February 01 2018 Summary of the General Discussion on “The Effect of Import Competition on Wages in the Japanese Manufacturing Sector” Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2018 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2018Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2018) 17 (1): 71–72. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00587 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Summary of the General Discussion on “The Effect of Import Competition on Wages in the Japanese Manufacturing Sector”. Asian Economic Papers 2018; 17 (1): 71–72. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00587 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Deborah Swenson pointed out that import competition has a measureable but small effect on skill premiums in this paper. She is concerned, however, about the potentially larger effect on the trend in employment and how import penetration affects the possibility of getting a job or losing a job. Bhanupong Nidhiprabha questioned whether the study actually says anything about the degree of competition from imports, as the regressions only have imports. He suggested using imports to domestic consumption to indicate the degree of competition. He also suggested using the distinction between high and low competition, to examine industries that have higher degrees of competition, and thinks that using his suggested measure will perhaps eliminate the endogeneity problem. He also pointed out that the paper is premised on a Hecksher-Olin pattern of trade, but, with fragmented trade, different industries will have different imports that will then have different impacts. He cited the... You do not currently have access to this content.

February 01 2018 Summary of the General Discussion on “Exchange Rate Flexibility, Financial Market Openness, and Economic Growth” Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2018 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2018Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2018) 17 (1): 168–170. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00598 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Summary of the General Discussion on “Exchange Rate Flexibility, Financial Market Openness, and Economic Growth”. Asian Economic Papers 2018; 17 (1): 168–170. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00598 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Maria Socorro Gochoco-Bautista questioned the hypothesis of the paper, which examines the role of exchange rate flexibility on growth. She thought this was a misinterpretation of Rey's paper on the inapplicability of the Mundellian trilemma given capital mobility. Rey points out that asset prices, capital flows, credit growth, and so forth, follow global factors. As a result, there is a loss of monetary independence. The latter is a problem because a country's business cycle typically does not follow the global financial cycle. Without monetary independence, therefore, countries lose the use of monetary policy to implement countercyclical policy in their countries. Rey then states that to have some measure of independence, authorities should use some capital flow management measures in addition to having more flexible exchange rates. Exchange rate flexibility is no longer sufficient to insulate the real economy from external shocks in the face of capital mobility, contrary to the... You do not currently have access to this content.

November 01 2017 Summary of the General Discussion on “Interest Liberalization and the Estimation of Implicit Interest Rates in China's Banking Sector” Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2017 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2017Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2017) 16 (3): 311–312. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00579 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Summary of the General Discussion on “Interest Liberalization and the Estimation of Implicit Interest Rates in China's Banking Sector”. Asian Economic Papers 2017; 16 (3): 311–312. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00579 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Wing Thye Woo led the discussion with a number of comments on Shen's representation of China's banking sector. First, in describing the activities of China's banking sector, Woo advised the authors to consider using the term implicit deposit rate premium rather than implicit interest, because this change in terminology more directly conveys the measurement of payment above and beyond the explicit interest rate. Next, Woo cautioned that the bank maximization problem is more complex than it is in the paper. In particular, the model treats the revenue per loan, ra, as exogenous. Although the exogeneity assumption may be an accurate representation of China's banking sector in 2005, however, Woo argued that assumption of exogeneity was no longer appropriate by 2013. Instead, Woo suggested that the modeling of bank decisions in 2013 should allow for the endogenous selection of both ra and the implicit interest rate, im... You do not currently have access to this content.

November 01 2017 Summary of the General Discussion on “Can Russia Survive Economic Sanctions?” Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2017 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2017Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2017) 16 (3): 127. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00555 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Summary of the General Discussion on “Can Russia Survive Economic Sanctions?”. Asian Economic Papers 2017; 16 (3): 127. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00555 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Several commentators during the general discussion raised concerns about the appropriateness of the model used in the analysis. Barry Eichengreen noted that the long-run overlapping generations model used had been developed to investigate pension reform but not the impact of economic sanctions. In particular, he was not aware of any country ever having been subject to economic sanctions for 100 years as investigated by the authors. He stressed that it was important to use a model that is appropriate for the analysis at hand and the urge to modify an existing model to fit particular analysis should be resisted. Yan Shen agreed that a 100-year horizon was inappropriate as people and businesses would work hard to overcome such harmful sanctions. Kiyohiko Nishimura suggested considering the period of the Cold War, during which sanctions were in place, to inform the empirical analysis. Moreover, he noted that the model only considered the... You do not currently have access to this content.

November 01 2017 Summary of the General Discussion on “Competition Effects and Industrial Productivity: Lessons from Japanese Industry” Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2017 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2017Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2017) 16 (3): 256. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00572 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Summary of the General Discussion on “Competition Effects and Industrial Productivity: Lessons from Japanese Industry”. Asian Economic Papers 2017; 16 (3): 256. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00572 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Kiyohiko Nishimura said that the Statistical Commission would like researchers to use an industrial firm-level database, but that database is protected by law. Data on Japan cannot be moved out of Japan. In actual practice, the database can be used or accessed onsite but thereafter, the data cannot be moved. Masahito Ambashi stated that TFP characteristics and specification are “problematic, and firm heterogeneity is difficult to consider.” Because of data limitations, the specification should be re-examined. For example, the Herfindahl index can be used. Instrumental variables estimation can also be used. He also said that as the services industry is becoming important in ASEAN, this is also an important issue that needs to be addressed. You do not currently have access to this content.

November 01 2017 Comments by Kozo Kiyota, on The Global Productivity Slump: Common and Country-Specific Factors Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2017 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2017Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2017) 16 (3): 44–45. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00546 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Comments by Kozo Kiyota, on The Global Productivity Slump: Common and Country-Specific Factors. Asian Economic Papers 2017; 16 (3): 44–45. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00546 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Kozo Kiyota: This paper investigates the common and country-specific factors of the global total factor productivity (TFP) slowdown, which is defined as the period when the growth rate of TFP was at least 1.0 percentage point (or 1.5 percentage points) lower in the second period than the first. One of the contributions of this paper is that the analysis utilized a large sample of countries and years, covering both developed and developing countries from the mid 1950s to 2011. The analysis is based on a probit or logit model where the dependent variable takes the value of one for the three years centered on the year when a TFP slump begins. The TFP data come from the Penn World Tables, version 8.1. Focusing on such factors as the changes in terms of trade and those in the energy prices, the analysis presents three major findings. First, between the mid 1950s... You do not currently have access to this content.

November 01 2017 Comments by Deborah Swenson, on The Global Value Chain and the Competitiveness of Asian Countries Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2017 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2017Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2017) 16 (3): 282–283. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00574 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Comments by Deborah Swenson, on The Global Value Chain and the Competitiveness of Asian Countries. Asian Economic Papers 2017; 16 (3): 282–283. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00574 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Deborah Swenson: The organizations and activities of global value chains (GVCs) are of great policy interest because of their effects on the global location of employment. Although it is widely understood that decreases in trade and communication costs in recent decades have accelerated incentives for the relocation of production activities, a scarcity of relevant data has limited the ability of researchers and policymakers to comprehensively track the detailed economic features of this reorganization. For example, to gain insight into these questions economists have adopted a number of measurement approaches based on the movement of internationally traded products. Here, tracking items that are identified as intermediate inputs reveals information about the organization of global production. Additional changes have been identified through changes in firm investment as firms have changed the geographic placement of their affiliate operations. Because countries that contribute to production within GVCs only contribute a portion of value-added contained... You do not currently have access to this content.

November 01 2017 Comments by Sung-Chun Jung, on The Global Productivity Slump: Common and Country-Specific Factors Author and Article Information Online Issn: 1536-0083 Print Issn: 1535-3516 © 2017 by the Asian Economic Panel and the Massachusetts Institute of Technology2017Massachusetts Institute of Technology Asian Economic Papers (2017) 16 (3): 42–44. https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00545 Cite Icon Cite Permissions Share Icon Share Facebook Twitter LinkedIn MailTo Views Icon Views Article contents Figures & tables Video Audio Supplementary Data Peer Review Search Site Citation Comments by Sung-Chun Jung, on The Global Productivity Slump: Common and Country-Specific Factors. Asian Economic Papers 2017; 16 (3): 42–44. doi: https://doi.org/10.1162/asep_a_00545 Download citation file: Ris (Zotero) Reference Manager EasyBib Bookends Mendeley Papers EndNote RefWorks BibTex toolbar search Search Dropdown Menu toolbar search search input Search input auto suggest filter your search All ContentAll JournalsAsian Economic Papers Search Advanced Search Sung-Chun Jung: The global economy has not seen strong recoveries since the 2008 global financial crisis. Many economists have been pointing to the global productivity slump as one of the main reasons for this, trying to identify the deeper roots for slowdowns of TFP growth. This research paper falls into this group and provides us with a promising and hopeful message on the future of our global economy. The key questions in the paper are “whether this phenomenon of sharply lower productivity growth is unprecedented, whether it is likely to last, which countries are most susceptible, and what can be done about it.” The results provided here relieve some of the concerns for the future of the global economy. TFP slumps are ubiquitous. They could take place at any time in any place because of a variety of economic and non-economic shocks, including global and country-specific factors. We thus do... You do not currently have access to this content.