Foreign exchange reserve adequacy and exogenous shocks

ABSTRACT

One of the traditional benchmarks in international macroeconomics is that a country should maintain reserves that can cover at least 12 weeks of imports. The notion of reserve adequacy, however, is not static and is intimately associated with the occurrence of financial crises as well as exogenous shocks, with many observers using the reduction in reserves below this benchmark as a sign of fragility. This article provides a benefit-cost type approach to evaluating reserve adequacy. The benefits of holding reserves are evaluated using a dynamic random effects probit model of financial crises while the cost of reserve holdings (output loss due to an over-investment in reserves) is obtained from a panel growth equation. Using the methodology outlined above, the study finds that in small states, the optimal holding of foreign exchange reserves is approximately 25 weeks of imports, approximately 13 weeks higher than the international rule-of-thumb. This estimate of optimal reserve holdings is interrelated with the economic characteristics of the country, particularly its fiscal stance. Indeed, this article finds that countries with a prudent public expenditure management framework in place are able to hold a smaller stock of reserves without necessarily impacting the expected growth for the country.

KEYWORDS:

• Foreign exchange reserves
• crises
• growth
• discrete choice models

JEL CLASSIFICATION:

• F41
• F47
• C25

Notes

¹ Antigua and Barbuda, Aruba, Bahamas, The Bahrain, Barbados, Belize, Cape Verde, Comoros, Dominica, Dominican Republic, Fiji, Grenada, Guinea-Bissau, Guyana, Haiti, Jamaica, Kiribati, Maldives, Mauritius, New Caledonia, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Sao Tome and Principe, Seychelles, Solomon Islands, St. Kitts and Nevis, St. Lucia, St. Vincent and the Grenadines, Suriname, Tonga, Trinidad and Tobago and Vanuatu. There are usually fairly long lags in data publications in most small states.