Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System
International Finance Discussion Papers
Number 979
August 2009

Did Easy Money in the Dollar Bloc Fuel the Global Commodity Boom?
Christopher Erceg
Luca Guerrieri
Steven B. Kamin

NOTE: International Finance Discussion Papers are preliminary materials circulated to stimulate
discussion and critical comment. References in publications to International Finance Discussion
Papers (other than an acknowledgment that the writer has had access to unpublished material)
should be cleared with the author or authors. Recent IFDPs are available on the Web atwww.federalreserve.gov/pubs/ifdp/.
This paper can be downloaded without charge from Social Science Research Network electronic
library at http://www.ssrn.com/.

Did Easy Money in the Dollar Bloc Fuel the Global Commodity Boom?
Christopher Erceg, Luca Guerrieri, and Steven B. Kamin
August 2009

Abstract: Among the various explanations for the runup in oil and commodity prices ofrecent years, one story focuses on the role of monetary policy in the United States and indeveloping economies. In this view, developing countries that peg their currencies to the dollar
were forced to ease their monetary policies after reductions in U.S. interest rates, leading toeconomic overheating, excess demand for oil and other commodities, and rising commodity
prices. We assess that hypothesis using the Federal Reserve staff’s forward-looking, multicountry, dynamic general equilibrium model, SIGMA. We find that even if many developing
country currencies were pegged to the dollar, an easing of U.S. monetary policy would lead to
only a transitory runup in oil prices. Instead, strong economic growth in many developing
economies, as well as shortfalls in oil production, better explain the sustained runup in oil prices
observed until earlier this year. Moreover, a closer look at exchange rates and interest rates
around the world suggests that the monetary policies of many developing economies, including
in East Asia, are less closely influenced by U.S. policies than is frequently assumed.

Keywords: oil prices, SDGE models, monetary policy
JEL Classification: F41, F42*The authors are economists in the International Finance Division of the Federal Reserve
Board. They can be reached at Christopher.Erceg@frb.gov, Luca.Guerrieri@frb.gov, andsteven.kamin@frb.gov. The views in this paper are solely the responsibility of the authors andshould not be interpreted as reflecting the views of the Board of Governors of the Federal
Reserve System or of any other person associated with the Federal Reserve System. Justin
Vitanza provided excellent research assistance.

1

I. Introduction and Summary
During the years preceding the world recession, global commodity prices shot up
dramatically. As shown in Figure 1, the price of WTI oil more than tripled between the end of
2002 and the end of 2007, and it then rose another 60 percent or so to its peak in early July 2008.
The IMF index of non-fuel commodity prices roughly doubled between end-2002 and its peak in
mid 2008, driven by especially strong increases in the prices of food and metals. Given theconsequences of these movements for global inflation, economic activity, and the pattern of
external imbalances, it is not surprising that they garnered tremendous attention by analysts andpolicymakers alike.
More recently, the global spotlight has shifted away from commodity prices, partly
because they have come down considerably since their peak last year and also because of theintensification of financial turmoil and recession around the world. Yet, the behavior ofcommodity prices remains an important issue for the global economy. First, commodity prices
remain quite elevated relative to their levels earlier in this decade. Second, their prior runup
exacerbated the effects of the financial turmoil: it reduced real disposable income in many
commodity-importing countries, and its inflationary effects constrained some central banks fromloosening monetary policy in response to financial strains. Third, the more recent downturn incommodity prices exacerbated financial and real-side pressures in many emerging market
economies. Finally, if concerns about the global economy were pulling commodity prices down
after the middle of last year , it seems plausible that once economic conditions are seen to
normalize, commodity prices might resume their rise. In fact, oil and other commodity prices
have moved up from their recent lows as prospects for recovery appear to have improved.
Accordingly, understanding the runup in commodity prices of recent years remains a high2priority for analysts and policymakers. A plethora of explanations, many of themcomplementary, for the rise have been advanced. One group of these focuses on thefundamentals of supply and demand: industrialization in China and other developing countries
substantially boosted the demand for commodities, while a combination of slowly growing
capacity, weather problems, and geopolitical concerns prevented the supply of commodities fromkeeping up. (See Figures 2-3, as well as IMF, 2008, and Interagency Task Force, 2008.) A
second explanation focuses on the role of speculators in driving commodity prices upward.
According to a third explanation, declines in interest rates caused by the Fed’s monetary easing
led to runups in commodity prices by depressing the dollar and by reducing the cost of holding
inventories, thus diminishing the incentive to extract resources today rather than saving them forthe future (Frankel, 2008).
Finally, last year, a fourth broad explanation for the runup in commodity prices emerged
which, intriguingly, married elements of the fundamentals-based explanation with the view thatthe runup was caused by Federal Reserve loosening. This explanation, which for convenience
we will call the “dollar bloc” story, starts with the premise that many developing economies have
pegged their currencies to the U.S. dollar. Accordingly, when the Federal Reserve loosenedmonetary policies, starting in the fall of 2007, these developing countries had to loosen theirpolicies as well, even though such loosening was not appropriate to their economic
circumstances. This led to an overheating of their economies, excess demand for commodities,
and sharp increases in commodity prices. Martin Wolf (2008) wrote in the middle of last year:
Today, the hapless Federal Reserve is trying to re-expand demand in a post-bubble US
economy. The principal impact of its monetary policy comes, however, via a weakeningof the US dollar and an expansion of those overheating economies linked to it. To
simplify, Ben Bernanke is running the monetary policy of the People’s Bank of China.
But the policy appropriate to the US is wildly inappropriate for China and indeed almost
all the other countries tied together in the informal dollar zone or, as some economists
3

call it, “Bretton Woods II”.
Similarly, The Economist (2008) observed:

Apart from the Gulf States, few countries still peg their currencies to the dollar, but mosttry to limit the amount of appreciation. This means that as the Fed cuts rates there ispressure on emerging economies to do the same, to prevent capital inflows pushing up
their exchange rates…In the face of rising inflation, emerging economies should be
lifting interest rates, not cutting them, but their rigid currency policies makes this hard.
In turn, continued surging demand in emerging economies boosts commodity prices,which reduces Americans’ spending power and so encourages the Fed to cut rates further.
The more the Fed cuts, the bigger the risk of inflation in emerging markets.
This paper assesses the plausibility of the dollar bloc explanation for the global runup incommodity prices. Because of its central role in the global economy, we focus on the price of oil.
Sections II and III use the Federal Reserve staff’s forward-looking dynamic general equilibrium
model to answer the questions: Can the Federal Reserve’s monetary stance in recent years
plausibly explain the runup in global oil prices?1 If not, what other factors were likely
important? Section IV addresses one of the underlying premises of the dollar bloc explanation,that the currencies of many emerging market economies are linked to the dollar to a sufficient
extent that these economies effectively “import” the monetary policy of the United States.
Section V concludes.
The main results of our analysis are as follows: First, our model simulations indicate
that, in a world where an appreciable portion of the global economy (20 percent) is assumed tobe pegged to the dollar, a loosening of U.S. monetary policy on the order of what occurred inrecent years—with the real federal funds rate falling some 2 percentage points below its
historical average in 2004 through 2007—can indeed cause a sharp spike in oil prices. Thisoccurs because the economies pegged to the dollar receive stimulus (both as their currencies
follow the dollar downward and as they loosen their own monetary policies) and this boosts their
1

A similar exercise is described in IMF (2008).

4

GDP and thus their demand for oil. However, the spike in oil prices is short-lived. As thepegged economies overheat, their GDPs return to trend, oil demand softens, and oil prices retrace
their earlier rise; moreover, the extent of the initial spike in oil prices further supports subsequent
reductions in the demand for oil. Accordingly, even a sustained easing of U.S. monetary policy
does not appear to be able to induce the sustained rise in oil prices we observed earlier in thisdecade.
If U.S. monetary ease does not explain the runup in oil prices, what does? We performed
a number of simulations to assess the plausibility of the most prominent “fundamentals” based
explanations for the surge in oil prices. To begin with, we analyzed the effects of an accelerationof productivity growth sufficient to boost world GDP growth by about 1 percentage point; thisincrease is comparable to the runup in global growth seen earlier this decade compared with its
historical average. Our model simulation suggests that such an increase in economic growth,because it is sustained, could lead to a similarly sustained rise in oil prices in the neighborhoodof 70 percent above their baseline level.
We then evaluated the impact of a sustained reduction in the growth of global oil
production of 1½ percentage points, comparable to the reduction in growth that actually occurredin recent years. Such a shock would boost the price of oil persistently more than 30 percent
above its baseline level. Combining both simulation experiments, we find that the higher global
GDP growth and the reduction in oil supply would together lead to a sustained doubling of theoil price, comparable to where oil prices now stand relative to their value earlier this decade.
In sum, the fundamentals-based explanation for the runup in oil prices appears moreplausible than the “dollar bloc” story, and this holds true, even if we assume that a fifth of the
global economy is rigidly pegged to the dollar. In the final part of the paper, we assess whether

5foreign developing economies, particularly those in East Asia, are as closely pegged to the dollar
as commentators assert. We find that East Asian exchange rates against the dollar are somewhat
less variable than exchange rates of other countries, but to a lesser extent than is implied bymuch commentary on the subject. Moreover, we find that East Asian policy interest rates are
generally less correlated with U.S. interest rates than the interest rates of several countries whose
currencies are generally acknowledged to be floating, such as Canada and the euro area. This
result remains true, even when we control for cyclical influences on monetary policy such as
inflation and output. All told, these findings further diminish the plausibility of the “dollar bloc”
explanation for the runup in oil prices of recent years.

II. Model Description
SIGMA is a multi-country, multi-sector dynamic general-equilibrium model used forpolicy analysis by Federal Reserve staff. We conduct our simulations in a three-country version
of SIGMA that includes the United States, a group of “dollar bloc” countries that maintain fixedexchange rates against the U.S. dollar, and an aggregate “rest of the world” (ROW) block
comprised of all other foreign countries.2 Monetary policy in both the United States and ROW
block is assumed to follow a modified Taylor rule that reacts to inflation and output growth(rather than the output gap), and which allows for a modest degree of interest-rate smoothing.
SIGMA has a high degree of formal similarity in the structure of key behavioral
equations across the three country blocks. The core of the model has its antecedents in theseminal open economy modeling framework of Obstfeld and Rogoff (1995), but it embeds awide array of nominal and real rigidities that have been identified by the literature as important

2

The SIGMA model and its properties are described by Erceg, Guerrieri, and Gust (2006). The inclusion of an oil
sector in the model is detailed by Bodenstein, Erceg, Guerrieri (2007).

6

empirically. Thus, consumption behavior is consistent with the permanent income hypothesis in
the longer-term, though our model incorporates habit persistence which effectively makes
consumption more inertial in the short-run.

Investment depends on Tobin’s Q, though wefollow Christiano, Eichenbaum, and Evans (2005) in assuming that investment adjustment costs
depend on the change in investment rather than in the capital stock. This increases thepersistence in the investment response relative to the standard Q-theory approach. Government
spending evolves exogenously (as a share of GDP), and the fiscal authority is assumed to adjust
lump-sum taxes in a manner that enables the government to satisfy its intertemporal solvency
constraint.
On the aggregate supply side, inflation is determined by a fairly conventional NewKeynesian Phillips Curve that allows for some intrinsic persistence: thus, inflation depends
partly on its own lag, but also on marginal cost and the inflation rate expected to prevail in the
future. Marginal costs rise when output exceeds potential or when real wages rise above the levelthat would prevail if wages were completely flexible (in which case wages would immediately
adjust to changes in fundamentals, such as higher oil prices). Nominal wages change sluggishly
given that they are set in long-term staggered contracts. This contributes to some additional
inertia in prices given the substantial influence of wages on marginal cost.
Each country or country block in our model is regarded as producing a basket of non-oil
goods that it can either export or use to satisfy domestic demand. Because each country’s basket
is an imperfect substitute with the basket produced by other countries, the demand curve for its
export basket is downward-sloping in its relative price. Producers in each country are assumed
to set prices in the buyers’ currency (following a Calvo-style timing assumption for pricesetting). This is consistent with the “local currency pricing” assumption embedded into many

7

open-economy macro models (e.g., Betts and Devereux [1996] or Devereux and Engel [2002]),
and implies gradual adjustment of trade prices to exchange rate movements. Moreover, ourmodel incorporates adjustment costs that penalize rapid changes in bilateral trade shares. This
specification captures the idea that it may be costly for households and firms to vary thecomposition of their import basket in the short-run in response to relative price changes, evenwhile allowing aggregate imports to respond rapidly to changes in real activity.
Our model also includes a world oil market in which the price of oil is determined toequate world demand and supply. In each country, oil is demanded by firms as an input into
production and by households as a component of their consumption bundle (which also includes
imports and domestically-produced goods). In line with our specification of non-oil trade, ourmodel incorporates adjustment costs that penalize rapid changes in the share of oil used in
production and consumption. As a result, the short-run price elasticity of demand for oil is much
lower than the long-run elasticity of demand, consistent both with empirical and anecdotal
evidence.3 This feature has the familiar implication that demand would decline very slowly inresponse to a hypothetical permanent rise in the oil price, as the half life of the response iscalibrated to equal 10 years. Oil supply is assumed to be exogenously fixed in each country
block, though the initial endowment is much larger relative to per capita output in the ROW
block; according, the latter is a net exporter of oil, while the U.S. and dollar bloc countries areimporters. Using 2007 data from the British Petroleum Statistical Review, we calibrate oil
imports for the United States to 77 percent of total demand in the non-stochastic steady state,
implying that 33 percent of oil demand is satisfied by domestic production. Similarly, for the3See, for example, Dahl and Sterner (1991) or Atkins Jazayeri (2004), who report estimates ranging between 0 to
0.11 for the short-run price elasticity of demand (in absolute value) and between 0 and 3.44 for the long-run
elasticity. Bodenstein, Erceg, and Guerrieri (2007) provide estimates of the oil demand equation in the SIGMA
model consistent with the calibration chosen here.

8dollar bloc, we calibrate oil imports to 40 percent of total demand.
The model is calibrated so that the United States comprises about 25 percent of world
output. The dollar bloc is assumed to include most major developing economies in bothdeveloping Asia and Latin America (referred as DA-LA block below), and accounts for 20
percent of world GDP.4 As we argue below in Section 4, this calibration substantially overstates
the share of world output accounted for by countries that could reasonably be described as
forming part of a dollar bloc. Even though some countries that are admittedly dollar peggers areomitted from the dollar bloc due to data limitations – notably some Middle East oil exporters –this omission is more than counterbalanced by the inclusion of a broad set of major developing
countries that allow their currencies to vary substantially against the dollar. Thus, we interpretthe 20 percent share of world output as an upper bound on the importance of the dollar bloc. The
ROW accounts for the remainder of world GDP (55 percent).
We use national accounts data to calibrate expenditure shares for each of the three
country blocks in our model. We use data on oil consumption from British Petroleum tocalibrate the energy intensity of each country block. Under our calibration, the share of oil
expenditures as a fraction of GDP is roughly 4 percent in the United States and in the two foreign
blocs. Model parameters determining bilateral trade flows for both non-oil goods and oil arederived using nominal trade shares from the IMF’s Direction of Trade Statistics and data fromthe IEA on each country block’s oil production and consumption.

III. Simulation Results
Our first SIGMA simulations are designed to evaluate the hypothesis that accommodative
4

The developing Asian countries included in the DA-LA bloc are China, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Korea, Malaysia,
the Philippines, Singapore and Thailand. The Latin American countries included in the DA-LA bloc are Argentina,
Brazil, Chile, Mexico and Venezuela.

9

U.S. monetary policy in response to adverse shocks originating in the United States generated aboom in emerging market countries through the mechanism of fixed exchange rates, thus helping
to fuel an associated runup in oil (and other commodity) prices. In these simulations, we assume
that the underlying shock to the United States is simply a fall in the exogenous component ofconsumption demand, with no direct spillover to other countries. As seen in Figure 4 (lower left
panel), the shock is scaled so that the U.S. real ex post policy rate falls 2 percentage points below
baseline, which is roughly the average amount by which the real federal funds rate over the
2004-2007 period dipped below its corresponding average over the 1990-2003 period. In order
to assess the impact of monetary policy in the dollar bloc countries, we contrast our benchmark
calibration in which the dollar bloc countries maintain pegged exchange rates (“DALA Peg”) toan alternative in which all countries, including those in the dollar bloc, follow the Taylor rule(“All Taylor”).
As seen in Figure 4, the U.S. aggregate demand contraction has quite similar effects on
output, inflation, and interest rates in the United States irrespective of the particular assumption
about foreign monetary policy. U.S. output falls persistently, headline price inflation falls below
baseline in response to the negative output gap (notwithstanding a transient initial rise due tohigher oil prices), and U.S. policy rates decline as implied by the Taylor rule. Because real
short-term interest rates fall much more sharply than interest rates abroad, the U.S. real exchange
rate depreciates. This stimulates U.S. real net exports, and helps cushion the impact of thedomestic spending decline on U.S. GDP. As expected, the size of the real dollar depreciation issomewhat smaller in the benchmark case in which 20 percent of the world pegs than if all
countries followed a Taylor rule. Although this implies that the stimulus to U.S. exports arisingfrom a relative price channel is smaller in the benchmark case, foreign activity shows a much10

larger expansion (as shown below). As a result, the stimulus to U.S. real exports turns out to be
fairly similar irrespective of the assumption about monetary policy in the dollar bloc. Thisimplication and the relatively low degree of openness of the U.S. economy help explain why
U.S. output appears nearly invariant to the assumption about foreign monetary policy.
By contrast, the effects of the U.S. aggregate demand contraction on foreign economies
depend starkly on the monetary policy pursued by the dollar bloc countries (Figure 5). Focusing
initially on the case in which all countries follow the Taylor rule, aggregate foreign output andinflation (a GDP-weighted average across the dollar bloc and ROW) are nearly insulated fromthe shock. Although foreign real net exports decline due to exchange rate appreciation and thefall in U.S. activity, the effects on foreign GDP are completely offset by higher domestic
demand in the foreign countries as they cut interest rates.
Figure 5 also shows our benchmark case in which 20 percent of the world economy
consists of countries that peg to the dollar. The nominal interest rates of these countries decline
in lockstep with U.S. nominal interest rates, which exerts a highly stimulative effect on theirconsumption and investment spending. Notwithstanding the modest share of these countries(about one quarter) in the foreign aggregates shown in the figure, it is evident that aggregate
foreign GDP shows a very pronounced rise. Interestingly, although the real exchange rate of theforeign sector appreciates persistently, it must eventually revert to baseline, which forces theprice level to decline, and foreign output to fall below its pre-shock baseline.5
Returning to Figure 4, the different foreign output responses derived under thealternative assumptions about monetary policy in the dollar bloc countries translates into a
sizeable disparity in the initial response of the oil price in our model. In the case in which allcountries follow the Taylor rule, lower world output (mainly because of the large contraction in
5

Because the U.S. aggregate demand shock is stationary, all variables eventually return to their pre-shock level.

11the United States) causes the oil price to fall almost 40 percent below baseline in the impact
period, and roughly 10 percent after one year. By contrast, the oil price rises by around 20
percent initially in the benchmark case in which dollar bloc countries peg. The disparity in theoil price responses in the face of fairly modest differences in the response of world GDP reflectsthat the oil price elasticity of demand is extremely low in the short-run in our model, in theneighborhood of only 0.01 percent in the impact quarter of the shock (consistent with a half lifeof adjustment to a relative price change of 10 years).
But even if pegged exchange rates in some trading partners induced an initial rise in oil
prices by as much as suggested by our model simulation, a key implication of our model is that
this channel cannot account for permanent or even persistent increases in the oil price in
response to accommodative U.S. monetary policy. In particular, the oil price rise under ourbenchmark case is wholly attributable to a temporary (even if somewhat persistent) rise inforeign output gaps. Thus, agents in the model forecast that most of the oil price increase will bereversed within a couple of years. Insofar as a salient feature of the observed increase in oil
prices during the past five years is that it appears to be have been perceived as largely permanent(based on inferences from futures markets and private forecasts), this casts strong doubt on the
hypothesis that U.S. monetary loosening contributed markedly to the runup in oil prices.
Because our structural models suggest that oil price shocks must be highly persistent to exert
much effect on U.S. core inflation and output, it seems unlikely that oil price increases inducedby the policy response abroad could have much impact on U.S. output and core inflation.
Not only are the monetary policy responses to an aggregate demand shock unlikely togenerate a persistent runup in oil prices, but even their short-term impact on oil prices might besmaller than shown in the model simulations. First, some of the large quantitative effects shown12

in Figure 4 simply reflect that the shock to the United States is both large in magnitude andoccurs very rapidly, as U.S. GDP contracts a whopping 4 percent in a period of one year. With
some phasing-in of the shock, the initial effects on oil prices – and in particular, the differences
between the simulations – would be much less pronounced. Second, our model does not allow
for oil inventories or variable supply capacity. In the presence of these features, any perceived
fall in oil prices in the future (due say to a winnowing of the foreign output gap) would result in
an incentive to sell inventories or increase production, hence limiting the initial rise in the oil
price relative to the increase depicted in Figure 4. Finally, we note that our imposition of a 10
year half-life of adjustment also contributes to a much larger oil price rise after an increase inworld GDP than suggested by some empirical estimates. In particular, while our calibrationsuggests that a 1 percent rise in world GDP would push up the real price of oil by over 50
percent on impact, this is roughly ten times as large as estimated by Kilian in a recent paper thatuses a structural VAR framework to identify various shocks affecting oil prices.6
Altogether, these considerations caution against interpreting our simulation results as
indicating that the monetary policy of the dollar bloc can have very large effects on the short-run
response of the oil priceMoreover, the robust message of our simulation is that given that thestimulus to foreign output from a peg in the dollar bloc is temporary, any associated rise in theoil price must also be transient.

Other Explanations for the Runup in Oil Prices
We next turn to using our model to consider the quantitative effects of other shocks that
may have exerted a pronounced effect in driving up world oil prices during the past few years. It
6“Not All Oil Shocks are Alike: Disentangling Demand and Supply Shocks in the Crude Oil Market” (2003),
American Economic Review.

13

seems reasonable to focus attention on two particular explanations. First, it seems plausible that
faster-than-expected growth in world output – especially in developing economies such as China
and India – may have made an important contribution to driving up oil prices. Second, growth inworld oil supply has slowed markedly, and projections for the future level of oil production havebeen revised downward dramatically since the early years of this decade.
Figures 6 and 7 report the effects of a SIGMA simulation in which foreign real GDP
growth initially rises about 1.5 percentage points relative to baseline due to faster growth intechnological progress. Given that the technology improvement occurs only in the foreigncountries, this is consistent with a rise in world GDP growth of a little more than one percentage
point. The size of the shock seems plausible in light of the surprisingly fast world GDP growththat occurred earlier in this decade. In particular, world GDP growth as estimated by the IMF’s
WEO rose from about 4 percent per year in 2003, roughly its historical average over thepreceding two decades, to an average pace of over 5 percent per year in the 2004-2007 period.
Although explicit longer-term forecasts for world growth are not provided in the WEO, ourreading of the evolution of short-term world growth forecasts and the associated commentary insuccessive editions of the WEO over the 2003-2007 period is that much of the faster growth wasa surprise, and was eventually reflected in upward revisions to projections for potential growth inChina and some other key economies.
Figure 6 shows that the shock eventually pushes up the level of world GDP by a little
more than 30 percent over the 30 year simulation horizon depicted (even though U.S. GDP
actually declines a bit, as the stimulative effect of an improvement in real net exports is offset byhigher real interest rates, which depress U.S. investment for a prolonged period). The higher
level of world GDP in turn causes oil prices to rise both persistently and by a large amount. By

14the end of the simulation horizon, the oil price levels out at nearly 70 percent above its baseline
value. The magnitude of the increase reflects our assumption of a long-run demand elasticity of
0.5 for oil and the rise in world GDP of over 35 percent. The responses in the figure are virtuallyindistinguishable whether or not the dollar bloc pegs to the U.S. dollar or follows an independent
Taylor rule. This reflects that the two alternative policies imply very similar paths for the realinterest rate in the dollar bloc
The initial rise in the oil price is a bit larger than the long-term response, but is stillcomparable in magnitude. The fact that the growth rate shock generates a nearly flat response of
the oil price is instructive as regards the types of “fundamental” shocks that can plausibly
account for both the rise in spot oil prices as well as longer-term futures prices that has occurredsince roughly 2003. In particular, the growth rate shock produces a persistently elevated level
path precisely because substitution away from oil associated with higher prices is almost
completely offset by increased demand stemming from the increase in activity.
Our analysis also suggests that adverse supply growth shocks may work in a parallel
fashion to generate a highly persistent rise in oil prices, provided these shocks are sustained.
World oil production grew at a historical rate of roughly 2 percent per year through the first few
years of this decade, but has subsequently declined to only about ½ percent per year due toparticularly disappointing supply responses in non-OPEC countries. Moreover, while the limited
forecasts of long-term oil supply available from the early part of this decade seemed consistent
with a projection that oil supply would continue to expand roughly in line with its historical
average, recent projections (including qualitative assessments) suggest a dismal outlook for
growth in global supply. Notwithstanding that oil prices remain more than double their level of afew years ago, many analysts now project that the poor growth performance of the past few years

15will continue in the longer-term. The 2008 World Energy Outlook projects that world crude oil
output will be 75 million barrels per day in 2030, a marginal increase relative to the 70 million
barrel per day produced in 2007.
Accordingly, Figures 8 and 9 investigate the implications of a persistent decline in thegrowth rate of world oil production of about 1-1/2 percentage points (that dies away very
gradually, similarly to the productivity growth shock). The contraction in world supply of over
20 percent after 30 years causes the oil price to rise nearly 40 percent by the end of thesimulation horizon. The path of the oil price is relatively flat, as substitution away from oil due
to higher prices is roughly counterbalanced by continued falls in supply. The results are littlechanged even if the dollar bloc follows a Taylor rule instead of pegging to the U.S. dollar.
Finally, it is interesting to consider the combined effects of faster-than-expected world
GDP growth and weaker-than-expected growth in supply. This simulation is presented in Figure
10. The simulation indicates that the combined shocks can account for more than a 100 percent
rise in the oil price in the long-run. The simulation reported by the dashed lines in Figure 10
considers the effects of the same shocks with a lower long-run price elasticity of demand for oil,equal to 0.3, still in the range of empirical estimates. In that case, the oil price rises as much as
200 percent in the long run.
As highlighted above, our modeling framework lacks certain realistic features such as oilinventories and variable capacity in oil supply. However, these features should not influence thelong-run oil price response to persistent shocks. The main message is that the combined effectsof faster-than-expected world GDP growth and weaker-than-expected growth in supply canaccount for a large and basically permanent jump in the oil price.

16

IV. How Rigid is the Dollar Bloc?
It has become fashionable in recent years to refer to emerging market countries,
especially in East Asia, as comprising a “dollar bloc” or participating in a “Bretton Woods II”
system of currencies pegged against the dollar.7 Various motivations for such policies on thepart of the emerging market economies have been offered, including the desire to keep theircurrencies competitive and to avoid the adverse effects of exchange rate fluctuations on thebalance sheets of domestic firms and households. Assertions that emerging market currencies arelinked to the dollar have been supported by studies showing that, compared with countries withobviously floating exchange rates (the United States, Japan, Australia), many emerging market
countries have less variable exchange rates and more variable reserves and interest rates.8
However, many of these studies were undertaken several years ago, when many emerging
market economies were still rebuilding reserves after their financial crises and relying on theirexternal sectors to support economic activity. Over the past several years, many emerging
market countries, including those in East Asia, appear to have allowed greater flexibility in theirexchange rates. Moreover, although there has been a mounting consensus that currencies
officially described as “floating” may often be more tightly managed, researchers have notsucceeded in achieving consensus in categorizing de facto exchange rate regimes. Different but
equally plausible methodologies frequently yield different categorizations of exchange rate
regimes, and some categorizations appear counterintuitive. For example, Ilzetzki, Reinhart, andRogoff (2008) categorize the exchange rate regime for the United Kingdom’s sterling as “defacto managed crawling peg against the euro,” even though the United Kingdom has notintervened in foreign exchange markets for quite some time.
7

See, among others, Dooley, Folkerts-Landau, and Garber (2003, 2004) and Mann (2004) .
See, among others, Calvo and Reinhart (2002), Hausmann, Panizza, and Stein (2001), and Reinhart and Rogoff(2004).

817

We have no hope or intention of resolving the complexities inherent in trying tocategorize currency regimes. However, we believe that the evidence undercuts the view that a
preponderance of emerging market economies—especially in Asia—are effectively pegged tothe dollar and thus must rigidly follow U.S. monetary policy.
Figure 11 displays the variance of monthly percent changes in countries’ nominal
exchange rates against the dollar during the 2000-2007 period. A mix of emerging market andadvanced economy currencies are shown, with the major developing East Asian currencies
indicated by the cross-hatched bars. The charts make clear that Asian exchange rates against the
dollar are indeed, with the exception of Indonesia, generally more stable than those of othercountries. However, note that the currencies exhibiting the greatest variability are those of somefairly volatile emerging market economies, especially Argentina and Venezuela. Obviously
floating currencies such as the pound and Canadian dollar are in the middle of the pack, andexhibit only a bit more volatility than the Korean won and Philippine peso. In sum, neither thedeveloping East Asian currencies, nor the currencies of emerging markets more generally, appear
to represent a bona fide dollar bloc.9
Even if these countries were all pegged to the dollar, however, they would not necessarily
have to follow U.S. monetary policy. The uncovered interest parity condition requires that in thecase of perfect capital mobility and perfectly substitutable assets, a country’s interest rate must
equal that of another country, adjusted for expected movements in the exchange rate between thetwo countries’ currencies. When one country pegs to another, expected exchange rate
movements are zero, and thus the two countries’ interest rates must be equal. But in cases where
perfect capital mobility does not hold (e.g., with capital controls) and assets are not perfectly

9

In principle, of course, China could be a considered a mini-dollar-bloc of its own.

18substitutable (Malaysian assets may not be considered interchangeable with U.S. assets) the
uncovered interest parity condition breaks down, and the scope for deviations in monetary policy
among countries arises, even with pegged exchange rates.
Accordingly, it is not obvious that even for those countries whose currencies are mostclearly linked to the dollar—e.g., China, Malaysia—that their monetary policies are more closely
linked to that of the United States than the policies of other countries recognized to have
independently floating exchange rates. Figure 12 presents the correlations of monthly percent
changes in different countries’ nominal policy interest rates with that of the United States overthe period 2000-2007. Intriguingly, two of the economies whose interest rates are mostcorrelated with the U.S. federal funds rate are Canada and the euro area, both of whom havewhat most analysts agree are floating exchange rates. Most of the developing Asian economies
have interest rates that are less well correlated with those of the United States, especially the twocountries with most obviously pegged rates: China and Malaysia. To make this point more
concretely, Figure 13 shows how policy rates have moved in several countries compared with the
U.S. federal funds rate.10
Thus, the evidence suggests that emerging market economies do not simply “import”
their monetary policies from the United States. In fact, by and large, Asian policy interest rates
appear surprisingly uncorrelated with U.S. rates. By contrast, and for reasons that are beyond thescope of this paper, policy rates in many major industrial economies with obviously floating
currencies appear far more closely tied to U.S. rates.

10

The policy interest rates—generally short-term money market rates—used in our analysis may not fully mirror
the stance of monetary policy in some of the countries being studied. However, to the extent that some countries rely
on other instruments of monetary policy—e.g., deposit and loan rates or direct guidance on credit—this reinforces
the independence of monetary policy from that in the United States, even with a currency pegged to the dollar.

19

V. Conclusion
In this paper, we assessed the view that, because many developing countries peg theircurrencies to the dollar, earlier this decade they were forced to loosen monetary policies in linewith those in the United States, leading to economic overheating, increases in the demand forcommodities, and thus sustained rises in commodity prices. Using the Federal Reserve staff’s
forward-looking, multi-country dynamic general equilibrium model, SIGMA, we found that even
if many developing country currencies are indeed pegged to the dollar, an easing of U.S.
monetary policy would lead to only a transitory runup in oil prices. The effect is short-lived bothbecause loose monetary policy can keep output above its equilibrium level for only a limited
period of time, and also because the runup in oil prices induces demand adjustments that
subsequently allow prices to come down.
A key lesson of the simulation we ran is that it would take sustained and fundamental
shocks to the demand and supply of oil to explain the persistent rise in its price through much of
the decade. We then used SIGMA to analyze the effects of two shocks that we believe are more
firmly rooted in the fundamentals of demand and supply of oil: an increase in economic growth
in many foreign countries, and a sustained shortfall in the growth of oil production relative to its
earlier trend. In the simulations we ran, both of these shocks boosted the price of oil on a lastingbasis, making them more plausible candidates for the earlier runup in oil and other commodity
prices than the “dollar bloc” story of monetary policy and currency pegs.
Finally, we took a closer look at the underlying premise of the “dollar bloc” story, thatthe currencies of many developing economies are linked to the dollar sufficiently strongly thatthe monetary policies of these countries are forced to follow that of the United States. We found20

that the currencies of many developing countries are less rigidly linked to the dollar, and theirinterest rates less correlated with U.S. interest rates, than is frequently assumed. These results
further undercut the “dollar bloc” explanation for the past surge in oil and other commodity
prices.
We should acknowledge, however, that we are far from having a complete understandingof the factors driving oil and other commodity prices in recent years. As noted above, the
SIGMA model does not incorporate inventories or variable supply capacity, either of which
would reduce initial magnitude of price responses to shocks. As well, there remains considerable
uncertainty about the size of the price elasticity of demand for oil, both in the short and the long
run.

21

References
Atkins, F. J. and S.T. Jazayeri (2004), “A Literature Review of Demand Studies in World Oil
Markets,” Manuscript, University of Calgary.
Betts, Caroline, and Michael B. Devereux (1996), “The Exchange Rate in a Model of Pricing-toMarket,” European Economic Review, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 1007-21.
Bodenstein, Martin, Christopher Erceg, and Luca Guerrieri (2007), “Oil Shocks and External
Adjustment,” International Finance Discussion Paper, No. 897.
Calvo, Guillermo and Carmen M. Reinhart (2002), “Fear of Floating,” Quarterly Journal of
Economics, Vol. 107, No. 2, pp. 379-408.
Dahl, C. and T. Sterner (1991), “Analysing Gasoline Demand Elasticities: A Survew,” Energy
Economics, Vol. 13, No. 3, pp. 203-210.
Devereux, Michael B. and Charles Engel (2002), “Exhchange Rate Pass-Through, Exchange
Rate Volatility and Exchange Rate Disconnect,” Journal of Monetary Economics, Vol 49, No. 5,
pp. 913-40.
Dooley, Michael P., David Folkerts-Landau, and Pater Garber (2003), “An Essay on the Revived
Bretton Woods System,” NBER Working Paper 9971, September.
____________________ (2004), “Direct Investment, Rising Real Wages and the Absorption of
Excess Labor in the Periphery,” NBER Working Paper 10626, July.
The Economist (2008), “A Tale of Two Worlds,” May 8.
Erceg, Christopher, Luca Guerrieri, and Christopher Gust (2006), “SIGMA, A New Open
Economy Model for Policy Analysis,” International Journal of Central Banking, Vol. 2, No. 1,
pp. 1-50.
Frankel, Jeffrey (2008), “An Explanation for Soaring Commodity Prices,” www.voxeu.org.
Hausmann, Ricardo, Ugo Panizza, and Ernesto Stein (2001), “Why Do Countries Float the Way
They Float?” Journal of Development Economics, Vol. 66, No. 2, pp. 387-414.
Ilzetzki, Ethan, Carmen M. Reinhart, and Kenneth S. Rogoff (2008), “The Country Chronologies
stand Background Material to Exchange Rate Arrangements in the 21 Century: Which Anchor
Will Hold?” May.
Interagency Task Force on Commodity Markets (2008), “Interim Report on Crude Oil,”
Washington, DC, July.
International Monetary Fund (2008), “Chapter 3: Is Inflation Back? Commodity Prices andInflation,” World Economic Outlook, October.

22

Kilian, Lutz (2009) “Not All Price Shocks Are Alike: Disentangling Demand and Supply Shocks
in the Crude Oil Market,” American Economic Review, Vol 99, No. 3, pp. 1053-69.
Mann, Catherine (2004), “Managing Exchange Rates: Achievement of Global Re-balancing or
Evidence of Global Co-dependency,” Business Economics, July.
Obstfeld, Maurice and Kenneth S. Rogoff (1995), “Exchange Rate Dynamics Redux,” Journal of
Political Economy, Vol. 103, No. 3, pp. 624-660.
Reinhart, Carmen M. and Kenneth S. Rogoff (2004), “The Modern History of Exchange Rate
Arrangements: A Reinterpretation,” Quarterly Journal of Economics, Vol. 119, No. 1, pp. 1-48.
Wolf, Martin (2008), “How Imbalances Led to Credit Crunch and Inflation,” Financial Times,
June 17.

23

List of country abbreviations for figures:
AR- Argentina
BZ - Brazil
CA - Canada
CH - China
CL - Chile
CO - Colombia
CZ - Czech Republic
DN – Denmark
EU - Euro Area
HU - Hungary
ID - Indonesia
IN - India
IS - Israel
JA - Japan
KO - Korea, Republic of
MA - Malaysia
MX - Mexico
NO - Norway
PE - Peru
PH - Philippines
PK - Pakistan
PL - Poland
RU - Russia
SD - Sweden
SF - South Africa
SI - Singapore
TA - Taiwan
TH - Thailand
TK – Turkey
UK - United Kingdom
VE - Venezuela

24

Figure 1

Global Commodity Prices

200

Index

$/barrel

150

175

125

150

100

125

75

WTI Spot Price
IMF Non-Fuel Commodity Index
100

50

75

25

50

1990

1991

1992

1993

1994

1995

1996

1997

1998

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

0

Figure 2

Recent Global Real GDP Growth and Real Oil Prices

130

WTI Oil Prices / GDP Deflator

Annual percent change

12.0

125

11.5

120

11.0

115

10.5

110

10.0

105

9.5

Real Oil Prices

100

9.0

95

8.5

90

8.0

85
80

7.5

75

7.0

70

6.5

Developing Economies Growth

65

6.0

60

5.5

55

5.0

50

4.5

45

4.0

40

3.5

Industrial Economies Growth

35

3.0

30

2.5

25

2.0

20
15

1.5

10

1.0

5

0.5

0

1999

2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

Source: Wall Street Journal; Bureau of Economic Analysis; IMF WEO Database, April 2009.

2006

2007

2008

2009

0.0

Figure 3

World Oil Production and Real Oil Prices

130

WTI Oil Prices / GDP Deflator

Thousand barrels daily

82500
80000

120

77500

110

75000
100
72500
90

70000

80

67500

70

65000

60

62500

Oil Production

60000

50

57500

40

Real Oil Prices

55000

30
52500
20

50000

10

0

47500

1970

1972

1974

1976

1978

1980

1982

1984

1986

1988

1990

1992

1994

1996

1998

2000

Source: Wall Street Journal; Bureau of Economic Analysis; BP Statistical Review of World Energy, June 2008.

2002

2004

2006

2008

45000

Figure 4: U.S. Aggregate Demand Shock
U.S. Real GDP

U.S. Real Exchange Rate0
Percent dev from ss

Percent dev from ss

0
−1
−2
−3
5

10

15

−2
−4
−6
−8

20

5

2
1
0
−1
−2
5

10

15

20

U.S. Trade Balance (GDP share)
Perc pt dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

U.S. Headline Inflation (AR)

10

15

1
0.5
0
−0.5

20

5

U.S. Policy Rate (AR)

10

15

20

15

20

15

20

World Aggregate GDP
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

0
−1
−2
−3
−4

5

10

15

0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8
−1

20

5

U.S. Real Oil Price
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

U.S. Real Rate (ex ante, AR)

10

0.5
0
−0.5
−1
−1.5

10
0
−10
−20

−2
5

10
Quarters

15

20

5

DA−LA Peg

All Taylor

10
Quarters

Figure 5: U.S. Aggregate Demand ShockForeign Real GDP

Foreign Real Exchange Rate
Percent dev from ss

Percent dev from ss

1.5
1
0.5
0
−0.5

5

10

15

8
6
4
2
0

20

1.5
1
0.5
0
−0.5
−1
5

10

15

Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

10

15

20

4
3
2
1
5

10

Foreign Absorption
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

20

−4

0

20

0
−0.5
−1

15

15

−3

Foreign Policy Rate (AR)10
Quarters

20−2Foreign Real Imports

−4

5

15

−1

5

−2

15

20

0

20

0

10

15

1

Foreign Headline Inflation (AR)510Foreign Real Exports
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

Foreign Core Inflation (AR)5

20

DA−LA Peg

2
1.5
1
0.5
0

5

All Taylor

10
Quarters

Figure 6: Foreign Technology Growth Shock
U.S. Real Exchange Rate
Percent dev from ss

Percent dev from ss

U.S. Real GDP
0
−0.5
−1
20

40

60

80

20
15
10
5
0

100

20

8
6
4
2
0
20

40

60

80

−1
−2
20

Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

−0.5

60

80

100

80

100

10

0
−0.2

20

40

60

U.S. Real Oil Price
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

0.2

60
80
Quarters

80

20

0

100

0.4

40

60

30

U.S. Real Rate (ex ante, AR)

20

40World GDP

0

40

100

0

100

0.5

20

80

1

U.S. Policy Rate (AR)−1

60

U.S. Trade Balance (GDP share)
Perc pt dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

U.S. Headline Inflation (AR)

40

100

DA−LA Peg

80
60
40
20
0

20

40

All Taylor

60
80Quarters

100

Figure 7: Foreign Technology Growth ShockForeign Real Exchange Rate

50

Percent dev from ss

Percent dev from ss

Foreign Real GDP

40
30
20
10
0

20

40

60

80

0
−5
−10
−15
−20

100

20

1.5
1
0.5
0

40
30
20
10

40

60

80

100

20

Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

6
4
2
20

40

60

80

Percent dev from ss

2
1
60
80
Quarters

80

100

20
10

20

40

60

80

100

60
80
Quarters

100

Foreign Absorption

3

40

60

30

0

100

4

20

40

Foreign Real Imports

Foreign Policy Rate (AR)Perc pt dev from ss

100

0
20

8

0

80

50

Foreign Headline Inflation (AR)060Foreign Real Exports
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

Foreign Core Inflation (AR)

40

100

DA−LA Peg

50
40
30
20
10
0

20

40

All Taylor

Figure 8: Oil Supply Shock in ROW Block
U.S. Real GDP

U.S. Real Exchange Rate0
Percent dev from ss

Percent dev from ss

0
−0.1
−0.2
−0.3
−0.4
20

40

60

80

−1
−2
−3

100

20

3
2
1
0
20

40

60

80

60

80

100

U.S. Trade Balance (GDP share)
Perc pt dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

U.S. Headline Inflation (AR)

40

0.2
0
−0.2
−0.4
−0.6
−0.8

100

20

U.S. Policy Rate (AR)

40

60

80

100

World Oil Production
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

0
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
20

40

60

80

−5
−10
−15
−20

100

20

0.1
0
−0.1

20

40

60
80
Quarters

60

80

100

U.S. Real Oil Price
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

U.S. Real Rate (ex ante, AR)

40

100

DA−LA Peg

40
30
20
10
0

20

40

All Taylor

60
80Quarters

100

Figure 9: Oil Supply Shock in ROW Block
Foreign Real GDP

Foreign Real Exchange Rate
Percent dev from ss

Percent dev from ss

0
−0.5
−1
−1.5
20

40

60

80

3
2
1
0

100

Foreign Core Inflation (AR)

20

40

60

80

100

Foreign Real Exports
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

0
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
20

40

60

80

−1
−2
−3

100

20

2
1.5
1
0.5
0
20

40

60

80

60

80

100

Foreign Real Imports
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

Foreign Headline Inflation (AR)
2.5

40

1.5
1
0.5
0

100

20

Foreign Policy Rate (AR)

40

60

80

100

60
80
Quarters

100

Foreign Absorption
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

0
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
−0.2
20

40

60
80
Quarters

100

DA−LA Peg

−0.5

−1
20

40

All Taylor

Figure 10: Foreign Technology Growth Shock and Oil Supply Shock in ROW Block (DA−LA Peg)
U.S. Real GDP

U.S. Real Exchange Rate
Percent dev from ss

Percent dev from ss

0
−0.5
−1
−1.5
−2
−2.5
20

40

60

80

20
10
0
−10
−20

100

20

U.S. Headline Inflation (AR)

40

60

80

100

U.S. Trade Balance (GDP share)
Perc pt dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

2
20
15
10
5
0

0
−2
−4
−6

20

40

60

80

100

20

1
0
−1
−2
20

40

60

80

80

100

10

−0.5

20

40

60

U.S. Real Oil Price
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

0

200
150
100

−1
60
80
Quarters

100

20

0

100

0.5

40

80

30

U.S. Real Rate (ex ante, AR)

20

60World GDP
Percent dev from ss

Perc pt dev from ss

U.S. Policy Rate (AR)

40

100

Benchmark Oil Demand Elasticity

50
0

20

40

60
80
Quarters

100

Lower Oil Demand Elasticity

Fi
13
V i
Ch
iin Nominal
N i l Exchange
E h
R t Against
A i t Dollar*
D ll *
Figure11: Variance
off P
Percentt Changes
Rate
80

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0
CH MA PE RU

SI

TA

IN

PK TH

* Montly data, calculated over 2000-2007

IS

PH KO MX CA UKJA

CLEU DN SD NO CZ

PL HU IDSF

BZ CO TK

VE AR

Fi
15
C
l ti off Nominal
N i l Interest
I tt RateR t Changes
Ch
ith U.S.
U S Rates*
R t *Figure12: Correlation
with
0.8

0.7
0

0.6

0.5

0.4

0.3

0.2

0.1

0

-0.1

-0.2
ID

VE

IN CO TK MA MX CH CL* Monthly data on policy interest rates, 2000-2007

BZ AR RU PE HU UKISPLPH TA NO PK

SF KO

SI

SD TH

JA

CZ DN EU CA

Fi
17
S and
d SSelectedl t d DevelopingD l i AsianA i Interest
I tt RatesR t 2000-2007
2000 2007
Figure
13: U
U.S.
8

China
7

6
US
5

Korea
4

3

Malaysia
2

Taiwan

1

0
2000

2001

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007