Jeffrey A. Edwards

Dynamics of the Cross-Country Growth/Volatility Relationship

This study evaluates structural changes over time in the cross-country relationship between growth and volatility. Using a GMM 2SLS method to control for endogenous variables, and a time-series based rolling window estimation procedure, this study adds to the current literature in two significant ways. The first is that to assume the cross-country growth/volatility correlation is constant over time, or differs across ad hoc predetermined intervals of time is inappropriate. Instead, the early to mid 1990s seems to be the primary area whereby there are significant changes in the relationship across countries. Specifically, volatility negatively impacted growth for developed nations around this time, while it positively impacted growth for developing nations--the latter happening a few years later than the former. The second finding is that the positive impact that trade had on the growth/volatility relationship for developing countries during this period is outweighed by the negative impact of gross capital flows. Among developed nations, globalization reduces a negative effect that gross capital flows has on the relationship. For policy and constituency appeasement purposes the former is an argument for caution when entering into the global economy, and the latter an argument to embrace it.

Analyzing Trade Growth Effects of Deviations from Long-run Economic Growth

Abstract This paper explores the relationship between trade growth and long-run trends in real GDP growth from a purely empirical perspective. Its novelty lies in the way that it models trade growth: as a function of cyclical trends in real GDP growth. The main finding is that trade growth responds asymmetrically to deviations from long-run GDP growth. Generally, trade growth is positive and statistically significant when GDP growth is above the long-run trend. On the other hand, trade growth ceases but does not become negative when GDP growth falls below its long-run trend. While this behavior holds true broadly, individual countries’ trade growth may respond differently when GDP growth is above or below trend. Comparatively, low-income countries’ trade growth takes the greatest hit when economic growth slows, while lower-middle and high-income countries are least affected. These findings have potential implications for trade policy-making in the twenty-first Century especially given the current atmosphere of anti-globalization and slow trade growth.