Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://hdl.handle.net/10419/31375
Authors: 
Chernyshoff, Natalia
Jacks, David S.
Taylor, Alan M.
Year of Publication: 
2005
Series/Report no.: 
Working papers // University of California, Department of Economics 06,7
Abstract: 
Did adoption of the gold standard exacerbate or diminish macroeconomic volatility? Supporters thought so, critics thought not, and theory offers ambiguous messages. A hard exchange-rate regime such as the gold standard might limit monetary shocks if it ties the hands of policy makers. But any decision to forsake exchange-rate flexibility might compromise shock absorption in a world of real shocks and nominal stickiness. A simple model shows how a lack of flexibility can be discerned in the transmission of terms of trade shocks. Evidence on the relationship between real exchange rate volatility and terms of trade volatility from the late nineteenth and early twentieth century exposes a dramatic change. The classical gold standard did absorb shocks, but the interwar gold standard did not, and this historical pattern suggests that the interwar gold standard was a poor regime choice.
JEL: 
F33
F41
N10
Document Type: 
Working Paper

Files in This Item:
File
Size
1.4 MB





Items in EconStor are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.