Want Dollarization?no! No! No!
Join now to read essay Want Dollarization?no! No! No!
GLIM WORKING PAPER SERIES
WANT DOLLARIZATION ?
NO! NO!
Sundara B Reddy
GREAT LAKES INSTITUTE OF MANAGEMENT
South Mada Street, Srinagar Colony,
Saidapet, Chennai
July 2004
We are indebted to Lakshmi Kumar, Bala V Balachandran, Gulshan, Shishir, Praveen for useful comments and suggestions. Of course, we are solely responsible for any shortcomings. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Great Lakes Institute of Management.
© 2004 by Sundara B Reddy. All rights reserved. Short sections of text, not to exceed
two paragraphs, may be quoted without explicit permission provided that full credit, including © notice, is given to the source.
Want Dollarization? No! No!
Sundara B Reddy
GLIM Working Paper
July 2004
JEL No. E42, F41, F42
ABSTRACT
This paper discusses major analytical aspects of dollarization and their practical implications. We develop a simple model to stress that dollarization implies the loss of independent monetary policy, yet the significance of such losses can only be evaluated in conjunction with assumptions about the policymaking process. If the government is benevolent and has no credibility problems, dollarization causes a fall in welfare, which can be measured. However, outcomes are rather different if credibility is absent and dollarization can serve as a commitment device: the welfare impact of dollarization is ambiguous. We also evaluate other implications of dollarization, such as those related to last resort lending and financial stability.
Sundara B Reddy
Introduction
In the dollarization debate, some have indeed argued that dollars would provide for a”better” currency than existing national currencies while others have argued exactly the opposite. We prefer to be agnostic here. Given the absence of better micro-foundations, it is probably best to impose an assumption that does not bias the desirability of dollarization in one way or another. Fixing the exchange rate involves a welfare loss relative to the Ramsey policy. So, in the absence of commitment, expected welfare under fixed exchange rates may or may not improve. There is a tradeoff between credibility and flexibility, and the better choice depends on model parameters.
Dollarization and the Lender of Last Resort
– 3 –
The recent crises in emerging markets have underscored a crucial question: what is the role of exchange rate policy in the generation and/or prevention of those crises? Arguably, it is this issue that has provided the main impetus for dollarization proposals in developing countries. And, paradoxically, consideration of the same question has led to calls for the exact opposite, flexible exchange rates.
The debate has been influenced by some prominent aspects of observed
crises. In them, the financial system, and particularly domestic banks, played a key role. Exchange rate pegs often collapsed as the central bank was attempting to bail out the domestic financial system in the midst of a panic. The panic was possible, in turn, because the countries that went into crises were in a state of international illiquidity: their short term potential liabilities, measured in international currency, clearly exceeded the value of the assets they could have access to on short notice.
In this context, it has been argued that dollarization would make crises more likely by preventing the domestic central bank from acting as a domestic lender of last resort. Loosely speaking, a lender of last resort is an institution that stands ready to provide credit to banks in the event that they experience a sudden demand for liquidity, as when bank runs occur. Such an institution is crucial in a system of banks with fractional reserves in order to reassure