## _wp11194

## Source details

**Canonical URL:** [_wp11194](https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11194.pdf)

## Other formats

- [Markdown version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11194.pdf.md)
- [Structured JSON version](/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11194.pdf.json)

---

### Introduction and scope
- Aim: Outline stylized facts characterizing the relationship between oil prices and macroeconomic aggregates across the world.
- Cross-country differences largely attributable to differences in the relative size of oil imports.
- Negative impact of oil price shocks on oil-importing countries is partly offset by concurrent increases in exports and other income flows arising from:
  - High commodity prices being associated with good times for the world economy.
  - Recycling of petrodollars by oil-exporting economies.
- Importance of viewing the impact of oil price developments from a global perspective.

### Data overview and methodology
- Annual data spanning from 1970–2010 for 144 countries (after dropping those missing complete series for GDP).
- Country groups: oil exporters, and oil-importing OECD, middle-income, and low-income countries.
  - Oil-exporting countries: average share of net oil exports in total exports ≥ 20 percent over 1970–2010.
  - OECD countries: membership in 1980, with Norway dropping out as the only oil exporter.
  - Remaining countries split by average annual per capita income at purchasing power parity with cutoff $4000.
- Data source: IMF’s World Economic Outlook database; authors' calculations in the Data Appendix.
- Construction of cyclical series:
  - U.S. dollar values deflated with the U.S. CPI; indices set to 100 in year 2000.
  - Hodrick–Prescott (HP) filter applied with λ = 100.
  - April 2011 World Economic Outlook projections to 2015 included to enhance robustness of the 2010 end-point estimates.
- Shock identification: years when oil prices reach a three-year high (following Hamilton (2003)); 12 shocks during 1970–2010. Median increase in oil prices during these shocks was 27 percent.

### Big-picture empirical findings (stylized facts)
- Stylized fact #1: Oil prices and GDP tend to move in the same direction.
  - Correlations between cyclical components of real GDP and oil prices are positive on average in each of the four groups.
  - Correlations substantially higher in the second half of the sample than in the first half.
  - Oil exporters exhibit the highest correlations.
  - U.S. and Japan are the only OECD countries displaying a negative correlation over 1970–2010.
- Stylized fact #2: Oil prices and imports tend to move in the same direction.
  - Correlations for oil importers are substantially higher than those between oil prices and GDP.
  - Only a handful of countries display a negative correlation.
- Stylized fact #3: Oil prices and exports tend to move in the same direction.
  - Correlations strongest among oil exporters.
  - For oil importers, correlations for exports are somewhat smaller than for imports but still higher than for GDP.
  - Negative correlations for exports occur in less than 1 in 10 countries.
- Interpretation: strengthening positive co-movement over time suggests variation in oil prices driven more by demand variation than supply variation, particularly in the second half of the sample.
- Nonlinearity: strong evidence of a non-linear relationship where large upward price increases have a disproportionately negative impact.

### Anatomy of oil shocks — contemporaneous responses
- During the 12 identified shock years:
  - Broad finding: shock episodes have generally been associated with contemporaneous increases in imports and exports rather than widespread contemporaneous declines in output.
- Stylized fact #4: Contemporaneous increases in imports
  - In all three groups of oil importers a large majority of countries experienced above-median changes in imports (nominal, real, and as ratio to GDP).
  - Changes in growth rate of real imports and in ratio of imports to GDP are around 1 percent or more in each of the three groups of oil importers.
  - Oil exporters show a significantly larger increase in import volumes of 4.4 percent.
  - Oil exporters exhibit a decline in the ratio of imports to GDP, reflecting nominal GDP growth 9.6 percent above the median rate.
- Stylized fact #5: Contemporaneous increases in exports
  - Oil exporters: large increase in growth rate of nominal exports of almost 25 percent, but a small decline in volume growth.
  - Oil importers: increases in growth of export volumes ranging between 0.7 percent (middle-income) and 1.3 percent (low-income).
  - Exports-to-GDP ratios increase by close to 1 percent in oil-importing groups.
- Stylized fact #6: Contemporaneous increases in GDP
  - Median volume GDP increases range from 0.2 percentage points (oil-importing OECD) to 1.5 percentage points (oil exporters) in the shock year.
  - Share of episodes with above-median GDP volume growth ranges from 58 percent (oil-importing OECD) to 63 percent (middle-income oil importers).
  - U.S. during shocks: median U.S. GDP volume growth during oil shock episodes was 0.4 percent lower than median growth over entire sample; U.S. above the median in only 5 of the 12 episodes.
- Interpretation: contemporaneous increases in international trade and output likely reflect recycling of higher export earnings by oil exporters and petrodollar flows (remittances, investments).

### Lagged effects and heterogeneity
- Lagged effects: evidence of lagged negative effects on output, particularly for OECD economies; magnitudes typically small. Some negative effects tend to occur with a lag (one year after shocks).
- Heterogeneity by oil import intensity:
  - Sorting oil importers by average oil imports to GDP increases estimated negative effect.
  - For countries with average ratio of oil imports to GDP ≥ 4 percent, a 25 percent increase in oil prices is estimated to reduce real GDP that year by 0.3 percent (interpretation: -1.170/4).
- Impulse-response summaries (as implied by Table 5 coefficients):
  - Typical oil importer (25 percent oil price increase): cumulative GDP loss ~0.3 percent over first two years with little subsequent impact.
  - Countries with oil imports > 4 percent of GDP: cumulative loss ~0.8 percent (larger for oil imports > 5 percent of GDP).
  - Oil exporters: little impact on GDP in first two years but a substantial increase thereafter, with real GDP 0.6 percent higher in year t+3.

### Cross-country correlations (1970–2010, reported group averages)
- Correlation between cyclical component of real GDP and cyclical component of real oil prices:
  - Oil exporters 0.48
  - Oil-importing OECD 0.26
  - Oil-importing middle-income 0.24
  - Oil-importing low-income 0.18
- Correlation between cyclical component of real exports and cyclical component of real oil prices:
  - Oil exporters 0.39
  - Oil-importing OECD 0.47
  - Oil-importing middle-income 0.42
  - Oil-importing low-income 0.38
- Correlation between cyclical component of real imports and cyclical component of real oil prices:
  - Oil exporters 0.65
  - Oil-importing OECD 0.42
  - Oil-importing middle-income 0.32
  - Oil-importing low-income 0.29

### Dynamic panel estimation — model and key coefficients
- Model: dynamic panel autoregressive model extending Hamilton (2003, 2005) to annual multi-country panel, controlling for global conditions.
  - Dependent variable y_i,t: cyclical component of GDP volume.
  - x_t: world GDP volume (cyclical component).
  - op_t: oil price shock indicator = percentage change in price of oil in years where it reaches a three-year high, otherwise zero.
- Key diagnostics (unbalanced panel 1970–2010, dependent variable: Real GDP cyclical component indexed to 100 in year 2000):
  - Lag 1 coefficient on lagged dependent variable: 0.746 *** (All countries).
  - Lag 2 coefficient: -0.243 *** (All countries).
  - Lag 3 coefficient: -0.066 *** (All countries).
  - World real GDP coefficient: 0.580 *** (All countries).
  - Oil price level coefficient: 0.209 ** (All countries).
- Oil price shock coefficients (All countries, main specification in Table 5):
  - Lag 0: -0.359 (standard error 0.263; not significant at 10 percent).
  - Lag 1: -0.409 *** (standard error 0.120).
  - Lag 2: 0.229 * (standard error 0.121).
- Heterogeneous oil-importer panels (lag 0 oil price shock coefficients become more negative and significant as average oil imports to GDP rises):
  - average oil imports to GDP > 3 percent: -0.631 * (0.343)
  - average oil imports to GDP > 4 percent: -1.170 ** (0.490)
  - average oil imports to GDP > 5 percent: -1.740 ** (0.681)
- Robustness: excluding potentially endogenous large actors (U.S. and Saudi Arabia) has almost imperceptibly small impact on results.

### Macro model of oil price shocks (small open economy)
- Structure:
  - Three non-storable goods: exportables (numeraire), importables (oil), non-tradables.
  - Given and constant endowment path for exportables and non-tradables; importables consumed but not endowed.
  - Consumer maximizes lifetime utility over consumption of importables and non-tradables; real exchange rate p_N/p_I and inverse terms of trade p_I enter allocations.
  - External receipts Φ interpreted as exports or recycling of oil revenue; recycling magnitude depends on degree of integration α.
- Perfect foresight equilibrium (PFEP):
  - Along PFEP with constant p_I, consumption of importables is constant; consumption of non-tradables equals endowment.
  - Real exchange rate determined by consumption and marginal utilities (equations (10)–(12) in text).
- Unanticipated permanent oil price increase (adverse terms-of-trade shock):
  - Two opposing effects determine net wealth and demand for importables:
    - Negative terms-of-trade effect reduces purchasing power and depresses consumption.
    - Positive recycling effect (via correlation between income flows and price of oil and degree of integration α) increases external receipts and can raise consumption.
  - Net change in consumption of importables depends on relative strength of these effects; sign ambiguous.
  - Real exchange rate p_N/p_I can appreciate or depreciate depending on whether recycling offsets terms-of-trade deterioration.
- Lessons: negative terms-of-trade shocks can be offset by recycling through international linkages; net wealth effect ambiguous and depends on degree of integration α.

### Policy implications and conclusions
- Aggregate conclusion: oil price increases have often coincided with good global conditions; controlling for world GDP clarifies the negative effect on oil-importing countries but estimated impact remains modest.
- Quantitative summary: estimates suggest a 25 percent increase in oil prices will cause a loss of real GDP in oil-importing countries of less than half of one percent, generally spread over 2–3 years.
- Explanations for modest impact:
  - Recycling of higher revenue to oil exporters into imports or other external flows helps sustain demand in oil-importing countries.
  - Substitution away from oil and other mitigating channels (confidence effects, market frictions, monetary policy) may reduce the direct impact.
- Policy recommendations:
  - Efforts to reduce dependence on oil could help reduce exposure to oil price shocks and associated macroeconomic volatility.
  - Developing economic linkages to oil exporters can act as a natural shock absorber given recycling effects.
- Caveats:
  - Some countries have been clearly negatively affected by high oil prices.
  - Results do not rule out more adverse outcomes from future shocks driven largely by lower oil supply rather than demand-driven price increases.

*Source — IMF working paper content (1970–2010 sample), figures, tables, and model exposition as provided in the supplied PDF content.*

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

### _wp11194 - References .........................................................................................................................

### Introduction
- Aim: Outline stylized facts characterizing the relationship between oil prices and macroeconomic aggregates across the world.
- Observations:
  - Cross-country differences in the relationship can in large part be attributed to differences in the relative size of oil imports.
  - The negative impact of oil price shocks on oil-importing countries is partly offset by concurrent increases in exports and other income flows arising from:
    - High commodity prices being associated with good times for the world economy.
    - Recycling of petrodollars by oil-exporting economies.
  - Importance of viewing the impact of oil price developments from a global perspective.

### Literature context
- Key contributions cited and their findings:
  - Hamilton (1983, 1996, 2005, 2009): empirical evidence suggesting oil price shocks have been one of the main causes of recessions in the United States.
  - Barsky and Kilian (2004): effect is small; oil shocks alone cannot explain U.S. stagflation of the 1970s.
  - Bernanke et al. (1997): important part of oil shock effect results from resulting tightening of monetary policy.
  - Blanchard and Gali (2007): dynamic effect of oil shocks decreased over time; estimate that a 10 percent increase in the price of oil would, prior to 1984, have reduced U.S. GDP by about 0.7 percent over a 2–3 year period, while after 1984 the loss would be only about 0.25 percent.
- Evidence outside U.S.:
  - Jiménez-Rodriguez and Sánches (2004): a 100 percent increase in oil prices reduces GDP by between 1 and 5 percent in G-7 countries and the Eurozone; U.S. at the upper end; no significant impact for Japan. For Norway impact is positive at between 1 and 2 percent.
  - Berument et al. (2010): oil price increases have a positive impact on output in most oil-exporting economies in Middle East and North Africa; impact on oil importers depends on whether shock is due to demand or supply.
  - Kilian et al. (2007): overall effect on current account depends critically on response of non-oil trade balance; oil-importing economies tend to experience improvement in non-oil trade balance.
  - Mohaddes and Raissi (2011): oil price, via external income and capital accumulation, has a positive impact on real output in Jordan.

### Big-picture empirical findings (stylized facts)
- Correlations and co-movement:
  - Correlations between cyclical component of oil prices and cyclical components of GDP, imports, and exports have usually been positive and increasing over the last forty years.
  - Periods with high oil prices have generally coincided with good times for the world economy, especially in recent years.
  - Need to disentangle positive effects from demand-driven oil price increases and adverse effects from supply-driven spikes as in the 1970s.
- Analysis of large oil price shocks:
  - Focus: the 12 episodes since 1970 in which oil prices have reached three-year highs.
  - Findings:
    - No evidence of a widespread contemporaneous negative effect on economic output across oil-importing countries during the shock episodes; instead, value and volume increases in both imports and exports.
    - In the year after the shock, a negative impact on output is found for a small majority of countries.
  - Interpretation: higher import demand in oil-exporting economies resulting from oil price increases has an important and immediate offsetting effect on economic activity in the rest of the world; adverse consequences are mostly relatively mild and occur with a lag.

### Dynamic panel regressions and quantitative results
- Method: dynamic panel regressions controlling for global economic conditions.
- Main quantitative findings:
  - A 25 percent increase in oil prices (roughly equal to the median price increase in the 12 oil shock episodes) causes the typical oil importer (where net oil imports have averaged between 3 and 4 percent of GDP) to experience a cumulative loss of output of around 0.3 percent of GDP over a 2–3 year period.
  - For oil importers with oil imports greater than 5 percent of GDP the output loss increases to about 1 percent.

### Cross-country comparisons and notable cases
- Determinants of impact:
  - The negative impact of oil price increases depends largely on:
    - How dependent countries are on oil imports.
    - How strong their links are to oil exporters and the rest of the world.
- United States:
  - U.S. appears to be an outlier: relatively hard hit by oil price shocks despite net oil imports averaging 1.2 percent of GDP over the sample period.
  - U.S. net oil imports increased from 0.3 percent of GDP in 1970 to 2.3 percent in 2010.
- Group averages:
  - High-income OECD economies: ratio of oil imports to GDP has averaged about 2 percent; less sensitive to oil shocks.
  - Other oil importers: ratio of oil imports to GDP has averaged about 4 percent; more sensitive to oil shocks.

### Structure of the paper (as presented)
- Section II: overview of data employed.
- Section III: stylized facts about co-movement of oil prices and macroeconomic aggregates across the world over the last 40 years.
- Section IV: stylized facts on economic developments during and after oil shock episodes.
- Section V: results from dynamic panel regressions.
- Section VI: a simple model consistent with the facts.

*Source: _wp11194 - References .............................................................................................................*

### section VII concludes.

### _wp11194 - section VII concludes.

### Data overview
- Annual data spanning from 1970–2010 for 144 countries (after dropping those missing complete series for GDP).
- Countries divided into four groups: oil exporters, and oil-importing OECD, middle-income, and low-income countries.
- Country classification details preserved from source:
  - Oil-exporting countries identified as those where the average share of net oil exports in total exports is at least 20 percent over 1970–2010.
  - OECD countries identified based on membership in 1980, with Norway dropping out as the only oil exporter.
  - Remaining countries divided by average annual per capita income at purchasing power parity, with a cutoff level of $4000.
- All data sourced from the IMF’s World Economic Outlook database; see authors' calculations in the Data Appendix.

### The big picture — methodology and key regularities
- Construction of cyclical series:
  - U.S. dollar values deflated with the U.S. CPI to create indices set to 100 in year 2000.
  - Hodrick–Prescott (HP) filter applied with λ = 100.
  - April 2011 World Economic Outlook projections to 2015 included to enhance robustness of the 2010 end-point estimates.
- Conceptual note: high oil prices can reflect strong global aggregate demand or low oil supply; macroeconomic outcomes differ accordingly.
- Main stylized facts (group averages and cross-country patterns):
  - Stylized fact #1: Oil prices and GDP tend to move in the same direction.
    - Correlations between cyclical components of real GDP and oil prices are positive on average in each of the four groups.
    - Correlations are substantially higher in the second half of the sample than in the first half.
    - Oil exporters exhibit the highest correlations.
    - U.S. and Japan are the only OECD countries displaying a negative correlation over 1970–2010.
  - Stylized fact #2: Oil prices and imports tend to move in the same direction.
    - Correlations for all three groups of oil importers are substantially higher than those between oil prices and GDP.
    - Only a handful of countries display a negative correlation.
  - Stylized fact #3: Oil prices and exports tend to move in the same direction.
    - Correlations are strongest among oil exporters (highest for all variables).
    - For oil importers, correlations for exports are somewhat smaller than for imports but still higher than for GDP.
    - Negative correlations for exports occur in less than 1 in 10 countries.
- Interpretation: the strengthening positive co-movement over time suggests that variation in oil prices has been driven more by variation in demand than by variation in supply, particularly in the second half of the sample.
- Nonlinearity note: There is strong evidence of a non-linear relationship where large upward price increases have a disproportionately negative impact.

### Anatomy of oil shocks — identification and contemporaneous responses
- Shock identification:
  - Oil price shocks identified following Hamilton (2003) as years when oil prices reach a three-year high.
  - This identifies 12 shocks during 1970–2010.
  - Median increase in oil prices during these shocks was 27 percent.
- Analysis approach:
  - Following Kaminsky et al. (2004), behavior during shock years compared by measuring the median annual change in a variable in the event year against the median annual change over the entire sample.
  - Calculations performed for nominal and real terms and as a ratio to GDP; medians reported by group.
- Stylized fact #4: Oil price shocks are generally associated with contemporaneous increases in imports.
  - In all three groups of oil importers a large majority of countries experienced above-median changes in imports (nominal, real, and as ratio to GDP).
  - Largest increases in nominal import growth.
  - Changes in growth rate of real imports and in ratio of imports to GDP are around 1 percent or more in each of the three groups of oil importers.
  - Oil exporters show a significantly larger increase in import volumes of 4.4 percent.
  - Oil exporters exhibit a decline in the ratio of imports to GDP, reflecting high growth of nominal GDP in these episodes of 9.6 percent above the median rate.
- Stylized fact #5: Oil price shocks are generally associated with contemporaneous increases in exports.
  - Oil exporters: large increase in the growth rate of nominal exports of almost 25 percent, but a small decline in volume growth.
  - Oil importers: consistent pattern of increasing exports — increases in the growth of export volumes ranging between 0.7 percent for the middle-income countries and 1.3 percent in the low-income group.
  - Exports-to-GDP ratios increase by close to 1 percent in oil-importing groups.
  - In all three groups of oil importers, and by each of the four measures, exports increase in a sizeable majority of countries.
- Stylized fact #6: Oil price shocks are generally associated with contemporaneous increases in GDP.
  - Median volume GDP increases range from 0.2 percentage points for oil-importing OECD countries to 1.5 percentage points for oil exporters in the shock year.
  - Share of episodes with above-median GDP volume growth ranges from 58 percent for oil-importing OECD countries to 63 percent for middle-income oil importers.
  - U.S. outcomes during shocks:
    - Median U.S. GDP volume growth during oil shock episodes was 0.4 percent lower than median growth over the entire sample period.
    - U.S. was above the median in only 5 of the 12 episodes — the lowest figures among all OECD countries.
    - Possible contributing factors noted: relatively low fuel taxes and higher energy intensity in the U.S.
- Interpretation: contemporaneous increases in international trade and output during oil shocks likely reflect recycling of higher export earnings by oil exporters (higher imports), and petrodollar flows affecting activity in other countries via remittances and investments.
- Caveat on timing: these are contemporaneous (same-year) effects; literature suggests negative output impacts for advanced economies may materialize after four quarters.

### Lagged effects (preview from source)
- The source indicates that Table 4 examines effects one year after oil shocks.
- Summary statement: some negative effects tend to occur with a lag.
- Specific preview: "One year after an oil shock, OECD oil-importers’ rate of GDP volume growth typically fell by" — the sentence in the provided content cuts off before the numeric value; full lagged-effect magnitudes are reported in the subsequent text and tables not included here.

*Source: _wp11194 - section VII concludes.*

### 0.7 percent compared to the median (1.8 percent in the U.S.) and only a third of these countries

### _wp11194 - 0.7 percent compared to the median (1.8 percent in the U.S.) and only a third of these countries

### Major empirical findings
- Oil price shock episodes (years when the nominal U.S. dollar price of crude oil reaches a three-year high; 12 such years since 1970) have been, on average, associated with increases in both imports and exports rather than contemporaneous declines in output for much of the world.
- Contemporaneous output: oil price shock episodes generally have not been associated with contemporaneous declines in output for the world as a whole; many oil-importing countries experienced increases in nominal and real growth measures during shock years (Table 3).
- Lagged effects: there is evidence of lagged negative effects on output, particularly for OECD economies, but magnitudes are typically small (Tables 3–5; Figure 4).
- Heterogeneity by oil import intensity:
  - Sorting oil importers by their average ratio of oil imports to GDP increases the estimated negative effect of an oil shock.
  - For countries with an average ratio of oil imports to GDP of 4 percent or more, a 25 percent increase in oil prices is estimated to reduce real GDP that year by 0.3 percent (-1.170/4) (dynamic panel results).
- Impulse responses (25 percent oil price increase, as implied by Table 5 coefficients):
  - Typical oil importer: cumulative GDP loss of about 0.3 percent over the first two years with little subsequent impact.
  - Countries with oil imports > 4 percent of GDP: cumulative loss about 0.8 percent (and larger for oil imports > 5 percent of GDP).
  - Oil exporters: little impact on GDP in the first two years but a substantial increase thereafter, with real GDP 0.6 percent higher in year t+3.
- Cross-country correlations (Table 2, 1970–2010):
  - Correlation between cyclical component of real GDP and cyclical component of real oil prices: oil exporters 0.48 (1970–2010), oil-importing OECD 0.26, oil-importing middle-income 0.24, oil-importing low-income 0.18.
  - Correlation between cyclical component of real exports and cyclical component of real oil prices: oil exporters 0.39, oil-importing OECD 0.47, oil-importing middle-income 0.42, oil-importing low-income 0.38.
  - Correlation between cyclical component of real imports and cyclical component of real oil prices: oil exporters 0.65, oil-importing OECD 0.42, oil-importing middle-income 0.32, oil-importing low-income 0.29.

### Dynamic panel estimation: model, identification, and key coefficients
- Model specification:
  - Dynamic panel autoregressive model extending Hamilton (2003, 2005) to annual multi-country panel, controlling for global conditions.
  - Dependent variable y_i,t is output (cyclical component of GDP volume); x_t is world GDP volume (cyclical component); op_t is oil price shock indicator.
  - Oil price shock op_t defined as the percentage change in the price of oil in years where it reaches a three-year high, otherwise zero.
- Key regression diagnostics (Table 5, dependent variable: Real GDP measured as cyclical component indexed to 100 in year 2000; unbalanced panel 1970–2010):
  - Lag 1 coefficient on lagged dependent variable: 0.746 *** (All countries).
  - Lag 2 coefficient: -0.243 *** (All countries).
  - Lag 3 coefficient: -0.066 *** (All countries).
  - World real GDP coefficient: 0.580 *** (All countries).
  - Oil price level coefficient: 0.209 ** (All countries).
- Oil price shock coefficients (All countries, main specification in Table 5):
  - Lag 0: -0.359 (standard error 0.263; not significant at 10 percent).
  - Lag 1: -0.409 *** (standard error 0.120).
  - Lag 2: 0.229 * (standard error 0.121).
- Heterogeneous panels (oil-importer subsamples by average oil import to GDP ratio):
  - Lag 0 oil price shock coefficients become more negative and significant as average oil import to GDP rises:
    - greater than 3 percent: -0.631 * (0.343)
    - greater than 4 percent: -1.170 ** (0.490)
    - greater than 5 percent: -1.740 ** (0.681)
  - Interpretation example: for countries with average oil imports to GDP of 4 percent, a 25 percent oil price increase implies a contemporaneous GDP reduction of 0.3 percent (-1.170/4).
- Robustness: excluding potentially endogenous large actors (U.S. and Saudi Arabia) has almost imperceptibly small impact on results.

### Macro model of oil price shocks (small open economy)
- Structure:
  - Three non-storable goods: exportables (numeraire), importables (oil), non-tradables.
  - Given and constant endowment path for exportables and non-tradables; importables consumed but not endowed.
  - Consumer maximizes lifetime utility over consumption of importables and non-tradables; real exchange rate p_N/p_I and inverse terms of trade p_I enter allocations.
  - External receipts Φ interpreted as exports or recycling of oil revenue; recycling magnitude depends on degree of integration α.
- Perfect foresight equilibrium (PFEP):
  - Along PFEP with constant p_I, consumption of importables is constant; consumption of non-tradables equals endowment.
  - Real exchange rate determined by consumption and marginal utilities (equations (10)–(12) in text).
- Unanticipated permanent oil price increase (adverse terms-of-trade shock):
  - Two opposing effects determine net wealth and demand for importables:
    - Negative terms-of-trade effect reduces purchasing power and depresses consumption.
    - Positive recycling effect (via correlation between income flows and price of oil and degree of integration α) increases external receipts and can raise consumption.
  - Net change in consumption of importables ܿ݀ୁ݌݀ୁ depends on relative strength of these effects; sign ambiguous.
- Competitiveness (real exchange rate) response:
  - Total differentiation shows real exchange rate p_N/p_I can appreciate or depreciate following an adverse oil price shock depending on whether the recycling effect offsets the terms-of-trade deterioration.
- Lessons: negative terms-of-trade shocks can be offset by recycling through international linkages; net wealth effect ambiguous and depends on degree of integration α.

### Policy implications and conclusions
- Aggregate conclusion: across countries, oil price increases have often coincided with good global conditions; controlling for world GDP clarifies the negative effect of oil prices on oil-importing countries but the estimated impact remains modest.
- Quantitative summary: estimates suggest a 25 percent increase in oil prices will cause a loss of real GDP in oil-importing countries of less than half of one percent, generally spread over 2–3 years (text summary consistent with dynamic panel impulse responses).
- Explanations for modest impact:
  - Recycling of higher revenue to oil exporters into imports or other external flows helps sustain demand in oil-importing countries.
  - Substitution away from oil and other mitigating channels (confidence effects, market frictions, monetary policy) may reduce the direct impact.
- Policy recommendations:
  - Efforts to reduce dependence on oil could help reduce exposure to oil price shocks and associated macroeconomic volatility.
  - Developing economic linkages to oil exporters can act as a natural shock absorber given recycling effects.
- Caveats:
  - Some countries have been clearly negatively affected by high oil prices.
  - Results do not rule out more adverse outcomes from future shocks driven largely by lower oil supply rather than demand-driven price increases.

*Italic: Source — IMF working paper content (1970–2010 sample), figures, tables, and model exposition as provided in the supplied PDF content.*

---


_Source: https://www.imf.org/-/media/websites/imf/imported-full-text-pdf/external/pubs/ft/wp/2011/_wp11194.pdf_