|
|
Trade
It Depends
What effect does a
change in the terms of trade have on the current account of the balance
of payments? The large terms of trade shifts during the last decade have
led economists to reappraise previous analyses in the light of modern
theories of consumer behaviour, which emphasize the role of wealth in
smoothing expenditure over time. CEPR Research Fellow Charles Bean
reviews and extends this work in Discussion Paper No. 22.
It was previously argued that a terms of trade deterioration implied a
fall in the real income of consumers, a reduction in savings and
therefore, a worsening of the current account. Matters are less clear
cut, however, if the terms of trade deterioration is regarded as
permanent since although real income falls, there is then no reason for
the pattern of savings to change. As Bean notes, more recent analyses
have demonstrated that the effect on the current account is complicated.
It depends on whether changes in wealth lead to changes in consumption
spread uniformly over the consumer's lifetime or whether they are
concentrated in particular periods. In other words, it depends on their
degree of time preference or 'impatience'. Suppose consumers tend to
become more 'impatient' as wealth falls. Then a deterioration in the
terms of trade decreases real income, increases impatience and causes a
shift in consumption from future periods to the present. Thus the
current account deteriorates.
Bean extends this recent work to allow output to vary as well. Suppose
the terms of trade deteriorate from an initial position of equilibrium,
and this deterioration is viewed as permanent. This makes production
less profitable than before, leading to a fall in output and a decline
in employment and wages. What is the effect on the current account? This
depends not only on the way the consumers' rate of time preference
changes, but also on the relative ease of substitution of consumption
and leisure between different time periods. If consumption can be
switched easily between different time periods, then a terms of trade
deterioration will also tend to lead to a deterioration in the current
account. Conversely, if workers can easily be persuaded to work longer
hours now in return for more leisure in the future, this makes more
probable the opposite result, an improvement in the current account. In
effect, a permanent terms of trade deterioration leads to a current
account deficit if wealth effects are stronger on consumption than they
are on labour supply. A decreasing rate of time preference alone is
neither necessary nor sufficient for a permanent terms of trade
deterioration to lead to a current account deficit.
Bean, like earlier authors, uses a model with two periods - 'the
present' and 'the future' to derive these conclusions. Do they depend on
the two-period simplification? Bean explores this question using a more
complex multi-period model with overlapping generations. Even though
each individual has only a finite lifetime, the labour market
interaction between individuals of different generations leads to very
complicated behaviour in the current account. A temporary shift in the
terms of trade has effects on the current account long after those
individuals who experienced it have died, and the adjustment to
permanent changes is only gradual. Bean notes that abandoning the
assumption of an initial equilibrium would further complicate matters by
introducing wealth revaluation effects caused by the change in the terms
of trade.
Although abstract, Bean's analysis confirms the view that the response
of the current account to terms of trade shifts is likely to be very
complicated and depends critically on whether such changes are seen as
temporary or permanent, and whether they are anticipated or
unanticipated. In particular, there may be a current account improvement
in advance of an anticipated future deterioration in the terms of trade.
In general, there seems to be little presumption in practice that it
will either improve or deteriorate.
The Terms of Trade, Labour Supply and the Current Account
Charles R Bean
Discussion Paper No. 22 June 1984 (IM)
|
|