臺灣博碩士論文加值系統

本文在一小型開放經濟體系下，利用無限期動態模型，考慮生產面調整緩慢調整的情況，即資本在兩部門之間的移動是漸進且需要時間及花費成本的假設下，來探討未被預料到的恆常性貿易條件惡化對習慣的生活水平與經常帳的影響。主要結論為：在發生恆常性的貿易條件惡化時，習慣的生活水平下降，而對於經常帳之影響必須依據消費者的消費習性偏好而定，為鄰近互補時，HLM效果成立，貿易條件惡化將會使實質所得以及儲蓄減少，使得經常帳惡化，若為遠離互補時，則HLM效果不成立，本文得到的結論與Mansoorian (1998) 相同。
在考慮貨幣變數的情況下，結合消費習性之特性以及考慮生產面調整緩慢調整的情況，探討未被預料到的恆常性貿易條件惡化對習慣的生活水平與經常帳的影響。主要結論為：在發生恆常性的貿易條件惡化時，習慣的生活水平會減少，但加入貨幣面的模型其結果之正負號無法判定，因此本文進一步採用數值模擬的方式並且令代表性消費者的消費習性偏好為鄰近互補，這時恆常性的貿易條件惡化，導致實質所得以及儲蓄減少，HLM效果成立。

The purpose of this paper is to examine the deterioration of unanticipated permanent terms of trade on current account in an infinite-horizon optimizing framework emphasizing the role of ‘structural adjustment cost’. We model the fact that adjustment occurs slowly by assuming that it is costly to move capital between sectors. After the terms of trade deterioration the steady state habitual standards of living must fall, as permanent income has fallen. With adjacent complementarity the representative individual will want to maintain the habitual standard of living inherited from the past. Therefore, after the terms of trade deterioration savings will fall, permanent income will fall, then the HLM effect holds.
And we examine the deterioration of unanticipated permanent terms of trade on current account in a monetary economy. After a terms of trade deterioration the steady state habitual standards of living must fall. But the model in a monetary economy. Simulation results are used to examined that with adjacent complementarity the representative individual will want to maintain the habitual standard of living inherited from the past. Therefore, savings will fall, permanent income will fall, then the HLM effect holds.

論文題目
中文摘要
英文摘要
謝辭
目次
第一章 緒論
第二章 文獻探討
第三章 消費習性與經常帳
第一節 模型設定
第二節 動態分析
第三節 恆常性貿易條件惡化之效果
第四章 貨幣、消費習性與經常帳
第一節 模型設定
第二節 動態分析
第三節 恆常性貿易條件惡化之效果
第五章 結論
附錄
參考文獻

參考文獻

Bean, C. R. (1986), “The Terms of Trade, Labour Supply and the Current Account,” The Economic Journal Supplement, 96, 38-46.
Calvo, G. A., L. Leiderman, and C. M. Reinhart (1994), “The Capital Inflows Problem: Concepts and Issues,” Contemporary Economic Policy, 12, 54-66.
Chinn, M. D. and E. S. Prasad (2003), “Medium-Term Determinants of Current Accounts in Industrial and Developing Countries: an Empirical Exploration,” Journal of International Economics, 59, 47-76.
Craig S. H. (1995), “The U.S. Current Account: the Other Deficit. Economic Review,” Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City, 80, 11-24.
Edwards, S. (1989), “Temporary Terms of Trade Disturbances, the Real Exchange Rates, and the Current Account,” Economica, 56, 343-57.
Feldstein, M. (1983), “Domestic Saving and International Capital Movements in the Long Run and the Short Run,” European Economic Review, 21, 129-151.
Gavin, M. (1992), “Income Effects of Adjustment to a Terms of Trade Disturbance and the Demand for Adjustment Finance,” Journal of Development Economics, 37, 127-153.
Giovanni, P. (2000), “Current Account Dynamics and Expected Future Budget Deficits: Some International Evidence,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 19, 255-271.
Ikeda, S. (2001), “Weakly Non-Separable Preferences and the Harberger-Laursen-Metzler Effect,” The Canadian Journal of Economics, 34, 290-307.
Kent, C. and P. A. Cashin (2003, July), “The Response of the Current Account to Terms of Trade Shocks: Persistence Matters,” IMF Working Paper WP/03/143, Washington, DC: International Monetary Fund.
Lahiri, A. (1996), “Intertemporal Price Speculation and the Optimal Current-Account Deficit: a Comment,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 15, 135-139.
Mansoorian, A. (1993), “Habits Persistence and the Harberger-Laursen-Metzler Effect in An Infinite Horizon Model,” Journal of International Economics, 34, 153-166.
Mansoorian, A. (1998), “Habits and Durability in Consumption, and the Dynamics of the Current Account,” Journal of International Economics, 44, 69-82.
Mendoza, E. G. (1995), “The Terms of Trade, the Real Exchange Rate, and Economic Fluctuations,” International Economic Review, 36, 101-137.
Monadjemi, M. S. and C. Kearney (1991), “The Interest Rate Neutrality of Fiscal Deficits: Testing for Ricardian Equivalence and Capital Inflow,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 10, 541-551.
Obstfeld, M. (1982), “Aggregate Spending and the Terms of Trade: Is There a Laursen-Metzler Effect?” The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 97, 251-270.
Ostry, J. D. (1988), “The Balance of Trade, Terms of Trade, and the Real Exchange Rate: an Intertemporal Optimizing Framework,” International Monetary Fund Staff Papers, 35, 541-573.
Otto, G. (2003), “Terms of Trade Shocks and the Balance of Trade: There Is a Harberger-Laursen-Metzler Effect,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 22, 155-184.
Persson, T. and L. E. O. Svensson (1985), “Current Account Dynamics and the Terms of Trade: Harberger-Laursen-Metzler Two Generations Later,” Journal of Political Economy, 93, 43-65.
Ryder, H. E. and Heal, G. M. (1973), “Optimal Growth with Intertemporally Dependent Preferences,” The Review of Economic Studies, 40, 1-13.
Sen, P. and S. Turnovsky (1989), “Deterioration of the Terms of Trade and Capital Accumulation: a Re-examination of the Laursen-Metzler Effect,” Journal of International Economics, 26, 227-250.
Serven, L. (1999), “Terms-of-Trade Shocks and Optimal Investment: Another Look at the Laursen-Metzler Effect,” Journal of International Money and Finance, 18, 337-365.
Shirvani, H. and B. Wilbratte (1997), “The Relationship between the Real Exchange Rate and the Trade Balance: An Empirical Reassessment.” International Economic Journal, 11, 39-50.
Simon, N. (2002), “Real Exchange Rates and Productivity Shocks in a Small Open Economy,” The Review of Economic Studies, 72, 707-734.
Svensson, L. E. O. and A. Razin (1983), “The Terms of Trade and the Current Account: the Harberger-Laursen-Metzler Effect,” Journal of Political Economy, 91, 97-125.
Varella Mollick, A. (2003), “Real Exchange Rate Shocks on Tradables, Nontradables, and the Current Account: Mexico, 1980-2000,” Empirical Economics, 28, 615-638.
Yoshitomi M. and K. Ohno (1999), “Capital-Account Crisis and Credit Contraction,” The New Nature of Crisis Requires New Policy Responses, 2, 1-32.