and2007andforhaving
joined in guiding, advising, and supporting my work.
Furthermore,IwouldespeciallyliketothankFernandoBroner,AntonioCi-
ccone,JarkoFidrmuc,HaraldFadinger,PabloFleiss,GeorgGebhardt,Michael
Grimm, Frank Heinemann, Florian Heiss, Christian Holzner, Gerhard Illing,
Francisco Penaranda,~ Thijs van Reens, Stefan Schubert, Luis Serven, Andrei
Sleptchenko,FrederikUdinaforfruitfuldiscussionsandveryhelpfulcomments
and suggestions. Then I am thankful to Jeromin Zettelmeyer for inspiring me
to start working on sudden stops of capital ows. Special thanks go to Robert
Holzmann for continuous, very helpful advice. My thanks extend to my col-
leaguesattheUniversityofMunich,theUniversityPompeuFabra,theMunich
Graduate School of Economics, and at the Chair of Comparative Economics
at the University of Munich, who have been an important source of feedback
and encouragement.
Additionally I would like to thank participants at various research semi-
nars at the University of Munich and the University Pompeu Fabra, as well as
duringsessionsattheLACEAAnnualMeeting2005inParis,the10thInterna-
tional Conference on Macroeconomic Analysis and International Finance 2006
in Rethymno, the 4th Workshop on Monetary and Financial Economics 2006
in Halle, the Annual Meeting of the Verein fur˜ Socialpolitik 2006 in Bayreuth,
and the Spring Meeting of Young Economists 2007, who gave me valuable
comments.
Moreover, I would like to thank Gaston Gelos, Alexandro Izquierdo, LuisGonzalo Llosa, and Anna Stangl for sharing with me and giving information
onpartofthedatasetusedintheempiricalpartsofthisresearch. Inaddition,
I am grateful to Marybeth Shea for excellent editing.
I am very thankful for the support and the provision of a great research
environment by the Munich Graduate School of Economics. I would like to
thankIngeborgBuchmayr, GabriellaSzantone-Sturm, andAgn?esBierpriglfor
help and assistance. Special thanks go to Dirk R˜osing and Peter Dumitsch for
taking care of every major or minor computer problem.
I gratefully acknowledge the flnancial support by the German Research
Foundation (DFG), the German Academic Exchange Service (DAAD), the
European Commission, and the Kurt Fordan Foundation, which made this
research possible.
Finally, but most importantly, I am deeply grateful for the love, encour-
agement, and support of my family. With all my heart I would like to thank
my husband, Malte Geib, for the best company that I can imagine in a thesis
endeavor. I am also particularly thankful to my mother, Gertrud K˜ohler, to
whom I dedicate this work.
Washington DC, October 2007Contents
1 Introduction and Literature Overview 1
1.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.1 Motivation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.1.2 Aims and Scope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
1.1.3 Outline of the Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
1.2 The Occurrence of Financial Crises . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.1 Crises Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
1.2.2 Generations of Crises Models . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
1.2.3 Modeling Approaches to Sudden Stops . . . . . . . . . . 10
1.2.4 Empirical Analyses of Sudden Stops. . . . . . . . . . . . 14
1.2.5 Contribution of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
1.3 The Spread of Financial Crises. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
1.3.1 The Contagion Phenomenon . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
1.3.2 Modeling Approaches to Contagion . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
1.3.3 Contagion Channels . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
1.3.4 Contagion through Common Creditors . . . . . . . . . . 26
1.3.5 Contribution of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.4 The Efiect of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
1.4.1 The Concept of Uncertainty . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
1.4.2 Uncertainty, Crises and their Spread . . . . . . . . . . . 32
1.4.3 Contribution of this Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
iii CONTENTS
2 Uncertainty and Occurrence of Crises 39
2.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
2.2 Theoretical Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.1 The Firms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
2.2.2 The Government . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 47
2.2.3 The Reduced Form Game Between Firms . . . . . . . . . 47
2.3 The Common Knowledge Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48
2.3.1 High Growth and Low Growth Equilibrium. . . . . . . . 48
2.3.2 The Tripartite Classiflcation of Fundamentals . . . . . . 48
2.4 The Private Information Game . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.4.1 Informational Structure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 50
2.4.2 Object of Optimization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
2.4.3 Unique Equilibrium . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52
2.5 Comparative Statics . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
2.5.1 Changes in the Technology Parameter fi . . . . . . . . . 56
2.5.2 in the International Interest Rate r . . . . . . . 57
2.5.3 Changes in the Degree of Uncertainty † . . . . . . . . . . 60
2.6 Testable Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.7 Empirical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
2.7.1 The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62
2.7.2 Benchmark Regression . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65
2.7.3 Analysis with Yearly Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
2.7.4 with Monthly Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 68
2.7.5 Facing Endogeneity . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
2.7.6 Robustness Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
2.8 Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
2.9 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
2.10 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.10.1 Value of the Firm . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
2.10.2 Lemma Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 77CONTENTS iii
2.10.3 Iterated Elimination of Dominated Strategies . . . . . . 83
2.10.4 Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 85
3 Uncertainty and Spread of Crises 101
3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 101
3.2 The Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 108
3.2.1 Model Setup . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 110
3.2.2 Solving the Model. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 112
3.2.3 Results and Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 115
3.2.4 Testable Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.3 Empirical Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.3.1 The Data . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 117
3.3.2 Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 119
3.3.3 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 123
3.4 Policy Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 132
3.5 Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 133
3.6 Appendix . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.6.1 Lemma Proofs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 135
3.6.2 Iterated Elimination of Dominated Strategies . . . . . . 135
3.6.3 Figures and Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 137
Bibliography 149iv CONTENTSChapter 1
Introduction and Literature
Overview
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Motivation
Most major flnancial crises in the past three decades entailed devastating ef-
fects on real economic activities in afiected countries and markets. Examples
are the Mexico crisis in 1994, the crises in South East Asia in 1997, and the
1Turkey crisis in 2001.
In particular, flnancial crises that comprise a sudden stop of capital ows,
i.e., asharpnegativevariationincapital ows, arecharacterizedbysevereand
long lasting economic efiects. For example, the Mexico crisis, characterized
by a sudden stop and a currency crisis, led to a fall of real equity prices in
CPI units (Consumer Price Index) of 29 percent, in industrial production of
210 percent, and to a plunge of 6.5 percent in private consumption. In 1995,
3Mexico’s GDP declined 6 percent as compared to the previous ye