Эксоцман
на главную поиск contacts

Institutional Causes, Macroeconomic Symptoms: Volatility, Crises and Growth

Опубликовано на портале: 30-09-2003
Организация: National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER)
Авторы подвергают критике распространенный (традиционный) взгляд о простой причинно-следственной взаимосвязи между макроэкономической политикой и экономическим развитием страны. Искажающая макроэкономическая политика может быть не причиной кризисов и высокой степени волатильности экономики, а лишь симптомом институциональных проблем. В подтверждение данного соображения авторы анализируют процесс формирования и качество институтов в бывших европейских колониях.

Countries that have pursued distortionary macroeconomic policies, including high inflation, large budget deficits and misaligned exchange rates, appear to have suffered more macroeconomic volatility and also grown more slowly during the postwar period. Does this reflect the causal effect of these macroeconomic policies on economic outcomes? One reason to suspect that the answer may be no is that countries pursuing poor macroeconomic policies also have weak 'institutions,' including political institutions that do not constrain politicians and political elites, ineffective enforcement of property rights for investors, widespread corruption, and a high degree of political instability. This paper documents that countries that inherited more 'extractive' instit utions from their colonial past were more likely to experience high volatility a nd economic crises during the postwar period. More specifically, societies where European colonists faced high mortality rates more than 100 years ago are much more volatile and prone to crises. Based on our previous work, we interpret this relationship as due to the causal effect of institutions on economic outcomes: Europeans did not settle and were more likely to set up extractive institutions in areas where they faced high mortality. Once we control for the effect of institutions, macroeconomic policies appear to have only a minor impact on volatility and crises. This suggests that distortionary macroeconomic policies are more likely to be symptoms of underlying institutional problems rather than the main causes of economic volatility, and also that the effects of institutional differences on volatility do not appear to be primarily mediated by any of the standard macroeconomic variables. Instead, it appears that weak institutions cause volatility through a number of microeconomic, as well as macroeconomic, channels.

Cтатья представлена в сборнике NBER Working Paper. Полный текст представлен на странице, посвященной этой статье, в формате *.pdf.


Ссылки
http://www.nber.org/papers/w9124
BiBTeX
RIS
Ключевые слова

См. также:
Евсей Томович Гурвич
Общественные науки и современность. 2017.  № 1. С. 20–45. 
[Статья]
Григорий Германович Попов, Е.И. Чибисова
TERRA ECONOMICUS. 2016.  Т. 14. № 3. С. 87-100. 
[Статья]
Александр Николаевич Моисеев, Владимир Михайлович Давыдов
[Статья]
Тимур Рустамович Гареев
Общественные науки и современность. 2010.  № 5. С. 45-58. 
[Статья]
[Интернет-ресурс]
Алексей Михайлович Смулов
Экономическая наука современной России. 2002.  № 2. С. 51-66. 
[Статья]