Real Exchange Rate Volatility and International Trade: A Reexamination of the Theory

Abstract

One of the issues that have received considerable attention in the comparison of the properties of alternative exchange rate regimes is the effect of exchange rate risk on the volume of trade. It has been argued that the higher volatility of exchange rates witnessed since the adoption of the floating regime in 1973 has led to a decrease in international trade transactions. This is because most trade contracts are not for immediate delivery of goods; and since they are denominated in terms of the currency of either the importer or the exporter, unanticipated fluctuations in the exchange rate affect realized profits and hence the volume of trade. It is implicitly assumed that forward exchange markets that can help traders eliminate this type of variations in profits either are not available (as it is true for the majority of currencies because most are not fully convertible, thereby impairing forward markets) or for some reason they are not utilized to fully hedge exchange risk present in trade transactions.' The empirical evidence, regarding the effect of exchange rate risk on trade, has at best been inconclusive. The large majority of the empirical studies are unable to establish a systematically significant link between exchange rate variability and the volume of international trade whether on an aggregate or on a bilateral basis. Abrams [1], Akhtar and Hilton [2], Cushman [4; 5; 6] and Kenan and Rodrik [12] find some significant negative effects of exchange volatility on exports. However, Bailey, Tavlas, and Uhlan [3], Hooper and Kohlhagen [10] and an International Monetary Fund Study [11] do not find any supporting evidence for the depressing effect of exchange rate volatility on international trade. It is also interesting to note that, in many of these studies, a significant positive effect of exchange rate volatility on the volume of trade is found for some cases. However, the positive effect, believed to be at odds with the theory was either ignored or dismissed a perverse result, since as far volumes are concerned, theoretical considerations