Publications

Following the IMF CGER methodology, we conduct an assessment of the current account and price competitiveness of the Central Eastern European Countries, CEECs, which joined the EU between 2004 and 2014. We present results for a method called the “Macroeconomic Balance (MB) approach” which provides a measure of current account equilibrium based on its determinants together with misalignments in the real effective exchange rates. We believe that a more refined analysis of the misalignments may be of some use for the Macroeconomic Imbalance Procedure (MIP). This is especially useful for these countries which went through a transition phase and boom/bust periods since their independence. This can have influenced their performances and a judgement based on their own characteristics may be needed.
We use a panel setup of 11 EU new member states (Croatia is included) over the period 1994-2012 in static and dynamic frameworks, also controlling for the presence of cross-sectional dependence, checking specifically for the role of exchange rate regimes, capital flows and global factors.
We find that the estimated coefficients for the determinants are in line with the expectations. Moreover, the foreign capital flows, the oil balance and relative output growth seem to play a crucial role in explaining the current account. Some global factors like shocks in oil prices or supply might have played a role in worsening, the current account balance of the CEECs. Having a pegged exchange rate regime (or being part of the euro zone) affects the current account positively. The real effective exchange rates behave in line with the current account gaps, which experience a clear cyclical behaviour. The CAs and REERs are getting close to equilibria in 2012 in most of the countries. The rebalancing is completed for some countries less misaligned in the past like Poland and Czech Republic, but also in the case of Lithuania. When the Foreign Direct Investments (FDIs) are introduced as a determinant for these countries, the misalignments are larger in the boom periods (positive misalignments); while the negative misalignments are smaller in magnitude.

JEL Codes: F31, F32, C23.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the Bank of Lithuania.

Exchange rate assessment is becoming increasingly relevant for economic surveillance in the European Union (EU). The persistence of different wage, price and productivity dynamics among the Economic and Monetary Union (EMU) countries or EU members with a fixed exchange regime with the euro, coupled with the impossibility of correcting competitiveness differentials via the adjustment of nominal rates, have resulted in divergent dynamics in Real Effective Exchange Rates. This paper explores the role of economic fundamentals, included in the transfer effect theory, in explaining medium/long-run movements in the Real Effective Exchange Rates in the EU over the period 1994–2012 by using heterogeneous, co-integrated panel frameworks in static and dynamic terms. In addition, the paper provides an analysis of the misalignments of the rate for each member state based on the “equilibrium” measure calculated from the permanent component of the fundamentals (the so-called Behavioural Effective Exchange Rate).
We find that the coefficients of the determinants are extremely different across groups in magnitude and sometimes in sign as well and the transfer theory does not hold for periphery and the Central and Eastern European countries (CEECs). The relative importance of the transfer variable and the Balassa-Samuelson measure are crucial for the asymmetries. The resulting misalignments in EU28 are huge and the patterns diverge significantly across groups. The core countries have been undervalued for almost the whole period, which entails from an important increase in competitiveness for those countries. Instead the periphery has experienced high rates, especially in Portugal. In addition, the behaviour of CEECs is also driven, as expected, by the catching-up process and the criteria to the accession to the EU. The misalignments in this case are still extremely wide and reflect these phenomena.

JEL Codes: F31, C23.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the Bank of Lithuania.

In the recent debate about the channels for growth there are two different aspects to take into account: the importance of the exports in services and the sophistication of the exports themselves. We analyze in this paper the situation of exports in Lithuania, highlighting the modern/high-tech sectors with a special focus on services.
We found that the percentage of high-tech merchandise exports on the total exports increased in general the last decade, from less than 4% of total merchandise exports to more than 10%.The exports in modern services are instead the only one which experienced a positive growth rate in the worst period of the crisis (2009). Looking at the foreign demand for services, especially for modern services, this changed a lot in the last decade. The main partner for modern services now is Germany, while for total service exports the first destination is Russia, as it is for total goods. For total goods other countries not in the EU mattered more in 2004 than nowadays. Non-EU countries are becoming crucial for exports in modern services.
In addition, we provide a simple econometric setup in which we study the impact on the different type of real exports of the Real Effective Exchange Rate (REER, deflated in several ways) and the trade-weighted (weighted for trade in services and in goods) foreign demand based on real GDP data or Gross Value Added. The exports of modern services seem to be not explained by the competitiveness or demand factor. In our setups the main determinant is the exports in the previous period. The outcome for modern services is quite robust across the specifications and with different REERs. The exceptions concern the setup with GDP foreign demand estimated by OLS, in which also the foreign demand seems to play a role for exports in modern services. For exports in total services and traditional services instead, foreign demand matter in more cases and using different REERs especially with a more general measure of foreign demand based on real GDP.
The REER for goods and services exports matters more if deflated by CPI both in case of GDP and Gross Value Added-based foreign demand, and mostly in the short-run.

JEL Codes: F14, F43, C22.

The views expressed are those of the author(s) and do not necessarily represent those of the Bank of Lithuania.