Вход

Взаимоотношения развитых и развивающихся стран в процессах интеграции и глобализации

Рекомендуемая категория для самостоятельной подготовки:
Курсовая работа*
Код 147582
Дата создания 2007
Страниц 29
Источников 19
Мы сможем обработать ваш заказ (!) 29 марта в 18:00 [мск]
Файлы будут доступны для скачивания только после обработки заказа.
1 520руб.
КУПИТЬ

Содержание

Contents
Introduction……………………………………………………..3
1. Globalisation and developed countries………………………5
2. Globalisation and developing countries integration…………13
3. Regional integration in Central America…………………….19
Conclusion………………………………………………………23
Biography………………………………………………………..24
Appendix…………………………………………………………26

Фрагмент работы для ознакомления

The benefits and costs of a Central American currency pegged to the U.S. dollar would be the mirror image of the option of a common currency that floats freely versus the dollar. A Central American currency pegged to the dollar would have the benefit of importing monetary credibility—which should entail lower inflation and interest rates—and reducing transaction costs, but at the cost of forgoing an instrument to deal with external shocks that affect Central America differently from the United States. Furthermore, a peg to the dollar would require a strong fiscal policy, which renounces monetary financing of the fiscal deficit and maintains fiscal discipline to stem expectations of a future devaluation. Similarly, the central bank's function is more constrained, particularly under a currency board arrangement (or, of course, under full dollarization), calling for a healthy banking system and alternative arrangements to deal with banks' liquidity problems. With a pegged exchange rate regime, policies aimed at increasing the flexibility of factor markets—in particular, labour markets—would be important as alternative ways to counter real shocks.
Pegged exchange rate regimes can also take intermediate forms, such as crawling pegs or bands. Beyond the general considerations that apply to pegged regimes, to A.Alesina & R.Barro’s mind, “the advantage of a crawling peg is the prevention of large misalignments in competitiveness due to the adjustments of the nominal exchange rate with inflation differentials” (Alesina & Barro 2002: 417). However, this might have the cost of reducing the anti-inflation properties of the pegged regime. A band (or crawling band) would have the advantage of introducing some exchange rate flexibility and some degree of monetary policy independence; this choice has been made by some countries exiting pegged regimes. However, the authorities might face tensions between the exchange rate and inflation objectives at the edges of the band.
Full dollarization would have benefits and costs similar to pegging a common Central American currency to the U.S. dollar, but it would be perceived as a more irrevocable commitment. Additional benefits in terms of increased trade with the United States might accrue with dollarization, although the evidence for this is not clear. The lack of seigniorage, in A.Rose’s opinion, would represent the main cost of dollarization compared with a regional currency union pegged to the dollar (Rose 2000: 15).
The choice of exchange rate regimes for the Central American countries is likely to be interdependent. Exchange rate movements of one country have spillover effects on other countries in the region, both because of their effect on bilateral trade (and hence output and inflation) and because some of them compete in third markets. For example, the costs of dollarization are likely to be reduced with an increase in the number of countries that have already dollarized.
The effect of the extent of bilateral trade on the desirability of a currency union is ambiguous. On the one hand, the more countries trade with each other, the greater the benefits of a currency union, because the larger the reduction in transaction costs. Similarly, the deeper the financial interaction between countries, the greater the benefits of a currency union. On the other hand, in more open economies, external shocks have a larger impact on output and consumption, and hence the exchange rate is more useful as an adjustment tool (see, for example, Ricci, 1997). Thus, the effect of trade on the desirability of a currency area is ambiguous (Frankel and Rose 2002: 437-466). Which effect will prevail will depend partly on the extent to which nominal exchange rate changes translate into real exchange rate changes. If prices and wages adjust quickly with the exchange rate, the exchange rate is not an effective adjustment tool and the first effect (reduced transaction costs) might dominate. Typically, the literature on optimum currency areas emphasizes the first effect.
The United States is the dominant trading partner for the Central American countries and trade with the United States is more important than intraregional trade. On average, the United States received 60 percent of Central American exports and supplied 42 percent of imports over the past five years (Table 2).
On the other hand, other countries in the region received an average of 17 percent of exports and supplied 11 percent of imports over the same period. In addition, the extent to which these countries trade with the other Central American countries varies greatly, from less than 5 percent of trade for the Dominican Republic to about 30 percent for Nicaragua. In most cases, the share of trade with the United States rose over the past decade. Trade among the seven Central American countries did not show a clearly rising trend.
On average, the Central American countries are about as open as the European economies were in the 1980s, but they trade less among themselves. If, however, the percentage of trade with the United States is added to the trade among the Central American countries, the Central American countries have more internal trade than the European countries did in the 1970s and 1980s.
The United States is the main creditor of most of the Central American countries. Bank for International Settlements (BIS) data were used to gauge the extent of financial transactions of the Central American countries with the United States and among themselves (Table 3). These data indicate that, with the exception of the Dominican Republic and Nicaragua, the United States is the single largest creditor country of Central America. When taken as a group, European banks also have large exposures, in some cases larger than American banks. For most Central American countries, except Nicaragua and Costa Rica, American, European, and Japanese banks account for over two-thirds of BIS reporting banks, leaving a relatively small residual share to be explained. The share of financial transactions among Central American countries is not very high.
So we see that developing countries have much less chances to prosper in the global market, and only by means of integration they can survive and even get some competitive edge.
Conclusion
Globalisation is traditionally viewed as increase of a role of external (economic, social and cultural) factors in reproduction of all countries - participants of this process, formation of the uniform world market (markets) without national barriers and creation of uniform legal conditions for all countries.
Globalization means an escalating degree of integration of the world trading and financial markets.
The branches of manufacture based at high level of technological development, are concentrated in the advanced or developed countries while “low technological” manufacture or the industries basing only on natural resources, are located in developing or low-income countries. Thus, the profit on the high added cost goes to the advanced countries. Developed or advanced countries have got about 75 % of the world export in comparison with 25 % belonging to the developing countries. But even for these countries horizons of globalization are wide (we have seen how fast developing countries producing oil integrated in the global community have been becoming high-profit countries).
In the global world of nowadays it is in interests of less developed (or developing) countries to carry out regional integration to achieve desirable results from globalization.
It is becoming increasingly clear that the benefits of a favourable global economic environment do not accrue automatically to any country. In fact, remarkable differences persist in the degrees of success that countries have had in taking advantage of the opportunities for strengthening their economic performance.
Biography
Бек У. Что такое глобализация? — М., 2001.
Алле М. Глобализация: разрушение условий занятости и экономического роста. Эмпирическая очевидность. — М.: ТЕИС, 2003.
Сиденко В., Барановский А. Нелегкий путь к рынку Европейского Союза// Зеркало недели. – 2004. - №1 - С. 1-8.
Холопов А. Мировая экономика и международные отношения, 2005. - №2. – С.15-23.
Alesina, Alberto, and Robert Barro, 2002, “Currency Unions,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (May), pp. 409–36.
Collins, Susan, 1996, “On Becoming More Flexible: Exchange Rate Regimes in Latin America and the Caribbean,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 51 (October), pp. 117–38.
Corbo, Vittorio, 2002, “Exchange Rate Regimes in the Americas: Is Dollarization the Solution?” Monetary and Economic Studies, Vol. 20 (December), pp. 91–111.
Frankel, Jeffrey, and Andrew Rose, 2002, “An Estimate of the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade and Income,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117 (May), pp. 437–66.
Garcia-Lopez, Cristina, Felipe Larrain, and Jose Tavares, 2001, “Exchange Rate Regimes: Assessing Central America’s Options,” in Economic Development in Central America, Vol. 1, ed. by Francisco Larrain (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).
Hilaire, Alvin, and Yongzheng Yang, 2003, “The United States and the New Regionalism/Bilateralism,” IMF Working Paper 03/206 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
IMF, 2003, Exchange Arrangements and Foreign Exchange Markets—Developments and Issues, World Economic and Financial Surveys Series (Washington).
IMF, 2004, “From Fixed to Float—Operational Aspects of Moving Toward Exchange Rate Flexibility” (Washington, November 19). Available via the Internet: http://www.imf.org/external/NP/mfd/2004/eng/111904.htm.
IMF, Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (Washington: various issues).
Laursen, Finn (1999): Civil Society and European Integration, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 565, pp. 66-78.
Laffan, Brigid (1997): The European Union: A Distinctive Model of Internationalisation?, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), vol. 1 No. 8, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-018a.htm
Ricci, Luca, 1997, “A Model of an Optimum Currency Area,” IMF Working Paper 97/76 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
Rodlauer, Markus, 2004, “Perspectives for Economic Integration in Central America,” Remarks made at the 40th Anniversary of the Central American Monetary Council, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, February 27. Available via the Internet: www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2004/022704a.htm.
Rose, Andrew, 2000, “One Money, One Market: The Effect of Common Currencies on Trade,” Economic Policy, Vol. 15 (April), pp. 9–45.
Truman, Edwin, 2003, Inflation Targeting in the World Economy (Washington: Institute for International Economics).
Appendix
Table 1
FDI inward stock by host region, 1998, $ million
HOST REGION________1990_________________ 1998_________________
World 1,768,456 4,088,068
Developed countries 1,394,853 2,785,449
Western Europe 784,371 1,571,427
North America 507,783 1,016,798
Developing countries 370,644 1,219,271
Africa 37,625 75,278
Latin America &
Caribbean 114,090 415,614
Brazil 37,143 156,798
Asia 214,002 716,596
Indonesia 38,883 61,116
Source: UNCTAD (1999)
Table 2
Trade Structure and Openness
Costa Rica Dominican Republic El Salvador Guatemala 1990-94 1995-99 1999-2003 1990-94 1995-99 1999-2003 1990-94 1995-99 1999-2003 1990-94 1995-99 1999-2003 Regional distribution of exports
United States 76.1 64.7 61.8 59.9 80.2 86.2 57.4 49.6 65.2 61.5 61.5 62.9 Other Central American countries1 14.8 13.4 12.1 0.4 0.6 0.9 37.3 49.6 33.1 31.6 24.3 17.1 Rest of the world 9.1 21.8 26.1 39.6 19.2 12.9 5.3 0.8 1.7 7.0 14.2 20.0 Regional distribution of imports
United States 52.8 44.0 40.3 41.7 59.8 57.6 43.0 40.3 47.4 43.3 40.9 34.7 Other Central American countries' 9.4 8.1 5.9 1.3 1.8 2.3 18.3 22.9 19.6 10.5 10.8 11.0 Rest of the world 37.8 47.9 53.8 57.1 38.4 40.2 38.6 36.8 33.0 46.1 48.3 54.4 Openness2
Goods 59.1 71.6 73.0 61.7 74.8 72.3 27.4 52.2 58.2 35.7 37.5 40.3 Goods and services 76.6 88.9 91.8 85.4 99.4 95.1 37.0 60.8 73.3 43.3 43.3 46.6 Honduras Nicaragua Panama 1990-94 1995-99 1999-2003 1990-94 1995-99 1999-2003 1990-94 1 1995-99 1999-2003 Regional distribution of exports
United States 55.8 65.1 68.5 27.9 39.2 37.6 39.1 32.2 39.9 Other Central American countries 8.0 13.6 6.5 20.6 23.6 32.4 13.3 15.1 15.8 Rest of the world 36.2 21.4 25.0 51.5 37.1 30.0 47.6 52.7 44.2 Regional distribution of imports
United States 42.5 48.3 54.9 22.2 32.8 27.7 36.7 39.5 28.7 Other Central American countries' 11.7 14.4 8.4 26.0 33.8 26.9 5.0 6.0 5.8 Rest of the world 45.8 37.3 36.7 51.8 33.4 45.3 58.4 54.5 65.5 Openness
Goods 61.4 73.4 65.8 48.3 44.8 56.8 32.0 32.5 29.1 Goods and services 76.4 97.3 83.5 52.0 58.8 73.7 75.0 62.8 56.8
Table 3. Consolidated Claims of BIS Reporting Banks on Central American Countries
(By nationality of reporting banks; m millions of US. dollars)
Total Claims Creditor Banks
United States European banks Japan Other Costa Rica Percent of total claims 2,988 100.0 496 16.6 656 24 22.0 0.8 1,812 60.6 Dominican Republic Percent of total claims 2,947
100.0 500 17.0 1,416 0 48.0 0.0 1,031 35.0 El Salvador Percent of total claims 2,322 100.0 905 39.0 718 0 30.9 0.0 699 30.1 Guatemala Percent of total claims 1,962 100.0 797 40.6 547 0 27.9 0.0 618 31.5 Honduras Percent of total claims 761 100.0 216 28.4 391 0 51.4 0.0 154 20.2 Nicaragua Percent of total claims 342 100.0 51 14.9 101 0 29.5 0.0 190 55.6
Sources: IMF, World Economic Outlook; Direction of Trade Statistics; and INF staff estimates.
Note: In some cases, partner countries' data were used and adjustments made to obviate some data problems in the original series. Because of these problems, the data should be interpreted with caution.
The Central American countries are Costa Rica, Dominican Republic, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicaragua, and Panama.
Sum of exports and imports in percent of GDP.
Sources: Bank for International Settlements, Quarterly Review; and IMF staff calculations.

Список литературы [ всего 19]

Biography
1.Бек У. Что такое глобализация? — М., 2001.
2.Алле М. Глобализация: разрушение условий занятости и экономического роста. Эмпирическая очевидность. — М.: ТЕИС, 2003.
3.Сиденко В., Барановский А. Нелегкий путь к рынку Европейского Союза// Зеркало недели. – 2004. - №1 - С. 1-8.
4.Холопов А. Мировая экономика и международные отношения, 2005. - №2. – С.15-23.
5.Alesina, Alberto, and Robert Barro, 2002, “Currency Unions,” Quarterly Journal of Economics (May), pp. 409–36.
6.Collins, Susan, 1996, “On Becoming More Flexible: Exchange Rate Regimes in Latin America and the Caribbean,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 51 (October), pp. 117–38.
7.Corbo, Vittorio, 2002, “Exchange Rate Regimes in the Americas: Is Dollarization the Solution?” Monetary and Economic Studies, Vol. 20 (December), pp. 91–111.
8.Frankel, Jeffrey, and Andrew Rose, 2002, “An Estimate of the Effect of Common Currencies on Trade and Income,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 117 (May), pp. 437–66.
9.Garcia-Lopez, Cristina, Felipe Larrain, and Jose Tavares, 2001, “Exchange Rate Regimes: Assessing Central America’s Options,” in Economic Development in Central America, Vol. 1, ed. by Francisco Larrain (Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press).
10.Hilaire, Alvin, and Yongzheng Yang, 2003, “The United States and the New Regionalism/Bilateralism,” IMF Working Paper 03/206 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
11.IMF, 2003, Exchange Arrangements and Foreign Exchange Markets—Developments and Issues, World Economic and Financial Surveys Series (Washington).
12.IMF, 2004, “From Fixed to Float—Operational Aspects of Moving Toward Exchange Rate Flexibility” (Washington, November 19). Available via the Internet: http://www.imf.org/external/NP/mfd/2004/eng/111904.htm.
13.IMF, Annual Report on Exchange Arrangements and Exchange Restrictions (Washington: various issues).
14.Laursen, Finn (1999): Civil Society and European Integration, The Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, vol. 565, pp. 66-78.
15.Laffan, Brigid (1997): The European Union: A Distinctive Model of Internationalisation?, European Integration online Papers (EIoP), vol. 1 No. 8, http://eiop.or.at/eiop/texte/1997-018a.htm
16.Ricci, Luca, 1997, “A Model of an Optimum Currency Area,” IMF Working Paper 97/76 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).
17.Rodlauer, Markus, 2004, “Perspectives for Economic Integration in Central America,” Remarks made at the 40th Anniversary of the Central American Monetary Council, Tegucigalpa, Honduras, February 27. Available via the Internet: www.imf.org/external/np/speeches/2004/022704a.htm.
18.Rose, Andrew, 2000, “One Money, One Market: The Effect of Common Currencies on Trade,” Economic Policy, Vol. 15 (April), pp. 9–45.
19.Truman, Edwin, 2003, Inflation Targeting in the World Economy (Washington: Institute for International Economics).
Очень похожие работы
Пожалуйста, внимательно изучайте содержание и фрагменты работы. Деньги за приобретённые готовые работы по причине несоответствия данной работы вашим требованиям или её уникальности не возвращаются.
* Категория работы носит оценочный характер в соответствии с качественными и количественными параметрами предоставляемого материала. Данный материал ни целиком, ни любая из его частей не является готовым научным трудом, выпускной квалификационной работой, научным докладом или иной работой, предусмотренной государственной системой научной аттестации или необходимой для прохождения промежуточной или итоговой аттестации. Данный материал представляет собой субъективный результат обработки, структурирования и форматирования собранной его автором информации и предназначен, прежде всего, для использования в качестве источника для самостоятельной подготовки работы указанной тематики.
bmt: 0.00542
© Рефератбанк, 2002 - 2024