Exchange Rate Regimes: Is the Bipolar View Correct?

By S. Fischer. 2001

243 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Economics and Econometrics, Finance

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/0ed6e84f1106709da28867edf58ab61d37a5e81f

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Economics and Econometrics

1. A. Cukierman
2. P. Geraats
3. Sylvester C. W. Eijffinger
4. Katrin Assenmacher-Wesche

In Finance

1. A. Cukierman
2. P. Geraats
3. Sylvester C. W. Eijffinger
4. Katrin Assenmacher-Wesche

Citations in the corpus

• Exchange Rate Volatility and Growth in Emerging Europe and East Asia (2009, unknown): “The economic policy implication would be to pursue fully (more) flexible exchange rate regimes (Fischer 2001).”
• International Evidence on Recovery from Recessions (2009, unknown): “…on rebound from recession relative to floating rates, with the intermediate regime imposing a large restraint on recovery.10 This finding would bolster the view of those who have argued that countries should move to corners of either very flexible or institutionally fixed regimes (Fischer, 2001).”
• The East Asian Dollar Standard, Fear of Floating, and Original Sin (2004, unknown): “(Fischer, 2001: 22) Similarly, based on monthly observations, Hernández and Montiel (2001) find that Indonesia, Korea, Philippines, Singapore, Taiwan, and Thailand have more flexible (but not purely flexible) exchange rates than in the pre-crisis period.”
• Flexible Exchange Rates as Shock Absorbers (2003, unknown): “The discussion on the relative merits of these two contrasting exchange rate systems has come to be known as the ‘‘two corners’’ debate (Fischer, 2001).”
• Foreign Exchange Intervention in Emerging Markets: A Survey of Empirical Studies (2013, unknown): “…have to make decisions on their exchange rate management and we observe that “corner solutions” to exchange rate regimes, i.e. either absolutely fixed or floating exchange rates, are much less popular in practice than intermediate solutions (Calvo and Reinhart, 2002, see also Fischer, 2001).”
• Exchange Rate Management and Crisis Susceptibility: A Reassessment (2014, unknown): “Writing in the aftermath of the Asian crisis, Fischer (2001) gave a bipolar prescription for regime choice, whereby EMEs should adopt floats or hard pegs, but avoid intermediate regimes as they are more prone to crisis.”
• Evolution and Performance of Exchange Rate Regimes (2003, unknown): “One influential view predicted that exchange rate regimes would move in a bipolar manner to the extremes of hard pegs, which would be relatively immune to speculative pressures or free floats (Eichengreen, 1994; and Fischer, 2001).”
• The Classification and Performance of Alternative Exchange-Rate Systems (2008, unknown): “According to this bipolar hypothesis, for countries well-integrated into world capital markets, intermediate regimes are crisisprone so that there is little, if any, feasible middle ground between floating exchange rates and monetary unification (Eichengreen, 1994; Fischer, 2001).”
• Beyond Bipolar: A Three-Dimensional Assessment of Monetary Frameworks (2001, unknown): “These exchange rate and inflation results generally confirm of the findings of Frankel (1999) and Fischer (2001), but with some surprising twists.”