21 ?2//$5,=$7,21
Guillermo A. Calvo*
University of Maryland
First Draft: April 4, 1999
This Draft: April 20, 1999
* I am grateful to Sara Calvo and Carmen Reinhart for many useful comments.
1
 It is worth pointing out that there is hardly a case that resembles the textbook definition
of floating exchange rates, in which money supply is set in complete oblivion of the nominal
exchange rate.  As far as I can tell, most floaters employ, at the very least, open market
operations to smooth out fluctuations in their exchange rates.
2
I.  Introduction
Recent worldwide turmoil in financial markets is triggering a major revision of the
conventional wisdom about Emerging Market countries? (EMs) macroeconomic management. 
As a result, the debate is wide open as to the set of policies and institutional arrangements that
would ensure EMs? macroeconomic stability.  Opinions range from those favoring further
pursuing market-friendly reforms to controls on capital mobility and even trade, and from
dollarization to floating exchange rates.  The debate on the appropriate exchange rate system, in
particular, has taken center-stage.
The 1997 Asia crisis (which seriously engulfed, although did not topple Hong Kong)
raised serious questions about conventional crisis explanations (e.g., current account and fiscal
deficits, low saving rates) and led to a noticeable shift of financial analysts? opinion towards
favoring floating exchange rates.  This followed from the observation that all crisis economies
had displayed some degree of exchange rate rigidity.  Interestingly, however, EMs? policymakers 
have not been fully swayed by the argument and have continued pegging their currencies to the
US dollar or the German Mark.  Even self-declared floaters have, on occasion, intervened to limit
foreign exchange rate gyrations.
1
  To top it off, Argentina?s President Menem has raised the
stakes even further by proposing a dollarization plan according to which the peso would be fully
replaced by the US dollar, accompanied by a monetary treaty with the US by which, among other
things, the two countries would share Argentina?s seigniorage.
2
 For example, the Subject Index in De Grauwe (1994) does not contain the word
?financial,? and the text does not discuss any financial implication of OCAs or alternative foreign
exchange systems.
3
 When foreign money is used as means of payments, in addition to domestic money, the
case is customarily called ?currency substitution,? CS.  There exists a large literature on CS, see
Calvo (1996, Chapter 8) and IMF (1999).
3
Argentina?s plan is an attempt to ?separate? its economy from other EMs (especially
Brazil).  The basic idea is that by eliminating currency risk, individuals will be better able to
assess investment projects, thereby lowering country risk and helping to disconnect Argentina
from the rest of EMs.  Some of the ideas are familiar from the Optimum Currency Area, OCA,
literature (see, e.g., De Grauwe (1994)), but others have a distinctive ring about them.  For
example, since the dollarization project is partly a response to recent financial turmoil, banks, the
financial sector and the capital account (of the balance of payments) are central considerations
behind the plan.  In contrast, OCA literature has little to say about financial issues.
2
  This paper
will attempt to fill that gap, and provide new ammunition for the pro-dollarization camp.
Before starting the substantive discussion, a few words about definitions are in order.  I
will say that a country is partially dollarized if a foreign currency (hereon identified with the US
dollar)  is used in any of the three classical roles of money, i.e., as a unit of account, means of
payments, or store of value, the most relevant being the first two.  However, this definition is not
very useful because most countries are already partially dollarized (if not on the asset side, e.g.,
bank deposits, on the liability side).  Thus, the subtext is that dollarization, although partial, is
highly prevalent.  Examples are Argentina, Bolivia, Peru, and Turkey  where dollar deposits
exceed 30 percent of the total.
3
  Menem?s proposal corresponds to what I will call full
dollarization, the situation in which the country completely abandons the use of its own money
4
(hereon identified with the peso), except perhaps for small change, as Panama?s balboas.
The paper is organized as follows.  Section II will discuss initial conditions that
characterize a typical EM, and will be essential background material for replying to dollarization
critics in Section III.  Section IV will study the rationale for the existence of liability dollarization
even in a context of flexible exchange rates, which, as will be argued, is a key characteristic of
EMs and has been totally ignored by the OCA literature.  Section V concludes.
II.  Initial Conditions
A great deal of confusion will be avoided in this debate if initial conditions are well
understood.  Typically, EMs start from a situation in which a large share of their assets or
liabilities is denominated in foreign exchange.  Thus, a discussion of the dollarization issue that
ignores this fact (as is the rule in the OCA literature) and, say, ends up favoring no dollarization,
is not only voting against adopting a foreign currency but it is also voting for de-dollarization,
i.e., dismantling the institutions and laws that permit the use of foreign exchange.  I have found
that this implication is frequently missed by the critics of dollarization.  It is therefore worth
spending some time discussing initial conditions which are relevant for EMs, particularly those
that are significantly different from advanced countries.  In this section I will highlight two which
seem especially relevant:  (1) role of external factors and (2) partial dollarization.
1.  External Factors.  Several studies have shown that EMs are highly vulnerable to external
factors.  This was established in Calvo, Leiderman and Reinhart (1993) for several key Latin
American countries.  The paper shows that, for the whole sample, US variables like interest rates
and the business cycle explain on average roughly 50 percent of the variance of variables such as
the real exchange rate and international reserve accumulation.  Results differ across countries but
4
 These results have been replicated by other researchers.  See, for example, Chuhan,
Claessens and Mamingi (1996), Dooley, Fernandez-Arias and Kletzer (1994), Fernandez-Arias
(1996), and Eichengreen and Mody (1998).
5
 The first international contagion paper is Calvo and Reinhart (1996).  See also
Kaminsky and Reinhart (1998).
5
external factors are shown to be significant for every country in the sample.
4
  Interestingly,
countries in the sample displayed different exchange rate systems and political conditions (thus,
for example, in the sample period Peru was being ravaged by Shining Path, the guerrilla group,
while most of the other countries enjoyed peaceful and democratic systems).   This suggests that
US monetary policy, for instance, has effect on EMs independently of their foreign exchange and
political regimes.  This is an important observation because a leading criticism of dollarization is
that it exposes EMs to monetary policy of the country whose currency they adopt (hereon
identified with the US).
The finding that external factors were important for Latin America came as an unpleasant
shock to multilateral institutions because the conventional wisdom was that economic
performance is largely determined by domestic policy.  Subsequent events drove this lesson
home in even more brutal and unexpected ways, as the phenomenon of ?contagion??an external
factor largely unrelated to standard ?fundamentals??appeared on the horizon in connection with
the Tequila crisis (associated with Mexico?s 1994/5 BOP crisis).  Argentina, for example, got
severely hit despite barely trading with Mexico in goods or financial assets.  In 1995 Argentina?s
output fell by more than 4 percent and unemployment rose from 13 to 18 percent in a matter of
months (that is why the word contagion virtually leaps up to one?s lips).  A similar phenomenon
took place in Indonesia following the Thai crisis.
5
6
 Besides, since monitoring costs are likely to contain a significant share of fixed costs
(e.g., macroeconomic analysis cannot be confined to a sector of the economy, and must take into
account national political considerations), there are economies of scale in information gathering,
which naturally lead to the creation of specialist clusters around which swarm a multitude of
uninformed investors.  For a discussion of this phenomenon, see Calvo (1998 a, 1999 a).
6
What explains contagion?  The leading explanation is imperfect information, especially
information about the macroeconomy and the financial sector.  There are several reasons behind
imperfect information, but I will highlight three that seem especially important: (1) short track
records (especially in Latin America), (2) high government intervention (especially in Asia), and
(3) size.  I will discuss each one in turn.
1. Short track records.  Several EMs have embarked in market-friendly reforms but the
political systems that helped to launch them are relatively new, and their sustainability
open to question.  These reforms have largely been undertaken during a capital-inflow
episode in which budget constraints were considerably relaxed.  It is still unknown
whether they will be sustainable during a protracted downturn, for example.  Thus, EMs
require more frequent monitoring than advanced, more stable, economies.  High
monitoring costs, in turn, lead to less information gathering. 
6
 
2. High government intervention.  This applies especially to Asia because, as shown in
World Bank (1993), their spectacular growth was largely shepherded by active
government policy.  However, as their governments proved incapable of forestalling
economic collapse in 1997, previous certainties were replaced by a sea of uncertainty. 
Will previous regimes be reconstituted?  How?  Will these countries move to a more
capitalist decentralized organization and so, how?  These are very large questions for
which no analyst has a really good answer.  Therefore, every new piece of information
7
counts, and previously well-run economies like those in Asia become ?observationally
equivalent? to Latin American countries where uncertainties derive from short track
records.
3. Size.  The cost of learning about macro variables of a given country is, to a large extent,
independent of size, while the expected return from information gathering is likely to be
an increasing function of size.  Besides, it could be argued that size is negatively
correlated with volatility,  making macroeconomic analysis more effective in large
countries.  As a result, small countries that run an independent macroeconomic policy
may be excessively costly to monitor by financial analysts.
Point (3) directly connects with the central theme of the present paper.  Dollarization may
effectively increase the size of a given country because its monetary policy would just be that of
the US, a large country.  True, other policies might still be conditioned by local factors but,
unless one can argue that these other policies totally replace the function of monetary policy,
dollarization should result in lower uncertainty and greater incentives to learn about the
dollarized country?s specific conditions.  Points (1) and (2) yield similar implications because
dollarization?especially if carried out in the context of a Treaty with the US?increases both the
predictability and credibility of monetary policy.
III.  Dollarization: Reply to Critics
In this section I will present, and offer possible answers to, the main criticisms raised
against dollarization.  I will discuss three of these criticisms: (1) existence of asymmetric shocks,
(2) absence of a lender of last resort, LOLR, and (3) debt deflation.
7
 For recent experience in Latin America that appears to confirm this stylized fact, see
Hausmann, Gavin, Pages-Serra and Stein(1999).  However, this important issue deserves more
extensive attention.  
8
 In Calvo (1998 b), I call this phenomenon ?sudden stop? and analyze its implications.
8
1. Asymmetric Shocks.  This is a standard argument against OCAs, first raised in
Mundell (1961).  Let us realistically assume that US monetary policy does not take into
account the business cycle in the fully dollarized country.  Consider a shock that calls for
a depreciation of the real exchange rate in the dollarized country but that has no effect in
the US.  Under these assumptions, US monetary policy will not change and, thus, real
depreciation will call for a lower price level in the dollarized country.  Thus, if
prices/wages are downward inflexible, higher unemployment and/or capacity
underutilization may result, a situation that might be avoided if the dollarized country
conducted its own monetary policy (and devalued in nominal terms).
There are several ways in which this criticism can be answered.  Let us start with
an empirical observation: Devaluations in Latin America have been contractionary (see
Edwards (1989)) and, moreover, in recent crises no country has avoided depression, no
matter how much the currency was devalued.  Moreover, devaluations in EMs are
typically accompanied by high interest rates, occasionally fully offsetting the competitive
edge provided by devaluation.  For instance, in recent crisis episodes in Asia and Brazil,
after massive devaluations exports remained stagnant or fell.
7
Devaluation is especially useless when the shock comes from the capital account
(of the balance of payments), as when EMs are hit by contagion and face sharply higher
interest rates.
8
  In this instance, the shock would be essentially nonmonetary.  Yet, it
9
 The key question:  Why would firm and government borrowing be denominated in
foreign exchange even under flexible exchange rates, will be discussed in Section IV.
10
 There will certainly be credibility problems with this kind of policy, but not necessarily
more serious than in the case in which real exchange rate misalignment is resolved via nominal
devaluations.
9
could possibly be argued that a devaluation might still help to get the economy to the new
equilibrium more quickly and, presumably, with minimum social cost.  However, the
argument is seriously flawed or at least incomplete for economies where firms have dollar
liabilities (a common phenomenon in EMs with current account deficits, as will be argued
in Section IV).  Under these circumstances, a devaluation may provoke massive
bankruptcies, generating a large social cost.  Indonesia 1997 is a case in point.  The crisis
was exacerbated by devaluation because the private sector had taken short-term loans to
finance nontradable sector projects. 
9
Finally, it should be noted that real exchange rate misalignments can be fixed by
commercial policy.  A uniform import-tariff-cum-export-subsidy policy might do the
trick.  To replicate the effect of nominal devaluation, the uniform tariff/subsidy policy
should be temporary, and phased out in the course of a few quarters. 
10
  This policy has
several advantages over nominal devaluation: (1) it has natural upper bounds imposed by
compliance incentives (e.g., beyond a certain rate, further tariff hikes are evaded through
smuggling, for example), and (2) it does not affect the real (international) value of assets
and liabilities, implying that debt-related bankruptcies in the nontradable sector discussed
above would be less prevalent (although still bankruptcies may arise if nontradables are
produced by means of tradable goods).  Moreover, the uniform tariff/subsidy policy
11
 Alternative (2) has been implemented in Argentina through put options with
international banks.  It should be pointed out, however, that stabilization funds should be safely
kept aside for use during crises.  Otherwise they may be diverted to other purposes, as it
happened recently in Mexico and Thailand with international reserves that had been acquired
through sterilization operations.  For the case Mexico, see Calvo and Mendoza (1996).
10
increases fiscal surplus if the country runs a trade deficit.
2. Lender of Last Resort, LOLR.  There are circumstances in which banks can be subject to
essentially self-fulfilling runs (see Diamond and Dybvig (1983)).  Bank runs, in turn, may
have deleterious effect on output and employment.  Hence, a LOLR could enhance
welfare by stopping bank runs by the timely provision of extra credit (see Fischer (1999)
for a recent survey of the literature with special reference to international considerations). 
Critics of dollarization claim that this function could be seriously impaired by
dollarization, unless the country has access to the Fed?s discount window.  A common
error, however, is to think that the LOLR role is inextricably linked to the ability to print
base money.  Actually, there are alternative ways of providing bank liquidity.  For
example, the Treasury and the central bank could (1) create a stabilization fund or (2) set
up contingent credit lines with private banks, where in both instances the funds would be
earmarked for bank runs.
11
  Credit lines are likely cheaper under dollarization because
there exists no risk of devaluation-related bankruptcies.  Finally, (3) the country could
sign a Treaty with the US for seigniorage sharing.  Schematically, if international reserves
held by the country are denoted by R, and the US Treasury Bill rates by r (assumed
constant for the sake of simplicity), then the country in question would be receiving
seigniorage equivalent to rR.  If, say, the entire R is utilized to retire domestic base
money, then, without a Treaty, the country would relinquish all seigniorage.  However,
11
the country could offer the following deal to the US: we will swap our reserves for dollar
bills and a US-government consol yielding rR per unit of time, where 0 <  < 1.  This
should be attractive to the US because it lowers its debt burden.  Moreover, the country in
question could discount the consol in the capital market and create a stabilization fund. 
Clearly, if the market interest rate were also equal to r, then the size of the stabilization
fund at the start would be R.  In the case of Argentina, for example, this type of
arrangement would quite easily generate upwards of US$10 billion (see Calvo (1999 b)).
3. Debt Deflation.  This problem was highlighted in Keynes (1931) and Fisher (1933) in
connection with price deflation in the thirties.  The central assumption is that interest
rates on loans are not state contingent (as it was largely the case then, and it is still now,
especially in EMs).  Therefore, an unanticipated collapse in prices may lead to
bankruptcies, even though the borrowing firms are efficient.  Thus, if bankruptcy is
socially costly, debt deflation carries a deadweight loss.  Fisher (1933) argues that this
phenomenon (labeled debt deflation), is a major cause of great depressions.  Although
dollarization critics have not raised the debt deflation specter, I believe it is perhaps the
most serious threat to a dollarized economy.  This is especially relevant for EMs that are
open to international trade and whose terms of trade vary widely (e.g., Chile, Venezuela),
and independently of the US price level.  This is so because a price collapse in the
country in question is unlikely to trigger an offsetting response by US monetary policy.
However, debt deflation will not be remedied by devaluation if firms are liability
dollarized.  If goods are fully tradable, the debt deflation problem remains intact.  On the
other hand, if goods are nontradable (e.g., real estate), devaluation is likely to lower their
12
 Interestingly, liability dollarization, as opposed to asset dollarization (e.g., dollar
deposits in local banks) has received no attention in the currency-substitution literature.  See
Calvo (1996, Chapter 6), and IMF (1999).
12
relative prices with respect to tradables, worsening the debt-deflation problem.
To lessen the probability and deleterious effects of debt deflation, the government
could take the following steps.  First, make loan-loss provisions an increasing function of
the borrower?s output price (relative to some ?normal? standard that could itself vary over
time).  Second, help to develop future markets for CPI, Real Estate and other relevant
prices, to be used by domestic borrowers as hedging instruments.  To provide further
incentives, loan-loss provisions could be made a negative function of the use of those
instruments by borrowers.
In summary, exchange rate flexibility is not the only nor the best way to respond to the
problems that are associated with dollarization.
IV.  Liability Dollarization
Liability dollarization is an issue that has recurred several times in our discussion.
12
  Here
I will present a rationale for its existence.  To start off, consider a small country in which wages
and the prices of all domestically traded goods are denominated in local currency.  If the
economy is closed to the international capital market, and the share of international trade is
small, then one can conceive of plausible circumstances in which liability dollarization is
negligible.  This situation is more likely, the higher the volatility of the exchange rate, especially
if the latter is uncorrelated with country?s fundamentals.  This leads to the conjecture that truly
floating exchange rates in EMs would discourage liability dollarization and, therefore, that one
should not take liability dollarization as immutable and unrelated to the exchange rate regime.  I
13
 This could be partly explained as a remnant of their protectionist history, and the lack
of a solid capitalist tradition.
13
will now argue that this reasoning is incomplete because it leaves out crucial EMs?
characteristics.  When those are brought to bear on the discussion, conclusions could be radically
different.
The first key observation is that EMs have depended and will likely depend on foreign
savings (i.e., current account deficits, CADs), especially foreign loans, for growth.  Foreign loans
are normally denominated in foreign exchange.  One reason for this is institutional.  Regulation
typically prevents banks from exhibiting a large mismatch between the currency denomination of
their assets and liabilities.  Thus, foreign banks which are funded abroad and, thus, in foreign
exchange have a preference for dollar lending.  Therefore, bank peso loans interest rates will
exhibit a premium higher than could be accounted for by exchange-rate risk, thus creating
incentives for dollar borrowing.  
Another reason is informational.  Exchange rates are difficult to predict, both for
structural and policy-incentive considerations.  For instance, (1) monetary aggregates in EMs are
more volatile than in advanced countries (see Hausmann and Rojas-Suarez (1996)), possibly
reflecting higher money demand volatility, and (2) EMs? governments tend to be coopted by their
corporate sectors (Phelps (1999)). 
13
  Point (2) implies that EMs? governments will have
incentives to devalue, for example, in order to relieve the corporate sector from its debt
obligations, if a sizable share is denominated in domestic currency.  These informational
difficulties are likely to make costs of informed peso lending very large, since informed investors
would have to have a clear and minute-by-minute picture of the macroeconomy, including
14
 For further discussion, see Calvo (1996, Chapter 12).
14
political considerations.  What about uninformed international lending?  If international lenders
and domestic borrowers shared the same priors about the exchange rate and both were, say, risk
neutral, then peso lending could still take place in equilibrium (given that domestic firms?
revenue contains, as a general rule, peso risk).  However, domestic firms are likely to have better
information than uninformed international lenders, UILs, simply because the former operate in
the EM, read its newspapers, listen to its radios, etc.  Thus, if the UILs are aware of this
informational asymmetry, they would have reason to be wary when domestic firms increase their
supply of peso-denominated bonds.  A Lemon?s Problem arises that is akin to the situation
highlighted in Calvo (1998 a).  Peso borrowing sends a mixed signal to the UILs: on the one
hand, firms may genuinely need more financing but, on the other hand, peso borrowing may be
the result of firms knowing that the currency will be devalued.  Thus, firms that intend to borrow
for genuine reasons will find peso rates (adjusted for devaluation expectations) much higher than
dollar rates.  Consequently, the above discussion shows that international peso lending may be
limited when informed investors are involved?because information is very costly?and, also,
when UILs are involved?because there may be a Lemon?s Problem.
The discussion so far has focused on the private sector, although the same considerations
apply to government.  In addition, government, in contrast with the private sector, can devalue
and, therefore, there is an extra reason for foreign investors to be wary about peso-denominated
government debt.  By changing denomination composition in favor of dollar liabilities, the
government could lower the peso premium, benefitting both the government and the private
sector. 
14
15
V.  Final Words
Dollarization is, without any doubt, a momentous policy decision and not all EMs could
be suited for the move.  However, this paper has argued that its plausibility is greatly enhanced as
one takes into consideration EMs? initial conditions.  A key one is liability dollarization which
limits the desirability of exchange rate flexibility.  Absent dollarization, countries may converge
to a system in which exchange rates are relatively fixed but, given that devaluation is always a
possibility, peso interest rates remain high (peso problem).  The latter, in turn, militate against
borrowers that are segmented from the international capital market (e.g., small- and medium-
sized firms producing nontradable goods) and, thus, interferes with democratic growth, and the
development of a truly competitive home-goods market.  
16
References
Calvo, Guillermo A., 1996, Money, Exchange Rates, and Output, The MIT Press, Cambridge,
Massachusetts.
CCalvo, Guillermo A., 1998 a, ?Understanding the Russian Virus: with special reference to Latin
America,? manuscript, October.  See, www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/ciecalvo.htm/
Calvo, Guillermo A., 1998 b, ?Capital Flows and Capital-Market Crises: The Simple Economics
of Sudden Stops,? Journal of Applied Economics (CEMA), 1, 1, November, pp. 35-54.
Calvo, Guillermo A., 1999 a, ?Contagion in Emerging Market: When Wall Street is the Carrier,?
manuscript, February.   See, www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/ciecalvo.htm/
Calvo, Guillermo A., 1999 b, ?Argentina?s Dollarization Project: A Primer,? manuscript,
February.  See, www.bsos.umd.edu/econ/ciecalvo.htm/
Calvo, Guillermo A., Leonardo Leiderman, and Carmen M. Reinhart, 1993, ?Capital Inflows and
Real Exchange Appreciation in Latin America: The Role of External Factors,? IMF Staff
Papers, vol. 40, No. 1, pp. 108-151.
Calvo, Guillermo A., and Enrique G. Mendoza, 1996, ?Mexico?s Balance-of-Payments Crisis: A
Chronicle of Death Foretold,? Journal of International Economics, 41, pp. 235-264.
Calvo, Sara, and Carmen M. Reinhart, 1996, ?Capital Flows to Latin America: Is There Evidence
of Contagion Effects?? in G. Calvo, M. Goldstein y E. Hochreiter (editors) Private
Capital Flows to Emerging Markets After the Mexican Crisis; Washington: Institute for
International Economics.
Chuhan, P., Stijn Claessens and N. Mamingi, 1996, ?Equity and Bond Flows to Latin America
and Asia: The Role of Global and Country Factors,? World Bank, IECIF Policy Research
17
Working Paper No. 1160.
De Grauwe, Paul, 1994, The Economics of Monetary Integration, second revised edition, Oxford
University Press, Inc., New York.
Diamond, Douglas W., and Philip H. Dybvig, ?Bank Runs, Deposit Insurance, and Liquidity,?
Journal of Political Economy, 91, 3, June, pp. 401-419.
Dooley, Michael, Eduardo Fernandez-Arias, and Kenneth Kletzer, 1994, ?Is the Debt Crisis
History?? World Bank Economic Review, 10, 1, pp.
Edwards, Sebastian, 1989, Real Exchange Rates, Devaluation, and Adjustment, Cambridge,
Massachusetts: MIT Press.
Eichengreen, Barry, and Ashoka Mody, 1998, ?Interest Rates in the North and Capital Flows to
the South: Is There a Missing Link?? International Finance, 1, 1, October, pp. 35-58.
Fernandez-Arias, Eduardo, 1996, ?The New Wave of Private Capital Inflows: Push or Pull??
Journal of Economic Development, 48, 2, pp. 386-418.
Fischer, Stanley, 1999, ?On the Need for an International Lender of Last Resort,? International
Monetary Fund; paper delivered at the joint luncheon of the American Economic
Association and the American Finance Association, New York, January 3, 1999.
Fisher, Irving, 1933, ?The Debt-Deflation Theory of Great Depressions,? Econometrica, 1, 4,
October, pp. 337-357.
Hausmann, Ricardo and Liliana Rojas-Suarez, 1996, (eds.) Volatile Capital Flows, Inter-
American Development Bank; distributed by Johns Hopkins University Press.
Hausmann, Ricardo, Michael Gavin, Carmen Pages-Serra, and Ernesto Stein, 1999, ?Financial
Turmoil and the Exchange Rate Regime,? manuscript, Inter-American Development
18
Bank.
IMF, 1999, Monetary Policy in Dollarized Economies, Occasional Paper No. 171.
Kaminsky, Graciela L., and Carmen M. Reinhart, ?On Crises, Contagion and Confusion,?
manuscript, November 1998.
Keynes, John Maynard, 1931, ?The Consequences to the Banks of the Collapse of Money
Values,? reprinted in his Essays in Persuasion, W.W.Norton & Company, New York,
1963.
Mundell, Robert A., 1961, ?A Theory of Optimum Currency Areas,? American Economic
Review, 51, 4, pp. 657-665.
Phelps, Edmund S., 1999, ?The Global Crisis of Corporatism,? Wall Street Journal, March 25.
World Bank, 1993, The East Asian Miracle, published for the World Bank by Oxford University
Press, New York.