## _wp05226 - References..............................................................................................................

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp05226 - References..............................................................................................................](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/_wp05226.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/_wp05226.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/_wp05226.pdf.json)

---

### I. Introduction: purpose and approach
- Debt sustainability central to macroeconomic policy analysis in low- and middle-income countries and standard in IMF Article IV and program reviews.
- Limitations of standard DSA framework:
  - Relies on accounting identities with few behavioral relationships.
  - Does not capture interactions among economic variables (e.g., interest rate shocks have no effect on output or the exchange rate).
  - Difficulty assessing likelihood of alternative scenarios.
- Paper innovations relative to prior approaches:
  - Stochastic simulation framework with forward-looking monetary and fiscal policy rules.
  - Explicit debt management: external and public debt maturity structures; distinction between foreign- and domestic-currency debt.
  - Modeling local- versus producer-pricing of traded goods.
  - Objective: use stochastic simulation to generate probability measures and examine interactions among macro volatility, financial fragility, endogenous risk premium, and sudden stops.

### II. Literature and conceptual factors
- Stochastic simulation methodologies referenced:
  - Monte Carlo applied to macro models capturing interactions among output, interest rates, exchange rate, and debt.
  - Prior studies: Barnhill and Kopits (2003); Garcia and Rigobon (2004); Mendoza and Oviedo (2003); Tanner and Carey (2005).
- Four key factors influencing debt sustainability:
  - Macroeconomic volatility: emerging markets exhibit roughly double the standard deviation of terms of trade and output compared with major advanced (G-7) economies.
  - Financial fragility: short-term, foreign-currency borrowing increases vulnerability (original sin hypothesis).
  - Endogenous risk premium: feedback from debt burden to risk premia can amplify debt dynamics nonlinearly.
  - Sudden stops in capital flows: thresholds in risk premia can trigger abrupt market closures and large macro adjustments.

### Model design, calibration, and baseline simulation
- Core model elements:
  - Reduced-form equations for aggregate demand, supply, and inflation calibrated to stylized emerging-market facts.
  - Monetary policy: inflation-targeting rule; model conditional on credible inflation targeting.
  - Exchange rate: uncovered interest parity; term structure via expectations hypothesis with backward- and forward-looking components.
  - Trade-sector pricing benchmark: 90% of exports and imports priced in foreign currency; 10% priced in domestic currency.
  - Debt denomination calibration: all external debt in foreign currency; half of public debt in foreign currency. Calibrated so 38% of public debt issued externally and 12% domestically but indexed to the exchange rate.
- Sudden stops and risk-premium ceiling:
  - Sudden stops implemented by imposing a ceiling on the risk premium set at 800 basis points; ceiling binds occasionally.
- Benchmark (advanced-country specification) initial conditions and simulation design:
  - Implicit interest rate r = economic growth rate g (r = g); no risk premium; all debt in domestic currency.
  - Initial conditions: external debt = 32% of GDP; trade balanced; debt service payments = 1.6% of GDP (current account deficit = 1.6% of GDP); public debt = 55% of GDP; government debt service payments = 2.7% of GDP (primary fiscal deficit = 2.7% of GDP); overall budget initially balanced.
  - Simulation horizon: five years; 10,000 runs of five-year sequences → 50,000 annual observations per endogenous variable.
  - Presentation: 80% confidence intervals over horizon; emphasis on 90% confidence levels in fifth year for debt burdens and policy effort measures.

### Key stochastic simulation quantitative findings
- Benchmark (advanced-country specification):
  - 80% CI for external debt / GDP in fifth year: 22.6% to 41.4% (centered on 32%).
  - 80% CI for trade balance in fifth year: -3.3% to 3.3% of GDP.
  - 80% CI width for public debt / GDP in fifth year: 6.7 percentage points (narrower than external debt).
  - 10% risk that external debt will exceed 41.4% of GDP in fifth year.
- Output volatility recalibration:
  - Benchmark output growth standard deviation = 1.9%; recalibrated to double → 3.8%.
  - Doubling output volatility: 90% confidence level for public debt increases by 2.1 percentage points; for external debt increases by 0.7 percentage point.
- Constant risk premium (simulation 3):
  - Constant external risk premium = 400 basis points → implicit r – g = 4%.
  - Steady-state trade surplus required = 1.37% of GDP to keep external debt at 32% of GDP.
  - Average risk premium on public debt (38% external) = 152 basis points.
  - Steady-state primary fiscal surplus required = 0.65% of GDP to keep public debt at 55% of GDP.
- Foreign-currency-denominated debt (simulation 4):
  - All external debt and half of public debt denominated in foreign currency.
  - Exchange-rate depreciation valuation effects raise external debt in domestic currency but increase export values, offsetting external debt service increases; public debt more affected because fiscal items are in domestic currency and lack the hedge.
- Endogenous risk premium (simulation 5):
  - Calibration example: 10 percentage point increase in debt burden → risk premium increase of 250 basis points.
  - Implied example: external risk premium could rise from 400 to 650 basis points for +10 percentage points external debt; public risk premium could rise from 152 to 400 basis points for +10 percentage points public debt.
  - 90% confidence level for endogenous external risk premium ≈ 800 basis points (400 basis points above steady-state 400 basis points).
  - 90% confidence level for endogenous public risk premium = 522 basis points (370 basis points above steady-state 152 basis points).
  - Endogenous risk premium substantially raises volatility of the primary fiscal balance but has relatively little effect on public and external debt levels because fiscal rule adjusts discretionary spending to revert debt to initial level.
  - Alternative calibration (10 percentage point debt increase → 150 basis points risk premium): 90% CL for public risk premium reduced from 522 to 365 basis points; 90% CL for primary fiscal balance reduced from 5.8% of GDP to 4.9% of GDP.
  - Asymmetry: risk premium cannot be negative → average risk premium on public debt ≈ 50 basis points above steady-state; average primary fiscal balance ≈ 1.09% of GDP versus steady-state 0.65%.
- Sudden stops (simulation 6):
  - Financing constraint triggers sudden stop when risk premium > 800 basis points; associated discrete exchange rate depreciation and rapid current account improvement.
  - Effect on trade balance: 90% confidence level increases from 5.1% to 6.0% of GDP.
  - Little effect on volatility of risk premium or external debt burden because large exchange rate depreciation improves trade balance and stabilizes external debt.
  - Sudden stops increase volatility of primary fiscal balance and public debt burden due to valuation effect on foreign-currency-denominated public debt.

### Trade pricing, exchange rate response, and external-sector vulnerability
- Importance of trade pricing:
  - Benchmark: 90% of trade priced in foreign currency; adjustment to depreciation occurs mainly through trade prices.
  - If exports priced in domestic currency, trade-balance adjustment occurs largely through volumes and is slower.
  - Simulation comparison (exports priced domestic vs foreign): pricing exports in domestic currency raises trade-balance variability: 90% CL increases from 6.0% to 7.3% of GDP (simulation 6 versus 6a).
- Exchange rate response parameterization:
  - Exchange rate response equation: Et Δqt+1 = (rt – rft) + θ(Et edebtt+1 - edebt*).
  - With θ = 0.04: a 10 percentage point increase in the debt burden above the initial level ⇒ 4% depreciation of the real exchange rate.
  - Reducing θ from 0.04 to 0.02 (simulation 6b) raises trade-balance variability: 90% CL increases from 6.0% to 7.0% of GDP.
  - Combined (simulation 6c): exports priced in domestic currency and muted exchange rate response amplify trade-balance variation: 90% CI increases from 6.0% to 8.4% of GDP; incidence of sudden stops increases from 3.8% to 6.3%.
- Standard deviation of real exchange rate examples (from Table 3 reporting):
  - Simulation 6: 8.5
  - Simulation 6a: 28.7
  - Simulation 6b: 8.7
  - Simulation 6c: 8.5

### Public debt initial conditions, nonlinearities, and fiscal effort
- Effects of higher initial public debt on required fiscal adjustment:
  - Increasing initial public debt from 55% to 65% of GDP raises the primary fiscal balance from 0.65% to 2.23% of GDP.
  - Increasing initial public debt to 75% of GDP raises the primary fiscal balance to 4.60% of GDP.
- Simulation outcomes (90% confidence levels, fifth year):
  - Raising initial public debt from 55% to 65%:
    - 90% CL for public debt burden increases from 64.7% to 77.6% of GDP.
    - 90% CL for primary fiscal balance increases from 6.2% to 9.6% of GDP.
  - Raising initial public debt to 75% of GDP:
    - 90% CL for public debt rises to almost 90% of GDP.
    - 90% CL for primary fiscal balance increases to 13.7% of GDP.
- Nonlinearities and average outcomes:
  - With initial public debt at 75% of GDP, risk premium averages almost 50 basis points above steady-state; average simulated primary fiscal balance is 5.3% of GDP (0.7 percentage point above steady-state).
  - Empirical note: in 2004 only 2 out of a sample of 21 emerging market economies ran primary fiscal balances in excess of 5% of GDP.

### Fiscal policy rules, trade-offs, and simulation evidence
- Flexible debt rule specification:
  - (dpbalt - dpbal*) = λ(Et pdebtt+1 - pdebt*)
  - dpbalt = discretionary component of primary fiscal balance; dpbal* = steady-state level; Et pdebtt+1 = expected public debt next fiscal year; pdebt* = target level.
  - λ governs speed of adjustment: higher λ → faster reversion of projected public debt to target.
- Simulation comparisons for λ:
  - λ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5:
    - Raising λ from 0.1 to 0.5 reduces 90% CI for public debt from about 70% to 62%.
    - Larger fluctuations required in primary fiscal balance: 90% CL increases from 5.6% to 6.3% of GDP.
    - Risk premium: raising λ from 0.1 to 0.5 reduces 90% CL for the risk premium from 704 to 462 basis points.
    - Incidence of sudden stops falls from 5.1% to 3.5%.
  - Strict debt rule (λ → ∞, simulation 5):
    - 90% CL for public debt burden is 56.8%.
    - Requires high flexibility in primary fiscal balance: 90% CL is 7.1% of GDP.
  - Cyclically-adjusted budget balance rule (simulation 1):
    - Aims to keep overall budget deficit at 4.35% of GDP over five-year planning horizon.
    - Dominated by flexible debt rule with λ ≥ 0.3: results in less debt control and requires higher primary-balance flexibility.
- Trade-off emphasized:
  - Higher λ improves debt metrics but increases procyclicality and primary-balance volatility, raising tensions with tax smoothing, multi-period spending commitments, and stabilization objectives.

### Summary conclusions and policy implications
- Interrelated determinants of emerging-market vulnerability: macro policy, volatile output and terms of trade, financial fragility from short-term foreign-currency borrowing, endogenous risk premium responses, and sudden stops in capital flows.
- External debt vulnerability is sensitive to exchange rate determination and pricing of traded goods; pricing exports in foreign currency provides a hedge that stabilizes external debt but public debt lacks that hedge.
- Fiscal policy that is preemptive can prevent medium-term debt increases but requires flexibility often constrained in emerging markets because of limited tax capacity, infrastructure investment needs, and large nondiscretionary expenditures (health, education, public pensions).
- Omitted or complementary factors noted:
  - Banking and corporate sector origins of debt crises; liability dollarization in domestic banking as a determinant of sudden stops.
  - Role of non-debt-creating capital flows and reserves: FDI inflows to all developing countries averaged 2.2% of GDP in 2004; workers’ remittances averaged 1.7% of GDP in 2004.
  - Cross-border integration and capital outflows complicate valuation effects from exchange rate movements.
- Directions for future research:
  - Empirical assessment of whether exchange rates in emerging markets adjust as the model requires.
  - Extend reduced-form model to choice-theoretic, optimizing intertemporal frameworks and endogenize risk premium consistently.
  - Incorporate contingent liabilities and debt-resolution rules into stochastic simulation frameworks to derive model-consistent measures of default probability and expected recovery.

*Source: _wp05226 - References*

### References..............................................................................................................

### _wp05226 - References..............................................................................................................

### I. INTRODUCTION
- Debt sustainability has become central to macroeconomic policy analysis in low- and middle-income countries and is a standard element of IMF Article IV and program reviews.
- The standard DSA framework (IMF and World Bank) conducts stress tests with reference to a baseline projection scenario and alternative adverse shocks, typically including:
  - a transitory decrease in output growth,
  - an increase in interest rates,
  - a depreciation of the exchange rate,
  - other case-by-case shocks.
- Advantages and shortcomings of the standard DSA framework:
  - Advantages:
    - Standardization of shocks facilitates comparisons across countries and over time.
    - Stress tests are straightforward to interpret technically.
  - Shortcomings:
    - Largely consists of accounting identities with few economic (behavioral) relationships.
    - Does not capture interactions among economic variables (e.g., an interest rate shock has no effect on output or the exchange rate in the standard framework).
    - Difficult to assess the likelihood of alternative scenarios.
- Recent stochastic simulation approaches (Barnhill and Kopits, 2003; Garcia and Rigobon, 2004; Mendoza and Oviedo, 2003) generate probability measures incorporating interactions among key variables.
- Features added in this paper’s stochastic simulation framework:
  - Monetary and fiscal policy set with reference to well-defined objectives and implemented using forward-looking policy rules.
  - Explicit debt management: external and public debt have explicit maturity structures; distinction between foreign- and domestic-currency debt.
  - Model allows local- versus producer-pricing of traded goods, affecting external debt sustainability assessments.
- Motivation includes the “debt intolerance” question (Reinhart, Rogoff, and Savastano, 2003): why emerging market economies default more often despite moderate debt levels.
- Paper’s approach:
  - Specify a stochastic simulation model encompassing four key factors (see Section II.B).
  - Use stochastic simulation to examine interactions and medium-term uncertainty for external and public debt.
  - Assess role of fiscal policy in managing default risk and the need for flexibility in fiscal planning.

### II. LITERATURE REVIEW
#### A. Debt Sustainability Assessments
- The IMF DSA framework (IMF (2002 and 2003)) reports stress tests based on adverse shocks taken separately and simultaneously.
- Importance of joint likelihood:
  - If shocks to output, interest rates, and the exchange rate are independent, joint likelihood of large adverse shocks is relatively low.
  - IMF (2003, p. 16) argues adverse movements in output, interest rates, and the exchange rate have tended to precede financial crises in emerging market economies; output, interest rates, exchange rate, and debt are believed to be jointly determined.
- Stochastic simulation methodology:
  - Monte Carlo simulation applied to macroeconomic models capturing interactions among key variables (output, interest rates, exchange rate, debt).
  - Generates empirical probability distributions enabling measurement of the risk that the debt burden rises significantly over the medium term.
- Prior studies and approaches:
  - Barnhill and Kopits (2003): value-at-risk methodology capturing covariances between risk variables.
  - Garcia and Rigobon (2004): vector autoregression capturing correlation between macro variables.
  - Mendoza and Oviedo (2003): dynamic general equilibrium framework determining comovement by an explicit theoretical structure.
  - Tanner and Carey (2005): discuss value-at-risk fiscal objective functions summarizing maximum fiscal adjustment a country would accept to prevent further increases in debt.
- Distinct contributions of this paper:
  - Forward-looking monetary and fiscal policy rules.
  - Explicit maturity structure and currency denomination for external and public debt.
  - Distinction between local- versus producer-pricing of traded goods.
  - Joint framework to investigate interactions among multiple key factors.

#### B. Factors Influencing Debt Sustainability
- Four key factors emphasized:
  - Macroeconomic volatility,
  - Financial fragility,
  - Endogenous risk premium,
  - Sudden stops in capital flows.
- Macroeconomic volatility:
  - Empirical studies (Catão and Sutton (2002); Catão and Kapur (2004)) indicate countries with more volatile output and terms of trade and destabilizing macro policies are more likely to default.
  - The terms of trade and output are much more volatile in emerging market economies than in advanced economies.
  - Calculations indicate the standard deviation of the terms of trade and output in emerging market economies is roughly double that observed in the major advanced (Group of Seven, G-7) economies.
  - Catão and Kapur (2004) argue macroeconomic volatility is a key determinant of default risk and helps explain the debt intolerance question.
- Financial fragility:
  - Highlighted as an important element after the Asian crisis in 1997- (section continues).

### Key Tables and Figures (as listed in the content unit)
- Tables:
  - Table 1. Balance of Payment Indicators for Middle-Income Countries
  - Table 2. Stochastic Simulation Results
  - Table 3. Stochastic Simulation Results—Sensitivity Analysis
  - Table 4. Stochastic Simulation Results with Different Levels of Initial Debt Burden
  - Table 5. Stochastic Simulation Results under Alternative Fiscal Policy Rules
- Figures:
  - Figure 1. Confidence Intervals for Trade Balance and Primary Fiscal Balance
  - Figure 2. Confidence Intervals for Public and External Debt

*Content unit: _wp05226 - References..............................................................................................................*

### 98. Large exchange rate exposures in banking and corporate sectors made many of the Asian

### _wp05226 - 98. Large exchange rate exposures in banking and corporate sectors made many of the Asian

### Vulnerabilities in emerging market economies
- Predominance of short-term, foreign-currency-denominated borrowing increased vulnerability to large exchange rate devaluations.
- Many emerging market economies are largely unable to borrow at long maturities in domestic currency (original sin hypothesis).
- Abrupt movements in interest rates and exchange rates can greatly raise the debt service burden (measured in domestic currency), increasing default risk.

### Endogenous risk premium: mechanism and implications
- Interaction between debtor and creditor expectations can cause abrupt widening of yield spreads and large exchange rate depreciations, amplifying debt dynamics nonlinearly.
- Higher debt burdens raise perceived default risk, which raises the risk premium and debt service costs, further increasing debt burden.
- Literature and models cited describe mechanisms:
  - Fiscal constraints on primary surplus adjustment raise default probability (Akemann and Kanczuk, 2005).
  - Global interest rate changes affect default risk nonlinearly depending on external debt burden (Dailami, Masson, and Padou, 2005).
  - Threshold debt service burdens can trigger default decisions (Arellano, 2005).
  - Endogenous evolution of risk premium and exchange rate with default probability can make governments unable to refinance when real interest rates exceed model thresholds (Blanchard, 2004).

### Sudden stops in capital flows
- When risk premium exceeds a threshold, foreign investors stop lending and issuers stop borrowing; sovereign bond spreads above 1,000 basis points often signal severe financing difficulty.
- Sudden stop empirical regularities include: sudden loss of access to international capital markets; large improvement in current account deficit; collapse of domestic production and aggregate demand; sharp corrections in asset and nontraded goods prices; sharp declines in private sector credit (Arellano and Mendoza, 2002).
- Calvo (2003) and related models: occasionally binding borrowing constraints and limited fiscal response capacity can yield infrequent sudden stops, large current account reversals, and deep recessions.
- Calvo, Izquierdo, and Mejía (2004) found that 63% of large exchange rate depreciations in their sample were associated with sudden stop episodes.

### Recent trends (balance sheet and macro indicators)
- Middle-income countries: average external debt / GNI declined from 44% in 1999 to 38% in 2003, but remains above the 1982–98 average of 33.7%.
- Exports / GNI in middle-income countries: 31.6% in 1999 to 39% in 2003, versus 22% average in 1982–98.
- Current account balance / GNI: from roughly balanced in 1999 to a surplus equal to 1.5% of GDP in 2003, versus an average deficit of 1.2% of GDP in 1982–98.
- Reserves / GNI increased from 31% in 1999 to 52% in 2003, versus average 20.5% in 1982–98.
- Public debt burden in sample of 31 emerging market economies: average 53.6% of GDP in 2000, 58.6% in 2003, declining to 55.8% in 2004. In 2004, public debt burdens exceeded 80% of GDP in 5 of the 31 countries.

### Overview of stochastic simulation model (design and calibration)
- Model core: reduced-form equations for aggregate demand, supply, and inflation; calibrated to broad stylized facts across emerging market economies.
- Monetary policy: inflation-targeting rule; model conditional on credible inflation targeting.
- Exchange rate: determined by uncovered interest parity; term structure modeled by expectations hypothesis with combined backward- and forward-looking components.
- Trade sector benchmark: 90% of exports and imports priced in foreign currency; 10% priced in domestic currency.
- Debt denomination: all external debt denominated in foreign currency; half of public debt denominated in foreign currency. Model calibrated such that 38% of public debt is issued externally and another 12% is issued domestically but indexed to the exchange rate.
- Sudden stops implemented by imposing a ceiling on the risk premium set at 800 basis points; ceiling binds occasionally.
- Calibration target for exchange rate response: 10% probability that external debt will increase by 9.5 percentage points over a five-year period (matching average G-7 outcome over 1975-2003).

### Modeling default risk and constraints
- Debt default episodes are not explicitly modeled (no write-down rule specified).
- Investors gauge default risk with reference to the debt burden projected over the coming year using model-consistent expectations.
- When debt burden rises above initial level, investors demand higher risk premium; exchange rate depreciations follow and have valuation and trade-balance effects that can stabilize external debt.
- Sudden stops abstract from the use of foreign reserves and official financing.

### Simulation setup and baseline (advanced-country benchmark)
- Benchmark: implicit interest rate r = economic growth rate g (r = g); no risk premium; all debt denominated in domestic currency.
- Initial conditions: external debt = 32% of GDP; trade balanced; debt service payments = 1.6% of GDP (current account deficit = 1.6% of GDP); public debt = 55% of GDP; debt service payments for government = 2.7% of GDP (primary fiscal deficit = 2.7% of GDP); overall budget initially balanced.
- Simulation horizon: five years; 10,000 runs of five-year sequences → 50,000 annual observations per endogenous variable.
- Presentation metrics: 80% confidence intervals over horizon; focus on 90% confidence levels in fifth year for debt burdens and policy effort measures.

### Key stochastic simulation quantitative findings (selected)
- Benchmark (advanced-country specification):
  - 80% CI for external debt / GDP in fifth year: 22.6% to 41.4% (centered on 32%).
  - 80% CI for trade balance in fifth year: -3.3% to 3.3% of GDP.
  - 80% CI width for public debt / GDP in fifth year: 6.7 percentage points (narrower than external debt).
  - 10% risk that external debt will exceed 41.4% of GDP in fifth year.
- Output volatility recalibration:
  - Benchmark output growth standard deviation = 1.9%; recalibrated to double → 3.8%.
  - Increasing output volatility raises variability: 90% confidence level for public debt increases by 2.1 percentage points; for external debt increases by 0.7 percentage point.
- Constant risk premium (simulation 3):
  - Constant risk premium on external debt introduced = 400 basis points → implicit r – g = 4%.
  - Steady-state trade surplus required = 1.37% of GDP to keep external debt at 32% of GDP.
  - Average risk premium on public debt (38% external) = 152 basis points.
  - Steady-state primary fiscal surplus required = 0.65% of GDP to keep public debt at 55% of GDP.
- Foreign-currency-denominated debt (simulation 4):
  - Case where all external debt and half of public debt are denominated in foreign currency.
  - Valuation effects from exchange rate depreciation raise external debt measured in domestic currency but also raise export values, offsetting debt service increases for external debt; public debt more affected because fiscal revenues/expenditures in domestic currency lack the hedge.
- Endogenous risk premium (simulation 5):
  - Calibration: 10 percentage point increase in debt burden → risk premium increase of 250 basis points.
  - Example implied changes: external risk premium could rise from 400 to 650 basis points for +10 percentage points external debt; public risk premium could rise from 152 to 400 basis points for +10 percentage points public debt.
  - 90% confidence level for endogenous external risk premium ≈ 800 basis points (400 basis points above steady-state 400 basis points).
  - 90% confidence level for endogenous public risk premium = 522 basis points (370 basis points above steady-state 152 basis points).
  - Endogenous risk premium substantially raises volatility of primary fiscal balance (policy response) but relatively little effect on public and external debt levels because fiscal rule adjusts discretionary spending to revert debt to initial level.
  - Alternative calibration (10 percentage point debt increase → 150 basis points risk premium): reduces 90% CL for public risk premium from 522 to 365 basis points and reduces 90% CL for primary fiscal balance from 5.8% of GDP to 4.9% of GDP.
  - Asymmetry: risk premium cannot be negative → average risk premium on public debt ≈ 50 basis points above steady-state; average primary fiscal balance ≈ 1.09% of GDP versus steady-state 0.65%.
- Sudden stops (simulation 6):
  - Financing constraint triggers sudden stop when risk premium > 800 basis points; associated with discrete exchange rate depreciation and rapid current account improvement.
  - Effect: 90% confidence level for trade balance increases from 5.1% to 6.0% of GDP.
  - Little effect on volatility of risk premium or external debt burden because large exchange rate depreciation improves trade balance and stabilizes external debt.
  - Sudden stops increase volatility of primary fiscal balance and public debt burden due to valuation effect on foreign-currency-denominated public debt (half of public debt in foreign currency).

### Summary conclusions from the paper (integrated)
- Multiple interrelated factors explain emerging market vulnerability: macro policy, volatile output and terms of trade, financial fragility from short-term foreign-currency borrowing, endogenous risk premium responses, and sudden stops in capital flows.
- The stochastic simulation framework nests these factors to examine interactions and their influence on debt sustainability.
- Fiscal policy rules (debt-targeting with discretionary spending adjustment) and the exchange rate response play central roles in limiting debt burden volatility, but can shift volatility into primary fiscal balances and require sizable fiscal effort in adverse scenarios.
- Calibration of investor sensitivity (how risk premium responds to debt burden) materially affects simulated fiscal outcomes and required adjustment.

*Source: _wp05226 - 98. Large exchange rate exposures in banking and corporate sectors made many of the Asian (IMF working paper content provided).*

### 4.5 percentage point improvement in one year, which is broadly consistent with measures

### _wp05226 - 4.5 percentage point improvement in one year, which is broadly consistent with measures

### Sudden stops and current account reversals
- Current account reversals depend on: level of the current account when the finance constraint binds, value of interest and debt maturing, value of non-debt-creating capital flows, and changes in foreign reserves.
- Definition references: Edwards (2004) considers a current account improvement of at least 4 percentage points in one year, or at least 6 percentage points over three years.
- Calvo, Izquierdo, and Talvi (2003) empirical example: capital flows to seven large Latin American economies declined from over 5% of GDP in mid-1998 to less than 1% in one year; current account improved from a deficit at 5% of GDP in mid-1998 to almost zero by end-2000.
- Modeling equivalence: a sudden stop can be represented as (a) a constraint on the current account attained through a large exchange rate depreciation, or (b) a large depreciation leading to an improvement in the current account — simulation results are similar under either representation.

### Trade pricing, exchange rate response, and external debt sustainability
- Key mechanism: exchange rate depreciation improves the trade balance rapidly in the model mainly because traded goods are priced in foreign currency; adjustment occurs largely through trade prices rather than volumes.
- If exports are priced in domestic currency, adjustment occurs largely through trade volumes; empirical evidence indicates trade volumes adjust more slowly than trade prices, so trade balance responds more gradually to exchange rate changes.
- Simulation comparison (exports priced foreign vs domestic):
  - Pricing exports in domestic rather than foreign currency raises variability in the trade balance: 90% confidence level increases from 6.0% to 7.3% of GDP (simulation 6 versus 6a).
- Exchange rate response specification:
  - Exchange rate response equation: Et Δqt+1 = (rt – rft) + θ(Et edebtt+1 - edebt*)
  - With θ = 0.04: a 10 percentage point increase in the debt burden above the initial level ⇒ 4% depreciation of the real exchange rate.
  - Reducing θ from 0.04 to 0.02 (simulation 6b) raises trade balance variability: 90% confidence level increases from 6.0% to 7.0% of GDP.
- Combined effects:
  - Simulation 6c (exports priced in domestic currency and muted exchange rate response) amplifies trade balance variation: 90% confidence interval increases from 6.0% to 8.4% of GDP.
  - Incidence of sudden stops (risk premium exceeded 800 basis points) increases from 3.8% to 6.3%.

### Selected stochastic simulation statistics (high-level results reported)
- Exchange rate response parameters and implications:
  - θ = 0.04 used for simulation 6; θ = 0.02 used for simulation 6b.
  - Lower θ (weaker exchange rate response) increases vulnerability of the external sector; volatility magnitude alone is not the decisive factor—nature of volatility matters.
- Sudden stops definition used in simulations: risk premium exceeded 800 basis points (percentage of simulations reported).
- Standard deviation of real exchange rate examples (from Table 3 reporting):
  - Simulation 6: 8.5
  - Simulation 6a: 28.7
  - Simulation 6b: 8.7
  - Simulation 6c: 8.5

### Public debt burden: effects of higher initial public debt
- Increasing initial public debt raises steady-state debt service via:
  - conventional debt accounting (higher debt → higher debt service)
  - higher risk premium (augmenting debt service)
- Fiscal adjustments required to stabilize public debt rise accordingly.
- Specific parameter examples:
  - Increasing initial public debt from 55% to 65% of GDP raises the primary fiscal balance from 0.65% to 2.23% of GDP.
  - Increasing initial public debt to 75% of GDP raises the primary fiscal balance to 4.60% of GDP.
- Simulation outcomes (90% confidence levels, fifth year):
  - Raising initial public debt from 55% to 65%:
    - 90% confidence level for public debt burden increases from 64.7% to 77.6% of GDP.
    - 90% confidence level for primary fiscal balance increases from 6.2% to 9.6% of GDP.
  - Raising initial public debt to 75% of GDP:
    - 90% confidence level for public debt rises to almost 90% of GDP.
    - 90% confidence level for primary fiscal balance increases to 13.7% of GDP.
- Nonlinearities and average outcomes:
  - With initial public debt at 75% of GDP, risk premium averages almost 50 basis points above steady-state; average simulated primary fiscal balance is 5.3% of GDP (0.7 percentage point above steady-state).
  - In 2004 only 2 out of a sample of 21 emerging market economies ran primary fiscal balances in excess of 5% of GDP.

### Fiscal policy rules, trade-offs, and simulation results
- Fiscal rule formulation (flexible debt rule):
  - (dpbalt - dpbal*) = λ(Et pdebtt+1 - pdebt*)
  - dpbalt = discretionary component of primary fiscal balance; dpbal* = steady-state level; Et pdebtt+1 = expected public debt next fiscal year; pdebt* = target level.
  - λ governs speed of adjustment: higher λ → faster reversion of projected public debt to target, reducing debt variation but increasing primary fiscal balance variability and procyclicality.
- Simulation comparisons (λ values and outcomes):
  - Simulations with λ = 0.1, 0.3, 0.5:
    - Raising λ over 0.1 to 0.5 improves debt control: 90% confidence interval for public debt declines from about 70% to 62%.
    - But larger fluctuations required in primary fiscal balance: 90% confidence level increases from 5.6% to 6.3% of GDP.
    - Risk premium: raising λ from 0.1 to 0.5 reduces the 90% confidence interval for the risk premium from 704 to 462 basis points.
    - Incidence of sudden stops falls from 5.1% to 3.5%.
  - Strict debt rule (λ → ∞, simulation 5):
    - High degree of debt control: 90% confidence level for public debt burden is 56.8%.
    - Requires high flexibility in primary fiscal balance: 90% confidence level is 7.1% of GDP.
  - Cyclically-adjusted budget balance rule (simulation 1):
    - Fiscal authority aims to keep overall budget deficit at 4.35% of GDP over five-year planning horizon.
    - This rule is dominated by flexible debt rule with λ ≥ 0.3: it results in less debt control and requires higher flexibility in primary fiscal balance.
- Trade-off emphasized: balancing debt control against tax smoothing, honoring multi-period spending commitments, and stabilization objectives; higher λ improves debt metrics but increases procyclicality and primary balance volatility.

### Conclusions and policy implications
- Value of stochastic simulation: provides probability measures for medium-term debt projections and vulnerability assessment for emerging market economies.
- Important determinants of vulnerability:
  - Output volatility, financial fragility (short-term, foreign currency borrowing), endogenous risk premium, and sudden stops in private capital flows.
  - External debt vulnerability sensitive to exchange rate determination and pricing of traded goods.
  - Pricing exports in foreign currency provides a hedge against large exchange rate movements and stabilizes external debt burden; public debt lacks such a hedge (fiscal items are in domestic currency).
- Policy implications and constraints:
  - Preemptive fiscal policy can prevent medium-term increases in debt burden but requires flexibility often lacking in emerging market economies due to limited tax capacity, investment needs in public infrastructure, and large nondiscretionary expenditures (health, education, public pensions).
  - This trade-off may help explain greater propensity for debt distress in emerging market economies.
- Omitted factors noted (important for broader analysis):
  - Banking and corporate sector origins of some debt crises; liability dollarization in domestic banking as a determinant of sudden stops.
  - Non-debt-creating capital flows (FDI, portfolio equity, worker remittances) and buildup of foreign reserves reduce vulnerability; FDI inflows to all developing countries averaged 2.2% of GDP in 2004, workers’ remittances averaged 1.7% of GDP in 2004.
  - Increasing cross-border integration and capital outflows complicate valuation effects from exchange rate movements.
- Directions for future research:
  - Empirical assessment of whether exchange rates in emerging markets adjust as the model requires.
  - Extend reduced-form model to choice-theoretic, optimizing intertemporal frameworks (e.g., GEM) and endogenize risk premium in a model-consistent manner.
  - Incorporate contingent liabilities and debt-resolution rules into stochastic simulation frameworks to derive model-consistent measures of default probability and expected recovery.

*Italic: Source — _wp05226 - 4.5 percentage point improvement in one year, which is broadly consistent with measures*

### REFERENCES

### _wp05226 - REFERENCES

### Sovereign default, debt sustainability, and volatility
- Akemann, Michael, and Fabio Kanczuk, 2005, “Sovereign Default and the Sustainability Risk Premium Effect,” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 76, pp. 53–99.  
- Catão, L., and S. Kapur, 2004, “Missing Link: Volatility and the Debt Intolerance Paradox,” IMF Working Paper WP/04/51 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Catão, L., and B. Sutton, 2002, “Sovereign Defaults: The Role of Volatility,” IMF Working Paper WP/02/19 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Garcia, Marcio, and Roberto Rigobon, 2004, “A Risk Management Approach to Emerging Market’s Sovereign Debt Sustainability with an Application to Brazilian Data,” NBER Working Paper 10336 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Manasse, Paolo, and Nouriel Roubini, 2005, “Rules of Thumb for Sovereign Debt Crises,” IMF Working Paper WP/05/42 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Manasse, Paolo, Nouriel Roubini, and Axel Schimmelpfennig, 2003, “Predicting Sovereign Debt Crises,” IMF Working Paper WP/03/221 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Reinhart, Carmen, Kenneth Rogoff, and Miguel Savastano, 2003, “Debt Intolerance,” Brookings Papers of Economic Activity I, (Washington: The Brookings Institute), pp. 1–74.  
- Sun, Yan, 2004, “External Debt Sustainability in HIPC Completion Point Countries,” IMF Working Paper WP/04/160 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Pescatori, Andrea, and Amadou Sy, 2004, “Debt Crises and the Development of International Capital Markets,” IMF Working Paper WP/04/44 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  

### Sudden stops, capital flows, balance sheets, and current account adjustments
- Arellano, Cristina, 2005, “Default Risk, the Real Exchange Rate and Income Fluctuations in Emerging Economies” unpublished (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota).  
- Arellano, and Enrique Mendoza, 2002, “Credit Frictions and ‘Sudden Stops’ in Small Open Economies: An Equilibrium Business Cycle Framework for Emerging Markets Crises,” NBER Working Paper 8880 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Calvo, Guillermo, 1998, “Capital Flows and Capital Market Crises: The Simple Economics of Sudden Stops,” Journal of Applied Economics, Vol. 1, pp. 35–54.  
- Calvo, Guillermo, 2003, “Explaining Sudden Stops, Growth Collapse and BOP Crises: The Case of Distortionary Output Taxes,” NBER Working Paper 9864 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Calvo, Guillermo, Alejandro Izquierdo, and Luis-Fernando Mejía, 2004, On the Empirics of Sudden Stops: The Relevance of Balance Sheet Effects,” NBER Working Paper No. 10520 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Calvo, Guillermo, Alejandro Izquierdo, and Ernesto Talvi, 2003, “Sudden Stops, the Real Exchange Rate and Fiscal Sustainability: Argentina’s Lessons”, NBER Working Paper 9828 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Chang, R., and A. Velasco, 1998, “The Asian Liquidity Crisis,” NBER Working Paper 6796 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Hutchison, M., and I. Neuberger, 2002, “Sudden Stops and the Mexican Wave: Currency Crises, Capital Flow Reversals and Output Loss in Emerging Markets,” Pacific Basin Working Paper PB02-03.  
- Edwards, Sebastian, 2004, “Thirty Years of Current Account Imbalances, Current Account Reversals, and Sudden Stops,” IMF Staff Papers, Vol. 51 (Special Issue), pp. 1–49.  
- Debelle, G., and G. Galati, 2005, “Current Account Adjustment and Capital Flows,” BIS Working Paper No. 169 (Basil: Bank for International Settlements).  
- Dailami, Mansoor, Paul Masson, and Jean Jose Padou, 2005, “Global Monetary Conditions versus Country-Specific Factors in the Determination of Emerging Market Debt Spreads,” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 3626 (Washington: World Bank).  
- Frankel, J., and E.A. Cavallo, 2004, “Does Openness to Trade Make Countries More Vulnerable to Sudden Stops, or Less? Using Gravity to Establish Causality,” NBER Working Paper No. 10957, (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Kaminsky, Graciela, Carmen Reinhart, and Carlos Végh, 2004, “When it Rains, it Pours: Procyclical Capital Flows and Macroeconomic Policies,” NBER Working Paper 10780 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Lane, Philip, and Gian Maria Milesi-Ferretti, 2005, “A Global Perspective on External Positions,” IMF Working Paper WP/05/161 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Milesi-Ferretti, Gian Maria, and Assaf Razin, 1998, “Current Account Reversals and Currency Crises: Empirical Regularities,” IMF Working Paper WP/98/89 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  

### Fiscal policy, fiscal sustainability, and policy rules
- Barnhill, Theordore, and George Kopits, 2003, “Assessing Fiscal Sustainability under Uncertainty,” IMF Working Paper WP/03/09 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Blanchard, Olivier, 2004, “Fiscal Dominance and Inflation Targeting: Lessons from Brazil”, NBER Working Paper 10389 (Cambridge, Massachusetts: National Bureau of Economic Research).  
- Georges, Patrick, and Nicolas Moreau, 2002a, “Prudence, Scope for Discretionary Measures and Policy Rules in Medium-Term Fiscal Planning,” Department of Finance Canada Working Paper 2002-10 (Ottawa).  
- Georges, Patrick, and Nicolas Moreau, 2002b, “Enrichments to Fiscal Commitments in the Presence of Uncertainty,” Department of Finance Canada Working Paper 2002-11 (Ottawa).  
- Hemming, Richard, and Murray Petrie, 2002, “A Framework for Assessing Fiscal Vulnerability,” in Government at Risk: Contingent Liabilities and Fiscal Risk, ed. by Hana Polackova Brixi and Allen Schick (Washington: World Bank), pp. 159–178.  
- Hostland, Doug, and Philippe Karam, 2005, “Specification of a Stochastic Simulation Model for Assessing Debt Sustainability in Emerging Market Economies,” (forthcoming; Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Hostland, Doug, and Chris Matier, 2001, "An Examination of Alternative Strategies for Reducing Public Debt under Uncertainty,” Department of Finance Canada Working Paper 2001-12 (Ottawa).  
- Hostland, Doug, and Larry Schembri, 2005, “External Adjustment and Debt Sustainability” in Exchange Rates, Capital Flows and Policy, ed. by Rebecca Driver, Peter Sinclair, and Christoph Thoenissen, Routledge International Studies in Money and Banking (Oxford: Routledge), Chapter 12, pp. 261–300.  
- Perry, Guillermo, 2004, “Can Fiscal Rules Help Reduce Macroeconomic Volatility,” in Rules-Based Fiscal Policy in Emerging Market, ed. by George Kopits, (New York: Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 53–80.  
- Tanner, Evan and Kevin Carey, 2005, “The Perils of Tax Smoothing: Sustainable Fiscal Policy with Random Shocks to Permanent Output,” IMF Working Paper WP/05/207 (Washington: International Monetary Fund).  
- Hostland, Doug, and Philippe Karam, 2005, “Specification of a Stochastic Simulation Model for Assessing Debt Sustainability in Emerging Market Economies,” (forthcoming; Washington: International Monetary Fund).  

### Financial markets, risk management, and macroeconomic linkages
- Croke, H., S. Kamin, and S. Leduc, 2005. “Financial Market Developments and Economic Activity during Current Account Adjustments in Industrial Economies,” International Finance Discussion Papers 827, Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System.  
- Hawkins, J., and P. Turner, 2000, “Managing Foreign Debt and Liquidity Risks in Emerging Economies: An Overview,” BIS Policy Papers, No. 8 (Basel: Bank for International Settlement), pp. 3–59.  
- Hausmann, Ricardo, 2004, “Good Credit Ratios, Bad Credit Ratings: The Role of Debt Structure,” in Rules-Based Fiscal Policy in Emerging Market, ed. by George Kopits, (New York Palgrave Macmillan), pp. 30–52.  
- Krugman, Paul, 1999, “Balance Sheets, the Transfer Problem, and Financial Crises: Essays in Honor of Robert P. Flood, Jr.,” in International Finance and Financial Crises, ed. by P. Isard, A. Razin and A. Rose (Washington and Boston: International Monetary Fund and Kluwer).  
- Radelet, S., and J. Sachs, 1998, “The East Asian Financial Crisis: Diagnosis, Remedies, Prospects,” Brookings Papers on Economic Activity I, (Washington: The Brookings Institute), pp. 1–74.  

### IMF, World Bank, and other institutional reports
- International Monetary Fund, 2002, “Assessing Sustainability,” SM/02/06, May 28 (Washington)  
- International Monetary Fund, 2003, “Sustainability Assessments – Review of Application and Methodological Refinements,” Discussion Paper, June 23 (Washington).  
- International Monetary Fund, 2004, “Debt Sustainability in Low-Income Countries—Proposal for an Operational Framework and Policy Implications,” Discussion Paper, February 3 (Washington).  
- International Monetary Fund, 2005, World Economic Outlook, September (Washington).  
- International Monetary Fund and World Bank, 2004a, “Debt Sustainability in Low-Income Countries: Proposal for an Operational Framework and Policy Implications,” February 3 (Washington).  
- International Monetary Fund and World Bank, 2004b, “Debt Sustainability in Low-Income Countries: Further Considerations on an Operational Framework and Policy Implications,” September 10 (Washington).  
- World Bank, 2005, Global Development Finance 2005 (Washington).  

*Source: _wp05226 - REFERENCES*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2005/_wp05226.pdf_