Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 6 minor 57 references

Export proceeds repatriation policies: A shield against exchange rate volatility in emerging markets?

T0 review · 3 major / 6 minor · reviewed 2026-08-07 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

Pith's one-line read Mandatory export-proceeds repatriation does not measurably stabilize exchange rates in Iran, Sri Lanka, and Turkey.

desk verdict Solid null result for EPR policies in three emerging markets, but the abstract oversells the certainty and the SV-generated outcome needs robustness. read the letter →

arxiv 2506.09168 v1 pith:UF73V7LI submitted 2025-06-10 econ.GN q-fin.EC

Sondang Marsinta Uli Panggabean , Mahjus Ekananda , Beta Yulianita Gitaharie , Leslie Djuranovik This is my paper
classification econ.GNq-fin.EC
keywords exportproceedsrepatriationexchangeratevolatilitystochasticgeneralizedsyntheticcontrolemergingmarketscapitalcontrolspolicyevaluation
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper asks whether a widely used policy tool—mandating that exporters bring foreign-currency earnings home—actually lowers exchange-rate volatility. Using a generalized synthetic control estimator on monthly data from Iran, Sri Lanka, and Turkey, with 24 non-adopting emerging economies as controls, it finds no statistically significant average treatment effect on exchange-rate volatility. The point estimate is positive at 0.069 with a p-value of 0.655, and confidence intervals span zero. The authors interpret this as evidence that repatriation mandates did not produce a measurable stabilizing effect during the study period, while acknowledging that a small non-zero effect cannot be ruled out. The result matters because by 2021, 83 of 156 emerging economies had adopted such policies, yet their stabilizing value had received little systematic scrutiny.

What carries the argument

The machinery is the generalized synthetic control (GSC) estimator of Xu (2017), a counterfactual method that lets unobserved common shocks affect each country differently through factor loadings. The outcome fed into it is monthly exchange-rate volatility estimated from a stochastic volatility model, $y_t = \beta e^{h_t/2}\epsilon_t$ with $h_{t+1} = \mu + \phi(h_t - \mu) + \sigma_\eta \eta_t$, using the auxiliary mixture sampler of Kim et al. (1998) with particle filtering; monthly volatility is the square root of the average of squared daily volatilities within the month. GSC then fits $Y_{it} = \delta_{it}D_{it} + X_{it}'\beta + \lambda_i' f_t + \epsilon_{it}$ on a panel of three treated and twenty-four control countries, with interest-rate differential, inflation differential, and exchange-rate regime as covariates, and cross-validation selecting $r=3$ latent factors. The counterfactual path for each treated country is built from control countries that never implemented EPR, and the average treatment effect on the treated is the average post-treatment gap between treated and counterfactual outcomes.

What would settle it

Re-run the analysis with the full posterior distribution of the stochastic volatility parameters and latent states as multiple imputations of the outcome, or use high-frequency intraday data to construct realized volatility instead. If the ATT remains statistically insignificant across all posterior draws, the null is robust; if the intervals widen substantially or become significant, the null is an artifact of first-stage measurement error.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that mandatory export proceeds repatriation had no statistically significant impact on exchange-rate volatility in Iran, Sri Lanka, and Turkey over March 2008 through December 2021. The estimated average treatment effect on the treated is 0.06939 with standard error 0.15550, 95% confidence interval −0.23538 to 0.37417, and p-value 0.65541, so the null hypothesis of zero effect cannot be rejected. Individual-country estimates are also statistically insignificant (p-values of 0.887 for Iran, 0.855 for Sri Lanka, and 0.439 for Turkey). The paper further reports that the evidence is inconclusive as to whether the true effect is exactly zero or merely too small to be substantively meaningful: an equivalence test cannot place all post-treatment treatment effects inside the pre-specified indifference margins. The findings are robust to alternative covariate specifications, an in-time placebo test, and in-space placebo tests.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that the particle-filtered stochastic volatility series can be treated as an exactly observed outcome in the generalized synthetic control, so the uncertainty in the volatility parameters and latent states is not carried into the treatment-effect standard errors; if that first-stage uncertainty is large, the reported confidence intervals understate the true uncertainty and the null could be an artifact of noisy outcome data.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • If the finding is right, mandatory repatriation alone should not be sold as a volatility shield; the policy's case would have to rest on other objectives, such as boosting foreign-exchange reserves or supporting the domestic currency.
  • The significant positive coefficients on interest-rate differentials and exchange-rate regimes imply that, in these markets, volatility differences are better explained by macrofinancial conditions than by repatriation rules.
  • Since the paper cannot reject a small non-zero effect, policymakers should treat the evidence as inconclusive rather than as proof that EPR is ineffective; the confidence interval puts an upper bound near 0.37 on the monthly volatility response.
  • The consistency with the earlier Indonesian null result strengthens the cross-country pattern that EPR mandates may not reduce volatility in the short and medium term, at least among non-commodity emerging markets.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • A natural next test is to apply the same GSC design to export-dependent emerging economies; the paper notes Iran, Sri Lanka, and Turkey do not rely heavily on exports, so the null may not carry over to economies where the foreign-exchange supply channel is larger.
  • Using data on actual repatriation volumes and central-bank intervention rather than a binary policy indicator could reveal effects masked by heterogeneous compliance; the paper itself flags the absence of such data as a limitation.
  • Propagating stochastic-volatility estimation uncertainty into the GSC confidence intervals would give a formal bound on how much of the null could be measurement noise; the existing interval width already implies any true effect is at most moderate.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 6 minor

Summary. The paper applies the generalized synthetic control (GSC) estimator of Xu (2017) to monthly exchange-rate volatility (estimated with a stochastic volatility model) for Iran, Sri Lanka, and Turkey, using 24 control countries from March 2008 to December 2021. The authors report an average treatment effect on the treated of 0.069 (s.e. 0.156, p=0.655), conclude that the EPR mandates have no statistically significant impact, and document a range of sensitivity checks. The paper candidly acknowledges in Section 5.1 that the equivalence test is inconclusive, but the abstract and conclusion nevertheless assert that the results 'confirm their reliability.'

Significance. If the conclusion holds, the paper contributes to the sparse evidence on export-proceeds repatriation policies, providing a counterpoint to studies that view capital controls as volatility-increasing. The use of GSC with interactive fixed effects is methodologically appropriate, and the paper reports detailed placebo and sensitivity analyses. However, the central inference is weakened by two issues: the outcome is a generated regressor whose uncertainty is not propagated, and the paper's own equivalence test is inconclusive, contradicting the abstract's claim of confirmed reliability. With these issues addressed or reframed, the paper could be a useful null-result study.

major comments (3)
  1. [§3.2.1–3.2.2 (Eqs. (1)–(6))] The outcome Y_it is a generated regressor. The monthly volatility series is constructed from particle-filtered latent log-volatility h_t with parameters θ estimated by MCMC, and the gsynth routine treats this series as exactly observed. No uncertainty from the SV estimation or filtering is propagated into the ATT standard errors or confidence intervals reported in Table 5 and Figure 4. This is load-bearing because the main claim is a null result; with a noisy outcome, the reported p-values understate the true sampling variability and the null could be an artifact of measurement error. Please propagate posterior uncertainty (e.g., re-estimate GSC over posterior draws of h_t) or, at minimum, show robustness of the null to alternative volatility measures (GARCH, realized variance).
  2. [Abstract; §5.1; §6] The paper internally contradicts its central claim. Section 5.1 explicitly concludes: 'the test leaves us with two unresolved possibilities: the policy may exert a non-zero influence, or any influence may be too small to matter substantively. The overall evidence is therefore inconclusive.' Yet the abstract states that results 'confirm their reliability' and Section 6 says the results 'do support the hypothesis that the export proceeds repatriation policy does not have an impact.' A null result that cannot establish equivalence does not support the hypothesis of no effect; it only fails to reject it. Please rewrite the abstract and conclusion to say that the evidence is inconclusive, not confirmatory.
  3. [§5.1, Figure 7] The interpretation of the equivalence test is contradictory. The text says 'an equivalence test whose high p-value confirms that the ATT is not statistically different from zero,' but a high p-value in an equivalence test is not evidence of equivalence; the same paragraph then concedes that the confidence bands cross the pre-specified margins and that 'the overall evidence is therefore inconclusive.' This passage should be rewritten to state plainly that the equivalence test fails to demonstrate practical equivalence, which is exactly why the paper cannot claim a null finding is 'reliable.'
minor comments (6)
  1. [§3.1] The sentence describing the monthly volatility construction ('the square root of the average of the sum of the squared daily stochastic volatility for each month') is mathematically ambiguous; please provide the explicit formula for aggregating the daily SV series to monthly frequency.
  2. [Table 4] The cross-validation MSPE for r=3 (0.08024) and r=4 (0.08485) differ by about 5%, and the IC criterion actually favors r=2; reporting only the MSPE minimum, without a discussion of the flatness of the criterion, overstates the certainty of the factor count.
  3. [Figure 2] The note 'Exchange rate volatility is calculated by implementing the stochastic volatility model' is printed twice under Figure 2; the duplicate should be removed.
  4. [§5.1] In the first paragraph, 'our GFC model' should be 'our GSC model'.
  5. [References] Several references contain typographical errors (e.g., broken spacing in 'V olatility,' 'Exhange', 'Thrreshold'); the reference list needs a careful proofreading pass.
  6. [Table 10 caption] The footnote explains p-value* is NA when r=0, but the computation of the overall in-sample placebo p-value (0.94118) is not described; please define exactly how this p-value is computed.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No significant circularity: the ATT is estimated from data via GSC; the SV-generated outcome is preprocessing, not a definitional input.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is an empirical null result: mandatory export-proceeds repatriation has no statistically significant effect on exchange-rate volatility in Iran, Sri Lanka, and Turkey. The derivation chain is: (i) estimate monthly exchange-rate volatility from daily returns via a stochastic volatility model (Section 3.2.1); (ii) feed that volatility series into the Generalized Synthetic Control estimator as the outcome Y_it (Section 3.2.2); (iii) estimate the ATT with covariates IRD, inflation differential, and exchange-rate regime; and (iv) run robustness, equivalence, and placebo checks. No equation in the paper defines the ATT in terms of the treatment indicator, and no parameter is fitted to the treated post-period outcome and then relabeled as a prediction. The number of factors r=3 is selected by cross-validation minimizing MSPE, which is a standard model-selection step and does not force the null ATT. The SV model is estimated before treatment assignment is used, and the treatment effect is not an input to the SV likelihood. The only self-citations are Panggabean et al. (2024), cited as corroborating prior evidence for Indonesia, and Ekananda and Suryanto (2021), cited for a threshold-inflation result; neither is load-bearing for the present ATT estimate. The paper's own equivalence test is explicitly inconclusive ('we cannot show that all ATTs fall inside the indifference zone'), which is an honest statement rather than a circular justification. The generated-regressor issue noted by the reader is a measurement-error or uncertainty-propagation concern, not circularity: it affects the width of confidence intervals but does not make the estimated effect equal to an input by construction. Under the stated rules, this is a self-contained empirical study with no circular steps.

Assumptions & free parameters 2 free parameters · 6 assumptions · 0 invented entities

No new entities are introduced; the analysis uses standard econometric constructs. The central claim depends on the GSC factor structure, the SV measurement model, and the no-reversal/no-spillover assumptions noted above.

free parameters (2)
  • Number of latent factors (r) = 3
    Selected by cross-validation to minimize MSPE (Table 4); the ATT and its standard error are conditional on r=3.
  • SV model parameters (mu, phi, sigma_eta) = Not reported
    Estimated from daily exchange rate returns via MCMC (Section 3.2.1); they determine the monthly volatility outcome used in the GSC, and their uncertainty is not propagated.
assumptions (6)
  • domain assumption Treated and control units are affected by the same set of unobserved common factors, with fixed r over the sample.
    Section 3.2.2: GSC requires this for valid counterfactuals; if factor loadings differ, ATT is biased.
  • domain assumption The stochastic volatility specification (Eqs. 1-2) correctly models exchange rate returns, with beta=1 for identification.
    Section 3.2.1: the estimated h_t series is the outcome variable in the GSC.
  • domain assumption EPR policies are single, non-reversible treatments with no anticipatory effects; sample starts March 2008 to avoid Turkey's earlier policy.
    Section 3.2.2 and Table 1; violations would contaminate pre-treatment fits.
  • domain assumption Control countries never implemented EPR and are not affected by treated countries' policies (no spillovers).
    Section 3.1 control selection; spillovers through trade or capital flows would bias the counterfactual.
  • ad hoc to paper The estimated volatility series is observed without measurement error.
    The GSC uses the SV estimates as if they were observed Y_it, ignoring particle-filter/MCMC uncertainty.
  • ad hoc to paper Covariate effects beta are constant across units and time for computational convenience.
    Section 3.2.2 states beta is assumed constant 'mainly for faster computation'; variation is absorbed by fixed effects.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Export proceeds repatriation policies: A shield against exchange rate volatility in emerging markets?." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/UF73V7LI

@misc{pith2026250609168,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Export proceeds repatriation policies: A shield against exchange rate volatility in emerging markets?},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/UF73V7LI}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2506.09168}
}
read the original abstract

We examine the impact of mandatory export proceeds repatriation on exchange rate stability in three emerging markets, Iran, Sri Lanka, and Turkey, using the Generalized Synthetic Control framework. By modeling exchange rate stochastic volatility as our outcome of interest and controlling for interest rate differentials, exchange rate regime shifts, and inflation rate gaps, we address both unobserved time-varying confounders and heterogeneous treatment effects. Our estimates reveal no statistically significant impact of repatriation mandates on exchange-rate volatility across the three countries. We also find that we cannot reject the possibility of a non-zero impact. These results remain robust to an extensive range of sensitivity analyses, including alternative covariate specifications and placebo tests, thereby confirming their reliability.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2506.09168 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Exchange rate volatility of all sample countries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_1.png] view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Exchange rate volatility of control and treated countries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Implementation of export proceeds repatriation policies in treated and control countries [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (6 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: Estimated average treatment effect of the treated from zero. The accompanying histogram shows that most observations cluster be￾tween t = –50 and t = +30; within this dense window, the dot cloud still straddles the zero line, implying that a larger sample mass does not…
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Estimated individual average treatment e [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p016_5.png]
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Treated and counterfactual averages with 95% quantiles [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p017_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: Equivalence Test The three common factors we obtained in Subsection 4.1 influence exchange rate volatility and EPR policies, while unobserved and can capture unit-specific sensitivities [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p018_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Latent Factors These heterogeneous loadings underscore the necessity of integrating the IFE into our GFC model. Cross-sectionally, the three factors display distinct loading distributions. Most treated loadings lie inside the control cloud, implying that the donor pool…
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: Factor loadings are well represented within that latent-factor span. 5.2. Sensitivity analysis Since the GSC works well even with a single treated unit, we employ the method for each treated unit separately but with the same covariates and the same control units. We th…

Discussion (0). Sign in to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

57 extracted references · 46 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    , author Diamond, A

    author Abadie, A. , author Diamond, A. , author Hainmueller, J. , year 2010 . title Synthetic Control Methods for Comparative Case Studies: Estimating the Effect of California's Tobacco Control Program . journal Journal of the American Statistical Association volume 105 , pages 493--505 . :10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746

    doi:10.1198/jasa.2009.ap08746 2010

  2. [2]

    , author Diamond, A

    author Abadie, A. , author Diamond, A. , author Hainmueller, J. , year 2015 . title Comparative Politics and the Synthetic Control Method . journal American Journal of Political Science volume 59 , pages 495--510 . :10.1111/ajps.12116

    doi:10.1111/ajps.12116 2015

  3. [3]

    , author Bacchetta, P

    author Aghion, P. , author Bacchetta, P. , author Ranci \` e re, R. , author Rogoff, K. , year 2009 . title Exchange Rate Volatility and Productivity Growth: The Role of Financial Development . journal Journal of Monetary Economics volume 56 , pages 494--513 . :10.1016/j.jmoneco.2009.03.015

    work page doi:10.1016/j.jmoneco.2009.03.015 2009

  4. [4]

    , author Veyrune, R

    author Anderson, H. , author Veyrune, R. , author Kokenyne, A. , author Habermeier, K. , year 2009 . title Revised System for the Classification of Exchange Rate Arrangements . journal IMF Working Papers volume 2009 , pages 1 . :10.5089/9781451873580.001

    work page doi:10.5089/9781451873580.001 2009

  5. [5]

    , author Pischke, J.S

    author Angrist, J.D. , author Pischke, J.S. , year 2009 . title Mostly Harmless Econometrics: An Empiricist's Companion . publisher Princeton University Press . :10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72

    doi:10.2307/j.ctvcm4j72 2009

  6. [6]

    , author Lien, D

    author Asiedu, E. , author Lien, D. , year 2004 . title Capital Controls and Foreign Direct Investment . journal World Development volume 32 , pages 479--490 . :10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.016

    work page doi:10.1016/j.worlddev.2003.06.016 2004

  7. [7]

    , year 2024

    author Aysun, U. , year 2024 . title Identifying the External and Internal Drivers of Exchange Rate Volatility in Small Open Economies . journal Emerging Markets Review volume 58 , pages 101085 . :10.1016/j.ememar.2023.101085

    arXiv 2024

  8. [8]

    , year 2009

    author Bai, J. , year 2009 . title Panel Data Models With Interactive Fixed Effects . journal Econometrica volume 77 , pages 1229--1279 . :10.3982/ecta6135

    doi:10.3982/ecta6135 2009

Show all 57 references
  1. [9]

    , author Caglayan, M

    author Baum, C.F. , author Caglayan, M. , year 2010 . title On the Sensitivity of the Volume and Volatility of Bilateral Trade Flows to Exchange Rate Uncertainty . journal Journal of International Money and Finance volume 29 , pages 79--93 . :10.1016/j.jimonfin.2008.12.003

    2010 doi

  2. [10]

    , author Berger, J.O

    author Benjamin, D.J. , author Berger, J.O. , year 2019 . title Three Recommendations for Improving the Use of P-Values . journal American Statistician volume 73 , pages 186--191 . :10.1080/00031305.2018.1543135

    2019 arXiv

  3. [11]

    , author Nagel, S

    author Brunnermeier, M.K. , author Nagel, S. , author Pedersen, L.H. , year 2008 . title Carry Trades and Currency Crashes . journal NBER Macroeconomics Annual volume 23 , pages 313--347 . :10.1086/593088

    2008 doi

  4. [12]

    , author L \' o pez Noria , G

    author Bush, G. , author L \' o pez Noria , G. , year 2021 . title Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility: Evidence From Mexico . journal International Review of Economics and Finance volume 75 , pages 704--722 . :10.1016/j.iref.2021.04.029

    2021 doi

  5. [13]

    , author Leiderman, L

    author Calvo, G.A. , author Leiderman, L. , author Reinhart, C.M. , year 1996 . title Inflows of Capital to Developing Countries in the 1990s . journal Modern Political Economy and Latin America: Theory and Policy volume 10 , pages 217--223 . :10.4324/9780429498893-28

    1996 doi

  6. [14]

    , author Ali, F.M

    author Caporale, G.M. , author Ali, F.M. , author Spagnolo, F. , author Spagnolo, N. , year 2017 . title International Portfolio Flows and Exchange Rate Volatility in Emerging Asian Markets . journal Journal of International Money and Finance volume 76 , pages 1--15 . :10.1016...

    2017 doi

  7. [15]

    , year 1990

    author Card, D. , year 1990 . title The Impact of the Mariel Boatlift on the Miami Labor Market . journal Industrial and Labor Relations Review volume 43 , pages 245--257 . :10.1177/001979399004300205

    1990 doi

  8. [16]

    , author Krueger, A.B

    author Card, D. , author Krueger, A.B. , year 1994 . title Minimum Wages and Employment: A Cast Study of the Fast-Food Industry in New Jersey and Pennsylvania . journal American Economic Review volume 84 , pages 772--793 . :10.1257/aer.90.5.1397

    1994 doi

  9. [17]

    , author Koop, G

    author Chan, J. , author Koop, G. , author Poirier, D.J. , author Tobias, J.L. , year 2019 . title Time Series Models for Volatility , in: booktitle Bayesian Econometric Methods . publisher Cambridge University Press , pp. pages 391--410 . Https://www.cambridge.org/highereduca...

    2019

  10. [18]

    , author Hakura, D.S

    author Choudhri, E.U. , author Hakura, D.S. , year 2006 . title Exchange Rate Pass-Through to Domestic Prices: Does the Inflationary Environment Matter? journal Journal of International Money and Finance volume 25 , pages 614--639 . :10.1016/j.jimonfin.2005.11.009

    2006 doi

  11. [19]

    , author Gal, J

    author Clarida, R. , author Gal, J. , author Gertler, M. , year 2002 . title A Simple Framework for International Monetary Policy Analysis . journal Journal of Monetary Economics volume 49 , pages 879--904 . :10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00128-9

    2002 doi

  12. [21]

    , year 1998

    author Dan \' i elsson, J. , year 1998 . title Multivariate Stochastic Volatility Models: Estimation and a Comparison With VGARCH Models . journal Journal of Empirical Finance volume 5 , pages 155--173 . :10.1016/S0927-5398(97)00016-9

    1998 doi

  13. [22]

    , author Engel, C

    author Devereux, M.B. , author Engel, C. , year 2002 . title Exchange Rate Pass-Through, Exchange Rate Volatility, and Exchange Rate Disconnect . journal Journal of Monetary Economics volume 49 , pages 913--940 . :10.1016/S0304-3932(02)00130-7

    2002 doi

  14. [23]

    , author Rigobon, R

    author Edwards, S. , author Rigobon, R. , year 2009 . title Capital Controls on Inflows, Exchange Rate Volatility and External Vulnerability . journal Journal of International Economics volume 78 , pages 256--267 . :10.1016/j.jinteco.2009.04.005

    2009 doi

  15. [24]

    , author Suryanto, T

    author Ekananda, M. , author Suryanto, T. , year 2021 . title The Influence of Global Financial Liquidity on the Indonesian Economy: Dynamic Analysis with Thrreshold VAR . journal Economies volume 4 , pages 162--182 . :10.3390/economies9040162

    2021 doi

  16. [25]

    , author Gabaix, X

    author Farhi, E. , author Gabaix, X. , year 2016 . title Rare Disasters and Exhange Rates . journal The Quarterly Journal of Economics volume 131 , pages 1--52 . :10.1093/qje/qjv040

    2016 doi

  17. [26]

    , author Rogers, J.H

    author Faust, J. , author Rogers, J.H. , author Wang, S.Y.B. , author Wright, J.H. , year 2007 . title The High-Frequency Response of Exchange Rates and Interest Rates to Macroeconomic Announcements . journal Journal of Monetary Economics volume 54 , pages 1051--1068 . :10.101...

    2007 doi

  18. [27]

    , year 2011

    author Feldmann, H. , year 2011 . title The Unemployment Effect of Exchange Rate Volatility in Industrial Countries . journal Economics Letters volume 111 , pages 268--271 . :10.1016/j.econlet.2011.01.003

    2011 doi

  19. [28]

    , author Rose, A.K

    author Flood, R.P. , author Rose, A.K. , year 1999 . title Understanding Exchange Rate Volatility Without the Contrivance of Macroeconomics . journal The Economic Journal volume 109 , pages F660--F672 . :10.1111/1468-0297.00478

    1999

  20. [29]

    , author Maggiori, M

    author Gabaix, X. , author Maggiori, M. , year 2015 . title International Liquidity and Exchange Rate Dynamics . journal The Quarterly Journal of Economics volume 130 , pages 1369--1420 . :10.1093/qje/qjv016.Advance

    2015 doi

  21. [30]

    , author Gulde, A.M

    author Ghosh, A.R. , author Gulde, A.M. , author Wolf, H.C. , year 2002 . title Exchange Rate Regimes: Choices and Consequences . publisher The MIT Press . :10.7551/mitpress/2898.001.0001

    2002 doi

  22. [31]

    , author Hutchinson, M

    author Glick, R. , author Hutchinson, M. , year 2005 . title Capital Controls and Exchange Rate Instability in Developing Economies . journal Journal of International Money and Finance volume 24 , pages 387--412 . :10.1016/j.jimonfin.2004.11.004

    2005 doi

  23. [32]

    , author Magnac, T

    author Gobillon, L. , author Magnac, T. , year 2016 . title Regional Policy Evaluation: Interactive Fixed Effects and Synthetic Controls . journal Review of Economics and Statistics volume 98 , pages 535--551 . :10.1162/REST\_a\_00537

    2016 doi

  24. [33]

    , author Klein, M.W

    author Goldberg, L.S. , author Klein, M.W. , year 2005 . title Establishing Credibility : Evolving Perceptions of the European Central Bank . type Technical Report number 231 . Federal Reserve Bank of New York

    2005

  25. [34]

    , author Grier, K.B

    author Grier, R. , author Grier, K.B. , year 2006 . title On the Real Effects of Inflation and Inflation Uncertainty in Mexico . journal Journal of Development Economics volume 80 , pages 478--500 . :10.1016/j.jdeveco.2005.02.002

    2006 doi

  26. [35]

    , author Orlov, A.G

    author Grossmann, A. , author Orlov, A.G. , year 2014 . title A Panel-Regression Investigation of Exchange Rate Volatility . journal International Journal of Finance and Economics volume 326 , pages 303--326 . :10.1002/ijfe

    2014 doi

  27. [36]

    , year 1980

    author Guillaumont, P. , year 1980 . title The Impact of Declining Terms of Trade and Inflation on the Export Proceeds and Debt Burden of Developing Countries . journal World Development volume 8 , pages 763--768 . :10.1016/0305-750X(80)90003-0

    1980 doi

  28. [37]

    , year 2020

    author Iseringhausen, M. , year 2020 . title The Time-Varying Asymmetry of Exchange Rate Returns: A Stochastic Volatility – Stochastic Skewness Model . journal Journal of Empirical Finance volume 58 , pages 275--292 . Https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jempfin.2020.06.008, :10.1016/j.j...

    2020 doi

  29. [38]

    , author Shephard, N

    author Kim, S. , author Shephard, N. , author Chib, S. , year 1998 . title Stochastic Volatility: Likelihood Inference and Comparison With ARCH Models . journal Review of Economic Studies volume 65 , pages 361--393 . :10.1111/1467-937X.00050

    1998 doi

  30. [39]

    , year 2014

    author Krol, R. , year 2014 . title Economic Policy Uncertainty and Exchange Rate Volatility . journal International Finance volume 17 , pages 241--256 . :10.1111/infi.12049

    2014 doi

  31. [40]

    , author Hui-Boon, T

    author Lee-Lee, C. , author Hui-Boon, T. , year 2007 . title Macroeconomic Factors of Exchange Rate Volatility: Evidence From Four Neighbouring ASEAN Economies . journal Studies in Economics and Finance volume 24 , pages 266--285 . :10.1108/10867370710831828

    2007 doi

  32. [41]

    , author Sturzenegger, F

    author Levy-Yeyati, E. , author Sturzenegger, F. , year 2003 . title To Float or to Fix: Evidence on the Impact of Exchange Rate Regimes on Growth . journal The American Economic Review volume 93 , pages 1173--1193 . :10.1257/000282803769206250

    2003 doi

  33. [42]

    , author Wang, Y

    author Liu, L. , author Wang, Y. , author Xu, Y. , year 2024 . title A Practical Guide to Counterfactual Estimators for Causal Inference With Time-Series Cross-Sectional Data . journal American Journal of Political Science volume 68 , pages 160--176 . :10.1111/ajps.12723, http...

    2024 arXiv

  34. [43]

    , year 1962

    author Macbean, A.I. , year 1962 . title Causes of Excessive Fluctuations in Export Proceeds of Underdeveloped Countries . journal Bulletin of the Oxford University Institute of Economics & Statistics volume 27 , pages 323--341 . :10.1111/j.1468-0084.1964.mp27004003.x

    1962

  35. [44]

    , year 2007

    author MacDonald, R. , year 2007 . title Exchange Rate Economics: Theories and Evidence . publisher Routledge , address London . :10.4324/9780203380185

    2007 doi

  36. [45]

    , year 1964

    author Massell, B.F. , year 1964 . title Export Concentration and Fluctuations in Export Earnings: A Cross-Section Analysis . journal The American Economic Review volume 54 , pages 47--63

    1964

  37. [46]

    , year 2006

    author Orlov, A.G. , year 2006 . title Capital Controls and Stock Market Volatility in Frequency Domain . journal Economics Letters volume 91 , pages 222--228 . :10.1016/j.econlet.2005.09.014

    2006 doi

  38. [47]

    , year 2009

    author Orlov, A.G. , year 2009 . title A Cospectral Analysis of Exchange Rate Comovements During Asian Financial Crisis . journal Journal of International Financial Markets , Institutions & Money volume 19 , pages 742--758 . :10.1016/j.intfin.2008.12.004

    2009 doi

  39. [48]

    , author Ekananda, M

    author Panggabean, S. , author Ekananda, M. , author Gitaharie, B.Y. , author Djuranovik, L. , year 2024 . title Steadying the Ship: Can Export Proceeds Repatriation Policy Stabilize Indonesian Exchange Rates Amid Short-Term Capital Flows Fluctuations? publisher SSRN Working P...

    2024

  40. [49]

    , author Shephard, N

    author Pitt, M.K. , author Shephard, N. , year 1999 . title Filtering via Simulation: Auxiliary Particle Filters . journal Journal of the American Statistical Association volume 94 , pages 590--599 . :10.1080/01621459.1999.10474153

    1999

  41. [50]

    , year 1959

    author Powell, A.A. , year 1959 . title Export Receipts and Expansion in the Wool Industry . journal Australian Journal of Agricultural Economics volume 3 , pages 64--74 . :10.1111/j.1467-8489.1959.tb00260.x

    1959

  42. [51]

    , author Purnomo, D

    author Prayoga, D.S. , author Purnomo, D. , year 2024 . title The Influence of Foreign Exchange Policy From Export Proceeds, Import Payments, Inflation Rate, and Rupiah Exchange Rate on Foreign Direct Investment in Indonesia . journal Indonesian Interdisciplinary Journal of Sh...

    2024 doi

  43. [52]

    , author Ramachandran, M

    author Rafi, O.P.C.M. , author Ramachandran, M. , year 2018 . title Capital Flows and Exchange Rate Volatility : Experience of Emerging Economies . journal Indian Economic Review volume 53 , pages 183--205 . :10.1007/s41775-018-0031-1

    2018 doi

  44. [53]

    , author Taylor, M.P

    author Sarno, L. , author Taylor, M.P. , year 2003 . title The Economics of Exchange Rates . publisher Cambridge University Press , address Cambridge . :10.1017/CBO9780511754159

    2003 doi

  45. [54]

    , author Ekananda, M

    author Sukmawati, I. , author Ekananda, M. , year 2018 . title Exchange Rate Volatility Effect on Indonesia's Exports , in: editor Dartanto, T. , editor Gitaharie, B.Y. , editor Handayani, D. , editor Shauki, E.R. (Eds.), booktitle Challenges of the Global Economy: Some Indone...

    2018 doi

  46. [55]

    , year 1961

    author Wallich, H.C. , year 1961 . title Stabilization of Proceeds From Raw Material Exports , in: editor Ellis, H.S. , editor Wallich, H.C. (Eds.), booktitle Economic Development for Latin America , publisher Palgrave Macmillan UK . pp. pages 342--365 . :10.1007/978-1-349-08449-4

    1961 doi

  47. [56]

    , author Yozwiak, M

    author Wing, C. , author Yozwiak, M. , author Hollingsworth, A. , author Freedman, S. , author Simon, K. , year 2024 . title Designing Difference-in-Difference Studies With Staggered Treatment Adoption: Key Concepts and Practical Guidelines . journal Annual Review of Public He...

    2024 doi

  48. [57]

    , year 2017

    author Xu, Y. , year 2017 . title Generalized Synthetic Control Method: Causal Inference With Interactive Fixed Effects Models . journal Political Analysis volume 25 , pages 57--76 . :10.1017/pan.2016.2

    2017 doi

  49. [58]

    , author Kaya, A

    author ŞEn, H. , author Kaya, A. , author Kaptan, S. , author C \" o mert, M. , year 2020 . title Interest Rates, Inflation , and Exchange Rates in Fragile EMEs : A Fresh Look at the Long-Run Interrelationships . journal The Journal of International Trade & Economic Developmen...

    2020

Pith tools

Reviewed August 7, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.