--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
References
Bernanke, Ben S. (2005). "The Global Saving
Glut and the U.S. Current Account Deficit," speech delivered for
the Sandridge Lecture at the Virginia Association of Economists,
Richmond, March 10,
www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/200503102/default.htm.
Similar remarks with updated data were presented for the Homer
Jones Lecture, St. Louis, April 14, 2005,
www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/2005/20050414/default.htm.
------------ (2006). "Reflections on the Yield
Curve and Monetary Policy," speech delivered at the Economic Club
of New York, New York, March 20,
www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/speech/bernanke20060320a.htm.
Caballero, Ricardo J., Emmanuel Farhi, and Pierre-Olivier
Gourinchas (2006). "An Equilibrium Model of
'Global Imbalances' and Low Interest Rates ," NBER Working Paper
Series 11996. Cambridge, Mass.:
National Bureau of Economic Research, January,
www.nber.org/papers/w11996.pdf.
Mendoza, Enrique G., Vincenzo Quadrini, and Jose-Victor
Rios-Rull (2007). "Financial Integration,
Financial Deepness, and Global Imbalances ," NBER
Working Paper Series 12909. Cambridge,
Mass.: National Bureau of Economic Research,
February, www.nber.org/papers/w12909.pdf.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Footnotes
1. The shift was almost wholly attributable to a similar
expansion of the trade deficit. The balance on
investment income actually improved over the period. Return to
text
2. More precisely, investment grew from 19.0
percent to 19.3 percent of GDP, and saving declined from 16.5
percent to 13.8 percent of GDP, for a net change in investment less
saving of 3.0 percent of GDP. As implied by data
noted earlier in this paragraph, the net change in the U.S. current
account deficit over the same period was 3.9 percent of
GDP. In principle, the change in the excess of
investment over saving and the change in the current account
deficit should be the same. The difference
between the two figures is accounted for by statistical
discrepancies, both within the national income and product accounts
(NIPA) and between the balance of payments definitions and NIPA
definitions of certain international transactions. Return to
text
3. I am using the terms "emerging-market" and
"developing" interchangeably. Return to text
4. As shown in the table, the surplus of
industrial countries other than the United States increased from
about $150 billion to nearly $350 billion over the period, and the
Japanese external balance rose from $66 billion to $172
billion. The increase in the Japanese current
account balance as a share of GDP, from 1.4 percent to 3.7 percent,
occurred despite a substantial fall in the GDP share of the saving
rate, from 30.4 percent to 26.8 percent, as the GDP share of the
investment rate fell even more dramatically, from 28.9 percent to
23.0 percent. For the euro area as a whole, the
current account balance remained at about 1 percent of GDP between
1996 and 2004, as aggregate investment and saving ratios remained
largely unchanged. Within the euro area,
Germany's current account balance increased almost 5 percentage
points of GDP--from -0.6 percent in 1996 to 4.3 percent in 2004--as
saving moved up and investment decreased.
However, this development was offset by declines in the balances of
some other euro-area countries, including France, Italy, and Spain;
the decreases were mostly associated with higher investment
rates. Data on saving, investment, and current
account balances for countries other than the United States are
drawn primarily from the International Monetary Fund, World
Economic Outlook Database , April 2007
(www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2007/01/data/index.aspx); in some
cases, data are drawn from national sources. Return to text
5. During the first part of the period, the
rise in U.S. productivity and higher stock prices likely
contributed to the U.S. current account deficit by increasing
desired investment and reducing desired saving.
However, some of the increase in stock prices may have been the
endogenous result of factors discussed later, and in any case the
effects of the stock market on investment dissipated by
2004. Finally, as noted in the text, if the
driving force behind the changes in external balances was a decline
in desired saving in the United States, world real interest rates
would have risen rather than fallen. Return to text
6. The combined current account balance of
developing Asia excluding China narrowed a bit as a share of GDP
between 2004 and 2006, as the investment rate edged up while the
saving rate was little changed. Nevertheless,
investment rates in this region still remain substantially below
their 1996 levels. Return to text
7. The combined current account balance for
the euro area moved from a surplus of $115 billion in 2004 to a
deficit of about $10 billion in 2006, largely because of an
increase in the aggregate investment rate. Large
declines in the balances of France, Italy, and Spain more than
offset a higher surplus in the balance of
Germany. For the euro area as a whole, the
movement into deficit has largely reflected an increase in the
euro-area investment rate from about 20 percent of GDP in 2004 to
about 21 percent of GDP in 2006. Japan's current
account surplus was almost unchanged at around $170 billion in both
2004 and 2006, as an increase in the rate of investment was matched
by a higher saving rate. Return to text
8. Inflation-adjusted bonds in the United
Kingdom had a yield of 2.19 percent, on average, in July 2007 as
compared with a yield of 1.65 percent, on average, in July
2005. In Canada, yields on inflation-adjusted
bonds moved from 1.76 percent in July 2005 to 2.18 percent in July
2007. Real interest rates, calculated as
government bond yields minus twelve-month inflation rates, have
also moved up since 2005 in Germany, Sweden, and Switzerland.
Return to text
9. An interesting vein of recent research
suggests that one of the reasons that developing countries seek to
run current account surpluses is to finance the acquisition of
high-quality assets they cannot produce in their own
economies. Refer to Caballero, Farhi, and
Gourinchas (2006) and Mendoza, Quadrini, and Rios-Rull
(2007). Return to text
10. During 2002-06, gross foreign official
inflows totaled $1,491 billion; net official inflows were only
slightly less, as U.S. official outflows were
negligible. Private foreign inflows net of
private U.S. outflows totaled $1,659 billion during the same
period; gross foreign private inflows were $4,697 billion. Return
to text
11. Another way to make this point is that
current account balances and surpluses give countries the
flexibility to spend more or less than their current output, as
dictated by economic conditions and needs. Return to text