International Finance Discussion Papers (IFDP)
January 1990
International Financial Markets and the U.S. External Imbalance
Deborah Danker and Peter Hooper
Abstract:
This paper analyzes movements in the U.S. external imbalance over the 1980s from the perspective of the capital account. It considers the empirical evidence on two competing hypotheses about the causes of the large and persistent net capital inflow during the decade: one that the capital inflow was induced by a substantial increase in the expected rate of return on real fixed investment in the United States relative to other countries, and the other that strong U.S. fiscal stimulus and a declining private savings rate boosted demand for credit in the United States.
The empirical evidence that we review on this score include the pattern and composition of capital inflows, trends in the components of U.S. domestic saving and investment, and movements in U.S. relative to foreign rates of return across different types of real and financial assets. The evidence strongly supports the view that the net capital inflow resulted from an increase in demand for credit, and not to any significant degree from an increase in the relative rate of return on real fixed investment in the United States.
We also consider the sustainability of the U.S. external imbalance. Available empirical evidence on this score suggests that over the short to medium term at least, continued large U.S. external deficits could be absorbed manageably into foreign portfolios. Nevertheless, if those deficits continue to finance U.S. government and private consumption rather than the increased rate of domestic investment that would be needed eventually to service the associated external debt, they are not sustainable in the long run.
PDF: Full Paper
Disclaimer: The economic research that is linked from this page represents the views of the authors and does not indicate concurrence either by other members of the Board's staff or by the Board of Governors. The economic research and their conclusions are often preliminary and are circulated to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The Board values having a staff that conducts research on a wide range of economic topics and that explores a diverse array of perspectives on those topics. The resulting conversations in academia, the economic policy community, and the broader public are important to sharpening our collective thinking.